How big is Ithaca NID 10 mag compared to a #3 frame Parker ?

[Milton C Starr]

I was wondering if anyone has both who could post a picture of the frames beside each other . Its something ive been wondering about , I have seen people refer to the #3 frame as a light 10 ga and the NID mag being a larger frame . Something I have noticed is the barrels on the NID 10 mags look bigger because of how narrow the forend is on them . Is that because the forend is just that slender on the Ithacas or because the barrels are larger than those on a #3 frame Parker ?

[Brian Dudley]

There is not too much difference in size between the frames.

The barrels on the mag 10s look heavy because they are. They are very thick and not struck too much for balance. They are pretty much an even taper from breech to muzzle.
And... the frames on the mag 10 and the super 10 are the same.

The 3 frame 10g Parker is not consider a “light” 10. A 2 frame 10 would be. The 3 frame is considered to be the standard and most common size for a 10g.

[Milton C Starr]

There is not too much difference in size between the frames.

The barrels on the mag 10s look heavy because they are. They are very thick and not struck too much for balance. They are pretty much an even taper from breech to muzzle.
And... the frames on the mag 10 and the super 10 are the same.

The 3 frame 10g Parker is not consider a “light” 10. A 2 frame 10 would be. The 3 frame is considered to be the standard and most common size for a 10g.

So the NID frame is just longer but not bigger ? I read that Parker also produced 10 ga 3.5s around the same time as the NID mags . How did they go about building theirs ? I have never seen a picture of one . I have seen a #3 frame hammer gun that had 3.5" chambers but figured someone done that themselves . The articles I have read on the NID 10 mag states that Ithaca did alot of R&D on building a frame to handle the extra load . Parker however already had frame sizes suitable so I was wondering if they built theirs on frames they already had or modified a #3 frame ?

One of the reasons I was asking as well I have seen a few 8 gauges built on 10 ga 3.5s doubles from the 1960s . I had wondered if those frame were just that much larger than the older 10 ga frames that were designed for the 2 7/8s . I want to say it was a Dogs and Doubles article that I read . I was curious in what ways they beefed up guns with the 10 ga 3.5 .

I really liked the 10 ga 2 7/8 chamber myself and may get another in the future . I love reading the history on how these big guns came to be .

[Dean Romig]

Why do you think a Parker frame would need to be modified just to have longer chambers?

What they would need to do is to make the barrel taper less acute from the breech to a point further along the barrels, thus ensuring sufficient wall thickness well past the juncture of the front of the chamber and the forcing cone.





.

[Brian Dudley]

When it comes to Parkers. A 3 frame is a 3 frame. Regardless of chamber length. Same goes for other frame sizes. The only difference in a gun that had longer chambers is how the barrels are struck. Longer chambered barrels would not swamp in an much as a shorter chambered gun.

In regards to the Ithacas. The only difference between the super 10 frames and the mag 10 frames is the the bottom through lug on the mag.

[Milton C Starr]

When it comes to Parkers. A 3 frame is a 3 frame. Regardless of chamber length. Same goes for other frame sizes. The only difference in a gun that had longer chambers is how the barrels are struck. Longer chambered barrels would not swamp in an much as a shorter chambered gun.

In regards to the Ithacas. The only difference between the super 10 frames and the mag 10 frames is the the bottom through lug on the mag.

Reminds me of friend who builds sxs rifles and shotguns . We was talking about barrel profile or contour . He said he thinks if you went too straight with the profile say a straight cylinder which has no contour you would end up with a awkward gun . So you would want to go with a larger frame at a certain point to go up in barrel weight or thickness .

I was looking at that FrankenParker that pugs has with the steel barrels . You can visually see they have alot more contour to them than a NID magnum

[Dean Romig]

If you went too straight with the profile say a straight cylinder which has no contour you would end up with a awkward gun . So you would want to go with a larger frame at a certain point to go up in barrel weight or thickness .


That's why the 3-frame and larger frames were developed - so there would be sufficient wall thickness in the critical area of roughly the first ten inches from the breech... and the taper begins even well before the ten inches. After that point the pressure drops off significantly. Actually, the barrel wall thickness in front half of the barrels can be considerably thinner than you might expect. In fact, a ten-gauge Parker with 3.5" chambers designed to be used with the magnum loads of the day might easily pass muster with wall thicknesses in the front half of something like .035".





