My second Parker - G grade

Bill Graham · 03-05-2018, 08:55 PM

My second Parker arrived today. My first was a VH that had bores like a gravel road. This one has great bores, thankfully. From what I can tell, it’s an 1893. The safety was removed and the slot in the tang filled with brass. 28” M/F damascus that still has some decent contrast, and two ivory beads. The worst part is that the pad is gone. The base is there. Can you adhere new pad material to an existing pad?

Still have a lot to learn about Parker’s, so feel free to share any relevant insights.

todd allen · 03-05-2018, 09:53 PM

This gun was most likely owned by a pigeon shooter. The pad/buttplate is an easy fix. I would love to see more pictures, and measurements, if you are able. Choke, and stock measurements.
It would be great if you could track down it's previous ownership.

Bill Graham · 03-05-2018, 10:40 PM

I was wrong about the chokes: Improved and modified.
LOP 13 3/4” to end of wood
DAC 1 5/8”
DAH 2 3/8”
2 1/2” chambers

Understand already that the stock is not right, based on the shield, which on this gun is an oval, and Brian Dudley believes the checkering is wrong. I wouldn’t have known about the checkering, and I don’t recall getting images of that part of the stock before it shipped. Extension has been repaired, with what looks like a screw that they tried to matte like the rib. Numbers match. I like it fine all the same. It’s like me, flawed, but it’s a G that I could afford.

Bill Graham · 03-05-2018, 10:50 PM

A few more

6pt-Sika · 03-05-2018, 11:30 PM

Nice , I like it . But then i seem to be drawn to GH , EH , Grade 2 guns ��

Bill Murphy · 03-06-2018, 06:52 AM

Can you show us a picture of the screw in the extension? You need a PGCA letter on this gun which may explain the wood, which, if anything, is better than original.

B. Dudley · 03-06-2018, 07:16 AM

I based my thoughts to Bill on the stock just on the photo of the safety slot where it shows the checkering come all the way up to near touching the tang. That is no where near correct.
Seeing more photos now confirms my thoughts. The whole buttstock is not factory. It is interesting for sure from a standpoint of form. But not factory. The shape of the cheeks, comb and grip are nothing like a Parker. The grip is more of a true half grip in style.

The filling of the safety slot that way is also not indicative of factory work.
My guess is, whoever did the safety conversion also restocked the gun to something more suiting to the shooters needs for dimensions and grip feel. It was long ago by the amount of wear to the wood and recoil pad. But still long after the gun was new based on difference in wear to the checkering between the stock and forend (which is still original).

Dean Romig · 03-06-2018, 07:34 AM

To say nothing of the silver oval in the toe-line which would be standard for a Grade 3 and higher and of a lot of other guns such as some British guns.
The standard of course for a Grade 2 Parker would have been the shield.

The shape of the 'nose of the comb' is typical of some earlier graded Parkers which were likely the work of a particular stocker.

.

Harold Pickens · 03-06-2018, 07:36 AM

Still a handsome gun, I would get the pad fixed, and the safety, and then just shoot and enjoy it. I like the twin ivories, and the Damascus pattern is nice. I do believe it is from 1893, as I own 77540, a GH 16 O frame, and as I recall it was 1893.

Bill Graham · 03-06-2018, 08:07 AM

I’ve got a few days during which I can decide on keeping it. I do like it, and I am a little disappointed. A letter would be interesting, but I can’t spend the money in advance of deciding to keep, and of cource the letters arrival would fall outside of the return window. It would be nice if a person could get a quick check from the records for oddities like this.

More bothered by the extension repair than the stock. It is nice piece of wood, finished very well to my eye. There is a ledge where the extension is proud of the rib; clearly felt and seen.