Parker .410

[Steve Hodges]

There always seems to be much interest in Parker .410's so I thought I would post two that came up for sale today. I have no connection to the guns. I bring it up for discussion, but if against the rules please delete.

https://www.gunsinternational.com/gu...n_id=101939210

https://www.gunsinternational.com/gu...n_id=101939190

[6pt-Sika]

I like them both !

[John Davis]

If I were in the the market for a wee little gun, I would go for the beaver tail forearm.

[edgarspencer]

Both nice guns, though it seems V grade .410s haven't risen at the rate other grades/ gauges have. I will confess to having sold the two my dad had, in favor of 28s, and it seemed I never really found much use for them apart from the novelty. I sold them some 20 years ago and got nearly what these are being listed at. Maybe I was just lucky, but would have thought they would have kept pace with 28s. Trends and whims, I guess.

[Jay Oliver]

Thanks for posting these Steve. I have really been thinking about a Parker 410 for a while, it almost seems like now or never with the way prices are going. It would be a sell 5 or 6 guns for 1 proposition for me, but I might be okay with that. I should say I have a Citori 410 that has just been wonderful, and shoots better than it should for a 410. Having said that I really would like a Parker 410. And I would agree with Edgar that you can do so much more with a 28ga., but I am still mesmerized by the 410 for some reason...

On the two guns posted the first one has a recoil pad, which I am assuming was added to increase LOP, however I would think that would hurt desirability/value unless it was ordered that way. It just doesn’t look right on a 410.

The second gun seems to have the non-spurred flat buttplate, which I just found out was typical for these at the time. Also the second gun is listed with 3 inch chambers, but was made in 1928. From what I have read they should be 2 ½" as the 3” inch shell was introduced with the Winchester Model 42 in 1933. I read this in a post that Dean Romig started: https://parkerguns.org/forums/showth...&highlight=410

Is the desirability and/or value affected by lengthening the chambers in that gun?

While a 3 inch gun would have more versatility, I would think lengthening the chambers would affect value and possibly safety on the lighter 000 frame, but I don’t really know. I think you could play around with the loads and shot in a 2 ½’ gun to make it work in most situations you would use a 410.

Any thoughts on the above would be appreciated.

Thank you,
Jay

[Steve Hodges]

Jay I have no idea about Parker .410’s. I posted this because it seems to me they do generate much interest here. Good luck and I bet some experts will reply.

[Dean Romig]

IMO both guns are overpriced based on the modifications. Again IMO the beavertail forend is a replacement and the buttstock on the second one is a replacement.





.

[6pt-Sika]

Originally Posted by Dean Romig

IMO both guns are overpriced based on the modifications. Again IMO the beavertail forend is a replacement and the buttstock on the second one is a replacement.





.

Whether your assesment is correct or not , I still like them . And based on the one that sold at Poulin's this past saturday for 34.5K after the premium was added I don't think the price that bad .

Now if we could all have what we wanted I'd like one with a straight grip , BT , SST , checkered butt , ejectors , 26" skeet in skeet out VHE to match the 12 and 16 I have in that configuration .

[Victor Wasylyna]

I’m a buy high, sell low kind of guy. (Not by choice.) I was tickled at the Southern when some dealer stopped me, asked to look at my .410 Parker, then proceed to offer about what I paid for the darn thing not too long ago. I said “no way,” as I was making my way to the sporting clays course.

Go on, getcha a .410 Parker!

-Victor

[J. Scott Hanes]

Perhaps it is just the camera angle, but to my eye neither stock looks to be a 1-1/2" DAC and 2" DAH.