Newest indulgence
 

Picked it up this morning. A D (TI3) 130158, which is in the book, and the barrels haven't been touched. But, a new stock and other TLC is in order. It is straight grip, but book says pistol grip. Tang appears to be correct, with engraving. Wonder if it was returned for a rework? Anything in the records about that? I did notice that 157 was a straight grip???? :)

If we could see more of the 'drop points' behind the cheeks we might be able to see if Remington replaced the stock while it was there for service in November of 1938.





.

I think Remington merely drilled a big hole from the left cheek to the right cheek.

How bad is the rest of the stock? I'd consider a repair, even with the missing piece and missing pin if it is good beyond that. Nothing like keeping original wood intact to the gun, but just my opinion. The wonderful repairmen now can do miracles.

Nice gun though.

Stock has LOP of about 12.5", so not doing that.

Dean how do you know it went back in 38?

he is gee whizzing you - he sees the Remington repair code stamped on the barrel flats :rotf:


there is a link to the codes on the home page

Please post after pictures when you get it fixed

picture of points
 

request sent for letter, but in the mean time here is a shot of the points, complete with that great hole! Interestingly there is a very small F next to the frame size, any idea what that is about?

Yes indeed, about Easter! Maybe???

Original Parker Bros. stock IMO. But neither Parker Bros nor Remington bored those holes.

Thanks.




.

Mr.Nelson, you're a trusting soul. The book indicates how it was originally built, assuming no transcription errors. ( sadly, a common occurrence ) It is entirely possible the gun was returned to Meriden, and the PG, andtrigger bow changed to straight.

This letter is for a gun which was originally half grip, and changed by Parker to Straight.
The letter was mailed to me upside down, and I can't seem to turn it right side up.

Or, in the case of an illegible entry or no entry at all, it was 'assumed' to be a pistol grip P or a capped pistol grip CPG and entered as such.





.

Edgar,
even if it wasn't done by Parker, it was done very well, and the gun was begging for a new care taker!
:)

I'm glad to see I'm not the only one who thinks he can save them all. That said, I wouldn't write that stock off just yet.

Edgar, flipped your letter:) click twice to enlarge.

I have a PH who's stock had been pinned with a bolt. I am going to drill out the hole to 1/4" and glue in a walnut dowel then re drill the holes the dowel encroached.

Harry

If it hadn't been cut down to only 12", I would try the same. Have several guns repaired that way. Since I already have the wood, a new stock is in order.l

The plot thickens!
 

So we now have the letter, and the plot thickens!

Letter says pistol grip stock, with no safety, rubber pad, light trigger pulls. This gun is straight grip, WITH a safety. SN is on both the stock as well as the back of the trigger guard.:confused:
More pictures to come.
It did go back to Parker, but only for a bite block.

A few more pictures, the tang safety, and the new wood, tough day in the shop! :)

That's a nice piece of lumber. Don't forget to put the sears back in.

Not in the letter?
 

Dean,
the research letter only listed it sent back in 1913. Nothing on 38. Could this explain the high variance from the original listing of pistol grip, no safety?

Yes and everything else. Discovered the triggers were reversed yesterday!:eek:

Much left to do, cut to length after I decide if I will put a pad on as it was originally. And then to checker it.

The wood actually came with the gun, and it was well inletted. Very petite butt, just barely larger than an O size butt plate. Not would you would normally see on a 2 frame gun.

There is almost never any information available, even from Remington, about what service a Parker went back to Remington for.

It would be very difficult, if not impossible, to say when it may have been changed from its original configuration to that of today's without actual documentation verifying the change.





.