![]() |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Thanks Randy. So it’s apparantly not the same one and is only the second one I have known about.
. |
Quote:
|
The angle between the water table and the breech face on Parkers is not 90 degrees. This may account for the uneven cutting of the breech face recess.
This in itself gives me a certain doubt of it being PB factory work. PB, knowing the angle was not a perfect 90 would have taken this into account when machining the recesses. . |
I agree with Dean, that it is very unlikely Parker Brothers work. Had it been, and there was a logical reason, it would have been more common. The reason was likely to chamber and shoot cartridges which had a thick rim, but altering the gun would have made for an unsafe headspacing if one was to go back to thin rims. What makes me go hmm, is why did they rebate the standing breech, and not simply deepen the rim groove in the barrels? The breech face would then still be perpendicular to the bore, and not a calculated machining angle. The reason the breech face is not a 90 degree perpendicular angle is simple, when you think about it. If it were 90 degrees, the bottom edge of the barrels would strike the breech face in closing.
|
Edgar, I will read the remainder of your post after I recover from the first four words where you stated and I quote, "I agree with Dean". That has to be a first. Would you like to edit that before others see it, feeling alright?? :rotf:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
A Few more Pictures and a Question
4 Attachment(s)
Pictures of right side, and a few others.
|
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:04 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 1998 - 2025, Parkerguns.org