A Diamond in the Rough?

[Jay Oliver]

This might first appear to be “just another old lifter” and I thought so too. When I bought this 2 Frame 12 gauge lifter with 28” barrels, weighing just over 8 pounds with a 14 ¼ LOP. The description said it was missing the left hammer. When I got the gun, it turned out that the tumbler was broke as well. I got a tumbler, hammer screw and a hammer from Brian Dudley. I was able to change everything out on the lock and now the gun is functional again.

As I was looking over the gun I got to thinking that this hammer must have broken off the gun very early on in ownership as it did not seem look it had a lot of use. Unfortunately, it must have had some corrosion over the years as it was sitting. The locks look like they were clean with an abrasive around the hammers. The barrels and bottom of the receive look like they are coated in a urethane or shellac. I may try and see if I can gently remove that. I don’t know why someone would have needed to put a screwdriver to this Parker, but they weren’t thinking.

The good news is all the checkering is still very sharp. The bores are excellent and the gun is tight. Look at the breech of the receiver, I have never seen case coloring there like that before. This cannot have been shot very much. That hammer had to have broken soon after it was purchased and it has been sitting ever since.
I would like to find a left hammer that is a little better match and an engraved hammer screw. Then just try to get the shellac/urethane off the barrels and receiver.

I thought everyone would appreciate seeing this and perhaps speculate what might have happened to this old Parker…

[Jay Oliver]

A few more pictures...

[Jack Kuzepski]

Jay,

That is a very nice diamond in the rough. Glad you got the parts needed to get it functional and I agree about the colors on the receiver and fore end iron. Good for you. Let us know how it shoots.

Jack Kuzepski

[Jay Oliver]

Here is the forend. Too bad it has that oil stain in it...

[edgarspencer]

Hard to imagine, but it appears the left side looks unfired, or at the most very very few times.

[Jack Kuzepski]

Wow, that checkering is sharp! You're right about that stain, but how old is that gun?
That gun is in really remarkable shape.

Jack

[Jay Oliver]

I would like to clean this up in a way where I am helping not hurting. I am not sure if you can tell from the pictures, the butt stock is dark with a few white paint splotches on one side.

The gun was made in 1880, so it makes sense that it has some stains and marks, even if it was just sitting.

I did get the research letter. It lists it as a $75 Grade. Chokes are 140/140 in a 24" Circle at 45 yards. I think that's modified...

[Joe D.]

I believe Tom Carter can make you a screw. Tom has an engraver that matched the engraving on my Wm. Moore perfectly and the case color matched perfectly as well. I was very happy with his work.

[Mike Poindexter]

I'm a little confused. I see s/n 13022 on the frame and fore-end iron, but 9369 on the barrel flats. I assume the latter is an assembly number rather than a serial number. What confuses me is that the frame has the radiused corner between the flats and the breech face. I have a 10 ga Quality E like this one that has s/n 13249 but has the sharp 90 degree corner rather than the radius. I thought I read somewhere that the radius came in about 5000 guns later than these. Also, I'm wondering what the surface finish is, in terms of smoothness not color. I looks like a micro pebble grain or some such from the photos. Am I seeing what's not there, or is there something going on with it. Appreciate any thoughts from those more experienced than I. BTW, nice gun Jay.

[Jay Oliver]

Hi Mike, The serial# is actually 18022, which is why it has the radiused receiver. The surface of the barrels and receivers has something sprayed on them which makes it look like it has a pebbled texture. I need to figure out how to gently remove all of that...