Dolls Head/Rib Extension Fit?

[Jeremy Toeper]

Does the fit of the Dolls Head matter much for Parkers? Pictures below show a wide variation in the fit/contact with the frame recess. Did they come from the factory like this? Or is it use, abuse, or gunplumbers? Is it something you look at when making a purchase? The last picture seems correct. While the second picture is an AAHE.

131525

131526

131527

131528

[Reggie Bishop]

The last picture is how I like them to fit on Parkers I own. When "worn" guns are re-finished and "tightened up" it often creates improper fitment of the dolls head.

[edgarspencer]

The first picture is so magnified, if it is the original fit, it's made to appear worse, but it could easily be as it was when it left the factory. The last one is how an original gun should look, regardless how many shots have gone downrange. The middle two pictures, again over magnified, appear as though they may be replacement barrels.

[Stan Hillis]

Keep in mind, too, that the "fit" you're seeing is only at the top. You cannot see how much better it may be fitting at the bottom. Only smoking will really tell the tale.

[Dean Romig]

I agree with Edgar with the exception of the middle two, to me, indicate the barrels have been tightened to the frame.
My 1898 DH came back from Russ Bickel looking somewhat like the middle two, though not quite as wide a gap, after he tightened my Titanic barrels. When I sent the gun go him it looked more like #4.





.

[Bill Murphy]

What kind of "tightening" or gunsmithing would change the fit of the doll's head? In my opinion, only indiscriminate filing would cause these gaps. Are you sure Russ sent the gun back with the same barrels you sent to him?

[edgarspencer]

So, just to clarify, you don't really agree with me.
Putting a gun back on face involves correcting the fit of the hook and joint roll, which would not explain the gap between the frame recess and dolls head.
The fitting of the rib extension to the receiver, such as shown in the last photo, is done before it is soldered to the barrel. A barrel going off face is a change in the gap between the hook and joint roll, not the fit of the rib extension.

[Reggie Bishop]

Restored gun currently for sale on GI. I see this all the time on reworked guns.

[Stan Hoover]

Restored gun currently for sale on GI. I see this all the time on reworked guns.

Reggie , thanks for that clear picture

I recently had a gunsmith set a Parker on face and now my rib extension appears similar to this picture.
Question, is there a fix for this condition of the dolls head rib extension or is there anyone currently performing a repair for this??

I asked my smith about building this up and then refitting, he had no direct answer and nothing was done.

Laser welding comes to mind???

[Dean Romig]

What kind of "tightening" or gunsmithing would change the fit of the doll's head? In my opinion, only indiscriminate filing would cause these gaps. Are you sure Russ sent the gun back with the same barrels you sent to him?


Gimme a break Bill… Of course he sent the original barrels back refitted with absolutely NO more slight wiggle.

I would never question Russ’ ethics in gunsmithing.





.

[Dean Romig]

So, just to clarify, you don't really agree with me.
Putting a gun back on face involves correcting the fit of the hook and joint roll, which would not explain the gap between the frame recess and dolls head.
The fitting of the rib extension to the receiver, such as shown in the last photo, is done before it is soldered to the barrel. A barrel going off face is a change in the gap between the hook and joint roll, not the fit of the rib extension.

That’s right Edgar and when machining the hook, no matter how little, you’re drawing the barrels back into the frame a bit tighter than they were. Then the rearmost surface of the doll’s head comes into contact with the frame and it must be filed to fit… and the amount of metal that is filed off is equal to the width of the gap that remains at the shoulders of the doll’s head. It’s simple physics… “equal and opposite”.





.

[Craig Budgeon]

If the wear is on the hinge pin and it is decided to add material to the barrel lug to correct the problem then by necessity everything including the dolls head has to back to the breech. When fitting the lug you have to remove the same amount of material that the barrels were off face in order for the gun to close.

[Larry Stauch]

Remington era looks a little different on this 241XXX vent rib gun.
X
X

[Dean Romig]

Reggie , thanks for that clear picture

I recently had a gunsmith set a Parker on face and now my rib extension appears similar to this picture.
Question, is there a fix for this condition of the dolls head rib extension or is there anyone currently performing a repair for this??

I asked my smith about building this up and then refitting, he had no direct answer and nothing was done.

Laser welding comes to mind???

Yes Stan there is a more expensive way of avoiding the gap and that would have been to remove the doll’s head rib extension and file metal from the front of it so that when it is aoldered back in place there would be no gaps as shown in a few of preceding pictures… but that is very labor intensive and expensive.

Another cheaper way would be to add metal by welding to the areas displaying the gaps and finish filing it to fit correctly.





.

[Craig Budgeon]

Tig welding the dolls head can be accomplished but it is very time consuming thus it is expensive. Vulcan barrels fitted to early hammerless damascus guns almost always result in a poor fit.

[edgarspencer]

That’s right Edgar and when machining the hook, no matter how little, you’re drawing the barrels back into the frame a bit tighter than they were. NO, you're not. Machining metal off the hook allows the barrel to go FORWARD. Then the rearmost surface of the doll’s head comes into contact with the frame and it must be filed to fit…The Barrels won't go any further back because they are up against the breech face. and the amount of metal that is filed off is equal to the width of the gap that remains at the shoulders of the doll’s head. It’s simple physics… “equal and opposite”.

:banghead: It boggles my mind how you can think this.

When a gun goes off face, it is NOT because material has worn at the back end of the barrels. It is because the hinge pin and hook clearance has increased with repeated wear and, to a lessor degree, the opening and closing of the gun. This gap increase allows the barrels to move forward, away from the breech face. Correcting that wear, by either adding material to the hook, or installing an oversized joint roll, simply puts the barrels back against the breech face, Precisely where they were when the gun was built.
There is never any need to 'file' the back of the dolls head. It's simply being put back to where it was when the gun was built. Not to mention, you can't file the back of the dolls head, on an ejector gun, because of the stop plate and screw. Another thing you're forgetting, is the rear lug of the barrels. The back surface of the rear lug is within .001" of the frame, below the bolt.

[Reggie Bishop]

I see the world is back in equilibrium!:rotf:

[Brian Dudley]

If barrels are “set back” then that area of the rib extension will open up. It is just a fact of the matter. And most would not want to mess with the super delicate work of welding a rib extension in that area and refitting it and potentially having a real mess on their hands.

In an ideal world when tightening a gun up, one would make up for exactly the worn material. But in reality, it ends up being adding more material than needed and then fitting accordingly. Once the hook is good, the breech of the barrels is fitted, and then the extension ends up with that gap.


One may wonder how the new guns are so precisely fitted. Yhe barrels were first fitted to the frame with no rib extension on them. Then the rib was cut back and the fitting of the extension was a separate operation after the fact. So, no they were not having to fit the hook, breech face and extension at the same time like we have to deal with today when putting back on face.

[Daniel Carter]

Edgar and Dean this has had me in a state of confusion all day. Edgar you finally brought the light to my dull mind. If it were necessary to remove metal from the rear of the doll's head then it follows that the breech face of the barrel's were too far back and metal would have to be removed there or the breech face.
I think the reason for these gaps eludes us.

[Dean Romig]

Thanks Brian.





.

[Daniel Carter]

And so Mr. Dudley puts the experts experience to the subject and makes my last post obsolete. Thank you Mr. Dudley.

[Dean Romig]

My DH was as tight and smooth as if the gun was new.

Russ Bickel was an awesome gunsmith and a lot of people truly wish he was still with us.





.

[Craig Budgeon]

On second thought, I would cut the old dolls head off, screw and pin a cylinder of steel to the breech. mill off the excess, and finish with smoke and file. To make perfect without engraving figure 2-3 days labor. Not cheap but I think better than welding.

