Parker Internal Hammer Sidelock Gun
 

Something interesting for the experts.

A particularly fascinating mechanism. And perhaps one of a kind ! I'm most piqued by these aspects:

It appears to have been made up on a hammergun frame.
The tumbler axle is "split" in its mounting between the frame and lockplate.
The sear essentially "floats" separately as a part of the lockplate.
The firing pins are not integral with the tumblers per the boxlock design
The gun has a fishtail top lever for no apparent reason... other than one may have been handy?
What was the reasoning behind this? A higher-end "sidelock" Parker?
And... what time frame was it made???

Altogether, a VERY rare Parker indeed !!

All those are unknowns. We know only what we see.

However, if past posts are any indication, there is a member here who will have another like it at home, knows all about them and dozens more will have passed through his hands.

Did we see this gun at the 2014 Antique Arms Show in Las Vegas? If not, there was another one shown there.

We saw one at an early Gold Medal Concours, which could be the same gun. Who knows?

A gun exactly like this was on a table at Vegas last week. A picture was posted here someplace I can't remember the price.

Thanks very much Bruce. That's an excellent pictorial essay.

When looking at pictures 1 and 5 and enlarging it so I can read that patent date it looks like March 26, 1873 or 1875. In any case, I find no such patent date in The Parker Story listing of all known patent dates. This might indicate that whoever did this work patented it. Of course, I may be wrong about the date I read.

Very cool. Great material for a Parker Pages article

The serial number is in the S&I book as a grade 3 damascus top lever gun with no extras.
I would guess a very early and ingenious conversion to hammerless. Too bad the smith that did the work didn't sign it somewhere.

Must have been a gunsmith that was doing hammerless conversions on Parker hammer guns. I wonder who it was.

Very interesting indeed.

Similar in some ways to a cocking rod Lefever.

Exxxxxactly my thought as well when I first saw this thread.... Not that means much, of course - as I get to see a lot of threads...

;)

John

We will probably have the gun at Pheasant Fest if people want to see it. There will likely be about 28,000 people there. Spaces 1802, 04, 06. Thirty feet of exhibit space. Plenty of interesting Parkers.

more

Great gun and great photography as well

Excellent pictures Bruce - Thank You.

Can you comment on the stock head where the wood would normally have been relieved to allow for the hammers - it appears that pieces were artistically glued in there or was the buttstock possibly replaced... any thoughts on that?

I would have never thought anything like this existed. Will you be bringing it to the southern?

For all the wonderful workmanship, I am surprised that the maker used such an ugly, oversized safety button. Otherwise, to me, the gun is exquisite.

I was able to locate the gentleman that has the mate to this gun that was in Vegas. I have a call into him. I will pass on any info I obtain.
David

That would be great David. It would be interesting to know if both guns were done by the same person. Keep us posted please.

What a tremendous amount of work to convert a Parker into a Lefever. Ingenious but in a way unfortunate for a nice Hammer Gun. I am curious to know how many of these exist.

Brad

No way to know Brad, but a "few" have been reported. Whatever that means.

This gun was purchased at the Las Vegas arms show.

I see it as an interesting exercise in gunsmithing craftsmanship and a "what if" look if Parker had commercially produced sidelock hammerless guns.

Bruce
Is that 262X?
David

Bruce I am a little surprised that Parker did not offer this design during the transition period, Hammer Sidelock to sidelock to box lock. I guess that Lefever filled that niche. H&R never got up to production speed to compete with Parker.
One more area of study if they had.

Brad

The safety button on that Parker is from a Lefever.

I have located another of these conversions with a PGCA letter from Ron Kerby indicating the conversion was done by Parker. The ser # of this gun is 2625. The current owner has read the letter to me and I will try and obtain a copy.The gun is for sale and one of our members, a good friend, is interested. More to follow. The current owner believes Parker has Lefever do the work?
David

comparision

Interesting relocation of the plunger lock-screw I hadn't noticed before.

I can appreciate the engineering that went into these conversions, but I wish they used low grade hammer guns, instead of spoiling beautiful grade 3 hammer guns. Maybe it's just me.

Depending on who made them, maybe they didn't "spoil" anything. If these are Parker efforts - or perhaps even test prototypes - they were possibly made up in the shop with bits on hand. Thus, no existing guns were sacrificed. Even if they were, it was a "cost of doing business" for Parker.

It will be interesting to see what the "letter" has to say...

It would be interesting to see the date of the first of these conversions in comparison to the date of the first hammerless Parkers.

John, By 'spoiled' I didn't mean so much as being rendered useless, as much as I meant it took a Swan, and turned it into an ugly duckling. This is just my opinion, as I have come to believe that the sculpted bolster Parker hammer gun is perhaps one of the most pleasing, to the eye, as any I have seem, and that is a lot of guns.
I fully appreciate that, as a prototype, or trial model, all aspects of a potential marketable gun had, as yet, been finalized. It would seem to me that had this example been of Parker's hand, and even if made from bits about the shop, a Parker safety would have been used, rather than, as Brian suggests, a Lefever safety.

I have to agree. To me a high grade hammer gun is the ultimate Parker. My first thought was why did they ruin that nice hammer gun? Still it is interesting.

I spent a good deal of time with this gun and it is quite an interesting gun. The cocking rods are similar to a Lefever but not quite the same.

Forgive me fellows. But I'm still wondering if anyone has proof that this gun/guns were actually made up at Parker's, and if so, is there any time frame that can be substantiated with documentation?

Or... did I miss something along the way?

Kieth
There is one of these guns in the hands of a collector in Seattle. He has read me the PGCA letter from Kirby that appears to authenticate the gun. I will post the letter when I receive it, hopefully shortly.
David

I have a hammerless LC Smith that was converted in a similar way. Bought it from the son of the last barrel maker, along with a a lot of other neat items. Gun is marked AP Curtis. I will try to take pictures tomorrow.

Photos? Letters? We would love to see them.

Josh I pulled it out of the safe and took pictures. It is different then what I remembered, but unusual just the same. I am having computer issues and am having difficulty posting pictures. I can send you the pictures if you could post them.

Phil's LC Smith

Josh I sent some pictures to you showing the internal workings with the side plates off, did you receive these. Thank you for posting the first set of pictures.