Parker Gun Collectors Association Forums  

Go Back   Parker Gun Collectors Association Forums Parker Forums Parker Restoration

Notices

Reply
Thread Tools Display Modes
Unread 03-30-2010, 11:48 AM   #21
Member
Dean Romig
PGCA Invincible
Life Member
 
Dean Romig's Avatar

Member Info
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 31,614
Thanks: 35,557
Thanked 33,175 Times in 12,362 Posts

Default

I think, from reading the patent, that we can deduce a couple of things, one being that it is possible and quite likely that guns of different frame sizes may have had "strengthening rods" of different diameters inserted. Further, that the hickory was a lighter, less dense wood and the use of this rod in a gunstock likely necessitated boring an additional hole to add weight - hence the two plugs of different sizes we often see. Also, the verbiage of the patent indicates that stocks with cross grain at the "neck" were the candidates for the strengthening rod (but the possibility exists that this feature may have also been used on smaller frame guns).
Dean Romig is online now   Reply With Quote
Unread 03-30-2010, 11:54 AM   #22
Member
Autumn Daze
PGCA Lifetime
Member
 
Dave Suponski's Avatar

Member Info
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 5,888
Thanks: 4,375
Thanked 4,048 Times in 1,727 Posts

Default

Thanks for posting that Robin.One less thing to do tonight.I would think the hickory rod dia could be dictated by frame size.
__________________
"Much care is bestowed to make it what the Sportsman needs-a good gun"-Charles Parker
Dave Suponski is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 04-11-2010, 12:03 PM   #23
Member
Clint Meier
Forum Associate

Member Info
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 8
Thanks: 0
Thanked 4 Times in 2 Posts

Default

Howdy gents, I have been out of town meeting my newest grandson, and have some catching up to do. First, regarding Chuck Bishop's query regarding the type of finish I used, I am not a purist, and may be considered a heretic by some, and if so, so be it. I try and use modern technology and materials to the best advantage whenever possible, striving for durability and good looks in the finished product. After stripping the finish, treating for oil soak and light sanding as needed, I apply a water-thin epoxy resin, allowing the wood to soak up as much of it as it will in about 30 minutes time. This epoxy is applied to all sufaces, inside and out. While some use commercial sealers, or other oil finishes thinned with mineral spirits to seal the wood, I can't help but believe that epoxy forms a better barrier against both future oil soak and moisture protection of the wood than does any oil based finish/sealer. I then fill the grain by wet sanding with a boiled linseed oil based formula with sealers and dryers of my own concoction. After the grain is filled, I use different materials, finishes and techniques to achieve the look desired by the client, i.e. a soft luster, low gloss, or high gloss finish. This client wanted a high gloss to make the grain "pop", so George Brother's Linspeed finish was applied and wiped off.

I wanted to thank both Dean and Robin for the patent info and pics on the reinforcing rod. This info and the discussion it generated was particularly of interest. I seems reasonable to me that quite a few reinforced Parkers which may have had the patent stamp on the butt, which were fitted with their originally thin curved butt plates may have been shortened a bit to have recoil pads attached, and thereby eliminating the stamped patent marks they may have once had. It would also make sense to me that Parkers fitted with skeleton butt plates may have had their patent stamps applied on the belly of their stocks behind the grip cap.

Austin Hogan's comment about the grain in the reinforcing rod being oriented the same as the butt in Chuck's pic, and not at 90 degrees to it for maximum strength, got me to thinking. If the purpose was to reinforce the "curly" or "cross-grained" wood up in the neck or grip of the stock, could it be that the rod was oriented and glued into place to be at 90 degrees to the grain up in the neck or grip of the stock, with no regard to the grain orientation in the butt, where it wasn't needed and made no difference? Any thoughts gents?
Clint Meier is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 04-11-2010, 08:52 PM   #24
Member
Dean Romig
PGCA Invincible
Life Member
 
Dean Romig's Avatar

Member Info
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 31,614
Thanks: 35,557
Thanked 33,175 Times in 12,362 Posts

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Clint Meier View Post
Austin Hogan's comment about the grain in the reinforcing rod being oriented the same as the butt in Chuck's pic, and not at 90 degrees to it for maximum strength, got me to thinking. If the purpose was to reinforce the "curly" or "cross-grained" wood up in the neck or grip of the stock, could it be that the rod was oriented and glued into place to be at 90 degrees to the grain up in the neck or grip of the stock, with no regard to the grain orientation in the butt, where it wasn't needed and made no difference? Any thoughts gents?
Clint, your thoughts on the grain orientation of the reinforcing rod make perfect sense. Several such Parkers would need to be examined in order to support your theory however. Unfortunately there aren't very many with the reinforcing rod where the orientation of the grain can be easily determined. It would be interesting if members or visitors here can take a close look at their Parkers with this patented feature and post their findings here.
Dean Romig is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:33 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 1998 - 2024, Parkerguns.org
Copyright © 2004 Design par Megatekno
- 2008 style update 3.7 avec l'autorisation de son auteur par Stradfred.