Talk about a lightweight!
 

I recently purchased a1893 GH one frame 12 gauge weighing a scant 6 pounds 4 ounces with 28" 3 iron Crolle damascus barrels that have been refinished. Overall condition is excellent and shows little use and lots of case color--even the trigger guard has nearly 100% bright original nitre finish. The unstruck weight of the barrels is a mere 3 pounds even and they currently weigh 2 1/2 pounds. Has anyone seen one this light? I have two other DH one frames, each weighing 6 pounds 8 ounces. And I thought they were light!

Attachment 48662

How long are your barrels?

Oh, forgot. They are twenty eight inches. I've added that to the original post. Thanks.

That is light. My 26" damascus GHE12 weighs 6#10oz and I thought that was light.

Joe
What a find!! Great Parker
David

Wow! My PH 1 frame weighs 6-10 with 26" factory length barrels. The stamped barrel weight is 3-8.

So, that begs the question with barrels that are two inches longer but an unstruck weight 8 ounces lighter, where does the weight come off? It almost seems impossible to shave that much weight without making the barrel walls extremely thin. Do you know what they measure?

Modern guns seem to adhere closely to a standard weight for a model/configuration with slight variations likely due to wood density. However, I have been watching Parker weights and they are all over the map and significantly so. I have trouble understanding how there could be so much variability within a frame/gauge size. Anyone care to enlighten me?

Joe, I think you have the record. When you measure the wall thickness, let us know what you find.

The usual 7 1/2 lb 12 ga Parker barrel wall thickness for fluid or composite steel runs around .033-.035. 7 3/4lbs around .038 to .040, 8 lbs over .040, all 2 frame. I have measured a 1 frame 6 1/2 lb 12 and it was .028.

This 12 is the lightest Parker I have heard of and I suspect the wall thickness will be around .025, and I am curious about the real measurement. It sounds like it would make a great upland gun for light loads of 2 3/4 dram, 1 or 1 1/8 oz. I don't think I would want to shoot 100 sporting clays rounds with it.

Nice find, Joe.

My PH barrels measure .031 & .032 as measured by John Hosford. At 6-10 it is pleasant to shoot with 7/8 oz. loads. The stock wrist is quite thin in cross section and the comb sharp but I have had no problem shooting a 100 round clays course with it. It is, in my opinion a 12 that handles like a properly weighted 20.

Here's the data for both of the barrels on the GH, serial #78,649. Indeed, they are struck light!

RIGHT BARREL

Bore .740

Wall thickness from breech (minimum and maximum)

3" .069-.079
6" .029-.039
9" .022-.033
12" .021-.031
15" .022-.031
18" .023-.030
21" .023-.024
24" .024-.028
27" Inside choke

LEFT BARREL

Bore .738

Wall thickness from breech (minimum and maximum)

3" .072-.073
6" .033-.037
9" .028-.029
12" .026-.029
15" .023-.032
18" .026-.027
21" .026-.028
24" .026-.028
27" Inside choke

The thinnest areas on both barrels are on the lower sides.

The gun has original 2 5/8" chokes and forcing comes. Also, the chokes are original at .038 and .042. I do not believe the bores have been honed but certainly may have been polished. My other two one frames from 1900 and 1905 measure .736 and .737 and I am certain they are as made. This gun is from 1893. Currently the barrels are finished in a glossy brown that almost completely hides the damascus pattern. I'm going to have them properly finished, very gently.

Really pretty stock in great condition. Left side is plainer. Stock dimensions are pretty severe at 2" X 3 1/4" X 14 1/4". Buttplate is perfect with some color remaining on unturned screws.

Attachment 48703

The unstruck weight stamp is correct and now weighs 2 pounds eight ounces. I have two other one frame 12's and the lightest unstruck weight of those is 3 pounds 6 ounces and weighs 6/8.

Attachment 48704

Original nitre finish on trigger guard. Amazingly, even the forend tip has almost all of its color.

Attachment 48707

Great catch Joe. I almost made a run for this one myself. Glad you got it !!

This is a lite one for sure.

you have found the ultimate 12 ga lite as a 20 ga...charlie

Those wall thickness measurments look pretty scary in spots. If these are going to be shot at all, It would be VERY important to use loads in this that would be equal to period loads.

What were the advertised wall thicknesses?






.

