10 ga. from the closet

[Gary Cripps]

Picked this up last Friday. 10ga., D grade, 32" bbls., tight clean, shiney bores. It has spent at least the last 35 years in the closet.
Now the question; The fore arm is way worn compared to the stock and butt and it does not have a ser.#. Is it off another gun? Other observations and comments welcome. The ser# is 70835 and I have requested a letter.
Thanks, Gary Cripps

[Tom Roller]

I can't answer your question - BUT WOW! What a gun!

[Theodore LeDurt]

Great find! That is a dandy.

Gives a whole new definition to "coming out of the closet".:whistle:

[Dean Romig]

Exactly what is it that doesn't have a serial number?

I have two guesses...

1. The forend might not be original to the gun.

2. It has been restocked.

[Bruce Day]

Forend wood is often more open grained than buttstock wood and tends to wear faster. I do not think that the forend wood wear is clearly inconsistant with the rest of the gun. The forend wood is checkered correctly for the D grade of the gun.

The standing breech face and the barrel breech end show little wear. The barrel end still shows broaching lines, which wear fairly quickly. The gun went back to Parker for installation of the 1910 patent bolt plate on the barrel lug and matching bolt in the action.

Normally, the forend iron on its upper external side is stamped with the SN. You can easily take out the screws holding the forend iron to the wood and check for the SN on hidden areas of the wood and iron. Should be there.

A nice gun, not butchered or altered that I can see.

I am not an expert on Parkers and others may have different views .

[Dave Suponski]

I have seen many Parkers with forends that showed much more wear than the rest of the gun. Many hunters used the forend to hold down barbed wire fences,push branches out of the way etc.

[Dean Romig]

Oddly, I can't see a serial number on the water table... is it there and I'm just losing my eyesight?

[Chris Travinski]

Looks like a nice magnum set of barrels! The wear depends on how the gun was carried. When I'm carrying a gun alot I always hold onto the wood, because in my opinion the wood finish is easier to repair and replicate than original case colors and barrel blue. Looks like a great find.

[Dave Noreen]

I'd bet this gun was back to the factory for a new stock at some point in time. The shape/profile of the grip smacks of a later Parker Bros. gun.

[Pat Dugan]

Unless the pictures are airbrushed, there appears to be no serial numbers anywhere.

PDD

[David Long]

Very Nice

[Dean Romig]

I agree completely with Researcher. The checkering pattern and drop points are not of the early 1890's Parker Bros. style and are likely from the Remington period.

[Pete Lester]

Thou shall not covet........thou shall not covet...... It's not working, I want it :)

[David Holes]

I have a 1897 DH with very simular wood. Before purchase stock looked like Remington replacement. I inquired about number on wood but seller wouldn't let me dissamble trigger guard to see. Took chance and found a big R with serial number on the stock. Figured this to mean it was replaced by Remington much later in guns life.

[calvin humburg]

I agree with Pete. SSBP and fishtail workes for me 2 frame?

[Jay Gardner]

I have seen a number of Parkers from that same time period that showed similar wear on the forend and I think it's pretty typical of a Parker that has been used for decades. It's good honest wear on a gun that's over 115 years old. One thing that I think may contribute to the wear is if the owner was a married man with a wedding ring.

My big 10 is almost identical although it does not have a fishtail lever. It's remarkable how well the gun handles in spite of the weight. They really are great guns.

[Bruce Day]

Photos:

4. Mr Cripps' 70xxx D.

1. Two Parkers I have closest in year date to the Cripps Parker. The top is CH 65,557, repaired crack visible in wrist and gouge line visible on cheek. Bottom is DHE 157,539, a half PG.

2. CH 65,557 showing stock and checkering.

3. DHE 157,539 showing stock and checkering.


Perhaps someone could point out to me how the Cripps gun is inconsistant with the stock and checkering of the other two and looks like a Remington stock. I appreciate the best comparision would be to show another 1893 D, but these are the closest I have. If somebody has a mid 1890's D with PG, that would be the best comparable.

