| Author | Post |
|---|
Patrick Lien
Member
| Joined: | Fri Feb 1st, 2008 |
| Location: | Idaho |
| Posts: | 69 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue May 26th, 2009 06:33 pm |
|
111838 found at Denver gun show. Very heavy 32" damascus barrels with Ejectors. This gun was made the same year as the first ejector gun in TPS(112920) but is over 1000 guns earlier. There is no ejector patent date on the forend iron. There is a Remington repair code(EE3) for either 1936 or 1958. Wear plate has been replaced. Original or retro fit? For those of you with retro fit ejectors, how was the hole in the lug to hold the extractors addressed?
thank you
Pat
[size=]
Attached Image (viewed 347 times):
|
Dean Romig
PGCA Member
| Joined: | Fri Jan 7th, 2005 |
| Location: | Andover, Ma |
| Posts: | 4887 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue May 26th, 2009 06:58 pm |
|
Most likely went back to Meriden for ejectors and had the later wear plate fitted while there. If this is the case, there will likely have been no mention of the refitted wear plate as this was done as a matter of routine when a gun went back to Meriden after 1910.
Do you have a letter yet?
|
john truitt
PGCA Member
|
Posted: Tue May 26th, 2009 07:10 pm |
|
| How heavy is heavy? What is the unstruck weight marked on the barrels. Sorry I could not make it out in the picts.
|
Patrick Lien
Member
| Joined: | Fri Feb 1st, 2008 |
| Location: | Idaho |
| Posts: | 69 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue May 26th, 2009 07:30 pm |
|
The barrel weight is 4/13. The frame size is 2. This is my fathers gun. He ordered a letter and I believe it is in process. I am just the picture poster. How did Remington or Parker retro fit these guns? The dolls head has to be replaced. Did they replace the back portion of the rib as well? If the gun was damascus did they replace this with damascus or fluid steel? How did they fix the screw hole for the extractors?
thanks
Pat
|
Dave Suponski
PGCA Member
| Joined: | Thu Jan 6th, 2005 |
| Location: | Connecticut USA |
| Posts: | 1027 |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Tue May 26th, 2009 07:33 pm |
|
| Pat ,Do you have any pictures of the rib?
____________________
Dave....
|
Larry Frey
PGCA Member
| Joined: | Fri Jan 7th, 2005 |
| Location: | Connecticut USA |
| Posts: | 824 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue May 26th, 2009 07:34 pm |
|
Patrick,
I have a gun at home 108??? that had ejectors added by Parker. Babe verified this as a certain jig was used when ejectors were added so there was a noticeable difference from when a gun with ejectors was made new. I will check it out tonight and see if I can determine the difference for you.
|
Patrick Lien
Member
| Joined: | Fri Feb 1st, 2008 |
| Location: | Idaho |
| Posts: | 69 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue May 26th, 2009 08:00 pm |
|
Dave,
Here is a picture of the rib. My dad is visiting for the week. He read your earlier post on the Chevy Truck and is now out taking pictures of his 72 GMC. Stay tuned.
Pat
Attached Image (viewed 316 times):
|
Patrick Lien
Member
| Joined: | Fri Feb 1st, 2008 |
| Location: | Idaho |
| Posts: | 69 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue May 26th, 2009 08:12 pm |
|
Hopefully a better picture.
Attached Image (viewed 316 times):
|
Patrick Lien
Member
| Joined: | Fri Feb 1st, 2008 |
| Location: | Idaho |
| Posts: | 69 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue May 26th, 2009 08:22 pm |
|
Gun was delivered to my house in my fathers road trip rig.
Pat
Attached Image (viewed 312 times):
|
Patrick Lien
Member
| Joined: | Fri Feb 1st, 2008 |
| Location: | Idaho |
| Posts: | 69 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue May 26th, 2009 08:35 pm |
|
Big Big block 427 ex bonneville engine. bored .060 now 439 Cu. In. special cam. Forged TRW pistons, and tight chambered heads. Built 400 turbo trans, and 4.54 rear gear. use truck to pull 21 foot Airstream. Wife of almost 50 yrs and Sara Furgarson ( red headed golden Retriever) formed a coup, and will no longer ride in the truck. So the old guy travels alone now, or takes a newer truck.
David
Attached Image (viewed 307 times):
|
Dean Romig
PGCA Member
| Joined: | Fri Jan 7th, 2005 |
| Location: | Andover, Ma |
| Posts: | 4887 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue May 26th, 2009 08:39 pm |
|
Larry Frey wrote: Patrick,
I have a gun at home 108??? that had ejectors added by Parker. Babe verified this as a certain jig was used when ejectors were added so there was a noticeable difference from when a gun with ejectors was made new. I will check it out tonight and see if I can determine the difference for you.
