Research letter on 36"Parker V Grade

[Jeff Sweeter]

Hello,I thought I would share this as I am a little confused with the findings.Thought I would ask the experts.

[Jeff Sweeter]

Last photo is a comparison with a Remington 870 with 30 inch barrel for reference.

[Dean Romig]

It would appear that you have a forend iron from a SBT... and that just ain't right.

No, no, wait... that's an extractor forend iron modified to accept a Parker ejector mechanism... and that just ain't right either.

And the forend lug on the barrels is for a splinter forend.

And the extractor rod (your gun was originally made as an extractor gun) has been reworked to function as ejectors.

And none of the work I mention was performed by Parker Brothers.


.

[Jeff Sweeter]

I found this gun last fall at a local gun show and just had to have it with the long barrels being unique.It isn't a very pretty gun as the receiver and trigger guard are dark and pitted,as are the last several inches of the barrels.The bores look good and the action is not super tight but is very shootable.The forend iron is from a different gun and is engraved and has ejectors.It also has a beaver tail which I doubt is factory.I believe the stock to be a replacement as there is no serial number stamped under the trigger guard.It has also been cut,added back into with a plastic spacer and a Hawkins pad added for a length of 14 1/4 inchs.Like I said,not pretty but it will kill ducks as I got a double with it last fall on a pair of green heads while pass shooting.According to the Parker Serialization and Identification book this gun was built in 1915,and I have heard that only possibly 3 were built with 36 inch barrels.Im confused with the letter stating it was returned to a Theo. Wallace of Canton S.D.which is only 10 miles from where I live and grew up.As the letter states Mr.Wallace sent in a set of barrels to be framed and stocked for another gun.Would that have been beside purchasing this gun or was this gun fitted with the other set of barrels also?I have done a little research and found a Wallace family that came from England and settled near Canton S.D. sometime after 1865.There were 5 sons in this family,of which none were named Theo.The search continues.This gun has 2 7/8 or 3 inch chambers depending how you measure it.With a galazan chamber gauge it comes to 3 inches flush with the end of the barrels at the chamber. The forcing cone is 3/4 of an inch long,and then opens a few more thousands gradually for about 7 inches to the bore of .7365.The gun is choked at .043 in right and .044 in left.Sorry for the extremely long post but I think this is quite a unique gun and wanted to share it with the experts on this site.Im hoping this Virus gets under control as I've made some new friends here and hope to get together for some shooting and hunting this year.Thank you,Jeff Sweeter.

[Jeff Sweeter]

It appears I need to get some work done on this gun just to be a safe shooter.

[Jeff Sweeter]

I'm glad the serial numbers match on the frame and barrels so I have something to start with.

[Jeff Sweeter]

I would assume it didn't come with 3 inch chambers either,but being the forcing cones ard short it could be original.When looking in the chambers it doesn't look any different than a few other Parkers I have.Wish this gun could talk.The stock dimensions are 1 3/8 at the comb and 1 13/16 at the heel.God dimensions for a trap gun as it has a high comb.

[Dean Romig]

Where the letter does not mention barrel length I would suggest that Parker No. 133140, the gun that the barrels came from, was the gun that was originally made with those 36" barrels.

No offense but that's a Franken-Parker if I ever saw one - done by both Parker Bros. as well as others after the fact.

Those .043" and .044" chokes should really reach out there, and if they don't.... you can always reach up with those 36" barrels and knock those ducks out of the air.

Dean





.

[Jeff Sweeter]

Thanks for the info Dean.I was planning on going to the Northern shoot this summer in Wis.I was going to bring this gun along and maybe would be someone there that could look it over to see about doing some work to it if needed.Have to play it by ear to see if that happens now.

[Jeff Sweeter]

I see in the Parker ID book serial#133140 is not listed.It skips from #130975 to#133788.Evidently a book or ledger is missing.Im amazed at all the records that are available from back then.I had a good friend that worked at Remington,and he told me of a fire they had in The Green Room where many records and blue prints werd kept.He was employed there at the time.He sure had some interesting stories from there.

