Factory Cut and Re-bored Barrels
 

I finally decided to get a letter on one of my earliest Parker purchases, a GH Damascus barreled 12 in the 56XXX range. This gun is in extraordinary condition, but the serialization book specifications indicated that the barrels had been cut down from 30" to 28," so I never bothered with a letter until recently.

When I got the letter from Chuck (thanks, Chuck, for the fast turn around), I learned that the gun had been sent back to the factory to be cut to 28" and rebored. My measurements of the barrels suggest they are still in the "new" configuration, although the chokes are shorter than I typically find in a Parker.

Do we know what the reboring process was like? The original chokes were not mentioned in the records, but the new chokes were to be cylinder and modified. The cylinder barrel is about .002" by my measurement (consistent with other original Parker cylinder barrels of mine). The modified barrel seems pretty open now at about .008," but I've never patterned the gun.

Was there a standard method for re-boring/choking guns at the factory? Do we know anything about the typical length of factory re-bored chokes.

Thanks in advance for any information any of you might have.

Chokes weren't necessarily cut to a particular constriction but generally were cut to a desired pellet count at XX yards inside a XX-inch circle.






.

The .008 would seem more consistent with an IC vs M as you said Garry. It would be very interesting to see if PB were able to achieve a M choke type pattern with that constriction. They were very good so I would not put it past them. Please do report back when you pattern this very interesting gun.

And once again we are reminded why we should "never say never". Fascinating letter.

You won the lottery on something that everyone with a cut gun hopes to find. That the letter supports that it was done on a service return to Parker. Most are not as lucky.

Are the keels present? If so, it would suggest that a factory cut job entailed more than just bobbing the barrels.

Does the rib matting run to the end or is there a termination line

Please post clear photos of the end of the barrels, both top and muzzle .I would be very interested in seeing the rib matting. Thanks

Thanks so much for the informative (and encouraging) replies. The gun is at the back of the safe at present, but March is my "pull 'em all out for inspection and wipe down month." I will take some photos and post them.

Thanks again. BTW, I've never really been able to detect the fabled curve in the chokes that I read about, so even if it's in these chokes, I doubt my equipment (and its operator!) can detect it.

This is yet another factor in favor of getting a research letter. Thanks again to all of those who helped to secure access to, and copies of, the records, and the folks who have conducted the research of those records (especially Chuck!)

Congratulations on a great letter. "Back of the safe" not so much.

It doesn't matter a bit if the keels are present or if the matting runs off the end of the rib.... The letter clearly indicates the fact that the barrels were shortened at the factory.

i have a 28 gauge that started life with 28" barrels but the factory records show that it was originally ordered with 24" barrels, which it now has. The keels were replaced but the matting runs off the end of the rib.


.

I get that Dean but I to am curious just to see how PB did the work. Did they just cut them and let it go there or did they take the time to add the terminal line. Nothing more than a matter of pure curiosity.

Length of choke run, contour or "ogive" (- what a goofy word!) of the choke, and presence or absence of keels and horizontal terminal rib striations are all completely moot until you pattern the gun. Keep in mind that different manufacturers assigned different values to the degree of constriction(s) that produced specified pattern densities at given ranges. (Essentially what Dean said). Winchester designated "Skeet 1/Skeet2) even among the 12, 16 and 20 gauge guns produced what other makers would call IC and MOD. Savage Fox Skeet and Upland Game Guns from the 1930s designated CYL and IC actually measure right at .005" and .011" - .014" constriction. FN Brownings and most modern Superposed Brownings built in Belgium measure .723" true barrel diameter at mid-bore in 12 gauge; when you wind up with a true muzzle diameter resulting in their designation of full choke, you are talking .040" constriction. So one size does not fit all.

I understand but was wondering if they did anything to the matting thats why I asked the question Im not doubting the letter. Dean does your letter say it was returned to be cut or what did it do set in inventory with 28" barrels and someone wanted a 24" 28 gauge ?

It sat in inventory for almost 4 years with the 28" barrels. Then the order came in for 24" barrels and out it went.





.

I doubt that the factory would take the time to mark the rib at the muzzle. They would take the less expensive route and just shorten the rib and barrels as they did on Dean's 28. We tend sometimes to forget that these guns were built in factories where cost cutting was the rule.

I agree, and I recall the matting going all the way to the end of the barrels (but will check later). Also, the cost for the cutting and re-boring was $1.50(!) Even accounting for timeframe, that's not a great deal of money for the labor involved.

If that's goofy, what about the phrase "secant ogive"? There's probably not a groundhog hunter in the south from the 60's and 70's who hasn't used that termmore than once, and most probably have no clue as to what it means. :rotf::rotf::rotf:

In another veinconcerning the Browning barrels, I think they did that to upstage Beretta. In my experience, up until the modern era, they were consistently the smallest barrels I ever measured. Most of mine measured around .010 less than I expected.

I freely admit that I (a Yankee) don't know the meaning of "secant ogive" but further, I've never even heard or read the term.

Please enlighten us Arthur...





.

One of the first high ballistic coefficient bullets made was by one of the majors (don't even remember which) that flooded the magazines with ads about there revolutionary bullet with a nose designed with a "secant ogive" shape of the tip. Ogive has a more specific meaning in statistical analysis, having to do with a cumulative distribution curve. The term ogive came about because it looked like some specific Greek arch style. With bullets it means the curve of the point, Traditional pointed bullets had a tangent ogive. More bearing surface, shorter curved tip and more drag in the bore, along with more air drag. A secant ogive has a longer thinner tip, less bore contact and less air drag. Downside is harder to stabilize.

Fundamentaly, it is a longer for weight bullet. People picked up on the technical, really non-informative name and blabbered for years about it.