Maybe we can compare pics - I have 79355 which went back in 1916 to have ejectors fitted and had the 1910 wear plate fitted at the same time. The letter supports the ejectors but makes no mention of the wear plate. Last edited on Tue May 26th, 2009 08:40 pm by Dean Romig
|
Patrick Lien
Member
| Joined: | Fri Feb 1st, 2008 |
| Location: | Idaho |
| Posts: | 69 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue May 26th, 2009 09:01 pm |
|
Dean,
I would really like to see some pics of your gun to compare. I cannot find anthing on my fathers gun that is unique or telling that it was retro fitted.
Pat
|
Carl Brandt
PGCA Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 12th, 2005 |
| Location: | Virginia |
| Posts: | 289 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue May 26th, 2009 09:16 pm |
|
| Reference the first photo in this thread: There is no extractor retaining screw or hole in the bottom of the barrel lump. How did after market ejector conversions address this issue on guns that are known to have been changed??
|
Dave Suponski
PGCA Member
| Joined: | Thu Jan 6th, 2005 |
| Location: | Connecticut USA |
| Posts: | 1027 |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Tue May 26th, 2009 09:27 pm |
|
Carl,I noticed that also. Rebarreling and adding an ejector forend would be easy for the factory.I think the telling would in the frame modification. No?
Pat,That is one great truck! Dad is visiting for a week Huh? Good luck with that  Count your guns BEFORE he leaves...
____________________
Dave....
|
Dean Romig
PGCA Member
| Joined: | Fri Jan 7th, 2005 |
| Location: | Andover, Ma |
| Posts: | 4887 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue May 26th, 2009 09:27 pm |
|
| A very good point Carl.
|
Patrick Lien
Member
| Joined: | Fri Feb 1st, 2008 |
| Location: | Idaho |
| Posts: | 69 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue May 26th, 2009 09:36 pm |
|
Carl Brandt wrote: Reference the first photo in this thread: There is no extractor retaining screw or hole in the bottom of the barrel lump. How did after market ejector conversions address this issue on guns that are known to have been changed??
I thought I was asking the same thing in the last of my first post.
Pat
|
Dave Suponski
PGCA Member
| Joined: | Thu Jan 6th, 2005 |
| Location: | Connecticut USA |
| Posts: | 1027 |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Tue May 26th, 2009 10:36 pm |
|
| Pat,I looks to me that there was never a screw.Everything I see tells me this gun is right. Could this be an ejector gun that predates the serial number in TPS?
____________________
Dave....
|
Larry Frey
PGCA Member
| Joined: | Fri Jan 7th, 2005 |
| Location: | Connecticut USA |
| Posts: | 824 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue May 26th, 2009 11:13 pm |
|
Patrick,
As I said in my earlier post Babe DelGrego had told me my gun was retrofitted with ejectors at Parker Brother's and he could tell this by the way the holes were drilled using a jig which he still has in his shop. I guess I should have been paying closer attention as I looked at several frames, forends, and barrel sets with factory ejectors and could not find a measurable difference in any of them verses my retrofit gun. I have to believe the frames were annealed in order to drill the two .093 pin holes. This would have been almost impossible on a hardened receiver especially given the fact that these two holes come in off a radius. Also the dolls head would have to be removed and machined for the stop plate and ejector groves added. The extractor screw you asked about is the only tell tale sign I could find that indicates that this gun was indeed a retrofit. You can make out in the picture below that it was filled with weld and filed clean.
After looking at the photo it became clear that the witness line around the hole would indicate that the hole was not welded but either tapped and a screw inserted and then machined off, or a press fit plug put in and the excess machined off.
Attached Image (viewed 251 times):
 Last edited on Wed May 27th, 2009 12:12 am by Larry Frey
|
Patrick Lien
Member
| Joined: | Fri Feb 1st, 2008 |
| Location: | Idaho |
| Posts: | 69 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue May 26th, 2009 11:53 pm |
|
Larry,
Thank you for the picture. That is what I was looking for on my dad's gun and it is not there. There is a small w or m stamped just forward of where the extractor screw hole would be. Maybe the letter will shed some additional light on this.
thanks again.
Pat
|
Dean Romig
PGCA Member
| Joined: | Fri Jan 7th, 2005 |
| Location: | Andover, Ma |
| Posts: | 4887 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed May 27th, 2009 12:35 am |
|
Here are a few pictures of 79355 which, as I stated previously, had gone back to Meriden to be fitted with ejectors according to my research letter. Note that the doll's head extension is of steel, not Damascus and that there is no evidence of a filled screw hole in the lug for the extractor retainer screw and that it has been fitted with the 1910 patented wear plate with the milled side slots. The wood is obviously replacement and it was very poorly done . . . but that's not the issue anyway  Attached Image (viewed 219 times):
 Last edited on Wed May 27th, 2009 12:42 am by Dean Romig
|
Current time is 06:53 pm | Page: 1 2   |
|