[Bill Murphy]

Edgar made a great attempt to explain why a gap would exist at the doll's head after a set of barrels was refitted after correcting wear at the hook and the loop. Unfortunately, I don't see why any "new" gap would exist after making corrections at the hook and loop. Maybe Mr. Dudley would tell me if I am right or wrong. And I'm not making any negative comment about Russ Bickel's work, only about comments made in this thread about guns that have nothing to do with Mr. Bickel's work. Changes in the breech face usually have nothing to do with a gun getting loose. That is why the hook and the loop are usually corrected when a gun gets loose. Again, maybe Mr. Dudley will tell me whether I am right or wrong. I have never seen a breech face filed so the barrels can be set back, therefore creating a gap at the shoulders of the doll's head.

[John Davis]

Here you go. This solves the problem.

[Bill Murphy]

A real pigeon gun! Obviously not a Trojan.

[John Davis]

VH, no safety, 32 inch barrels choked full/full. Straight stock and splinter forearm.

[edgarspencer]

Bill, It was Brian, Not me, who gave the explanation for the gap.

The photo here shows a gun which was off face by enough to see daylight, roughly a sheet of copy paper. Aurora Micro Welding laser welded the hook for me, and I dressed it back down with a 3/8" round diamond file, smoking the hook and the dolls head the whole time. Prior to welding, the front hooked edges of the dolls head were just rubbing the recess. When I finished dressing the hook, the dolls head was no longer rubbing, and if you look closely, you'll see the gap on the front edge. I consider this more than acceptable.

[Dean Romig]

Sure it’s acceptable Edgar, and IMO, so are #’s 2 & 3 in the OP’s first set of pictures… they’re just not perfect.





.

[edgarspencer]

Sure it’s acceptable Edgar, and IMO, so are #’s 2 & 3 in the OP’s first set of pictures… they’re just not perfect.
The engraving around the edge of the dolls head is still uniform, at the back, which tells me they were not filed.That is the main reason I believe they are added barrels. I'd still probably have trouble looking down and seeing those gaps. The gaps look to be at least 1/16", and you know Parker would not have shipped a gun with a rib extension that much shorter than the pocket it fits into.

edit: I do think the gap on the A grade is better than the gun shown in the third picture, but look at any of Steve Barnett Fine Guns, or Puglisi's higher grade guns. Those are what one would expect.

[Jeremy Toeper]

Bill, It was Brian, Not me, who gave the explanation for the gap.

The photo here shows a gun which was off face by enough to see daylight, roughly a sheet of copy paper. Aurora Micro Welding laser welded the hook for me, and I dressed it back down with a 3/8" round diamond file, smoking the hook and the dolls head the whole time. Prior to welding, the front hooked edges of the dolls head were just rubbing the recess. When I finished dressing the hook, the dolls head was no longer rubbing, and if you look closely, you'll see the gap on the front edge. I consider this more than acceptable.

Thanks for posting your personal example, it explains what I had assumed would be the case for bring a gun back on face. The barrels are being set back on the standing breech and so everything moves back with it, including the dolls head. I was not aware that the dolls head was fitted after the barrels where brought on face at the factory.

Funny you should mention Puglisi's as an example for how guns should look. All of the screenshots are from Puglisi guns on GI. GI allows a zoom function and the zoom probably does make it look worse, but that wasn't the intention. Just speculation as to how or why this may happen.

[Bill Murphy]

Sorry, but when "setting the barrels back", nothing about the relationship between the breech face and the breech end of the barrels changes. All changes are at the hook and loop. When the hook and loop are repaired, the relationship between the doll's head and the breech face are not changed. Maybe Brian Dudley can comment. Again, am I right or wrong?

[edgarspencer]

Bill, that has been my experience, on the few I have put back on face. If I'm reading Brian's description, he says it is possible there may be a change in the dolls head fit, but I'm not sure how.

[Aaron Beck]

As I understand the general process
1.Build up the hook with weldment
2.Dress this down so the fit between the hook and roll are perfect
3. Any remaining "setback" is taken off the breech face which will likely result in the dolls head also being dressed a bit.

[edgarspencer]

3. Any remaining "setback" is taken off the breech face which will likely result in the dolls head also being dressed a bit.

No, that's where you get into trouble. Just look at the end of a set of barrels to see all the surfaces that would be impacted.

