Fox vs. Parker

Phil Yearout · 04-19-2015, 06:47 PM

No not THAT kind of vs

. I didn't want to corrupt the Remington Parker thread, but I wondered what the feeling is with Remington-made Parkers vs. the Parker-made (or whatever the correct term would be), especially as it compares (if it does) with the Philadelphia Fox/Savage Fox discussions.

To some folks, if it ain't Philly it ain't Fox; me, I'm of the opinion that Savage made some fine gins, and that taken on a gun-by-gun basis one needn't be afraid of - or ashamed to own - Savage-made Foxes. So I wondered if there's a similar thought process regarding the where and when of Parkers, and if similar discussions occur? Pardon if this has been done to death; I'm relatively new here...

Bruce Day · 04-19-2015, 06:57 PM

xxxxx

Bob Hardison · 04-19-2015, 07:20 PM

I have something that Bruce may accept. I'm a happy guy. Bob

Bill Murphy · 04-19-2015, 07:24 PM

Although Bruce's comments are well taken, they have nothing to do with the original poster's comments and questions.

Bruce Day · 04-19-2015, 07:30 PM

Bill, I thought they directly answered the poster's question, but regardless, I have deleted the post. Obviously I was mistaken.

Fishtail · 04-19-2015, 07:42 PM

I agree.

As for "soul", if you don't own a Repro and presumably haven't used one much, it would be hard to have a qualified opinion. I have a 28 Repro. It's a wonderful gun. But I don't think it has the 'soul' of a real Parker...maybe because it was Made in Japan, maybe because it wasn't built between the 1860's and 1940's, who knows? But I'm sure it doesn't have the same 'feel in the hands' as any of my real Parkers.

Phil Yearout · 04-19-2015, 08:03 PM

OK, I'll show my ignorance here. Are Parker reproduction not a different animal? I thought there were Parkers made in Meridian, Remington-made Parkers, and then Parker reproductions made in Japan. Not so?

6pt-Sika · 04-19-2015, 08:31 PM

I've got Fox guns that were made in Philly and a couple that were made in Utica . If I had my way all of mine would be Philly guns but then I feel that the older guns should hold a better market value .

As to usefulness I see no difference .

All my Parker's were made in Meridian so I can't make a comparison to the Illian guns .

I have a friend that's a veritable Fox nut and he does not differentiate between Philly and Utica guns as long as they are in nice shape .

6pt-Sika · 04-19-2015, 08:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by greg conomos

I have a 28 Repro. It's a wonderful gun. But I don't think it has the 'soul' of a real Parker...maybe because it was Made in Japan, maybe because it wasn't built between the 1860's and 1940's, who knows? But I'm sure it doesn't have the same 'feel in the hands' as any of my real Parkers.

I shot a Repro some years ago when they first came out and as you say it was a wonderfull and perhaps lively gun to handle and shoot . But I think in the back of my mind I always thought , it's just a copy that was made in JAPAN .

But then to be fair to the little guns shouldn't they be judged on their own merits and not judged against the originals . To me it's kinda like comparing apples and oranges .

John Allen · 04-19-2015, 10:03 PM

I think that Phil is referring to the Parkers made after Remington took over production in the 1930s,not the Parker Repro guns.I think the Remington guns were well made and had better more modern stock dimensions.However,the engraving,case colors,and overall finish on the earlier guns was really outstanding.I personally prefer guns made between 1915 and 1925.Everything seemed to come together during this period.