Parker Gun Collectors Association Forums  

Go Back   Parker Gun Collectors Association Forums Parker Forums General Parker Discussions

Notices

Reply
Thread Tools Display Modes
Unread 01-15-2020, 11:52 AM   #11
Member
todd allen
PGCA Member

Member Info
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,136
Thanks: 1,890
Thanked 3,248 Times in 1,125 Posts

Default

I remember seeing somewhere a vintage ad touting the strength of the "new" fluid steel barrels as being equal to Damascus in strength.
False advertising, of course.
todd allen is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 01-15-2020, 11:54 AM   #12
Member
todd allen
PGCA Member

Member Info
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,136
Thanks: 1,890
Thanked 3,248 Times in 1,125 Posts

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Campbell View Post
Possibly. But, more likely, the covert discussion went like this:

"Look, these new fluid steel barrels will add at least 30% more profit to each gun we sell. They can also be bored easily by machine. So, we have to convince the market place that those expensive Damascus barrels are not any good. Let's all tell our customers that Damascus is dangerous with smokeless powder. And the barrels could blow up and kill them.

They'll believe us. We're the experts. And everybody believes advertising."

And so it came to pass...

(no Russians were involved in this scam)
No Russians involved, but they did it for the children ; -)
todd allen is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 01-15-2020, 11:56 AM   #13
Member
Researcher
PGCA Lifetime
Member
 
Dave Noreen's Avatar

Member Info
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,596
Thanks: 1,616
Thanked 7,771 Times in 2,352 Posts

Default

It seems to have really taken hold in those grim Great Depression years when the makers were desperate to move some product any way possible. They may have picked up the idea from the early Western Super-X 3-inch 12-gauge boxes which carried the warning --

INTENDED FOR USE ONLY IN SHOTGUNS THAT HAVE 3-INCH CHAMBERS AND MODERN STEEL BARRELS

Early 12-gauge RECORD Super-X 3-inch.jpg
Dave Noreen is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Dave Noreen For Your Post:
Unread 01-15-2020, 12:04 PM   #14
Member
Mills
PGCA Lifetime Member
Since 3rd Grade
 
Mills Morrison's Avatar

Member Info
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 10,302
Thanks: 14,183
Thanked 12,306 Times in 4,411 Posts

Default

Jeff has a good point and I never thought of that either. I know Krupp barrels aren't seen after 1913 or so
Mills Morrison is online now   Reply With Quote
Unread 01-15-2020, 12:23 PM   #15
Member
Researcher
PGCA Lifetime
Member
 
Dave Noreen's Avatar

Member Info
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,596
Thanks: 1,616
Thanked 7,771 Times in 2,352 Posts

Default

Krupp barrels were pretty common on Ansley H. Fox guns to about 1920, and I've actually seen a few marked CHROMOX FLUID COMPRESSED STEEL on top of the barrels with vestiges of the Krupp markings on the underside.
Dave Noreen is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Dave Noreen For Your Post:
Unread 01-15-2020, 12:25 PM   #16
Member
Mills
PGCA Lifetime Member
Since 3rd Grade
 
Mills Morrison's Avatar

Member Info
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 10,302
Thanks: 14,183
Thanked 12,306 Times in 4,411 Posts

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Noreen View Post
Krupp barrels were pretty common on Ansley H. Fox guns to about 1920, and I've actually seen a few marked CHROMOX FLUID COMPRESSED STEEL on top of the barrels with vestiges of the Krupp markings on the underside.

That is what I was thinking about. I assume by 1920 they were just using up old stock?
Mills Morrison is online now   Reply With Quote
Unread 01-15-2020, 01:55 PM   #17
Member
Woodcock survey
PGCA Member
 
Daniel Carter's Avatar

Member Info
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 964
Thanks: 1,292
Thanked 1,386 Times in 594 Posts

Default

If I remember(a problem) in the information on Dr. Drews site it gives a date when the ammo manufacturers assoc. decided to print the warnings on the box. 1937 comes to mind but i was amazed it was so late. My thought being that if it were a problem why did it take 30 years to come up with this. All recollections subject to correction with a guarantee of 30% accuracy. Check out his site ,it has a wealth of information.
Daniel Carter is online now   Reply With Quote
Unread 01-15-2020, 02:00 PM   #18
Member
Mills
PGCA Lifetime Member
Since 3rd Grade
 
Mills Morrison's Avatar

Member Info
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 10,302
Thanks: 14,183
Thanked 12,306 Times in 4,411 Posts

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel Carter View Post
If I remember(a problem) in the information on Dr. Drews site it gives a date when the ammo manufacturers assoc. decided to print the warnings on the box. 1937 comes to mind but i was amazed it was so late. My thought being that if it were a problem why did it take 30 years to come up with this. All recollections subject to correction with a guarantee of 30% accuracy. Check out his site ,it has a wealth of information.
Hoping Dr. Drew chimes in soon . . .


Good point Daniel and also that would be around 15 years since the Super X and heavier loads were introduced.
Mills Morrison is online now   Reply With Quote
Unread 01-15-2020, 02:10 PM   #19
Member
Drew Hause
Forum Associate
 
Drew Hause's Avatar

Member Info
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 2,084
Thanks: 323
Thanked 3,761 Times in 1,245 Posts

Default

A.P. Curtis published a two part article in the July 1936 and the March 1938 American Rifleman entitled “Advantages of Short Shotgun Chambers” (courtesy of Larry Brown):
SAAMI, assembled in serious conference on March 26, 1937, passed the following resolution: “That an appropriate warning label be placed on all boxes containing smokeless powder shells, cautioning the consumer against using them in short chambered guns and also in guns with Damascus barrels and guns not in first-class condition.” The motion was made and seconded by representatives of two powder companies.
That same conference also passed a resolution requiring: “That all guns be marked so that the consumer will be able to tell the chamber length, as for example by marking 2 3/4 inch chamber etc.”

“These shells must not be used in guns with Damascus or Twist Steel barrels” warning appeared on shell boxes shortly thereafter.

Even RST boxes state: “To prevent injury to shooters or bystanders, use only in modern shotguns (not Damascus twist barrels, etc.) with proper gauge, load, and chambers.”

More mythology and creative journalistic hysteria here
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1...hIiY62Hx4/edit
Drew Hause is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Drew Hause For Your Post:
Visit Drew Hause's homepage!
Unread 01-15-2020, 02:40 PM   #20
Member
Woodcock survey
PGCA Member
 
Daniel Carter's Avatar

Member Info
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 964
Thanks: 1,292
Thanked 1,386 Times in 594 Posts

Default

I guess i am not as far gone as my kid's say. Thank you Drew.
Daniel Carter 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 11:03 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 1998 - 2023, Parkerguns.org
Copyright © 2004 Design par Megatekno
- 2008 style update 3.7 avec l'autorisation de son auteur par Stradfred.