In a choke, it would mean a choke with a curved transition. I don't know if it is really a true ogive shape or simply a curve.

I believe it would be a compound curved transition, which a true ‘ogee’ is, not simply a curved transition.


.

.[/QUOTE]

You are correct about the ogee. That is the difference between an ogee and an ogive. An ogee is a specific form which resembles an ogive. It is limited to curves that are sections of circles. I believe the curves are complex functions which can always be defined by second order equations. That is the reason it is so critical in woodworking, in that it meshes in reverse for so many types of joints such as drop leaf tables and door stiles and rails. Ogive is a term used in archetecture and statistics;the ogive greek arch is named that because it resembles an ogee but is formed by any curve, not just one formed by two circular sections. The statistical graph of a cumulative distribution function was named after the ogive (not ogee) arch for the same reason.

As your definition shows, a tangent ogee (or ogive) has the curved section joined to the straight section at only one point which forms a tangent. A secant ogive is formed by the secant of a curve where the secant line crosses the curve at two points. The secant of a circle is can be either a chord or diameter. The simplest comparison of the two would be drawing a circle with a tangent and a secant. The tangent line touches the circle at a single point. The secant line intersects the circle at two points. These can all be defined by second order equations.

With a tangent ogive design the front and back of the bullet can have any curved shape transition, with the front or back being iindependent. With a secant ogive, the front and back of the bullet would have a curved transition at both ends, but they must be formed by the same continuous function.

---------------EDITED-------------
I always laughed at all the hooplah that was generated by the term at the time because it really tells you nothing specific about the bullet except it is not a flat base and doesn't have a straight taper boattail. Past that, any bullet with curved transitions to the front and back taper is a secant ogive. This is due to the fact that any curve can be modeled exactly by a power function one order higher than the number of data points plotted. A designer can use a cylindrical bullet center section and then use any tapered nose and tail profile as long as both transitions are a curve, and it is a secant ogive design. From a practical point, a secant ogive bullet is any boattail without a CONICAL boattail.. Tangent ogive bullets include all flatbase designs or those with an angled boattail base. The only ones totally excluded from an ogive design are ones without any curve; these being wadcutters and a few specialty bullets I have seen with conical noses etc.

I always was struck by the power of advertising, no matter if it was informative or not. A major manufacturer got years of intensive word of mouth advertising by curving the transition of the boattail and using a cathcy phrase.

That's a slippery slope. I have always wondered where the line is drawn with originality. No one seems to have a problem with a gun restocked 10 years after new by the factory, but does not accept a gun restocked by an outside gunsmith. I can see this argument. The argument that cut is cut even in the factory takes the opposite position on barrels vs stocks. The gun quoted was ordered with long barrels but ordered with short ones, so the factory shortened the barrels of a stock gun to fill an order. Is it devalued because the stock records when actually built don't match the order? I would say no. Which one takes precedence, the original build, the order, or the gun as shipped new? What about guns shipped with substitutions? There are a number Damascus ordered and spec'd guns whichwere shipped with Parker Laminate barrels. Are they not original? Parker often took in guns for alteration and used the old barrels and such for later use. Does this lead to two non-original guns or one? I suspect the reason some barrels turn up without the tell-tale blank line at the front of the rib is that Parker did this very thing; cut a stock barrel down to fill a new order.

I think the only thing that can be purely original is the gun as shipped as new from the factory door. The order record and the factory record are only records at some point in its' life. What went out the door is what it was originally. Anything else is not. It's all relative to your viewpoint and is most important in negotiating prices. I believe the other "degree of originality" are personal beliefs.

… I’m sorry…





.

I respectively disagree. While I have not encountered it there have been more than one reference (that I have read here) to the factory pulling a set of barrels and cutting them to match an order.

Parker Brothers would most certainly have wanted to maintain the utmost level of quality in this example, the fact that it can be documented solidifies its historical lineage in my honest opinion.

Ryan

The big question is does it devalue the gun to have documented factory shortened barrels? My answer is no it does not. The gun passed for original until the letter showed that the barrels were cut. That tells me that the work was high quality. It is not like some I have seen that were hacksawed. The difference in the quality of the work is what sets the factory done gun back on a par with an original gun in value.

Sorry if I came across wrong Dean. I didn't disagree with your response at all. It is absolutely true as you state that most common flatbase bullets are tangent ogee designs. I just was trying to clarify the relationship between the two where the most used form is a subset of the other.

I am much more a rifle person than shotgun. I just jokingly threw out the comment when I saw a phrase that triggered an old pet peeve, and may have gotten carried away with the explanation. I used up way too much thread time with an off subject discussion and shouldn't have done that.

In reference to original Parker Brothers chokes (not Remington Parker chokes) we know that the beginning of the choke, sometimes beginning some six inches or so from the muzzle, started as a curve and terminated as an opposite curve and ended as a parallel straight section from 1/8” to as much as 3/8” at the muzzle. These chokes have often been described as an “ogee” by those who have studied and plotted these chokes. At some point Remington, in Ilion, stopped this practice and used their own choke formulas. I have several of Austin Hogan’s original plottings on graph paper that I will gladly share if anyone is interested.






.

Dean, this is what I mentioned at the beginning of this thread. I just don't think my gauge, nor its operator, are quite good enough to measure that (what must be a) subtle curve. I have some guns that I am as certain as I think I can be are original and cannot determine the ogee choke. My original question involved the re-choking process and whether PB could produce that curve. Without backboring, would it even be possible?

I finished the biannual wipe-down/inspection of one safe yesterday. The next safe will get tackled on Tuesday, and I'll be sure to re-measure and photograph the subject gun.

Photos of the gun in question.

George Purtill had a 10 gauge that had been converted from a 12 gauge. He did an article on it in Parker Pages. That is an interesting gun.

Those keels are properly in place.





.