Parkers in the Remington Museum

[Coach]

I appears to have a pin where you would expect one to be for a check-hook. Anyone ever open this gun to see how it is taken down?

[Bill Murphy]

The Research Committee didn't inspect the gun Brian pictured, and he said it was in a locked display case when he was there.

[B. Dudley]

Carl,

The gun you refer to with the check hook is the James Hayes 2nd Prototype Trojan. Serial Number 226709. It features the Hayes Revised cocking mechanism, experimental ejectors and a experimental forend latching system. This is the gun that I inspected and documented when I went to Remington. It is the subject of my Summer 2013 Double Gun Journal Article. And I will be putting together a more condensed version of that article for an upcoming issue of PP when i get the chance.

Actually, the gun was not locked up when I was there. it hangs right on the wall below the Trojan Skeet.

here are a few photos of that gun.

Parker Trip 109.jpg

101_0881.jpg

101_0866.jpg

101_0868.jpg

101_0871.jpg

101_0899.jpg

[Mark Conrad]

Bill, it would be nice for you to post pictures of the skeet gun that we handled. Do you have the serial of that gun?

[B. Dudley]

The Serial number of the Skeet gun at Remington is 237447
It is a 2 frame gun.

I have posted photos in this thread.

http://www.parkerguns.org/forums/sho...889#post132889

[Mark Conrad]

Now, if we can get Chuck do do a quick check in the stock book. I remember several guns that had EXP and I think this is one of the guns. Thanks Brian.

[Bill Murphy]

The gun that Brian pictures in the other thread is the skeet Trojan at the Remington museum. I can't imagine why Parker Brothers made hammerless guns with the complicated barrel stop when they could have used the pin that was used in the three lug hammer guns. Brian, what do you think?

[B. Dudley]

The cocking mechanism that Hayes developed was very simple and could have saved Parker a lot of money. I go into the cost savings on specific operations in more detail in my DGJ article. These calculations come directly from Hayes' original notes. But my guess is that when Hayes originally proposed this mechanism in 1910, management didn't want a completely different hammerless gun to have to make and still service the old one. But there is no documentation supporting one theory vs. another.
And, when the second, fully finished, prototype was made in 1928, the depression hit a year later and. Parker was Sold to Remington only a few years after that. I suspect that we may have seen Hayes' design revision implemented if all that wouldn't have happened.

Especially the coil spring ejector mechanism. This gun was not the only one made with that type of mechanism, another was owned by Charlie Parker. DelGrego threw that one out unfourtunately.
Although Hayes co-designed the original flat spring ejector mechanism is 1901, we know he was a constant tinkerer and looking for improvement. No doubt that 25 or more years later, he wanted to improve on it.

[Bill Murphy]

Any idea why the three lug design was scrapped for the complicated check hook?

[B. Dudley]

Well, the Charles King designed Hammerless guns uses the Bellcrank mechanism to cock the guns. With all that there, there is no room for a check hook and pin as used on the hammer guns.
The hammerless design used the milled cut in the frame for the cocking crank as the positive stop for the barrels.

I still cannot figure fully why Hayes used a separate piece in the barrel lug for the check hook on his second prototyle instead of an intigrated hook like the hammer guns. I would suspect as to make the hook replacable in the event of breakage. But I do not know of check hook breakage being a common issue on hammer guns.