.




.

[Dean Romig]

I was looking at that FrankenParker that Pugs has with the steel barrels . You can visually see they have a lot more contour to them than a NID magnum


Maybe Parker simply had more faith in the steel they were using for their barrels..... :whistle:





.

[Milton C Starr]

That's why the 3-frame and larger frames were developed - so there would be sufficient wall thickness in the critical area of roughly the first ten inches from the breech... and the taper begins even well before the ten inches. After that point the pressure drops off significantly.





.

Wasnt there 1 Parker 10 ga built on a #1 frame ? I thought I read that somewhere on this forum . I wonder if thats how it was built with minimal taper on the barrels . The 10" from the breech , on English made guns didnt that mark that on the proof mark ? I think they measured 9" from the breech though . The bore diameter that is , may be unrelated but I was looking at a Birmingham made 8 ga that the proof marks indicated it had a 10 ga bore 9" from the breech . At least that what I was told by a friend who has a book on proof marks . Maybe thats how that 10 ga on the #1 frame was built . Perhaps 10 ga chambers that squeezed down to a 12 ga bore . I have seen a few sxs guns built like that . I would think doing that would raise the pressures significantly. Theres a few 10 ga Parkers on #2 frames on gunbroker right now as well .

I put my 8 gauge barrels beside a set of 10 ga barrels . The breech diameters dont look that much difference but you can tell the 8 ga barrels dont start to taper as early as the 10 ga barrels .

Now I was looking at a 10 ga hammer gun on guns international . Its got some heafty barrels and weighs in 10 3/4lbs and the muzzles look pretty thick . But even so the gun has alot of taper to the barrels .

I like heavy barreled 10 gauges especially when shooting the RST 1 1/8 oz loads .

[Dave Noreen]

Ithaca NID No. 2 Super-10 --

75580

Ithaca NID No. 2E Magnum-10 --

75581

[Dave Noreen]

Ithaca NID No. 2 Super-10 --

75584

Ithaca NID No. 2E Magnum-10 --

75583

[Milton C Starr]

Ithaca NID No. 2 Super-10 --

75580

Ithaca NID No. 2E Magnum-10 --

75581

Ah that explains alot . I have seen alot of other manufacturer's sxs 10 ga made before the 3.5 with the through lug like that . I guess it was something Ithaca was thought not needed on their 2 7/8 guns . Both of my hammer guns had a lug like that .

[Milton C Starr]

Ithaca NID No. 2 Super-10 --

75584

Ithaca NID No. 2E Magnum-10 --

75583

Looks like the Magnums barrels have more space between them ?

[Dave Noreen]

Ithaca NID No. 2 Super-10 --

75585

Ithaca NID No. 2E Magnum-10 --

75586

[Milton C Starr]

Ithaca NID No. 2 Super-10 --

75585

Ithaca NID No. 2E Magnum-10 --

75586

So what I'm gathering is that not all 10 gauges needed a beefed up action for the 3.5" . Ithaca did because it didn't have that bottom lug . Which is odd because I'm pretty sure that was common on 10 ga 2 7/8 guns . At least ones I have seen . Do you have a picture of the Super 10 and NID 10 mag lugs ?

[Frank Srebro]

And... the frames on the mag 10 and the super 10 are the same.

I've never owned an Ithaca Mag 10 but had 7 or 8 Super 10's including several I've disassembled for study. The stock head bearing on the Super 10 is adequate although relatively small in surface area, and I wouldn't be surprised if the Mag 10 has a wider frame. Maybe Dave can round up a caliper and measure the width of the back end of both frames?

[Mark Garrett]

The Mag frame is certainly longer .

[Bill Murphy]

"Looks like" doesn't cut it. Milton has a very curious mind, brings up some great ideas, but he needs to invest in a Vernier caliper and give up on the "Looks like". Parker made 3 1/2" chambered tens before the advent of the Super X loads. I have a #6 frame PH that letters as a factory 3 1/2" gun and I'm sure they made a few #3 frame 3 1/2" guns before the Remington era also. I'm not sure if my #6 frame ten PH predates the Super X loads. I have seen 10 gauge Damascus barrel English guns that went through nitro proof with modern 3 1/2" shells also.

