I don't quite have the funds for an original 28 gauge and the repros are probably my only hope.

I have had several Repo's in both 20 & 28. IMHO the 20's are heavy but the 28 is a dream. If you can't pony up 5 figures for a real one the repo will down a bird just as well as an original.

When the repo is still in the field 125 years from now (provided there are fields and birds to use one in) that will tell the tale.

Gentlemen, at the risk of sounding elitist, can we please stop using the word repo in describing a Parker Reproduction? To my way of thinking it shows a level of disrespect. I'll jump off my soapbox now. :duck:

I always refered to them as "Parker Reproduction by Winchester" and nobody took me to task about it but I eventually allowed myself to sink to the level by which they may be called "Repros" but please take note - I capitalized the "R".

You mean the 'Winchester" as in Winchester Reproduction by U.S. Reapeating Arms ?

Now that's sad... Highest bidder I guess.

I love the Repros but I can certainly attest to the fact that the Claro Walnut is not up to the wood on the original guns, but as has been said here the metal is certainly stronger.

There not Parkers in the true sense of the word there reproductions so what are we to call them if not repo's? They didn't come up with anything to differentiate the two such as was done with Ithaca Classic Doubles, and the Fox and Win 21 by CSM.

Once a repo always a repo, there good guns and I see nothing derogatory in calling them repo's.

I am sincerely hoping not to start a huge war here and I guess anyone can call them what they want but to me REPO is short for repossession as in repo'ing a vehicle. REPRO is short for reproduction as in reproducing the Parker Brothers shotgun by Winchester. How about calling the guns Winchester made Parker shotguns.

Dennis

:corn: