|
11-24-2017, 04:42 PM | #3 | ||||||
|
A benchmark gun for sure!
__________________
B. Dudley |
||||||
The Following User Says Thank You to Brian Dudley For Your Post: |
11-24-2017, 06:37 PM | #4 | ||||||
|
I found the ad this morning and probably spent 30 minutes or more looking at it. If this is truly a benchmark all original gun, it is amazing to say the least.
I do have some takeaway's from what you can see from pictures on the internet. These are just my observations for what they are worth. 1. The case colors have a lot of pinks/lavender/straw colors along with the typical blue hues. The frame polish seems to be inline with that similar to what I see of Turnbull's work. 2. The finish does seem to be an amber shellac with some shrinkage & crazing on the forearm. 3. The checkering panels appear to be finished the same as the rest of the wood without any darkening agents added to the panels. 4. The bluing on the barrels is to die for. 5. The trigger guard looks to be finished in the same manner as the barrels rather than nitre blued. 6. Forearms are thin fragile things. Even a low mileage gun like this can have possible cracks in the wood, if not the wood at least the finish. This isn't picking the gun apart in any way. I've just been curious of what true original finishes for the various parts of Parker of this vintage should look like. I've been looking at my piggy bank all day trying to figure out how I could get my hands on this gun. |
||||||
11-24-2017, 06:51 PM | #5 | ||||||
|
I have a few very minor nitpicks about it regarding details of fit/finish which i wont go into detail on, but i would chalk it up to it being a run of the mill V grade and not every one was “ideal” in every way.
But, in my opinion, it all looks right.
__________________
B. Dudley |
||||||
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Brian Dudley For Your Post: |
11-24-2017, 07:25 PM | #6 | ||||||
|
Nice gun and box. Anyone want to go partners on the purchase?
|
||||||
11-24-2017, 07:51 PM | #7 | ||||||
|
A call to Turnbull with the S/N might answer the origionality question if your really interested.
|
||||||
The Following User Says Thank You to Chuck Bishop For Your Post: |
11-25-2017, 12:06 AM | #8 | ||||||
|
According to the dating feature on our home page, 193435 would be a 1921 vintage gun. I'm surprised that the label states it was targeted with a load of 1 ounce of shot and 2 1/2 drams of smokeless powder. Remington had just introduced a 2 1/2 dram smokeless powder, 1 ounce, load that year for its new Model 17 pump gun. But, the Model 17 was chambered for 2 3/4 inch shells and Remington's 1 ounce 20-gauge load came in a 2 3/4 inch shell. There is no mention on the label that this gun is chambered for a shell longer then the then "standard" 2 1/2 inch 20-gauge shell. The "normal" heaviest 20-gauge loads in 1921 vintage North American ammunition catalogs were 2 1/4 drams of smokeless powder pushing 7/8 ounce of shot in the "standard" 2 1/2 inch shell and 2 1/2 drams of smokeless powder pushing that same 7/8 ounce of shot from the longer 2 3/4, 2 7/8 and 3-inch shells. The Western Cartridge Co. high velocity, progressive powder, load (Super-X) of 1 ounce of shot from their 2 3/4 inch FIELD 20-gauge shell came out in 1922.
|
||||||
The Following 12 Users Say Thank You to Dave Noreen For Your Post: |
11-25-2017, 06:31 PM | #9 | ||||||
|
I must also say this.....a “Vulvan” 20 might indeed be special!!!
__________________
" I love the look Hobbs, my Vizsla, gives me after my second miss in a row." |
||||||
11-25-2017, 07:30 PM | #10 | ||||||
|
The gun has some strange dimensions for a 20: drop of stock 1 1/2 x 3, length of stock 13 3/4, so could it make sense that in addition to the special dimensions it was also requested that the gun be patterned with the newer one ounce of shot shells. That would make sense to me.
|
||||||
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|