Barrel composition of pre 1900 Parkers

[Mills]

I seem to understand that the early, early Parkers may not be safe to shoot even with RST or other low pressure shells, even though it seems generally accepted on here that later composite steel barrels are safe to shoot, assuming no issues and with low pressure shells. Obviously, all old barrels should be shot with care, but what time period or barrel types should one pay closer attention to? Do any of the experts on here care to shed some light on the subject?

[Drew Hause]

Please see
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1...YvzD18i3c/edit

and
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1...hIiY62Hx4/edit

and
http://www.picturetrail.com/sfx/album/view/17227428
http://www.picturetrail.com/sfx/album/view/19406549
http://www.picturetrail.com/sfx/album/view/19025099

Bruce is aware that Parker Bernard barrels were sourced from Belgium
Leopold died in 1870 and his business ceased operation in 1890
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1...P3FP0fXb0/edit

[Bruce Day]

There are non Parker cheap barrels made of rolled steel edge welded and printed with a fake Damascus pattern. Don't shoot those. All the early lifter action Parker barrels I have seen look pretty stout and have ample wall thickness, and well they should because a common practice was to cram as much black powder in the hull as possible and blast away. I don't know about the back action lifters and hinge lock early Meriden Mfg guns.

People commonly say " low pressure " without defining low pressure. To me , assuming unaltered barrels, appropriate pressure remains Parker service loads as made. Some throw out 6000 psi for a 12 ga based upon British loads, but those are for thin walled 2" guns which are a long way from Parker stout. Others throw out 8500psi ( 12ga) without any apparent documentary justification . So I don't know what folks mean when they say low pressure. To me, I am more concerned with low recoil for target loads than low pressure, so that means 1 oz or less and maybe 1100 fps for a 12. Lots of confusion between low recoil and low pressure.

[Mills]

Santa is bringing me a back action lifter in the 1,000 serial number range. It has decarbonized steel barrels. Earlier this Fall, I bought what appears to be an early Grade 2 front action lifter in the 1,100 serial number range. It has Damascus barrels. Right now, I don't plan on shooting the back action at all, but keeping it as a collector piece. The front action, I want to get checked out and shoot if ok. I am not far enough along in my knowledge to define "low pressure" other than using RST shells.

Thanks Bruce and Drew for the info.

[Drew Hause]

Mills: I share your apprehension regarding pre-c. 1870 Decarbonized Steel barrels





"Bessemer process homogenous wrought iron" was sourced from Remington Arms. Pages 503 & 504 of The Parker Story state that Parker changed the name to "Plain Steel" as Remington was using the name "Decarbonized" on their newly introduced Model 1873 & 1875/1876 Hammer Lifter doubles.

I am of the opinion that pattern welded barrel quality is assessed based on the over-all quality of the gun; with no intrinsic difference in strength between Twist, Damascus or Laminated Steel based on the 1891 Birmingham Proof House Trial
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1...WMIMkdKr0/edit

[Harry Reed]

Thanks again Drew and Bruce for the links. Very interesting!!!

[Bruce Day]

As for me, I'll take Damascus, Bernard or other fine croille. My search guns are a 20ga Bernard ( the Holy Grail) or a 20 or 16 Fine Damascus AH . Those barrels are much more interesting than fluid steel and just as capable.

Here are first a 12 then a 16.

[Mills]

Agree that fluid steel barrels are boring.

[OH Osthaus]

Originally Posted by Bruce Day

All the early lifter action Parker barrels I have seen look pretty stout and have ample wall thickness, and well they should because a common practice was to cram as much black powder in the hull as possible and blast away.

as long as no one has been to aggressive in "cleaning" them up, they look like pipes, I don't think these have been honed at all




i do stick with lower pressure/lowwer recoil loads for the sake of the wood.

but, my 1904 VH was rebarrelled by Remington with modern chambers, I shot modern 2 3/4 in it (not all that many a year) and this year noticed a fine crack in the wrist of that old wood - i can't prove it- but my guess is stiffer loads didn't help

[Mills]

Rick, I am getting hooked on 7/8 oz loads for much the reason you give. Easy on the gun and easy on the shoulder and still deadly for whatever you shoot