[Jeff Sweeter]

Would the barrels have been rest stamped then?I don't see any evidence of that.

[Dave Noreen]

This gun has some type of after-market ejectors. They don't look like C.A. Fisher or Moran & Wolfersberger ejectors that I've seen before. Coming out of the Dakotas Fisher is certainly a suspect though. The forearm Iron appears to be the #2 forearm from 95xx0?

Some time back, someone posted pictures of a 20-gauge CH(E) two-barrel set. The ejectors on the #2 set of barrels look similar to this gun --

82770

[Dean Romig]

Would the barrels have been rest stamped then?I don't see any evidence of that.


When Parker Bros. fitted those barrels to the new frame they would naturally have re-numbered the barrels to the frame.





.

[Jeff Sweeter]

Well,after closer inspection of the serial number on the barrel it looks like I can see a 1 and a 4 under the current number,so these possibly were restamped from another gun.But where do the 32 inch barrels fall into play that were listed with gun # 133140? The gun now weighs 9 lb.2 oz by my scale.I checked my scale with a new 10 lb.bag of bismuth from roto metals and it was right on 10 lbs.

[Matt Buckley]

This is one of the most unusual Parker letters I have seen. I recommend to Jeff to have the experts on the forum take a look and see what they say. Even though it is not factory original it is a hell of a duck gun. If it were mine I would have a nice splinter forearm made for it and and have fun shooting ducks with bismuth in the fall.

[Jeff Sweeter]

So Parker took a new frame,and stock and attacked those barrels and then serial numbered it as a new gun?The guy I bought this gun from said he purchased it from a guy who said his dad belonged to a shooting or hunting club and supposedly the club ordered the gun.I am going to try to track down the person I bought it from and see if I can trace it back.

[Jeff Sweeter]

I do like the way the gun feels with the beaver tail as I have a couple other Parkers with the original splinter forend.But I might see what it will cost to have a new forend and correct iron made or used one fitted,and also might check into a different stock.This stock is pretty high for me for hunting.Ill admit I missed the first few ducks with it till I figured out to aim a little lower.The other Parkers I have all have low combs,which are too low for my preference.

[Jeff Sweeter]

This is me with a double I got with this gun.

[Jeff Sweeter]

A hunting buddy took this of me in my blind with this gun.A little Sunday humor.:rotf:

[Jeff Sweeter]

Didn't think of this earlier,but would gun # 133140 with the 32 inch barrels have been a 2 barrel set and these barrels were sent back to Parker to make it's own complete gun? Or were these barrels added to gun #133140 at a later date and then sent back in to add a complete gun?Any way to tell?

[Thomas L. Benson Sr.]

Jeff: If you think of it you can order a double pin and it will look great with your new patch from Destry. Any chance we can get together this fall over your way for some hunting. I was hoping to see you in Watertown but that got canceled. Thomas

[charlie cleveland]

boy that is some long barrel on that goose gun...looks to be 8 foot long...please tell us more about this long barrel gun...charlie

[todd allen]

Besides the longer sighting radius, 8 ft barrels really smooth out your swing.

[Mike McKinney]

I am probably the least qualified to comment on your post, but I will put my stab in. It would seem to me the letter was composed from only repair orders or books, which says to me this information is all Chuck had to work with. Evidently, the owner supplied the barrels from another gun. From there who knows if the 32” barrels, as stated in the letter, was misspoke or if there was a later barrel ordered that were 36”, but it sounds like the barrels reflect re-stamping at Parker., but others may say not a chance. Some of the other work was probably done independent of Parker, therefore the FrankenParker referral. As hot as long barrels are in today’s world, my opinion is that you’ve either got a great shooter or a gun worth restorations if that is your choice. I believe yours is the first letter I’ve seen that ask Parker to fit a currently owned set of barrels.

