Double Barrel (External Hammers), 10 Gauge, Serial #35318

[Joseph Borin]

Hi...I inherited this gun from my dad. Trying to figure out what I have. I just registered and will figure out how to post pics. Any help would be appreciated - i.e., what to look for, what pics would be most relevant, etc. Thank you.

[Joseph Borin]

Hi...I have a couple of pics from phone I sent to email and downloaded on computer. Having trouble finding the URL link (opened properties and just see a folder, no URL address I could copy and paste) or simply pasting the pics into a message. Any help would be welcomed. One gentleman offered and I replied to him. thanks

[edgarspencer]

Below the dialog box, find "Manage Attachments", click that, then "Browse", select the photo from your download file, click it, then click "upload".

[Joseph Borin]

Hi...quick update. I had a gunsmith inspect the gun and here are the results:

Serial #35318
Grade: F
Gauge: 10
Back Action
Straight grip type
Splinter forend type
Checkered butt type
Barrel steel is Damascus
Barrel length is 32"

Should I send a history letter request to Chuck Bishop to ascertain the origin?

I will have it back in a week or so (vacations) and take pics to post. Thanks

[Joseph Borin]

Here are a few pics...

[Bill Murphy]

Joining PGCA will result in a savings on your letter that will almost pay for your annual membership. A gun of your grade is not likely to have been ordered by an individual, but the location of the retailer may be of some interest. The annual membership will get you four issues of our glossy magazine, which you will love.

[Joseph Borin]

Joining PGCA will result in a savings on your letter that will almost pay for your annual membership. A gun of your grade is not likely to have been ordered by an individual, but the location of the retailer may be of some interest. The annual membership will get you four issues of our glossy magazine, which you will love.

Would it be possible to have a letter produced, based on the specs listed above, and I can Venmo/PayPal Chuck or whoever else would be creating it? I'm cool with joining the PGCA community since I may have a few more Parkers - will find out when I go to the storage unit in a few weeks. thanks

[edgarspencer]

A PGCA research letter will not authenticate the gun as you have described it, but will only list the configuration in which it was made. Because of the low grade, it most likely will not state the butt treatment, but it likely was made with a plain steel butt plate, and quite unlikely would it have had a checkered butt. Additionally, the gun is not a back action. The term 'Back Action' refers to the location of the hammer spring Behind the Axle. Your gun is much later than back action locks.

[Joseph Borin]

A PGCA research letter will not authenticate the gun as you have described it, but will only list the configuration in which it was made. Because of the low grade, it most likely will not state the butt treatment, but it likely was made with a plain steel butt plate, and quite unlikely would it have had a checkered butt. Additionally, the gun is not a back action. The term 'Back Action' refers to the location of the hammer spring Behind the Axle. Your gun is much later than back action locks.

I thought all original parts and an F grade is better than a refurbished B grade, no? Also, the gun smith identified back action. Were there some around that time (1883) that were? Appreciate the comments and edification. I know nothing about these guns and would be willing to sell reasonably.

I also have a Colteer .22 LR tube loader.

I'm not a gun expert in the least and am just reacting to what my dad has passed down. thanks

[edgarspencer]

I thought all original parts and an F grade is better than a refurbished B grade, no? Also, the gun smith identified back action. Were there some around that time (1883) that were? Appreciate the comments and edification. I know nothing about these guns and would be willing to sell reasonably.

Your gunsmith meant well, but he got a lot of it wrong. It is Not a back action. "F" is not a grade, but a 'Quality Level' (E,F,G & H) within Grade Two guns, specifically designating 10ga., Straight Stock. (E was a Pistol Grip 10ga, G & H were 12ga)
All of that aside, It isn't a quality level F anyway, as the gun is not a grade 2. from the limited views in your pictures, it's hard to say for certain, but it does appear to be a Grade 0, or possibly a Grade 1 (lack of any engraving suggests it's a Grade 0.

Did your gunsmith say anything about it being off face? Appears to be, and for that alone, I would suggest not shooting it. Also, the right hammer appears to have been repaired.

[Joseph Borin]

Your gunsmith meant well, but he got a lot of it wrong. It is Not a back action. "F" is not a grade, but a 'Quality Level' (E,F,G & H) within Grade Two guns, specifically designating 10ga., Straight Stock. (E was a Pistol Grip 10ga, G & H were 12ga)
All of that aside, It isn't a quality level F anyway, as the gun is not a grade 2. from the limited views in your pictures, it's hard to say for certain, but it does appear to be a Grade 0, or possibly a Grade 1 (lack of any engraving suggests it's a Grade 0.

Did your gunsmith say anything about it being off face? Appears to be, and for that alone, I would suggest not shooting it. Also, the right hammer appears to have been repaired.

Hi...I've come to realize that Parker Brothers experts are a niche community and maybe most GS aren't versed in this world. That said...I'd be willing to bring it to a Parker Brothers aficionado to confirm exactly what I have. It has not been shot in over 30 years or more, and no plans to do so.

I will post more pics and details when I get it back. I assume water board is important. I appreciate this dialogue. Again, I have little clue what I have but am learning. Thank you, Edgar.

[Arthur Shaffer]

I checked the serialization book and it had no record of your gun. This was common for the O grade guns. They were for some reason excluded from the data (not all guns have existing data anyway). I checked as to factory records (see the home page) and there does appear to be some sort of records available for your gun, so I too would advise obtaining a factory record.

