Parker Gun Collectors Association Forums  

Go Back   Parker Gun Collectors Association Forums Parker Forums General Parker Discussions

Notices

Reply
Thread Tools Display Modes
Unread 04-07-2017, 10:28 AM   #11
Member
Hammer Fan
Forum Associate
 
Forrest Grilley's Avatar

Member Info
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 120
Thanks: 43
Thanked 75 Times in 21 Posts

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Drew Hause View Post
Forrest: The Birmingham Proof House does not reject barrels for proving based on wall thickness, and if that .018" is out toward the muzzle, it could well pass.
http://www.gunproof.com/Proofing/proofing.html
The barrels are at much higher risk of a dent.

While we're here, some factory small gauge Parkers have been documented to have MWT in the distal barrels less than .020".
http://parkerguns.org/pages/faq/BarrelThickness.htm
Thank you, I stand corrected. I always thought that the proof houses had a minimum standard of what they would accept as far as wall thickness. I confused that with what the gun trade informally holds as a minimum standard.
__________________
“Nitro cracking in woodcock cover has something about it as respectable as a village church bell.”~Gordon Macquarrie
Forrest Grilley is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 04-07-2017, 12:03 PM   #12
Member
Big D
PGCA Member
 
John Dallas's Avatar

Member Info
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 4,478
Thanks: 503
Thanked 3,943 Times in 1,674 Posts

Default

The U.S. has no proof house, as opposed to the U.K.

Caveat Emptor
__________________
"Striving to become the man my dog thinks I am"
John Dallas is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 04-07-2017, 01:52 PM   #13
Member
Drew Hause
Forum Associate
 
Drew Hause's Avatar

Member Info
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 2,270
Thanks: 372
Thanked 4,273 Times in 1,387 Posts

Default

John is correct, which is not to say the guns were not proved.

Parker Brothers 1893 Catalogue
“Our guns are bored on the latest improved system for shooting Nitros, or Smokeless Powder, and all our guns are tested with some one of the most approved makes, and a tag accompanies each gun, giving the results of such a (pattern) test.”
(No records exist regarding the specific proof load in that time period.)

“A Trip Thru Parker Bros.”, 1923. Courtesy of Jeff Kuss




A Parker Service and Proof Load table was published in the 1930s and reproduced in the The Parker Story p. 515. 12g 2 3/4” shell Service Pressure is 10,500 psi. Definitive proof used 7.53 Drams (no doubt) black powder and 2 oz. shot with a pressure of 15,900 psi. The pressure was measured using LUP and modern transducer values would be 10-14% higher, or more than 17,500 psi.

LTC Calvin Goddard writing in “Army Ordnance” in 1934, reported that Parker followed the SAAMI standards then in force: 13,700 psi proof, 9500 psi service for 2 5/8" chamber; 15,900 psi proof, 10,500 psi service for 2 3/4" chamber (by LUP) + 10-14% for modern transducer measurement.
Drew Hause is offline   Reply With Quote
Visit Drew Hause's homepage!
Unread 04-07-2017, 04:33 PM   #14
Member
Gary Laudermilch
Forum Associate

Member Info
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,330
Thanks: 3,049
Thanked 2,113 Times in 676 Posts

Default

Interesting article. Two questions come to mind.

1. If the barrels are not properly regulated upon POI testing how did they change the regulation on a finished set of barrels?
2. The article states that after proof each barrel is stamped on the flats. What does that mark look like?
Gary Laudermilch is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 04-08-2017, 07:39 AM   #15
Member
Dean Romig
PGCA Invincible
Life Member
 
Dean Romig's Avatar

Member Info
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 32,977
Thanks: 38,708
Thanked 35,948 Times in 13,174 Posts

Default

Here's an example on a late Remington Parker but that "OVERLOAD PROVED" stamp was used on Parkers in the later Meriden days.


.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg Remington Parker 242242 7.jpg (123.7 KB, 2 views)
__________________
"I'm a Setter man.
Not because I think they're better than the other breeds,
but because I'm a romantic - stuck on tradition - and to me, a Setter just "belongs" in the grouse picture."

George King, "That's Ruff", 2010 - a timeless classic.
Dean Romig is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 04-08-2017, 07:43 AM   #16
Member
Gary Laudermilch
Forum Associate

Member Info
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 1,330
Thanks: 3,049
Thanked 2,113 Times in 676 Posts

Default

Looks like the article Drew provided above is dated 1923.
Gary Laudermilch is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 04-08-2017, 08:49 AM   #17
Member
Kensal Rise
PGCA Member

Member Info
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 1,772
Thanks: 625
Thanked 2,590 Times in 929 Posts

Default

It is well to keep in mind that the "proof safety" of any gun barrel is only valid at the factory, and for as long as the subject barrel remains unaltered.

Within the decades that many of double guns we admire have existed, they have stood liable to a panoply of factors that can negate proof. Parker, British, or otherwise. Most of these factors involve a host of bodgers who may have attacked the barrel with various implements over the years. To shorten, open, hone, lengthen chambers or otherwise alter the barrel to a less than safe condition. Especially with the use of certain ammunition.

Thus, most if not all classic doubles should be assessed by a professional and competent double gunsmith before any verdict is rendered as to their safety and suitability for shooting today.
John Campbell is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to John Campbell For Your Post:
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:56 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 1998 - 2025, Parkerguns.org
Copyright © 2004 Design par Megatekno
- 2008 style update 3.7 avec l'autorisation de son auteur par Stradfred.