Quote:
Originally Posted by Ronald Scott
You are right. I just reread the section on American made doubles. I remembered it wrong. He rips L.C. Smiths and Winchester Model 21s apart more than he criticizes Parkers. The only small criticism of Parkers is: "From a design standpoint, I would never refer to one as "hellishly" complex but they certainly are needlessly complex. I wouldn't be surprised to find that the designer got paid by the part. The early guns used a complex, multi-piece linkage to translate the toplever motion to the single under bolt.
With all of the pivots and contact points in this linkage one would imagine that wear would "stack up" and result in much play in the mechanism. One would be correct."
|
Well, in the interest of "completeness" since we're quoting Dewey, he did have this to say as well ....
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Dewey Vicknair
It is in the ejector mechanism that I would use the "hellishly complex" description. An entire book/manual could be written about this mechanism. I'll spare you. A common problem with ejector Parkers is that even though the gun is tight on face, the joint will be loose when the gun is open. This is caused by the forend iron wearing the forend lug at the point where they come into contact. This area experiences accelerated wear due directly to the pressure of the ejector mainsprings.
|
And this, actually .......
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Dewey Vicknair
The cocking mechanism (and the need to house it) is the reason that small bore Parkers look out of proportion. Regardless of gauge, the action remains roughly constant in size (from the action flats on down), giving the smallbore guns a very disproportionate look.
|
SRH