Parker Gun Collectors Association Forums  

Go Back   Parker Gun Collectors Association Forums Parker Forums General Parker Discussions

Notices

Reply
Thread Tools Display Modes
Unread 08-15-2017, 08:52 AM   #11
Member
BRDHNTR
PGCA Lifetime
Member

Member Info
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 3,745
Thanks: 7,176
Thanked 2,695 Times in 1,233 Posts

Default

So would the chamber length on this DH more likely suggest the original owner wanted it for waterfowl hunting vs trap or other application? Also, I was a bit surprised that the wood on this stock wasn't a bit more fancy. My DHE has incredible burl that just jumps out at you. Was there considerable variance in wood picked within each particular grade on Parkers? Also, if the chap who originally bought this gun wanted it for waterfowl hunting, wouldn't it have made more sense to get it with ejectors?
allen newell is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 08-15-2017, 10:03 AM   #12
Member
Kevin McCormack
PGCA Lifetime
Member

Member Info
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,006
Thanks: 1,218
Thanked 3,599 Times in 1,016 Posts

Default

Hello Allen - very sorry to hear of Ron's passing. I redid a really nice case for him a year or so ago and heard that he had not been doing well. He was too ill to speak to him then so I had a very nice conversation with his wife.

My hunch is that this gun was indeed ordered for trap or pigeon shooting with no safety and no ejectors. Most pigeon shooters have no need for ejectors since there is no time element in speed of reloading required, and the absence of a safety ensures that you won't forget to take it off before calling for the bird (LOST BIRD!!). The stock dimensions at comb and heel will be a pretty good indicator, since less drop at both comb and heel are common trap and pigeon gun determinants.

Also, some trap and pigeon shooters insisted on no ejectors and in some few cases no doll's head rib extensions as "annoyances" in maintaining maximum dexterity and movement around the breech. Likewise, lack of ejectors on a dedicated waterfowl gun is viewed by some as an asset, since you don't have empties flying around inside the blind when you break the gun open while trying to keep an eye out for more incoming birds.
Kevin McCormack is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Kevin McCormack For Your Post:
Unread 08-15-2017, 10:39 AM   #13
Member
stumpstalker
PGCA Member
 
Russell E. Cleary's Avatar

Member Info
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 924
Thanks: 10,971
Thanked 2,347 Times in 673 Posts

Default

I am sorry to hear about the loss of Allen's friend Ron. The gun itself is a memorial.

It sounds like Ron's gun was intended to be a trap or pigeon gun. But, to elaborate on the issue Mr. McCormack raises in response to BRDHNTER's question about why a gun buyer might decline to order ejectors for a water-fowling gun:

In my father's copy of DUCK HUNTING, by John G. McKenty, A. S. Barnes and Company, New York, 1953 the author considered the "full ejector" gun to be "border[ing] on the "discourteous" to fellow gunners in a duck blind.

On page 53, among other objections he has to ejectors McKenty says that:

"....-- I might add that, in a gunning blind the full ejector can be most annoying to your companions....
Perhaps you have just fired your two shots and there is a cripple out front trying to get away . Your fellow gunner is just drawing a bead on the flapping cripple, when you open your gun and the blind seems to be filled with flying bouncing empty shells. There are only two, of course, but there appear to be six. This performance creates a disagreeable distraction, and I have seen many a duck get away because of it".

I know that there are ways to catch ejected shells, as explained in detail by Michael McIntosh in SHOOTING & SHOTGUNS -- THREE, page 103, but McKenty's objections to the ejector gun may have been more common in the earlier days of sport water-fowling and reflective of a rarified and waning sense gentlemanly hunting deportment.

It is an interesting 1916 DH Parker, and I look forward to hearing more about it.
Russell E. Cleary is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Russell E. Cleary For Your Post:
Unread 08-15-2017, 11:19 AM   #14
Member
BRDHNTR
PGCA Lifetime
Member

Member Info
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 3,745
Thanks: 7,176
Thanked 2,695 Times in 1,233 Posts

Default

Great feedback. Thank you gents. Interesting that Ron never once brought this DH to the range. He mentioned to me a number of times that he wanted to pick up a nice Parker and I suggested he become a PGCA Member to become better acquainted with the wealth of information via this forum. I recall Ron's telling me that he finally bought a Parker but he never showed it to any of us. And then he was diagnosed with cancer and his attention was understandably focused on that battle. Having watched my wife battle unsuccessfully with cancer I knew what he and his family were going through. He was incredibly stoic and brave right to the bitter end. I just hope that there might be great provenance to this gun that might justify his son in law investing in a limited restoration.
allen newell is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to allen newell For Your Post:
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:37 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 1998 - 2023, Parkerguns.org
Copyright © 2004 Design par Megatekno
- 2008 style update 3.7 avec l'autorisation de son auteur par Stradfred.