[Jay Gardner]

This is the best I could come up with. From top to bottom 10/32 DH (71k), 12/30 DH (56K?), 16/28 DH (74k?). I'm not where I can check the serial numbers. Also, there is an active thread on this BBS involving a 12 DH of similar vintage.

http://i115.photobucket.com/albums/n308/Doublegun_2006/P9110005.jpg

[Bruce Day]

Jay, yes those are closer than mine. Nice guns by the way. And yes the Shear gun is better also for being on the year date.

You don't shoot those old Damascus guns, do you?

So I still don't see where the Cripps gun, by just looking at it, says Remington. Am I missing something?

[Jay Gardner]

Thanks, Bruce. I just wish I had a comparable 20 to complete the picture.:whistle:

[Gary Cripps]

A very big thank you to one and all for your compliments and thoughtful discussion and great pictures of other beautiful guns.

I turned the trigger guard. The ser # is stamped deeply also there is an "R" stamped sideways next to it.

Gary Cripps

[Dean Romig]

So I still don't see where the Cripps gun, by just looking at it, says Remington. Am I missing something?


I think you are Bruce. It's in the shape of the point and in the coverage of the checkering. You even show what it should look like and the difference is quite obvious.

For one thing - note that the checkered area of the grip curls back in under the trigger guard tang and comes much closer to the pistol grip cap. There are other, more subtle, differences too.

Setterman's pictures show the difference even better.

[Bruce Day]

Well I guess you and Dave Noreen are right and I am wrong, but its the Cripps new photos showing the R that are determinative to me.

I haven't seen all the guns from the 1890's but I have seen variances in checkering and drop points within the same grade. I don't have enough photos to illustrate my point but I have a bunch of drop point guns and no two are exactly the same.

We ran into some of the same issues a while back where somebody was claiming that the thumb groove is never angled downwardly on the older Parkers, and I posted photos of the John Browning gun and a top lever hammer gun that had those features. To me , its always best to just pull the TG, but you are dead on correct here.

[Ed Blake]

I have a GH from 1899 with a stamp under the trigger guard with the "R". I had always assumed the stock was a Remington replacement.

[Dean Romig]

Bruce, I too, have seen 'exceptions to the rule' but not so many all on the same stock.


This is the best way I can describe the shape of the points.

Parker Bros. points are more "ovate" while the later Remington points are more "rhomboidal"



.

[Eric Eis]

Thanks, Bruce. I just wish I had a comparable 20 to complete the picture.:whistle:

Forget it Jay you are not getting mine....:rolleyes: Did I tell you it was originally a 16ga sent back to Parker for the 20 ga barrels (yes I have the 16 ga barrels too:) ) Sorry Jay couldn't resist.:corn: Eric

[Leighton Stallones]

I agree with Chris T. The gun was carried by the wood on the foreend a lot more than the right hand gripped it to shoot at something. Pushing fences down, getting out of a wagon with it etc would wear the foreend down faster. I have seen it on several of mine.

[Jay Gardner]

Forget it Jay you are not getting mine....:rolleyes: Did I tell you it was originally a 16ga sent back to Parker for the 20 ga barrels (yes I have the 16 ga barrels too:) ) Sorry Jay couldn't resist.:corn: Eric

Damn Eric, you're a cold hartless bast**d!:cuss::cuss::cuss:

At least you could thank me for that beautiful 10ga in your collection!:cuss::cuss::cuss:

[Dave Suponski]

This is a great discussion. But just to interject a few thoughts here. These guns were machine made and hand finished. We know there were templates for drop points and such. Stocks were turned from blanks from a master etc.But they were hand finished guns and with that there has to be some "artistic license". Suppose the checkerer overran a couple of lines..change the pattern slightly..all fixed. Suppose a drop point chipped...fix it. Suppose the nose of the comb didn't come out quite right...make it a little different. These great craftsman were human after all and to think that errors were not made means we are putting these people on another plane. I would think that the final inspector would have the final say whether the gun went into the finished rack or went back for rework. After all we are talking about frugal Yankees here and these guns were not machine made 870's.

