|
07-30-2018, 09:33 AM | #3 | ||||||
|
Wow...thanks Kevin. I hope you saw my comment about the thunk of Parker ejectors being a more melodious sound than Fox ejectors. I still haven't forgiven you for going to the dark side and selling a certain Parker to help you do it. That was a gun to be kept for a lifetime, never sold. That was easily one of my favorite Parkers with an incredible provenance. So I feel compelled to poke at you from time to time. Our buddy Bill would have never sold that gun!
|
||||||
07-30-2018, 02:36 PM | #4 | ||||||
|
The reason the cuts were needed on the early guns is because the firing pins were not rebounding the type as found on the newer guns,
|
||||||
The Following User Says Thank You to ED J, MORGAN For Your Post: |
07-30-2018, 06:20 PM | #5 | ||||||
|
The non-rebounding hammers had a mechanism that would lift the hammers back with the top lever. So the clearance cuts in the extractor do little to nothing in this scenario. I think it was more of a secondary backup to prevent damage in case comething went wrong.
__________________
B. Dudley |
||||||
The Following User Says Thank You to Brian Dudley For Your Post: |
|
|