They probably snuck in through the firing pin bores.

Wow! I thought the last NH was the dirtiest gun I ever owned......this gun is horrible! Upon my initial examination, it appears as though the entire interior of the receiver, moving parts included, was coated with some sort of varnish or shellac. I mean every tiny nook and cranny. There was so much dirt and crud built up and compressed under moving parts I am surprised it functioned as well as it did. I am soaking and scraping in layers. I feel like an archaeologist!

The auto safety actuating push rod is semi-seized in the wood. Has anyone removed the spacer to gain access to the little push rod? Will it simply unscrew?

I am still curious about the 'P.B.' and '0' stamped by the stock serial. Cheers!

The spacer will unscrew but be sure to use the proper sized screwdriver. You can damage the wood if the screwdriver is too large. The spacer has threads only on the top 1/4 " or so. You will have to drive or pull it out when the threads are out of the wood. Be careful. Cheers, Tom

I am so glad Mark is getting good advice about working on my next new guns. I want them in prime condition when I write the check.

Here are the 'P.B.' and '0' marks in question. I tried the photo with natural lighting and flash:o

New NH
 

Was someone at Parker Bros. looking at a design with twist barrels and able to handle smokeless powder hot hunting loads? There has to be a correlation between the thickness of the barrels, the period when twist was going away and steel tubes were coming in. An executive's decision to see if twist could stay around a little longer by bulking them up some? Looking at the rough chambers and muzzle finish it could be a sample for the engineers to study. :whistle: in the dark?

John, I also wondered why twist barrels were being used, well into the fluid steel and smokeless era. My other NH is on a number 3 frame with 32 inch twist barrels also. It was made in 1906 and the barrels are almost 2 pounds lighter than this NH!

According to my letter, this gun was ordered December 12, 1902 by Sutcliffe & Co. in Louisville, Kentucky. Instructions stated to ship the gun to S. Sankey in Hatchechubbee, Alabama. It was shipped June 8, 1903. The requested weight was 12-1/2 pounds, but shipped at 12-3/4 pounds. Cost was $70.00. The chokes could not be determined.

Building a 12 1/2 lb gun with steel tubes probably stretched Parker Bros. ability to produce it since the suppliers could not or would not do a one off order for steel that thick within the 32" length. The twist steel ribbons were probably still lying about as excess inventory. So they were utilized to fill the order and the #6 frame was built to handle the excess weight hanging on the hinge pin and the lockup system. Talk about going the extra mile to fill an order. I would in interested in knowing the difference, if any, between the NH on a #3 frame and the #6 bolt-to-slot locking system, hinge pin size and doll's head dimensions.

This oversize example provides evidence that in the olden days manufacturers valued their customers above and beyond today's standard. The gun was ordered for a buyer that lived, in 1903, in a still existing hamlet 28 miles SW of Columbus, GA. The largest body of navigable water is the Chattahoochee River between Columbus and Phenix City Al. A fur piece to go for river ducks. Maybe its intention is to be used for upland birds such as quail or turkeys.

This could add another redneck joke to the repertoire of Jeff Foxworthy. "You might be a redneck if your quail gun weighs more than 12 pounds and you never come home with birds suitable for eating."

The cocking crank has an extra component. I will take a photo today. The receiver has an extra piece fastened to the upper tang, by a screw (hidden beneath the top lever), to take up space between the top of the bolt lever and the receptacle where it pivots. I will take a photo of that, also. My theory about a market hunter shooting a bazillion cartridges per day fell by the wayside when I found the little town on a map.