Thread: 11 Gauge
View Single Post
Unread 06-22-2022, 12:27 AM   #14
Member
ArtS
PGCA Member

Member Info
 
Join Date: Nov 2021
Posts: 1,086
Thanks: 104
Thanked 1,544 Times in 572 Posts

Default

I thought I would dredge up this old thread because there was an interesting report in the most recent Parker Pages under Parkers In Pulp for 1893 which relates to this subject. I again read the section in Volume II of TPS concerning bores starting on page 516 and noticed that it quoted an article from 1873 applauding Parker for overboring their barrels. In the Parker Pages this month, there is an August 12, 1893 report from American Field covering the large display of Parker guns (300+) at the Chicago Columbian Exposition in 1893, which was overseen by DuBrey. A major talking point of the story was that all the Parkers at the time of the exhibit were made to true bore size and that up to that time, they had used barrels one gauge larger, along with the matching wads. The comment was made that this change made them perform better with Nitro powders (an allusion, I supect, to paper shells). In reading the article, it seems obvious that the article was based primarily on an interview with DuBrey who was peddling the corporate line. Given the importance of this exposition, the comments made, and the fact that this was only 17 months after the 12 gauge bore and "o" stamp comments were entered into the shop books in March 1892 according to TPS, I suspect that this was a much more considered change than just being related to barrel supply and industry standardization. It would appear that Parker made the change based on customer perception of modern trends in ammo and their competitive position. It would still be interesting from a scholarly standpoint if the statements concerning the March 1892 note and the subsequent 10 gauge note could be verified. It would certainly make it easier to evaluate the originality of pre and post 1892 barrels in a more definitive manner.
Arthur Shaffer is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Arthur Shaffer For Your Post: