Pics of my first Parker

[Scott Truitt]

Parker Nation,

Received my GH last week. According to the Parker Gun Markings and Serialization book everything appears as it left the factory except the recoil pad. I have sent in my request for the Parker Letter. I currently have it completely disassembled and all the numbers match except it was missing the safety jacket/lever and pin. However Larry Del Grego has those safety parts heading my way.

I know you do not have the gun in hand but do the pictures represent the original type of finish for the metal and wood? If so would it best to leave it as original except for a thorough cleaning? What methods would be used to clean or enhance the shotgun without care to originality? Any ballpark year for the make/style of recoil pad?

Thank you in advanced.

Best Regards,

Scott

[Dean Romig]

The buttstock has been re-checkered and checkered cheek panels were not a standard feature on a Grade 2. The wood has had a more recent finish put over it and a recoil pad may have been original to the gun, but not that one. I make these statements because of the wear on the forend and we would expect to see the same wear on the buttstock.

The screws however, are all very nice though the ones in the floor plate may not be in their correct screw holes.

All in all, it appears to be a very decent example of a Grade 2.





.

[Richard Flanders]

Looks like a good project gun that will dress up pretty nicely if redone some. Redo the barrels and I bet they're gorgeous. Wood looks excellent; just needs sprucing up and the forend recheckered. I bet this would be a beauty if restored.

[Brian Dudley]

What is the year of manufacture on this gun? Is it 1904 (as suggested in your other post in the new members section)?
I will give my thoughts after I know that tidbit of information.

[Scott Truitt]

Brian- 1904 is correct by the serial number lookup. I know you have a level of expertise so was there something obvious you noticed about the stock being rechecked?

[Scott Truitt]

Ok so I now see the wear difference in the checkering.

[Brian Dudley]

Ok. Thank you for confirming.

Generally speaking it is not uncommon for a forend to have a good deal more wear than the grip when it comes to checkering and finish as well. But in this case the difference is too great.

The case with your gun is that the buttstock is a replacement. But... it is a factory replacement. From maybe the mid to late 1920s or ‘30s. Yes, evident by the newer appearance of the checkering. But also by the checkering pattern itself. The rounded bottom of the grip pattern was used during that later period. Also the style of the comb and the rest of the grip is of that later period. I have seen a number of guns like this in the past. Usually on these you will also find a large “R” stamped under the trigger guard bow along with the serial and grade stamps. But that is not a guarantee, just an observation I have seen on many of these types of guns with factory replaced stocks. And if it has the “dog bone” reinforcement in the front of the head, the. It would be from the Remington era. The PGCA letter may or may not mention the return for repair. It depends on if there are records or not.

Now, the cheek checkering MAY be “original” to that factory replacement stock. It is in the right style for factory checkered cheeks. And it is in line with looking of the same age as the wrist checkering. But, without records confirming that it was a special request on the replacement stock, it will always be suspect. And it would be a special order request. Plenty of other examples of this have been seen on other guns and supported by letters.

Now, the finish on the stock and the forend have certainly been added to over the years and the whole gun has seen a good amount of use. But with some cleanup it could be made to be more presentable.

I personally always like these guns with factory replacement stocks, I used to own one very much like it. It means an old gun that has newer wood that would be much more sound and strong since it has less use on it. And it is still factory work.

[Andrew Sacco]

No matter how much I read and try to learn, I feel like a puppy when I see how quickly others notice little details. I'm still looking for the "wrong screw holes in the floor plate..."

[Randy G Roberts]

No matter how much I read and try to learn, I feel like a puppy when I see how quickly others notice little details. I'm still looking for the "wrong screw holes in the floor plate..."

Andy the screw holes themselves are not wrong. The screws in the floor plate however may be in the wrong hole. Each of those screws is specific to its own hole. When they are put into the wrong hole the timing and or the seating of the screw may be incorrect as evidenced in the picture. By simply swapping the screws out and replacing them in the other hole it may clear that up.

