Were Parker shotguns made when ordered?

[Kirk Potter]

Or did they keep many in stock?

[greg conomos]

Yes.

[Rick Losey]

both

shipped from stock - or made to order

it would depend on what was ordered - special features and higher grades could be ordered

[Kirk Potter]

both

shipped from stock - or made to order

it would depend on what was ordered - special features and higher grades could be ordered

Ok, I was just curious because according to the serial # chart, my 12 gauge GH #85571 would of been one of the last made in 1896, but my research letter shows it as being ordered December 24th 1897.

[Rick Losey]

you will find guns shipped from stock to a dealer- returned for credit and shipped again later to another

the specs on your gun may have been a slow seller due to some spec - and sat on the shelf waiting for someone to need one

so - a customer walks into the gun shop- says he likes the GH they have but wants a different barrel length or weight and the order was placed and filled from stock

[Brian Dudley]

In some cases, research letters will show years between made date and sold date. I recall seeing a gun in later production that was in inventory for like 7 years or something.

Lower grades in common configuations were kept on hand as stock for fast order fulfillment.

[Dean Romig]

I have a very unusual Parker that was made in 1908 and which sat in inventory until 1912 when it was used to fill an even more unusual order.






.

[Dave Noreen]

Serial number chronologies are at best a close approximation and at worst just totally wrong. The Fox serial number chronology that Lightner Library put together back in the 1970s and is available various places on the internet is the latter.

[Kevin McCormack]

Generally speaking, grades up to D (Quality 3) were routinely produced and inventoried to provide quicker turnaround for individual as well as 'bulk' orders. The higher the grade, the fewer were warehoused for obvious reasons of cost of production and individual gun specifications routinely ordered. Quality 4 guns (C grade) were generally produced only on specific order, although there are always exceptions, such as exposition guns made up specially for exhibits and samples taken on the road by salesmen such as DuBray, Stice and others.

The Quality 3 gun (D grade) was universally recognized as Parker's "break point" gun; that is, the profit realized from the sale of this grade made up for the expense of producing it and left a comfortable margin of profit at its offered selling price. The more expensive higher grades' return on costs of production fell off rapidly as the grades ascended, e.g., more expensive wood, stock carving and checkering, and extensive and more detailed engraving all combined to make delivery of the higher grade guns longer and more expensive to the maker.

[Bruce Day]

Interesting. The only light shed on margins I am aware of is the report of the Remington auditor upon Remington's purchase of Parker. That purports to state that Parker lost money on all low grade guns until Grade D, where sales price overtook cost. According to that report, Parker in the 1930's only made money on high grade guns.

Are there other documents ?

[greg conomos]

It's not plausible Parker only made money on the higher grade guns.

We all know Parker was not top in class in terms of the commercial side of things....but nonetheless, to suggest a company spent 60+ years losing money on the majority of their production is a bit hard to swallow.

[Dean Romig]

The Charles Parker Co. and Parker Bros. were in the business of manufacturing and manufactured every kind of household goods and industrial implements. I would venture to say that profits from the production of shotguns is not what sustained the company but I, too, can't imagine they would have continued to produce shotguns if it was only a 'break even' proposition on the vast majority of their guns.






.

[Bruce Day]

It's not plausible Parker only made money on the higher grade guns.

We all know Parker was not top in class in terms of the commercial side of things....but nonetheless, to suggest a company spent 60+ years losing money on the majority of their production is a bit hard to swallow.


An interesting opinion, but you might want to look at TPS, pp 158,159:

[Dean Romig]

"Trojan, V, G, and C grades, which constituted the bulk of total production..." ?? C grade was included in the total bulk and not D grade?? I find that hard to fathom.




.

[greg conomos]

That's a snapshot from 1937 - not necessarily indicative of the previous 60 years.

Plus.....those of us in the business world who have been involved in buyouts know full well that the new owner is always crestfallen to find out that the company they just bought is not making the money they thought it was when they bought it. Of course, the definition of 'making money' is keenly dependent on one's perspective.

[Dean Romig]

That's a snapshot from 1937 - not necessarily indicative of the previous 60 years.


No, but Remington had owned the Parker Gun since January of '34 and the caption shown from The Parker Story probably referred to Remington's experience of three years of ownership.





.

[Kirk Potter]

Did Parker production end because of WWII? Guess losing money is a good reason not to start up production again.

[Dean Romig]

Yes, just about all sporting arms manufacturing ended when we became involved in WWII.

Arms manufacture changed to military arms in support of the war effort.






.

[Bruce Day]

Interesting. The only light shed on margins I am aware of is the report of the Remington auditor upon Remington's purchase of Parker. That purports to state that Parker lost money on all low grade guns until Grade D, where sales price overtook cost. According to that report, Parker in the 1930's only made money on high grade guns.

Are there other documents ?


Greg, I never said it did. I said the report was directed to the 1930's. What information do you have that sheds light on margins and profitability?

[Robert Delk]

I believe someone from the PGCA ended up with the inter office paper from Remington that I got from the son of an employee many years ago.I recall that there were mentions of profitability and the chance of starting the manufacture of Parkers again. I recall that the dates were 1947-48 and up to 1953. I wish that I had saved it but I wasn't really into Parkers as firearms and just an ephemera collector.Sold it at a gun show in Illinois to a collecter who was sitting at the table of that gunsmith who was a whiz at fixing and upgrading Parkers. They did an article on him in one of the early DGJ's.

[Gary Carmichael Sr]

Robert, I might have a copy of that I will check my storage boxes, I do remember the article, a inter office memo I believe is correct, gary

[Dean Romig]

I remember such a memo produced after the war suggesting the necessity of curtailing the production of the Parker Gun because Remington was losing money on the venture but I haven't seen or heard of any memo suggesting starting it up again.





