Solid Plunger Firing Pins

[Autumn Daze]

Very interesting discoveries here..

[Richard Flanders]

I was figuring on adding springs to a hammer gun I have that didn't have them originally, but you'd have to machine in the spring 'well' shown in that diagram for there to be room. Wouldn't be that difficult to do but I don't plan to do it. I wonder if those 2-pc pins of Austins are maybe not original? I can't see any advantage in having them 2-pc unless it's because it would allow replacing just the pin part if it broke or wore.

[Austin W Hogan]

Richard; One is broken and one isn't. I would imagine the broken and jammed firing pin was one of the reasons this gun had been broken up and sold for parts.
I didn't measure the firing pin angle while I had the pins out, but it appears to be about 15 degrees. That provides prettty good leverage against a spherical tip.
My own experience is that my Parker hammer gun that pierces primers opens more easily than my Fox.
Best, Austin

[Hammer Gun]

This is what this forum is all about sharing information and new discoveries,there is so much we do not know about these wonderful old guns, the knowledge this group has amassed about Parker guns and history is why we are the leading gun collecting organization or should I say one of the leading groups, The LC guys might not approve, just kidding.

[Richard Flanders]

Austin. Was that broken pin originally 2-pc with a pin swaged into the larger part or is it just a broken 1-pc. I've not heard anyone ever talk about 2-pc pins before. All my hammer guns, and especially my Remington '89, indent primers 'with authority' and pierce many of the new soft/thin primers we get these days. The old ribbed Remington paper shells have primers seemingly made of 4140 steel so I understand. Newer guns barely dent those old shells. Don't have that issue with any of the old Winchester paper shells.

[Austin W Hogan]

Richard; The end of the primer pin is very neatly rounded and smooth, and fits into a similar recess in the half inch long rod ( anvil?) that is hit by the hammer. There is no graininess associated with a break on either piece.
The compressed picture on the web does not really convey the radius, but if you look closely, you will see the ring around the pin where the anvil? was swaged on.

Best, Austin

[Austin W Hogan]

I soaked the firing pins in Ballistol for about an hour, wiped them clean and made a micro photo at .001 inch resolution in back satter, and .0005 inch resolution in forward scatter.

The dark field photo shows the smooth radius at the butt end of the pin. There is a radiused recess in the anvil .032 deep. It is also possible to see a short straight section intersecting the taper of the pin.

Also note the nickle plate on the undamaged anvil.

I am not sure that the web compression will retain this resolution.

This is a technique I am working to examine the appearance of a trout fly from beneath, lookin toward the sun, as a fish might see it.

Best, Austin

[Autumn Daze]

Austin, Fantastic photography! I find it almost hard to believe that Parker would use a two piece construction on the plungers vs. just turning up a one piece plunger and being done with it. Seems like a long way to go to get a short distance if ya know what I mean. I can't even begin to try and understand their logic on this one...

[Austin W Hogan]

Thanks Dave. I have a feeling that this is some how related to hardness. Look at a hammer gun, and the hammer is almost always deformed, but the anvil rarely is. That striking area must be deep and hard; a special case hardening was probably necessary to encase the anvil, without making it brittle. The anvil is 1/2 inch long and 5/16 diameter; the firing pin is 1/2 inch long, 3/16 at the joint and 1/8 where it hits the primer. Case hardening this as one piece would have left little ductile steel in the pin inself, resulting in early fracture and failure.
The real question is ; "how did Parker (King) join these parts". A weld might have nullified the hardening process; a swage would have been difficult considering the hardness of the anvil.

Best, Austin

[Richard Flanders]

Wow. Looks as you say Austin. I agree with Dave and can't figure out the logic on this one, but the hardness issue has to be it somehow. It just doesn't look like the pin sits inside the anvil far enough.