16 hammer 0 frame...
 

...in a grade 2 with 26" bbls. This is only the second one of grade 2 I have seen. Anyone else on the board have one or aware of someone that does?? It has its fare share of issues as many 123 year old guns do....Bores are at 0.666 and constriction of 0.07 and 0.12. I may just take it out on a couple of duck hunts in the woods. Someone was even nice enough to open the chambers to 3" , which still left a healthy 0.090 of bbl wall thickness at the end of the chambers. It weighs in at a heafty 6.75 lbs. I am going to have to find some of those elusive 3" brass 16ga hulls one of these days.

Nice find Kurt!

Congratulations Kurt! Good luck with the "Ol Girl"

This the gun that was at Cabela's Gonzales. I had it sent to my local Cabela's and examined it closely. I sent it back. "its fair share of issues" were far to many for me. The very worn engraving is one thing but those barrels are ruined IMHO. .090 is not "hefty" for a set of 120 year old 0 frame composite barrels. Good luck with it and be careful.

Obviously, we mean 0.090" wall thickness (not 0.9")...

{If I had coffee already - I wouldn't have mentioned it.}

Personally, with appropriate loads of say, 7,500 psi or less, I wouldn't be concerned with .090" at the front of the chambers. I shoot a GHe 16 0-frame that has not had the chambers lengthened that measures .065" and .067" which Oscar examined and told me was "probably safe to shoot with loads of 7,500 psi or less."

Dean- your reliance on a off hand comment by dear late Oscar to justify the integrity of your own gun so often repeated by you on this and other internet sites does not comport with international proof standards nor the prudent opinions of most if not all professional gunsmiths. Will they blow Up? No, "probably" not. One stuck wad and the concept of prudent safety on these marginal (in the case of Kurt's gun) or beyond marginal (in the case of yours) bored out composite barrels has vanished. I merely caution prudence and inclusion of a margin of safety in evaluating the purchase and use of these old guns. This is something I think we should all encourage.

As to Kurt's guns, once I had measured the barrels and (for me personally) found them wanting, I immediately mentally moved to Plan B...have a set of Galazan's new 30" 20g barrels fitted to it. Adding up the cost of this including a re-cutting the engraving and re-casing, along with (for me) a mandatory re-stock quickly moved me to Plan C...send it back...I'm invoking Plan C more often than I used to, I hear there's a recession going on...in this case have 3 16g hammer Parkers made it easier but a G would have been nice...Good Luck with it Kurt!

Kurt,

I have 48223. It started life as a 16 gauge, but it was monoblocked to 20 gauge before I purchased it. I have more fun shooting it than the law allows. Hope you have a ton of fun with yours as well.

Harry

How would one know unless he was too measure the wall thickness on several 0 frame 16's that are still in proof..?? I did not have access to another parker but did have access to an English 16ga presumably in proof with its original 2 1/2" chambers and the barrel wall thickness at the end of the chambers was 0.85". I am not worried about this gun with normal 7/8 to 1oz loads with pressures comperable to that which were used in the day. You have a couple of 0 frame 16 hammer guns, when you get a chance measure the barrel wall thickness at the ends of the chambers and post up the information. By "heafty" I meant that the gun is 6 3/4 lbs which seems to me to be pretty heavy for a 26" bbl 0 frame 16. As far as that goes the barrels have more meat than most of the 0 frame 16 hammerless guns I have seen.

Don, I bow to your better knowledge and experience and your advice of a more prudent margin of safety on marginal or questionable barrels which may fall outside of accepted standards of proof.
I will accept your worthy legal advice to me on this matter and will no longer quote Oscar's letter (on his business letterhead) to me which I didn't take as an "offhand comment". But, again, you're right that I should use better judgement when giving my own offhand comments.

Dean