Is it safe to assume that it the difference is within 4 or 5 ounces that they would not have honed? The reason i ask is I just bought one that has very nice bores and and weight is only about 2 ounces less.

Thanks! I hadn't noticed the search function. Now I feel like I fallen down the rabbit hole. I'm still searching, but found some interesting and conflicting information (predictable, as the time frame I have read within includes over five years). So far the most definitive information was from a "study" that sampled 50ish guns and plotted un-struck and final barrel weight. If I read the article correctly, the final weight averaged 88 % of the stamped weight.

I also found a statement, with confirmation from several members at the time, that the barrel weight stamp was actually the weight of the barrels AND the forend. (Hey, is that the first instance of fake news?! ;-) )

Some interesting reading...

This raises an interesting question. I'll be curious to see what responses come in for this. Based on the article I just read, your case, Gerald, would be an outlier.

I think if there is any question that the bores might have been honed it would be wise to have the barrel wall thickness measured.





.

Gerald, Dean has (always) good advice -- get the barrel walls measured if there's any doubt.

However, if the article/study I found is a guide, and one uses the .88 (88%) metric -- percent final barrel weight from barrel stamped weight -- your 2 ounce differential seems out of the norm. What is the weight stamp on the barrels?

I did the arithmetic on the barrels that started this thread and they are spot-on with the .88 mark (these barrels are marked 3 lbs 9 oz. and are 3 lbs and just under 1 oz -- .88 would suggest 3 lbs 1.35 oz, so this is close enough to bear out the study results). The study was about quality control in Parker manufacturing, and, remember, each barrel set was struck by an individual with significant skill in achieving final gun weight based on the specifications of the order. Your 2 oz. differential would suggest the barrels were struck out of the norm (.88) unless the unstruck weight was extraordinarily light (2 oz. would be in the neighborhood of a 10 oz. unstruck weight, and I'm guessing that no such set exists)...OR that the order specified a heavier than normal set of barrels. Do you have a letter on the gun? Are you sure your weight measures are accurate? This is intriguing.

If you're certain your scale is accurate, and the barrels truly do only weigh 2 oz. less than the pre striking weight, the thought of thin walls certainly wouldn't be keeping me up at night.

Edgar, thanks for chiming in. Help me understand why only a couple ounces differential would be more worrisome than a reduction in weight much greater than the 88% mark of the study of one of our members. I'm not questioning your judgement, just trying to learn. I'd suspect something amiss with the weighing first.

Gary, this will clear up your confusion and you'll note that I edited my post to say 'wouldn't '. I am forever messing that word and I guess it's my stinking slow typing fingers trying to keep up with my lightning fast brain.

I reweighed the barrels and I was mistaken. There is about 6 ounces difference. My apologizes to all who commented. I need a memory pill. I don't buy a gun if I am concerned about the wall thickness although I have seen others shoot some that I wouldn't.

Edgar, am I glad you did this! I do it all the time (except my brain is molasses slow) and it's nice to know I'm not alone. So, what would you think is up with Gerald's barrels? I envision an order where the person wanted a gun to shoot pigeons or, maybe, ducks and needed a heavier than normal gun.

Gerald, any idea from your end? I'd like to know more about your gun and it's weight.