How big is Ithaca NID 10 mag compared to a #3 frame Parker ?

[Milton C Starr]

I was wondering if anyone has both who could post a picture of the frames beside each other . Its something ive been wondering about , I have seen people refer to the #3 frame as a light 10 ga and the NID mag being a larger frame . Something I have noticed is the barrels on the NID 10 mags look bigger because of how narrow the forend is on them . Is that because the forend is just that slender on the Ithacas or because the barrels are larger than those on a #3 frame Parker ?

[B. Dudley]

There is not too much difference in size between the frames.

The barrels on the mag 10s look heavy because they are. They are very thick and not struck too much for balance. They are pretty much an even taper from breech to muzzle.
And... the frames on the mag 10 and the super 10 are the same.

The 3 frame 10g Parker is not consider a “light” 10. A 2 frame 10 would be. The 3 frame is considered to be the standard and most common size for a 10g.

[Milton C Starr]

Originally Posted by Brian Dudley

There is not too much difference in size between the frames.

The barrels on the mag 10s look heavy because they are. They are very thick and not struck too much for balance. They are pretty much an even taper from breech to muzzle.
And... the frames on the mag 10 and the super 10 are the same.

The 3 frame 10g Parker is not consider a “light” 10. A 2 frame 10 would be. The 3 frame is considered to be the standard and most common size for a 10g.

So the NID frame is just longer but not bigger ? I read that Parker also produced 10 ga 3.5s around the same time as the NID mags . How did they go about building theirs ? I have never seen a picture of one . I have seen a #3 frame hammer gun that had 3.5" chambers but figured someone done that themselves . The articles I have read on the NID 10 mag states that Ithaca did alot of R&D on building a frame to handle the extra load . Parker however already had frame sizes suitable so I was wondering if they built theirs on frames they already had or modified a #3 frame ?

One of the reasons I was asking as well I have seen a few 8 gauges built on 10 ga 3.5s doubles from the 1960s . I had wondered if those frame were just that much larger than the older 10 ga frames that were designed for the 2 7/8s . I want to say it was a Dogs and Doubles article that I read . I was curious in what ways they beefed up guns with the 10 ga 3.5 .

I really liked the 10 ga 2 7/8 chamber myself and may get another in the future . I love reading the history on how these big guns came to be .

[Dean Romig]

Why do you think a Parker frame would need to be modified just to have longer chambers?

What they would need to do is to make the barrel taper less acute from the breech to a point further along the barrels, thus ensuring sufficient wall thickness well past the juncture of the front of the chamber and the forcing cone.





.

[B. Dudley]

When it comes to Parkers. A 3 frame is a 3 frame. Regardless of chamber length. Same goes for other frame sizes. The only difference in a gun that had longer chambers is how the barrels are struck. Longer chambered barrels would not swamp in an much as a shorter chambered gun.

In regards to the Ithacas. The only difference between the super 10 frames and the mag 10 frames is the the bottom through lug on the mag.

[Milton C Starr]

Originally Posted by Brian Dudley

When it comes to Parkers. A 3 frame is a 3 frame. Regardless of chamber length. Same goes for other frame sizes. The only difference in a gun that had longer chambers is how the barrels are struck. Longer chambered barrels would not swamp in an much as a shorter chambered gun.

In regards to the Ithacas. The only difference between the super 10 frames and the mag 10 frames is the the bottom through lug on the mag.

Reminds me of friend who builds sxs rifles and shotguns . We was talking about barrel profile or contour . He said he thinks if you went too straight with the profile say a straight cylinder which has no contour you would end up with a awkward gun . So you would want to go with a larger frame at a certain point to go up in barrel weight or thickness .

I was looking at that FrankenParker that pugs has with the steel barrels . You can visually see they have alot more contour to them than a NID magnum

[Dean Romig]

Originally Posted by Milton C Starr

If you went too straight with the profile say a straight cylinder which has no contour you would end up with a awkward gun . So you would want to go with a larger frame at a certain point to go up in barrel weight or thickness .

That's why the 3-frame and larger frames were developed - so there would be sufficient wall thickness in the critical area of roughly the first ten inches from the breech... and the taper begins even well before the ten inches. After that point the pressure drops off significantly. Actually, the barrel wall thickness in front half of the barrels can be considerably thinner than you might expect. In fact, a ten-gauge Parker with 3.5" chambers designed to be used with the magnum loads of the day might easily pass muster with wall thicknesses in the front half of something like .035".





.




.

[Dean Romig]

Originally Posted by Milton C Starr

I was looking at that FrankenParker that Pugs has with the steel barrels . You can visually see they have a lot more contour to them than a NID magnum

Maybe Parker simply had more faith in the steel they were using for their barrels.....





.

[Milton C Starr]

Originally Posted by Dean Romig

That's why the 3-frame and larger frames were developed - so there would be sufficient wall thickness in the critical area of roughly the first ten inches from the breech... and the taper begins even well before the ten inches. After that point the pressure drops off significantly.





.

Wasnt there 1 Parker 10 ga built on a #1 frame ? I thought I read that somewhere on this forum . I wonder if thats how it was built with minimal taper on the barrels . The 10" from the breech , on English made guns didnt that mark that on the proof mark ? I think they measured 9" from the breech though . The bore diameter that is , may be unrelated but I was looking at a Birmingham made 8 ga that the proof marks indicated it had a 10 ga bore 9" from the breech . At least that what I was told by a friend who has a book on proof marks . Maybe thats how that 10 ga on the #1 frame was built . Perhaps 10 ga chambers that squeezed down to a 12 ga bore . I have seen a few sxs guns built like that . I would think doing that would raise the pressures significantly. Theres a few 10 ga Parkers on #2 frames on gunbroker right now as well .

I put my 8 gauge barrels beside a set of 10 ga barrels . The breech diameters dont look that much difference but you can tell the 8 ga barrels dont start to taper as early as the 10 ga barrels .

Now I was looking at a 10 ga hammer gun on guns international . Its got some heafty barrels and weighs in 10 3/4lbs and the muzzles look pretty thick . But even so the gun has alot of taper to the barrels .

I like heavy barreled 10 gauges especially when shooting the RST 1 1/8 oz loads .

[Researcher]

Ithaca NID No. 2 Super-10 --

456295 01 32-inch Super 10.jpg

Ithaca NID No. 2E Magnum-10 --

500921 02.jpg