You were doing good, with 1 and 2. Just keep smoking and removing metal from the hook until you get a good closure. The last .0005"-.001" you should be down to 1000 grit, or even crocus cloth. I like crocus cloth because you'll end up with about a 16 micro inch finish.

I can't think of any situation where you would alter any surface at the rear of the barrels. The fitters at Parker went to great lengths to get a perfect fit between the receiver and the barrels. Doing so would affect the dolls head, chamber rim depth, recoil bearing surface of the back lug, and fore end fit.

[Stan Hoover]

Edgar,

Not to disagree but,

I’ve had a few guns that were off face and I had what I would consider a reputable smith correct the problem.
Now only one of these was a later hammer gun with the rib extension (dolls head), others were lifters with no dolls head. The top lever gun dolls head had gaps before the work was done, but when the gun was finished, the dolls head was noticeably more rearward than before.
I was under the impression that the barrel breach ends were made true so to be perfectly on face again.
After being off face pretty severely, would the breach end of the barrels be completely true to the frame?

Only trying to learn,
Stan

[Aaron Beck]

Stan, youre likely on the right track.
Edgar, I wasnt taking a position one way is right and the other wrong, just trying to clarify how the dolls head came to be further back, if it did so migrate.

Perhaps this is like getting some holes drilled in the bottom rib when rebluing. From a collector pov thats a no no but it is defensible from a gunsmithing procedure standpoint if the ribs arent steam tight.

[Bill Murphy]

Concerning Edgar's last post, "Now were getting somewhere." No correction of looseness in a Parker will result in the breech face of the receiver or the barrel face moving fore or aft, in relation to the other. All wear and correction happens at the hook and the loop. The doll's head will not move in relation to the barrel face either. They are ONE part, fastened together. Any gap in the doll's head will be accompanied by a similar gap at the breech face, again, because they are one part, fastened together by whatever means. A doll's head gap will be caused by several different occurrences, barrel set being replaced, filing of the doll's head being two. Sorry, those are the only two I can think of. If the doll's head is a perfect fit from the factory, it should be a perfect fit a hundred years later.
It's not a wearing surface. Brian, please comment.

[John Davis]

All this discussion over something that means absolutely nothing to the mechanics of the gun. It’s purely aesthetic. It serves no real purpose. I suppose it’s like engraving, beautiful when done correctly. An eyesore when fouled up.

[Dean Romig]

Thank You John.





.

[keavin nelson]

A couple of thoughts:
Do we know what the dolls head gap looked like before the hook was reset? Isn't it likely the dolls head experienced wear on the front edges and the gap existed prior to the hook work?

[Dean Romig]

The OP’s fourth picture is about as perfect as it was when it left “that dusty little plant down in Meriden” but I have seen one or two perfecter examples. I have the pics at home on my laptop.
.

[Donald F. Mills]

I am thinking Keavin may be onto something. When the gun was loose as it was closed what should not have been a wearing surface became one. With things loose the front edge of the dogs head would wear against the hardened frame as the gun is closed. This could create wear that becomes evident when the gun is tightened up. Could this be part of the purpose of the dolls head, to keep barrels tight to the breech face? All in all perhaps yet another reason not to leave a gun that is loose that way so unnecessary wear doesn’t occur at the dolls head.

[edgarspencer]

Edgar,

I was under the impression that the barrel breach ends were made true so to be perfectly on face again.
After being off face pretty severely, would the breach end of the barrels be completely true to the frame?

Only trying to learn,
Stan

Having just said I couldn't think of a reason to mess with the breech face, you reminded me of something I had seen on a gun another member had and sent to Bachelder
The gun had been shot a lot, after it was obviously loose, and was probably shot with one barrel (right?) more than the other. Being loose to start with I suspect what Brad was describing was a hammering of the barrel face against the breech. Essentially, I'm guessing it got out of square. I can see where one smith might square it back up by machining. That would probably be way less trouble on a gun without a rib extension. In the gun that Brad repaired, I believe he built it back up with weld, then machined it square. I just remembered that the frame was cracked also, so it was probably one of the earlier lifters.