File this in the FWIW dept if you want. Parker's statement that dry firing was ok was based on the fact that the firing pins are an integral part of the hammer, on the 'hammerless' guns. Any gun which has seperate firing pins, usually have springs to return the firing pin when the hammer is lifted off of them. This is true whether they are bushed firing pins, inserted into the breech face, or internal. Dry firing these guns causes excessive firing pin travel, crushing the coils of the firing pins spring over one another, eventually jamming the firing pin.
While Parker may have felt it was OK to dry fire hammerless (internal hammers) guns, I personally don't believe it's good practice. Here's my justification: If you take a shell fired from each barrel, then dry fire the gun, remove the fore end and barrels, then take a shell fired from the left barrel and hold it up to the left firing pin, ( and the same process for the right barrel) you will likely find that the base of the shell rocks, pivoting on the firing pin. It should be evident that this means the firing pin has traveled further forward than it would have, striking a new shell (or fired shell, or snap cap). So, rather than the cartridge or snap cap stopping the hammer/firing pin travel, it's the internal surfaces, such as the pin pocket, or other parts of the hammer. The simple action of the firing pin crushing the primer is, in effect, a cushioning action. If I have snap caps, I use them. I have more extractor Parkers than ejector Parkers, so I can't really comment on the effects of dry firing ejector guns, on the ejector rods, or dolls head grooves.
|
06-26-2012, 05:57 PM
Hybrid Mode