[Jeff Sweeter]

Thomas, always ready to do some hunting.Except for last year I'm usually looking out of a window of a combine during a lot of hunting season,but hopefully will get a few chances.Have to keep in touch,hoping this virus gets under control.I was sure planning on going to the Watertown show,plus a couple others that got cancelled.Wait all year for gun show season.We only get so many around here in the winter.

[Jeff Sweeter]

I'm sure Dave collected all the info on this gun that was available to him,and I thank him for that.I am going to make a couple phone calls tomorrow and see if I can trace this gun back hopefully to some relative of the original owner.Im thinking it was lastly set up for shooting trap,as per the stock configuration.And then with the long chambers it probably digested some 3 inch magnums and the original stock cracked and the current one was installed,which has also been pinned.Yep this gun is a mess,but I can't wait to take it hunting again this fall.I got 4 ducks with it the only time I took it out.I used 1 1/4 oz of #5 bismuth that I reloaded for it.A couple of those ducks were pretty high,but they folded like you hit them with a bat.I need to pattern test it some day.

[Dean Romig]

I think before you pattern it you should really measure the barrel wall thickness at the juncture of the chambers and the forcing cones.





.

[Jeff Sweeter]

I've got a barrel wall thickness gauge on order,actually on backorder.I have a good barrel mik but could only get an average using a caliper to measure the outside.No need to shoot it till I can get it measured.

[Jeff Sweeter]

The shell I loaded for it with bismuth came from the hodgdon web site and was the lightest pressure listed with longshot powder.I reload a lot and have for over 40 years and am pretty cautious.I have had quite a few loads tested by Tom Armbrust,especially if I plan on shooting them in a Damascus barrel.

[Bill Murphy]

I few decades ago, at Shenandoah Guns in Berryville, VA, there was a 16 gauge GH with 40" Vulcan Steel barrels. I can't remember whether it was for sale or not. I haven't heard of that gun since, but it is probably in Virginia. This is the store where I bought my A.P. Curtis Parker try gun. They also sold a few neat Parkers from the General Billy Mitchell collection.

[Chuck Bishop]

I wanted to review the records again since there is so much discussion about this gun just in case I missed anything, and I did! I don't usually post pictures from the order book but in this case, and to show how difficult it is to interpret the writing, I'll show the information found in Order Book #90. The first problem is reading this person's name. It's written in pencil not ink and the pencil point was not sharp but the last name can be made out to be Wallace. Now the first name is an abbreviation which could either be "Theo" for Theodore, or "Thos" for Thomas. I chose Theo but it could be Thos. Jeff, you may want to check for Thomas Wallace in you investigation.

As you can see, the order requests to use barrels from S/N 133140. The Order Book for this gun clearly shows it as a VH with 32" Vulcan barrels so that statement in the letter is correct. Where I made the big mistake is when I went to the stock book for 171866, the barrel length is listed as 36". Why I missed this, I don't know but I'm blaming it on the Wuhan Virus! The Order Book for 133140 shows it as 32". I guess the entry in the Order Book could be a mistake or those original barrels were replaced at some time with 36" barrels. We'll never know.

So Jeff, let me know what first name you want used in the letter. I'll also put the length of 36" barrels in the paragraph for the stock book entry.

[Kevin McCormack]

This is very interesting to me - when we copied the Order Books and other Parker bibliographical materials at Remington in Ilion, the pace of work in trying to get everything done was a real crunch. Folding pages over, turning and twisting the books to get a good copy of each page was demanding. Every once in a while, a notation would catch somebody's eye and we would linger a few seconds trying to interpret exactly what it said. Trying to decipher these entries done in the old "Coca Cola" script type of the day essentially amounts to forensic calligraphy interpretation. Great job, Chuck!

[Dean Romig]

Bill, rather than set this thread off on another tangent, will you please start a new thread on your Curtiss try-gun so we can learn why the Curtiss gun differs from others?