You asked about the back action dates and they were pretty much pre-1874. I own one and there is no mistaking them; thay look nothing like the later locks. Yours is not. It is also, as Edgar stated. likely a 0 grade. From appearances it has seen a long hard life. One thing not mentioned is the barrel steel. At this date it would be either Damascus or Twist of some form (possibly Laminated). The barrel rib extension should designate the type of steel.

You haven't asked about value but are talking around the point. Heirloom guns often have a draw to the family but the marketplace doesn't pay attention to that. If the gun you have is on face and the inside of the barrels are not severely pitted, my opinion is thatvit would likely sell for something under $1000. If it is loose and/or the barrels are pitted, it would be a sold as essentially a decorator piece. You need to be realistic if you decide to part with it.

[Cory Rams]

That looks exactly like my 1873’ Charles Daly. Looks like a plain Jane non fancy side plate design. All I have is an outline going around my side plates and it says Charles daily on each side. I also have “flash pans” (is what I think they are called) below my firing pin strikers on each side, which it doesn’t look like you have on yours. The members here narrowed down the year of my gun here years ago due the release lever on the fore end. The only numbers I remember have on mine is the number 65…if I remember. I have to pull it out of the safe and look again. Maybe I do have another number like yours. I just don’t remember. There is the number 65 on a few of my parts. One of my hammers was missing and the other one was broke and brazed back together. I ended up buying a pair of replacement hammers from Dixie gun Works and had them installed. So not original hammers but the rest is all original. The original hammers had a rounded off. Yours have a flat finish on the front so they’re a little different than mine. Restored it myself accept for the hammer install. The plans were to made it a shooter. It’s Nothing fancy, just an every day shooter. It is what my plan was since day 1 because it wasn’t a fancy engraved firearm (an entry level gun) that would probably never be worth an arm and a leg. Imo the shape your gun is in it’s going to be of more value to someone just to hang on the wall then restore and shoot it unfortunately.

https://i.imgur.com/3nUGZ4O.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/OpqDWWL.jpg

My barrel to action fit wasn’t as tight as I wanted it to be so I shimmed it with some aluminum barstock. It locks up pretty tight now. Like above if you don’t know what you’re doing it’s not hard but take it to somebody that does.

BTW I bought mine at a rummage sale in the late 90s/early 00’s for 45 bucks…lol. When they’re in rough shape like yours and mine “was” before being restored, imo they still don’t bring a lot of money today that I’ve seen. Most people seem to buy them to hang on the wall for a conversation piece and not shoot unlike the selected individuals here. Unless you stick it on GunBroker and more than one person wants it…you might get lucky and get a bidding war. If you’re trying to get interest here which it sounds like you are to sell it I’m sure somebody would probably be interested to buy it but in the condition it’s in. I don’t think it’s gonna bring a lot. Imo can’t do the work yourself. It’ll probably cost you more to restore it than what the gun is worth. Either way it looks like a nice gun and a nice project for somebody, or if it’s sentimental value, I would just hang it on your wall if you don’t have the ability to repair or restore it yourself.

[Cory Rams]

Here is a link to mine on another forum asking for help with the year and ID…

https://i.imgur.com/FNM585N.jpg

I did have numbers matching…it’s the number “396”. The only way someone could try and ID the year was the fore end release which is pictured there for the 1873 model.

Mine has a 1873’ patented Deeley forend fastener. Look like yours does as well.

Just gotta give them a little bit of love. I found this old picture from a few years ago after I restored the wood.

https://i.imgur.com/a4GZQiW.jpeg

[Cory Rams]

Here’s the picture I copy and pasted from double guns that helped me out showing mine and your Deeley style fore end lever patten was in 1873 for the Deeley I was told.

https://i.imgur.com/4ApuBrZ.jpeg

It’s been a while or I should say a few years since I’ve messed with that gun probably a good three or more. If I remember right, I didn’t shim it with a piece of metal. I just stuck a piece of duct tape where I have a circled. It locks up super tight when doing so eventually I’ll have to shim it. I think in aluminum shim that I had which I tried from a pop can was too thick. Don’t remember maybe I did stick an aluminum shim in there. It’s been a while. I’ll have to look. Just depends on how loose Andy even your mating surfaces are. I remember Larry Potterfield has a video up on YouTube about it.

https://i.imgur.com/b9QU8xV.jpg

I’m gonna load up some shells for it later today. Going to add a plastic shot cup and some buffer to my proven 100 grains of Fg and 1 1 5/8 oz of shot turkey load to see if I can tighten up my shot pattern. It recoils like a 20 gauge/light 12 gauge trap loads with the load the way it is now so I have ZERO worries about modifying the load with buffer and a shot cup. If I don’t get good enough patterns, I will probably add one and 7/8 oz shot to my load. Imo I’m WAY under pressured vs some of the modern smokeless loads listed in the sticky here for Damascus. I’ve tried up to a square load with 1 5/8 oz of shot with 130 grains of FG. I’m sure a 100 grains with a 1 7/8 oz (or even 2 oz of shot for that matter…i don’t plan on trying a 2oz load) will be less recoil and less pressure vs the 116 grains of fg powder and 1 5/8 oz of shot square load. If my patterns look promising I’ll even down load with 90 and 95 grains of FG to see if I can tighten up my pattern even more. I’m just not impressed with any loads I’ve tried so far that I’ve tried out of it yet because the pattern spread out so much.