[Dave Noreen]

I no longer own a Magnum-10. Bought mine at a little shop in Brunswick, Maine. Fifteen years later, having never hunted with it, sold it to the Hartman Brothers at the Harrisburg, PA, Fairgrounds show, and the last time I saw it, Steve Lamboy had it in the ICD tent at Sandanona a couple of years later.

In the standard NID receiver the "box" portion of the frame is the same size from .410-bore to Super-10. Just the height and width of the standing breech and the firing pin spacing increases.

[Dave Noreen]

I have a #6 frame PH that letters as a factory 3 1/2" gun

Sure that wasn't 3 1/4 inch? That is the longest 10-gauge cases I find being offered in the old ammunition catalogs. By 1910, UMC was no longer offering 10-gauge NPEs for smokeless powder longer than 2 7/8 inch and by the Rem-UMC 1918-19 catalog no 10-gauge NPEs were being offered longer than 2 7/8 inch.

[Bill Murphy]

Dave, you know me better than that. My PH Twist gun letters as 3 1/2". While you are researching the beginning of the Super X 3 1/2" ten gauge ammunition, I will dig out the date of the #6 frame PH manufacture and verify the chamber length. If it says 3 1/2", and if we are skeptical, maybe Chuck Bishop will confirm. I will post the serial number.

[Dave Noreen]

The earliest listing I have for the 3 1/2 inch Magnum 10-gauge Super-X shell is in the April 1, 1932, Western Ammunition for Rifle, Revolver and Shotgun. It is not in July 1, 1931 or February 1932 Western paper. The Ithaca NID Magnum-10 first appears in the second 1932 Ithaca Gun Co. catalog. Remington didn't add a 10-gauge 3 1/2 inch Magnum shell to their offerings until their January 13, 1937, price lists. Peters didn't list a 3 1/2 inch Magnum 10-gauge load until their January 3, 1950, price lists.

[Phillip Carr]

You could special order a 10 gauge very early on with 3 1/2” chambers as well as special order the brass shells for it. Do we know the earliest 10 gauge documented with 3 1/2” chambers?

[Bill Murphy]

Serial number of my #6 frame PH is 118,498. Chuck sent me a letter indicating the 3 1/2" chamber. I'm sure he would confirm his research. It is a 1903 gun ordered by Iver Johnson, apparently, certainly, before the Western Super X 2 ounce loads. Dave has posted interesting information.

[Bill Murphy]

Parker Brothers posted maximum loads for their smallbore guns in the popular "Small Bore" pamphlet which were lighter than loads specified in orders for guns in the 1912-1918 era, which were 1 ounce loads. I have owned guns, 20 gauge 3" chamber guns, that were specified to shoot 1 ounce loads when PB didn't admit that they approved of such loads. They were #2 frame 20 gauges, but maybe some smaller frame guns were specified for 1 ounce loads, I don't know. Discussion continues.

[Bill Murphy]

Has Dave "Researcher" lettered the #2 frame 20 gauge barrels I sold to him many years ago to find out the construction of that original gun?

[Craig Larter]

L.C. Smith used three frame sizes for 10ga guns during the Syracuse era according to David Williamson. Very similar to Parker. L.C. smith did not number the frame sizes but measurements across the breech balls have confirmed it. After the move to Fulton all 10's were built on the same frame.
With Parker TL hammer 10's if you wanted a 8.5lbs to 9lbs gun with 30 to 32 " bbls you got a 3 frame, if you wanted a 10lbs gun with 30 to 32" bbls you got a 4 frame, if you wanted a 10lbs plus gun with barrels over 32" you got a 5 or 6 frame gun. Just my observations but there are always exceptions.

[Bill Murphy]

Craig sends us some interesting information, but his observation about frame sizes larger than #4 in hammer guns is a bit incorrect. Hammer guns of ten gauge in frame sizes larger than #4 are rare, #5 almost nonexistent except in very early eight gauge. In sixty some years of collecting, I have never seen a #7 frame hemmer ten gauge. I would like to see one. #7 frame hammer eight gauges are the most often seen.