I'm not implying this is what happened but I thought it would be worth some thought.

[Eric Eis]

Damn Eric, you're a cold hartless bast**d!:cuss::cuss::cuss:

At least you could thank me for that beautiful 10ga in your collection!:cuss::cuss::cuss:

:):):):)

And yes Thank you Jay for the 10 ga contact information... That I do mean. Eric

[Eric Eis]

This is a great discussion. But just to interject a few thoughts here. These guns were machine made and hand finished. We know there were templates for drop points and such. Stocks were turned from blanks from a master etc.But they were hand finished guns and with that there has to be some "artistic license". Suppose the checkerer overran a couple of lines..change the pattern slightly..all fixed. Suppose a drop point chipped...fix it. Suppose the nose of the comb didn't come out quite right...make it a little different. These great craftsman were human after all and to think that errors were not made means we are putting these people on another plane. I would think that the final inspector would have the final say whether the gun went into the finished rack or went back for rework. After all we are talking about frugal Yankees here and these guns were not machine made 870's.

I'm not implying this is what happened but I thought it would be worth some thought.

I have to agree with you Dave and as we know Mr. Parker was about as frugal as they come. Eric

[Bruce Day]

Or how about this on CHE ( Ber) 136,503? Not your standard C stock checkering and comb nose but it numbers and letters. Except for the checkered cheeks, its correct for a D but not a C.

And the drop points are more rhomboidal than oblate. Guess I'd say more diamond than rounded.

[John Mazza]

My layman's ignorance may show with this comment, but (regarding the pictures on page 1 of this post) isn't it unusual for un-cut barrels to not touch each other at the muzzle ?

[Dean Romig]

From what I can see, they're touching. That yellow stuff is preventing us from seeing the full thickness of the barrel walls as they touch.

[John Mazza]

Agreed - I should have put my glasses on & looked more carefully.

[Mike Shepherd]

John thanks for asking the question. I thought the same thing you did and I had my glasses on.

Best,

Mike

[Dave Noreen]

Some of us were "trained observers" in our professional life.

[Dave Suponski]

:rolleyes: ;)

[Austin W Hogan]

I have a little gouge the was my great grandfather's. He was a very skilled cabinet and furniture maker (1830 -1896). A little gouge like that would fit the curves of C and D drop points almost perfectly.
I think the drop points were made with 4 cuts of a gouge on each side.

The groove and point of the comb were also hand cut and finished to provide thumb clearance after setting the stock dimensions. They are not precision machine cuts like the inletting.

Best, Austin

[Mike Shepherd]

Some of us were "trained observers" in our professional life.

Well I have to say that you and Dave always see things I don't see until you point them out. And by nature I am a "See the forest but not the trees" kinda guy, which has been a very expensive trait over the years.

Best,

Mike

[Dean Romig]

More examples.

The upper stock is a Parker Bros CHE with the "ovate" style of point and is also the upper picture of the individual photos.

The lower stock is a DHE Reproduction which copied exactly the original Remington Parkers sent to be 'reproduced' in Japan and display the "rhomboidal" style of point common to most late Remington Parkers.




.

[Austin W Hogan]

I won't make a firm conclusion based on examining a picture , but it appears to me that, after losing most of the Meriden Checkers in the move to Ilion, the radius leading to the drop point was still cut with a gouge, but the point was cut with a straight chisel.
The little flat below the drop point in the reproduction looks like it was by a router cut.

Best, Austin

[Greg Baehman]

Dean, has the Repro stock been refinished?

[Dean Romig]

Greg, I don't believe it has been refinished but when I bought the gun it had seen quite a bit of use so the glossy finish may appear somewhat softer.... I can't really even say if it may have a very nice oil finish.

Austin, I agree with your opinion of how the Meriden and Ilion points were cut.

[CraigThompson]

I've wanted a 10 gauge Parker for several years now !

And seeing so many nice ones here has only made it worse !