I remember your try-gun on your table at the Baltimore show several years ago. I took several pictures of it with my cell phone but they didn’t come out as well as I had hoped but I’ll be happy to post some pics on your new thread.




.

[Randy G Roberts]

Thanks Chuck. I don't know how you read these darned records in the first place. If you were not telling me what they said I would be unable to read 2/3 of the writing.

[Dean Romig]

BTW, it sure looks like Thos to me.





.

[Jeff Sweeter]

Hello Chuck, I have found Henry Wallace had 5 sons one of who's name was Thomas H.That must be the name on the register you have?I'm amazed at the info you are able to figure out from the records you have available to you.Im not sure I understand why you want me to pick a name to put on the letter.When I requested this letter I didn't expect it to be this puzzling.I really appreciate what you have been able to find out.I thought it really odd that a gun like this would end up in S.D.If not for this coronavirus I would run to the Canton Court House and stop in the register of deeds.I have lots of friends and several relatives that live in Canton and am sure in a matter of time I will find out more about this gun.Il do some checking about a Thomas Wallace and see what I can find out.When I walked into the gun show where I bought this I scanned the room and noticed a set of barrels sticking up taller than anything else in the rack and walked directly too it.With all the issues I noticed it had I put it back and went on my way.It didn't take long and I wandered back to see if it was still there.The price was quite high I thought.I must have went back half a dozen times,called a friend of mine Tom Armbrust for advice wondering if I should try to get it bought.Tom happened to be in town visiting and would stop by to help me look the gun over better.I couldn't wait,thinking this might be really rare and struck a deal with the owner.Im glad I did.Ill have to check into getting some work done to it ,maybe some restoration.In the meantime its not going anywhere.

[Jeff Sweeter]

Being new here I'm not familiar will most of you, or your names.Im sure I met a few of you at Pheasant Fest,but am terrible with names.I have been reading articles on this site since I bought my first Parker a few years ago and is a wealth of information to a Parker owner.I hope no one has taken any offense thinking I thought the letter didn't tell me everything about the gun.Im gratefull for getting any info about it and want to thank those of you involved in researching this gun for me.If and when we get this virus under control and any of you get out this way and want to do a little skeet or trap shooting,i have a pallet of targets,plenty of ammo,and if you don't have your gun along I bet I can find one that fits you.

[Matt Buckley]

Jeff,
I think Chuck is going to issues a new letter with the 36" barrels updated in the new letter so that is why he is asking if you want him to change the name to Thomas instead of Theo. It almost has to be Thomas with what information you have found out about the family.

[Jeff Sweeter]

Matt, I made contact finally with the guy I bought it from but he was cautious about giving me the name and number of the guy he bought it from.He did tell me he was from Yankton which is only 50 miles from me,so the gun didn't venture too far from home.I gave the guy my name and number and he was going to contact a mutual friend of ours to see if he had a number for this other guy.So I just have to wait and see.Confusing still.I have to go along with the name Thomas also.The Thomas Wallace name was found in an old book from 1897 that my grandparents had and was kept in the family.

[Destry L. Hoffard]

If you want that gun put back somewhat right I'd send it off to Brian Dudley, he's the only human being on the planet I'd trust with that sort of work.

[Chuck Bishop]

Matt is correct. I will send you a revised letter. I have one more thing to check about the first name. Maybe I'll find out tomorrow.