[Andrew Sacco]

Randy thank you that explains a lot since I’ve seen many times references to screws not aligning properly. I assumed they were just not lined up by tightening properly because of a lazy gunsmith. Again I learn every day and thank you.

[Richard Flanders]

And, of course, it's good that none of us here have ever put the wrong screw in the wrong hole, eh? :rolleyes:

[Randy G Roberts]

Andy that could actually be the case here as both of those screws have migrated slightly to the left indicating that they are loose. They just may need to be tightened, but on the other hand they could also be in the wrong holes. I am speaking of the two most forward screws on the floor plate and not of the rear screw nearest the trigger bow.

[Andrew Sacco]

Andy that could actually be the case here as both of those screws have migrated slightly to the left indicating that they are loose. They just may need to be tightened, but on the other hand they could also be in the wrong holes. I am speaking of the two most forward screws on the floor plate and not of the rear screw nearest the trigger bow.

Looking at it makes sense and I at least gathered that much. Yeeehahhha!!!

[Brian Dudley]

The screws are marked from the factory on the undersides to indicate what holes they go into. If they are in the right holes and still do not quality (for Kevin) they can be shimmed under the head to bring them back to where they belong.

[Andrew Sacco]

All I have to say is holy crap never knew that

[Brian Dudley]

All I have to say is holy crap never knew that

Yeah. When looking at the bottom. Left screw is blank. Right screw has a “-“ and the back screw has a “+”. Except earlier guns (up to maybe 1920-ish) have a long back screw, so not mark is needed.

[Andrew Sacco]

Wow and I’m faster than Dean Romig now eh?

[jefferyconnor]

Great old gun! Regarding the Hawkins heart pads, I like the looks and functionality of them. They seem to stay soft and functional equal to Winchester pads of similar age on old guns. Most of the other brand pads seem to have gone bad by the time I get them.

I personally almost never have guns refinished. The one exception I make for my policy is Damascus/twist/laminated steel barrels. Somehow, having those redone doesn't seem to unbalance the appearance of older, somewhat worn guns. One rewarding aspect of owning a Damascus gun is admiring the pattern and wondering how the heck they made them that way. You could search or look under the Damascus section for examples of refinished barrels. The intense contrast of freshly refinished Damascus/twist/laminated barrels might be worth it for a gun like yours. Breck Gorman refinishes Damascus barrels, is a member here, and there are many examples with pictures of how your barrels could turn out.

[Harold Lee Pickens]

Nice gun, I agree with jeffery c, the only thing I would do is perhaps refinish those barrels.
No hurry on that, shoot it for a season, make sure you like it.

[Scott Truitt]

I've read many discussions pertaining to Damascus barrels and this chamber measures 2-3/4" Galazan chamber gauge so if mine were inspected and measured within the specs by a competent individual would AA 1-1/8oz 1145 fps loads be ok to shoot with?

Additionally in 1904 when this gun was made was this individual gun proofed at a certain percentage over theoretical working pressure or an industry standard for shotguns? Were proof pressures different for certain Parker Guns by grades or barrel types i.e. Damascus, Twist, Stub Twist? Would they have take into account smokeless powder and would 1904 smokeless powder be much different from today standard 1-1/8oz loads?

I know this is very inquisitive post but I try to learn and get immersed into things I find interesting.

Many thanks for all your input and how do you use the thank you function that is seen under individuals post?

Scott

[Alfred Greeson]

Andy, thanks for asking those questions that many of us don't know either but hate to admit it and ask. Parkers are a good sickness, nothin like em.

[John Dallas]

For thank you's, look at the bottom right of a post - there is a "Thumbs Up". Press on that.

[Scott Truitt]

Thanks Big D

[William Davis]

Won’t comment on could you shoot 1 1/8 oz but will say lot of Parker members use 7/8 oz loads for targets. If chokes are original odds are they are very tight & light shot loads give more than adequate shot density. Advantage is light recoil, significant advantage 100 plus shot round of sporting clays. I do load some 1 oz for birds when few shells will be fired.

Very nice gun

William