How big is Ithaca NID 10 mag compared to a #3 frame Parker ?

[Milton C Starr]

I was wondering if anyone has both who could post a picture of the frames beside each other . Its something ive been wondering about , I have seen people refer to the #3 frame as a light 10 ga and the NID mag being a larger frame . Something I have noticed is the barrels on the NID 10 mags look bigger because of how narrow the forend is on them . Is that because the forend is just that slender on the Ithacas or because the barrels are larger than those on a #3 frame Parker ?

[B. Dudley]

There is not too much difference in size between the frames.

The barrels on the mag 10s look heavy because they are. They are very thick and not struck too much for balance. They are pretty much an even taper from breech to muzzle.
And... the frames on the mag 10 and the super 10 are the same.

The 3 frame 10g Parker is not consider a “light” 10. A 2 frame 10 would be. The 3 frame is considered to be the standard and most common size for a 10g.

[Milton C Starr]

Originally Posted by Brian Dudley

There is not too much difference in size between the frames.

The barrels on the mag 10s look heavy because they are. They are very thick and not struck too much for balance. They are pretty much an even taper from breech to muzzle.
And... the frames on the mag 10 and the super 10 are the same.

The 3 frame 10g Parker is not consider a “light” 10. A 2 frame 10 would be. The 3 frame is considered to be the standard and most common size for a 10g.

So the NID frame is just longer but not bigger ? I read that Parker also produced 10 ga 3.5s around the same time as the NID mags . How did they go about building theirs ? I have never seen a picture of one . I have seen a #3 frame hammer gun that had 3.5" chambers but figured someone done that themselves . The articles I have read on the NID 10 mag states that Ithaca did alot of R&D on building a frame to handle the extra load . Parker however already had frame sizes suitable so I was wondering if they built theirs on frames they already had or modified a #3 frame ?

One of the reasons I was asking as well I have seen a few 8 gauges built on 10 ga 3.5s doubles from the 1960s . I had wondered if those frame were just that much larger than the older 10 ga frames that were designed for the 2 7/8s . I want to say it was a Dogs and Doubles article that I read . I was curious in what ways they beefed up guns with the 10 ga 3.5 .

I really liked the 10 ga 2 7/8 chamber myself and may get another in the future . I love reading the history on how these big guns came to be .

[Cold Spring]

Originally Posted by Brian Dudley

And... the frames on the mag 10 and the super 10 are the same.

I've never owned an Ithaca Mag 10 but had 7 or 8 Super 10's including several I've disassembled for study. The stock head bearing on the Super 10 is adequate although relatively small in surface area, and I wouldn't be surprised if the Mag 10 has a wider frame. Maybe Dave can round up a caliper and measure the width of the back end of both frames?

[Mark Garrett]

The Mag frame is certainly longer .

[Bill Murphy]

"Looks like" doesn't cut it. Milton has a very curious mind, brings up some great ideas, but he needs to invest in a Vernier caliper and give up on the "Looks like". Parker made 3 1/2" chambered tens before the advent of the Super X loads. I have a #6 frame PH that letters as a factory 3 1/2" gun and I'm sure they made a few #3 frame 3 1/2" guns before the Remington era also. I'm not sure if my #6 frame ten PH predates the Super X loads. I have seen 10 gauge Damascus barrel English guns that went through nitro proof with modern 3 1/2" shells also.

[Milton C Starr]

Originally Posted by Bill Murphy

"Looks like" doesn't cut it. Milton has a very curious mind, brings up some great ideas, but he needs to invest in a Vernier caliper and give up on the "Looks like". Parker made 3 1/2" chambered tens before the advent of the Super X loads. I have a #6 frame PH that letters as a factory 3 1/2" gun and I'm sure they made a few #3 frame 3 1/2" guns before the Remington era also. I'm not sure if my #6 frame ten PH predates the Super X loads. I have seen 10 gauge Damascus barrel English guns that went through nitro proof with modern 3 1/2" shells also.

I had one years ago because I had thought of sending the Zephyr to Briley for chokes and needed to measure the muzzle diameter to determine for thin walls or regular chokes .

I have seen English ammo catalogs that predate the 10 ga 3.5" Super X of the 1930s . They were 1900s or 1890s catalogs that listed the 10 ga from any length up to 3.5" . Actually They may have listed one longer than that .
I dont doubt that a #3 frame Parkers could handle it . The CG Bonehill I owned had 3.5" chambers though I only shot RST 2 7/8s out of it . The guy I sold it to ran alot of 3.5" shells and never had a problem. That was a heavy barreled gun to start with .

[Researcher]

I have a #6 frame PH that letters as a factory 3 1/2" gun

Sure that wasn't 3 1/4 inch? That is the longest 10-gauge cases I find being offered in the old ammunition catalogs. By 1910, UMC was no longer offering 10-gauge NPEs for smokeless powder longer than 2 7/8 inch and by the Rem-UMC 1918-19 catalog no 10-gauge NPEs were being offered longer than 2 7/8 inch.

[Bill Murphy]

Dave, you know me better than that. My PH Twist gun letters as 3 1/2". While you are researching the beginning of the Super X 3 1/2" ten gauge ammunition, I will dig out the date of the #6 frame PH manufacture and verify the chamber length. If it says 3 1/2", and if we are skeptical, maybe Chuck Bishop will confirm. I will post the serial number.

[Dean Romig]

Why do you think a Parker frame would need to be modified just to have longer chambers?

What they would need to do is to make the barrel taper less acute from the breech to a point further along the barrels, thus ensuring sufficient wall thickness well past the juncture of the front of the chamber and the forcing cone.





.