Given a choice hammer versus hammerless

[Fishtail]

I think what these results mean is we all would love to have a small bore, fancy hammer Parker. I know I would. But the reality is that most of the hammer Parkers out there are low-ish grade 12 and 10 gauge guns and they are not at the top of the heap for most.

[Double Lab]

Originally Posted by greg conomos

I think what these results mean is we all would love to have a small bore, fancy hammer Parker. I know I would. But the reality is that most of the hammer Parkers out there are low-ish grade 12 and 10 gauge guns and they are not at the top of the heap for most.

I think you are missing the point of the OP. The dozen or so replies to this thread don't represent the 1300 or so members we have in the PGCA. To me even the "lowly" grade 2 is a treasure in workmanship and design. All I know is my grade 3 lifter is priced right up there with a grade 3 hammerless. To me it is a Parker that you don't see very often, especially in the condition it is in, which makes it special to me. To each his own.

[Craig Larter]

Thanks everyone for your responses great discussion which is what the forum is about. I agree from the functionality angle the hammerless rules. I believe that is why they way outsold hammer guns after the introduction of the hammerless. The hammer gun became a functional relic after the introduction of the Parker hammerless. My original question was more about esthetics and which gun do you feel is more esthetically pleasing. I find them equally appealing but would take the hammer gun since they are much harder to find especially in the higher grades. We are lucky as collectors to have such interesting choices.

[C.O.B.]

They might not be all grade 3 and above but ALL hammer guns are special. If you really want a small bore you will most likely look to an English maker. My 28 is a W.R. Pape and the 20 is a Boss, nice guns to be sure BUT I wouldn't trade my grade 1 16ga lifter or the straight grip 32in 16ga top lever for either one of them. Hammer guns are just special. When Parker went hammerless I wish they would have kept the side lock action.

[Fishtail]

Some of the gunsmiths on this site could give a way better assessment than I, but it seems to me the sidelock aspect of hammer guns result in stocks with much thinner wood in places and are therefore more prone to cracking issues. Am I just imagining that...?

[6pt-Sika]

I grew up with hammerless so that's my preference but that's not to say I don't have a couple hammer guns .

If I were only able to have one I think I'd like a 10 gauge DH on a #2 frame with 30" barrels . But I would want it to be in the 90% or better condition .

[Eric Estes]

For me hammer guns of any grade are more aesthetically pleasing. Love em.

[Fishtail]

Kinda reminds me of all the guys who declare they prefer women with 'curves' but then you can't help notice they spend a lot more time looking at Andie McDowell than Roseanne Barr....!

[Bill Murphy]

Hammer gun for sure. I know that hammer guns lost their popularity almost immediately when the hammerless Parkers were introduced. However, my little 0 frame 16 was made years later, in 1917. I would love to know who ordered that one.

[Double Lab]

Originally Posted by greg conomos

Kinda reminds me of all the guys who declare they prefer women with 'curves' but then you can't help notice they spend a lot more time looking at Andie McDowell than Roseanne Barr....!

Comparing McDowell to Barr is like comparing a Purdey to a Mossberg 500. Yeah, they are both guns but which one would you take to a driven grouse shoot?
A better comparison for different body styles would be Andy McDowell vs. Kirstie Allie. Yep, I'd do 'em both.