Chuck

The section I read states that the notation on the 12 bore was made in the stock book in March 1892. The similar 10 bore note was reported to be a a few months later. This should allow you look for it pretty quickly.

Anything written is open to error, but this was a discussion several pages long by some knowledgeable people, so I doubt they were simply reporting anecdotal evidence. They seemed to be careful to report it as such throughout their writing. I for one would be very interested to know if these notations really exist.

He does have a few interesting listings and then some of his others are puzzling.

My 16 gauge D Lifter 18719 measures .664” and .665” the entire length of the bore excluding the choke constriction.





.

I thought I would dredge up this old thread because there was an interesting report in the most recent Parker Pages under Parkers In Pulp for 1893 which relates to this subject. I again read the section in Volume II of TPS concerning bores starting on page 516 and noticed that it quoted an article from 1873 applauding Parker for overboring their barrels. In the Parker Pages this month, there is an August 12, 1893 report from American Field covering the large display of Parker guns (300+) at the Chicago Columbian Exposition in 1893, which was overseen by DuBrey. A major talking point of the story was that all the Parkers at the time of the exhibit were made to true bore size and that up to that time, they had used barrels one gauge larger, along with the matching wads. The comment was made that this change made them perform better with Nitro powders (an allusion, I supect, to paper shells). In reading the article, it seems obvious that the article was based primarily on an interview with DuBrey who was peddling the corporate line. Given the importance of this exposition, the comments made, and the fact that this was only 17 months after the 12 gauge bore and "o" stamp comments were entered into the shop books in March 1892 according to TPS, I suspect that this was a much more considered change than just being related to barrel supply and industry standardization. It would appear that Parker made the change based on customer perception of modern trends in ammo and their competitive position. It would still be interesting from a scholarly standpoint if the statements concerning the March 1892 note and the subsequent 10 gauge note could be verified. It would certainly make it easier to evaluate the originality of pre and post 1892 barrels in a more definitive manner.

one thing for sure 11 ga shells are hard to come by....I ve only seen one parker brothers 11 ga paper shell and a few 11 b brass shells....there was a discussion about this old 11 ga I got from brian our gun smith this gun was owned by Austin hogun...he discussed this gun at length....dean may can recall some of it....Charlie....

I have pondered this subject a bit. I know I have posted about an early Lifter (1874) I bought from Chadick's some years back that was sold as a 10 gauge (based on bore size) but turned out to have 12 gauge chambers. Someone back in the day suggested that maybe it was actually built to be an 11 gauge chambered for brass cartridges. I dunno.
I understand the mistake, and had no problem keeping the gun as it shoots 12 ga. just fine.

You never know what you might find in “Parkers ln Pulp.”

My favorite ongoing contribution in Parker Pages to the collective knowledge of
Parkerphiles, bar none.






.

Looking at the early UMC price lists on the International Ammunition web site I see 1869 and early 1870s show 10- & 12-gauge brass shells. By 1878 they show 8- to 14-gauge brass shells. The 1880 price list shows a wider array of brass shells including No. 11 & 15 and they mention A & B shells along with the addition of paper shells.

Attachment 107740

In the 1882 UMC catalog they only list No. 11 B shells --

Attachment 107741

By the 1884 UMC catalog the No. 11 shells are gone --

Attachment 107742