[Craig Larter]

Bill: I value your input and knowledge when it comes to large frame Parkers and agree that 4 and 5 frame TL hammer guns in 10ga are rare. 26498 a B TL hammer is the pinnacle of the big tens, displayed by Mr. L at last year's annual meeting people's choice award.

[Milton C Starr]

"Looks like" doesn't cut it. Milton has a very curious mind, brings up some great ideas, but he needs to invest in a Vernier caliper and give up on the "Looks like". Parker made 3 1/2" chambered tens before the advent of the Super X loads. I have a #6 frame PH that letters as a factory 3 1/2" gun and I'm sure they made a few #3 frame 3 1/2" guns before the Remington era also. I'm not sure if my #6 frame ten PH predates the Super X loads. I have seen 10 gauge Damascus barrel English guns that went through nitro proof with modern 3 1/2" shells also.

I had one years ago because I had thought of sending the Zephyr to Briley for chokes and needed to measure the muzzle diameter to determine for thin walls or regular chokes .

I have seen English ammo catalogs that predate the 10 ga 3.5" Super X of the 1930s . They were 1900s or 1890s catalogs that listed the 10 ga from any length up to 3.5" . Actually They may have listed one longer than that .
I dont doubt that a #3 frame Parkers could handle it . The CG Bonehill I owned had 3.5" chambers though I only shot RST 2 7/8s out of it . The guy I sold it to ran alot of 3.5" shells and never had a problem. That was a heavy barreled gun to start with .

[Dave Noreen]

Has Dave "Researcher" lettered the #2 frame 20 gauge barrels I sold to him many years ago to find out the construction of that original gun?

Never happened Bill. I bought a pair of 1-frame, 32-inch, 20-gauge barrels from Bud Stanley here in Spokane and after I got my 2-frame, 32-inch, 20-gauge, I sold those 1-frame barrels to you. As I recall you eventually sold them on to one of our friends.

[Milton C Starr]

I wonder if this is a #4 frame , its got some heft to it at 10 3/4lbs .
http://puglisiguns.cloudapp.net/inventory/Ant38175

Or a heavy barreled #3 frame .

[Milton C Starr]

You could special order a 10 gauge very early on with 3 1/2” chambers as well as special order the brass shells for it. Do we know the earliest 10 gauge documented with 3 1/2” chambers?

I wonder if this is one of those guns ?
http://puglisiguns.cloudapp.net/inventory/Ant2141

I thought it was a #3 frame but its not actually listed . Its a little over 8lbs I imagine its pretty lively with a 10 ga 3.5" haha .

[Milton C Starr]

Someone mentioned that LC Smith had different frame sizes as well for the 10 ga ?
I seen one on gunbroker a LC Smith that was a 7lb 10 ga . Has to be one of the lightest 10 gauges ive seen .

[Bill Murphy]

Dave, sorry I got my information about your barrels wrong. Pitted though they were, I'm sorry I sold them.

[Dave Noreen]

Back to the OP's original question, here are some comparison pics of a 3-frame NH-Grade Parker Bros. and a No. 2 Ithaca NID Super-10 --

75667

75668

75669

[Dean Romig]

The Ithaca sure doesn't LOOK as strong....






.

[Dave Noreen]

The pictured No. 2 Ithaca weighs 9 pounds 1.4 ounces and the Parker Bros. weighs 9 pounds 1.9 ounces, though my Ron Kirby letter says 10 ounces more?!?.

Someone out there must have a 3-frame Parker and a Magnum-10 Ithaca for comparison photos.

[Milton C Starr]

The pictured No. 2 Ithaca weighs 9 pounds 1.4 ounces and the Parker Bros. weighs 9 pounds 1.9 ounces, though my Ron Kirby letter says 10 ounces more?!?.

Someone out there must have a 3-frame Parker and a Magnum-10 Ithaca for comparison photos.

Well isnt the Magnum frame just a longer Super 10 ?
That #3 frame is bigger than I expected . The #3 frame looks really sturdy like a vault .

[Dean Romig]

All Parker hammerless frames are "sturdy like a vault."





.

[Milton C Starr]

All Parker hammerless frames are "sturdy like a vault."





.

I didnt mean to say they werent . Just in comparison to that Super 10 the #3 frame looks like a tank .

[Dave Noreen]

Well isnt the Magnum frame just a longer Super 10 ?

Yes.