Parker Complexity
 

Good Morning All,
I'm asking a question for a friend, so I'll try to get it right. He's interested in a purchasing a hammerless Parker and according to him, at some point(s), the number of internal parts was reduced quite a bit. An internal parts reduction may have occurred more than once. Can anyone tell me at approximately what serial number or date the last reduction took place? I apologize in advance if this question is too vague or doesn't make sense.

I think what you are looking for is the changes done by King & Hayes. It is patent # 973655 on 25 Oct 1910. You can read this patent if you want, just go to the www.parkerguns.org page and click on the Technical Information link in the list on the left side of that page. There is a link at the top of the Tech page for gun related patents and it will take you to a list of patents where a link can be found for patent 973655.

Hope this helps!

There was a statement made in Johnsons book (the first book written on parkers) that Hayes reduced the parts in the cocking mechanism to only 4 parts. Note that this statement is NOT correct. This statement was based on two prototype guns (one in 1910 and another in 1928) that Hayes designed, in which this was the case, but the changes were never put into production. The cocking mechanism remained unchanged for the whole life of the hammerless gun.

Now... There was a change in design and a reduction of parts in the bolting mecahnism in 1910. And the sear spring was changed to a 1pc design from a 2pc one.
Then there was a change in design in regards to the top lever spring design in the late teens which actually increased the number of parts.

Those were the only two changes that reaulted in a change in the number of parts used in the Parker Hammerless gun.

And your title about sums it up. The Parker is a Complex gun.

Well said, Brian - in some significant areas, needlessly complex - take a detailed look at the Parker automatic ejector mechanism relative to many/most others.

Take a look at the guts of a Krieghoff K-80 and you'll get an idea of what complex really is, yet the only problem I've ever had was a broken ejector which is part of the barrel. I'll take a Parker, it's still the Old Reliable to me!

Thanks everyone, especially Brian. I continue to be amazed at and thankful for not only the useful, but valuable information that the members of the PGCA share.

If you get the double gun journal, look back at the summer 2013 issue for an article i wrote on James Hayes prototype guns. A condensed version of the article is also in an issue of The Parker Pages from the following year (2014).