Latest observed 0 frame 16

[Mills]

I have observed that, below sn 200K, Parker 16's are about half 0 frame and half 1 frame. After 200K, all I recall are on 1 frames. What is the latest folks here have observed?

The latest I recall is 183238 . The next question is why and my theory is they determined the 0 frame was a bit small and they got better at making 1 frames lighter, but who knows.

And since everyone loves pictures . . . Here is one from the 150K sn range

[Bill Murphy]

My personal 16 gauge research collection shows that 0 frame and 1 frame 16s are generally the same weight or close. One of my 1 frame 16s was made with a 00 frame stock, probably to arrive at a 6 1/4 pound weight without using a 0 frame.

[Mills]

I have noted that too. A recent 1 frame VH with 26" barrels handles better than most of the 0 frames I have

[Dean Romig]

This sounds like a good exercise for another entry to "Parkers Found."





.

[Mills]

Originally Posted by Dean Romig

This sounds like a good exercise for another entry to "Parkers Found."





.

I was thinking the same thing. I actually checked Parkers Found to see if there was an entry

[Aaron Beck]

Originally Posted by Bill Murphy

My personal 16 gauge research collection shows that 0 frame and 1 frame 16s are generally the same weight or close. One of my 1 frame 16s was made with a 00 frame stock, probably to arrive at a 6 1/4 pound weight without using a 0 frame.

This may be covered in Parker's 102 but how would one determine which stock size was used? Is that based on the buttplate or other measurements.

[mobirdhunter]

Mills, I'm interested in this. BTW, like Bill, I have found little predictability in the weight of 16s based on frame size. BUT, a 0 frame feels better in the hand to me (and I do a lot of carrying).

I have four 16s from the 1920s (200XXX range). They are all 1 frame guns. One weighs 6 lbs. 11 oz., one is 6 lbs. 10 oz., the third is 6 lbs. 5.6 oz., and the last one is 6 lbs. 10 oz.

I have 3 hammerless 16s from the earlier period you cite. Two are 0 frame guns, and the third is one a 1 frame.

I have two hammer 16s built on frame lightened 0 frames, but I assume you are not interested in these.

[Mills]

Thanks Garry! And sorry I missed you at the Southern, but that is easy to do at that event . . .

Are any of your 0 frames later than 183238?

Weights, factors determining weight and hammer guns might be good fodder for a future survey. To me, the narrower, more svelte 0 frames just look better

[mobirdhunter]

Originally Posted by Mills Morrison

Thanks Garry! And sorry I missed you at the Southern, but that is easy to do at that event . . .

Are any of your 0 frames later than 183238?

Weights, factors determining weight and hammer guns might be good fodder for a future survey. To me, the narrower, more svelte 0 frames just look better

No 0 frames from later that 183238, but one of the 1 frame guns is in the 124XXX range. I can look up the exact serial numbers if you like.

You may be on to something...keep at it.

[Bill Murphy]

Aaron, buttplate size is definitely a criteria, as well as stock depth and width leading up to the buttplate. I know no one measures these dimensions, but they are different in different guns. A "clue" leading me to this conclusion is that my little #1 frame DHE 16 has a buttplate smaller than on either of my .410s. That DHE 16 #1 frame weighs 6 pounds, 4 ounces with 28" barrels.