[Jeff Sweeter]

I did some measuring on the barrels and compared it to another #2 frame Parker just for reference to check average barrel wall thickness near the chamber.This is only an average as I don't have a barrel wall thickness gauge yet.Its on order.These measurements were taken internally with a Digital barrel gauge from Gary Bulley of Center Fire Ranch,and externally by a Starrett digital caliper.The gun I used for comparison has a 32 inch barrel#204+++ with 2 3/4 inch chambers.The difference between the 2 barrel sets are as follows with the 36 inch barrels being heavier.Beginning of the forcing cone was .0215,at 3 1/2 inches. 019,at 4 inches. 0165,at 4 1/2 inches. 012,at 6 inchs.005.This is the average that the barrels are thicker on the 36 inch barrels.Not knowing what average wall thickness should be,here are the average wall measurements on the 36 inch barrels.At the beginning of the forcing cone .216,at 3 1/2 inchs.2555,at 4 inchs .2355,at 4 1/2 inchs .2105,and at 6 inchs .159.These numbers need to be divided by 2 to get an average wall thickness.Can anybody follow my madness with math and tell me if these numbers are acceptable for wall thickness by the chamber.I know this is not true wall thickness,just average.Thanks.

[Jeff Sweeter]

I've read on here that Brian is very talented,and I apologise if I meet you at Pheasant Fest as everyone was new to me there,but look forward to meeting you someday.You can imagine I have lots of questions.I also have a G grade that has Parker steel barrels that the stock doesn't fit me at all,and would like to get that fixed someday.That gun is all original and not a mess like this one.

[Dean Romig]

I've read on here that Brian is very talented,and I apologise if I meet you at Pheasant Fest as everyone was new to me there,but look forward to meeting you someday.You can imagine I have lots of questions.I also have a G grade that has Parker steel barrels that the stock doesn't fit me at all,and would like to get that fixed someday.That gun is all original and not a mess like this one.


If your G grade really does have Parker Steel barrels it has the wrong barrels. Parker Steel barrels were for a Grade 1 or PH and the Parker Special Steel barrels were for the Grade 2 or GH guns.





.

[Dean Romig]

I did some measuring on the barrels and compared it to another #2 frame Parker just for reference to check average barrel wall thickness near the chamber.This is only an average as I don't have a barrel wall thickness gauge yet.Its on order.These measurements were taken internally with a Digital barrel gauge from Gary Bulley of Center Fire Ranch,and externally by a Starrett digital caliper.The gun I used for comparison has a 32 inch barrel#204+++ with 2 3/4 inch chambers.The difference between the 2 barrel sets are as follows with the 36 inch barrels being heavier.Beginning of the forcing cone was .0215,at 3 1/2 inches. 019,at 4 inches. 0165,at 4 1/2 inches. 012,at 6 inchs.005.This is the average that the barrels are thicker on the 36 inch barrels.Not knowing what average wall thickness should be,here are the average wall measurements on the 36 inch barrels.At the beginning of the forcing cone .216,at 3 1/2 inchs.2555,at 4 inchs .2355,at 4 1/2 inchs .2105,and at 6 inchs .159.These numbers need to be divided by 2 to get an average wall thickness.Can anybody follow my madness with math and tell me if these numbers are acceptable for wall thickness by the chamber.I know this is not true wall thickness,just average.Thanks.


NO.... those numbers are not acceptable.

You need to take precise measurements with a good wall thickness gauge - no other method will give you the precise readings you need in order to know your gun is safe to continue shooting it.





.

[Jeff Sweeter]

Yep I realize this Dean.I just did it for comparison to another #2 frame gun just to see if the numbers were way different.It can sit till I get my wall thickness gauge.In comparison to the other gun the chambed part of the barrels is a little stouter.Can you tell me what the safe wall measurements should be so when I get my gauge I know what to go by.

[Jeff Sweeter]

The gun is a GH.Now I'm not sure of anything anymore.I can post a photo if necessary.I actually got a double with this gun last fall also with a pair of roosters my labs jumped up in a food plot I had.Who would I contact to request a double pin?

[Mike Poindexter]

Appears to me you're one decimal place off on the 32's. Should be .215, or two hundred and fifteen thousandths, not .0215, or twenty one and a half thousandths. The 36's seem more in line with reality. Taking one-half of those numbers would give you a calculated wall thickness near the end of the cone of about .108 or one hundred and eight thousandths. That is not an unreasonable thickness in my experience, tapering to .060 at 6 inches and .045 at 9. Others probably have other pet numbers, but those are the ones I'm most comfortable with as minimums. I will confess I have shot one 16 gauge quite a bit that mics at .072/.085 MWT at the end of the factory 2 1/2 inch chambers, but it has Vulcan steel barrels and I only shoot RST low pressure loads in it. You've got to decide for yourself what your minimums are.

[Joe Dreisch]

http://parkerguns.org/forums/showthread.php?t=20184

Please carefully read all information in this thread to include all links in Dr. Drew Hause post 14 for a better understanding of this business of barrel thickness and safety.

[Jeff Sweeter]

Thanks Mike, my bad math,wrote it down wrong.Should have been .215.Comparing this gun with 2 others I have,it is a little stouter in the chamber area externally,and seems to have a little more --average - wall thickness.I still want to be sure there aren't any thin spots with this being 3 inch chambers.I have seen some pictures of guns that have been opened up and the cutter was not centered and the barrel wall getting really thin and blowing or bulging.I never plan on shooting a 3 inch shell in it but I'll bet is has seen quite a few with the stock being replaced and the current one being pinned.Doughting but not knowing if this was factory,any idea what would be standard wall thickness on a factory 3 inch gun.Would they have come ina #2 frame,or would they have been built on a #3.Unfamiliar territory for me.I do like hunting with the old doubles.If I need to shoot big shells I have a couple newer tens I can grab.

[charlie cleveland]

good luck with your measuring i hope your barrels turn out ok...love those long barrels....charlie

[Dean Weber]

Jeff,
I would be glad to measure the barrel wall thickness for you. I am not venturing far from Sioux Falls these days but we said we were gonna shoot skeet sometime soon so let's get it done.

Best,
Dean

[Dave Noreen]

At the time this gun was made, our North American ammunition manufacturers were not providing heavier 12-gauge loads in the longer 2 7/8 inch and 3-inch shells than could be had in a 2 3/4 inch shell -- 3 1/2 drams of bulk smokeless powder or 28 grains of dense smokeless powder such as Infallible or Ballistite pushing 1 1/4 ounces of shot.

82822

What the longer shells offered was more/better wading.

82823

and some of the long shells didn't even have the stoutest loads --

82821

[Jeff Sweeter]

Dean, been thinking about you.I remember you saying you had a good wall thickness gauge.If it weren't for this virus going on I would have called you.I figured you might be swamped with your job.Ive been laying low mostly,maybe being plenty cautious but I don't want to get sick this time of year.I have too many things to get ready for field work,which is hopefully a couple weeks away.Sounds like it's supposed to get cold again for a while.Ill see how things go and maybe contact you later in the week,Jeff.

[Jeff Sweeter]

Thanks for the info Joe.

[Jeff Sweeter]

The little I have shot this gun has been with some 1 oz light trap loads and 1 1/4 oz bismuth 5s that I reloaded.I used the first load in the chart on hodgdon web site with a new cheddite hull at 7700 psi.I figured that should be mild enough,and they worked great.Maybe I can get together with Dean and get the walls measured correctly to see if its plenty safe to shoot.I think the place I ordered my gauge from might be temporarily closed.I was informed they were on back order.Thanks to everyone who has offered information about this gun.

[Jeff Sweeter]

I found out a little more info possibly about this gun.My wife works for a printing company in Sioux Falls S.D. and prints the brosheurs for the Crooks Gun Club.Anyway she has a file on hand for the S.D trapshooters and found that in 1929,an A. Wallace from Canton S.D. was the 16 yard winner with a 193.Thomas Wallace,who we think first had this gun had a brother named Albert.I will have to see if there is any more info from the ATA.I found this interesting,just thought I would share it.

[Dean Romig]

I wonder if LA84 Foundation would have anything on him...





.