.

[Robert Delk]

As I recall the letters I had started out with one letter talking about starting production again and the last letters referring to selling off parts and the lack of machinery. There was also paper referring to what parts were on hand. I sold it in a folder that came with the correspondence originally.The paper I have collected always seems to be valued long after I have gotten rid of it.

[Gary Carmichael Sr]

From 1945 to 1948 the matter was tossed back and forth with many inter office memos, and time studies, they even thought of buying a gun from another company and turning it into a Parker, but decided if there was going to be a Parker reinventing Remington would do it, Finally the cost proved to be to prohibitive and the decision to scrap a lot of the old Parker machinery was made. Griffin and Howe was thinking of buying some barrel machinery and start to make barrels but decided not to, and a lot of the machinery was scrapped, some of the machinery was scrapped prior to the war for the war effort. Gary

[Dean Romig]

Finally, sometime in the late 1980's or early 90's Remington initiated an extremely short run of Parker shotguns.



.

[Gary Carmichael Sr]

I guess it is as it should be? If there were new Parkers floating around not counting the reproductions, I doubt our old guns would be as sentimental to us. The plain fact is for whatever reason the Parker family made and continued to make this great gun I do not think a lot of money was made but somewhere I have the dollar total of each year of production, these papers and a couple of put together books I bought in Louisville, years ago some of the papers are very interesting and sheds a lot of light on the thinking at Remington on whether to revive the Parker gun, Gary

[greg conomos]

OK, I stand corrected as I did not pick up on the first post that limited the discussion to the 1930's.

But really....Parker/Remington was losing money in the 1930's? I'd guess 80% of all companies were losing money in the 1930's...

Plus...those lower grade guns represent what's called 'baseload' for the factory. They night have lost money on an individual basis, but they kept the lights on and the employees paid so that when a high grade gun order came in, they were able to produce it. If the low grade guns had been absent, there wouldn't have been enough volume to keep the doors open.

[Dean Romig]

Excellent points Greg!






.

[Chad Hefflinger]

If I had to guess, I would say the margins made on Parker shotguns were all in the black and probably higher on the higher grade guns. The profits on these guns were able to support the realitivly low overhead/cost of Parker Bros.
The Remington Arms Co. Would of most likely needed a much higher contribution margin to cover overhead and be "profitable"

[Bill Murphy]

There must be a bunch of those old Parker-Remington interoffice memos floating around. I believe PGCA has a collection of such items.

[George M. Purtill]

I like Greg's thinking and I'll take it one further: The Parker Gun was acquired by Remington based on bad accounting analysis and shut down based on bad accounting analysis.

[greg conomos]

"The Remington Arms Co. Would of most likely needed a much higher contribution margin to cover overhead and be "profitable"

That's an excellent point. If Remington hung their overhead rate on the Parker works, it could turn a profitable factory into a money loser with the stroke of a pen.

People love to blame lawyers but I'll take a lawyer any day over an accountant!

[Dean Romig]

If Remington hung their overhead rate on the Parker works, it could turn a profitable factory into a money loser with the stroke of a pen.


That's exactly what Remington did.... Instead of integrating the Parker Gun Works into the Remington gun production facility when they moved the Parker Gun operation to Illion, then, (aparantly partially because of 'bad blood' on the factory floor) the Parker Gun Works was set up in its own facility with all its own machinery and personnel... which probably sent the operation's 'overhead' far above and beyond what they had anticipated.
The worst years of the Depression were from 1929 through about '34. By the time he Parker Gun Works was moved to Illion in '37 the economy had begun to improve somewhat. But then we were drawn into the war....






.

[Craig Larter]

It seems to me the long term lack of capital investment killed all of the SxS manufacturers. They were starved for capital. They had to compete in a market dominated with simpler to manufacturer pumps and autos after 1895. In that market there was never enough profit to invest in the business, they were all doomed with outdated equipment and processes. In that period the logistics of moving off shore to lower costs was not a option and flexible manufacturing equipment and processes were not yet developed. It's a sad story and has affected many great US manufacturers and quality products.

[Jean Swanson]

According to information that I have recently seen and read----after 1920 ALL Parker barrels that went into inventory will be choke full and full with 2 1/2 chambers.

Allan

[Dean Romig]

That makes perfect sense Allan. Cutting both the chambers and the chokes per the orders that come in, thereby reducing both cost and waste.





.

[greg conomos]

I think what killed double gun makers are the same cultural attributes that we see today.

The average person lacks taste, refinement, and makes his/her judgements based on the wrong criteria. And the world has a lot of average people - that's why they're average.

Why buy a well balanced finely made Parker when you can pay 3X less for a gun that holds twice as many shells? Why buy a Parker that begs to be cared for when you can buy a pump gun that you can toss in the corner and never clean?

It's the same reason Budwesier is the #1 selling beer and Michael Jackson, even dead, sells more records than 100 other people who can actually make music.

[John Dallas]

Just remember - 50% of the folks in the world are below average

[George M. Purtill]

Careful Greg- I like Bud.

[Phillip Carr]

According to information that I have recently seen and read----after 1920 ALL Parker barrels that went into inventory will be choke full and full with 2 1/2 chambers.

Allan

I would enjoy reading more on this piece of Parker history.

[Bruce Day]

We just bought two Beretta pumps to add to our bunch of 870 pumps that are getting worn out. We can put 10,000 or more rounds a year through each of these at our BSA camp and are the only gun that stands up and is affordable.