Jim, 88220 is in the book as the first VH grade gun so the gun you are looking at predates that by almost 2000 guns. Many damascus guns were rebarreled by Parker so there is a good chance a letter would answer that question. As far as Parker using the barrel steel and marketing them under different names we are not sure just yet. We know that Parker used different steel suppliers for different grade guns and that those suppliers changed over the years. So in that sense they were different. Back during the years of Parker production I don't think that any two barrel steel suppliers were capable of producing steel that was exactly the same percentage wise. Maybe I'm splitting hairs here...

We have found that Parker used different fluid steels which had different compositions. We have never seen evidence of Parker management just making up stories for marketing , so I have to believe Parker saw sufficient differences to believe that the steel was sufficiently different to warrant use in different grade guns. We have no evidence one fluid steel was more wear resistant, corrosion resistant, or the like than another. I suspect there are differences in tensile strength but I'm not aware of any tensile strength to destruction tests being done in order to compare fluid barrel steels. ( other than the damascus/fluid steel comparision tests in the DGJ)

We do know that all barrels , composite or fluid, were subjected to the same proof tests. We have reports from barrel refinishers that the higher grade fluid steel barrels are able to be more finely finished than lower grade barrels. I have personally seen that to be true.

The only document we have shedding light on barrel wear resistance is one from the PGCA depository in response to a C grade buyers question about which C barrel to select. Parker said that in order of wear resistance they recommended Acme, Bernard then damascus. That letter was published here by John Davis a couple years ago.

We have found that Parker used different fluid steels which had different compositions. We have never seen evidence of Parker management just making up stories for marketing , so I have to believe Parker saw sufficient differences to believe that the steel was sufficiently different to warrant use in different grade guns. We have no evidence one fluid steel was more wear resistant, corrosion resistant, or the like than another. I suspect there are differences in tensile strength but I'm not aware of any tensile strength to destruction tests being done in order to compare fluid barrel steels. ( other than the damascus/fluid steel comparision tests in the DGJ)

Bruce, Could you give me references for this information? I would like to add it to my files. Thank You..

Which information? If you are referring to the different barrel steels, that will take some time to reassemble and is from a mixture of TPS and PP's. I am not aware that the compositions have been specifically identified and I know Doc Drew found some supplier information. In other words, I am not aware that the specific formulas for Acme, Titanic ,Parker and Parker Special Steel, and Vulcan have been found.

Bruce Day, Parker apprentice collector 3rd class.

And, about those pictures.