Brian, I totally agree. And I've got a lot of other guns to shoot. However, it is quite the relic, having what I believe a pretty close to the dimensions it left the factory with. Regardless, I plan to fit those 30" GH barrels to it. They're way too good and ever so close to a fit. Be a shame not to use them.

Dean, the seller wouldn't have had any way of knowing. Or, if he did he sure didn't say.

There is a hidden blessing in this fiasco: I have bore and wall thickness gauges, another buyer probably wouldn't have. Ouch!

Bet'cha this will be the lightest 12 gauge 28" Parker ever reported......

Joe, did you request a letter on this gun?

Ok, I'll ask Brian... What wall thickness measurements? How can 'they' be "scary" if the measurements don't exist?





.

Look at the last post on page one of this thread and you will find Joe's measurements taken on this gun.

Dean, go back to page one and scroll down. I profiled both barrels at three inch increments, giving the minimum and maximum readings at each location as I measured around.

Brian, I have not ordered a letter but intend to do so.

I see it now. Apologies.

.021" at 12" from the breech seems a bit borderline and a lot of folks would never shoot a gun like that. I have shot a GH 12/30" with .019" at about that distance from the breech and I always shot RST shells in it, though I have no idea what kind of loads previous owners shot in it. I have since retired the gun but only because of severe dents I caused in the right barrel. It too was a 1-frame gun.





.

Aren't ideal minimum dimensions .100 plus in front of the chamber and .040 plus at 9". Doesn't pressure drops off very fast after 9" and wall thickness past 12" is more a matter of sensitivity to denting?

'Rule of thumb' measurements are something like that.
I'm sure 'proof house' measurements are similar but more definitive.





.

And I was concerned about my light weight 10 where the tubes are just over 20 thousands right before the chokes

Though I have none to measure I suspect this Parker is struck similar to many English guns chambered for the short 2" hull. Intended for light payloads and offering a 12 gauge substitute to the then rarely seen 20 gauge.

Joe your gun is a very interesting and excellent example of what Parker would do to satisfy an order. Personally I would shoot your gun without hesitation with low pressure ammunition. Thanks so much for sharing and adding to our knowledge. Craig Larter

Joe,

I'm really not surprised at the wall thicknesses on these barrels. With an unstruck weight of three pounds they where very light from the get-go. They had to get the weight from somewhere to make a 12ga this light.

Just shoot the appropriate ammo in it and appreciate it for what it is.

Yes, I plan to shoot it with my 7/8 oz ammo, loaded with Clays, a fast burning powder which will keep pressures down a few inches up the bores. However, gun is choked about .040 in each barrel and is also struck thin at the muzzles so opening chokes is not a viable option. (Ouch! I'm a quail hunter)

Yesterday I ordered a research letter. Might be interesting to see what nut had this gun built in 1893.

The barrels have been sent off for a gentle B&W refinish. Not going to need any striking or heavy sanding so shouldn't lose measurable thickness. Then I'm going to have my 30" widowed barrels fitted to it. The wood and action are in superb condition with a lot of faded color. With the longer barrels it's going to weigh right at 6 3/4 pounds and the chokes can be opened to something more reasonable.

Question for y'all: would it be unethical to renumber the 30" barrels to the action? They came from an 1895 GH and also are 3 iron Crolle.

Yes, it would be unethical, or at least unnecessary. It's the sort of thing you do only if you're trying to be deceptive. Otherwise...why would you?

I would disagree. Leave the original number and have something like

"Fit to #####" added so that is is clear they now go with the other gun

If renumbering barrels is unethical then there are a whole lot of unethical owners and gunsmiths out there. Don't leave out stocks forearms and most all parts. If you believe that not to be the case then there are unicorns jumping over rainbows.

It's similar to muscle/classic cars, at what point is the car original restored or did they take the VIN off of SS 454 rust bucket and rivot it to a Malibu? Without complete documentation through ownership changes there is always a chance that something has been modified or replaced.

Joe,

Personally I don't feel there would be an ethical problem with renumbering the barrels to match the gun. Just as long as you disclose it when & if you sell the gun.

Regardless of whether there are a bunch of other guns out there with renumbered barrels, it doesn't change the argument. Our jails are full of people who could easily point out that they were not the first to commit their crime.

As for the idea that it's OK 'as long as you tell the buyer'....that's great for that particular transaction. But these guns have long lives, longer than most of us. Once it's been bought and sold a few times the fact that it was renumbered becomes lost.