Chamber length

[J.B. Books]

Clearly Parker stated 2 5/8" chambers for 2 3/4" shells, which I think was a marketing ploy.

When did Parker's starting coming through with 2 3/4" inch chambers as a standard? I don't believe the plastic wad was invented until the 1950's, so the argument chambers were cut an 1/8" shorter for a better gas seal should have been valid right up until Remington stopped making the Parker Gun. My point Parker would never have had reason to chamber any 12ga gun non magnum gun longer than 2 5/8", but they did.

[Craig Larter]

Question: I have a 12ga Parker that letters with 2 7/8" chambers circa 1917. Was the gun intended for 3" shells? I believe both 2 7/8" and 3" 12 gauge where avaliable at this time.

[Dean Romig]

It is quite possible that the superintendent of the gun works, along with upper management, in an effort to simplify the operation and keep costs down, chose to begin chambering at least the 12 gauge guns at 2 3/4". Maybe they discovered that the supposed "improved performance" provided by a "better gas seal" wasn't significant enough to warrant anything shorter than 2 3/4". Who knows...? I think the reasoning behind all of these variations in chamber length died with the men who developed them.
Yes, they did want to make the finest shotgun on the market that would out-perform all the others, and they certainly can't be faulted for that - but times were tough in the 1930's and many things changed as a result.





.

[Dean Romig]

Originally Posted by Craig Larter

Question: I have a 12ga Parker that letters with 2 7/8" chambers circa 1917. Was the gun intended for 3" shells? I believe both 2 7/8" and 3" 12 gauge where avaliable at this time.

You can bet on it Craig!





.

[J.B. Books]

Originally Posted by Dean Romig

It is quite possible that the superintendent of the gun works, along with upper management, in an effort to simplify the operation and keep costs down, chose to begin chambering at least the 12 gauge guns at 2 3/4". Maybe they discovered that the supposed "improved performance" provided by a "better gas seal" wasn't significant enough to warrant anything shorter than 2 3/4". Who knows...? I think the reasoning behind all of these variations in chamber length died with the men who developed them.
Yes, they did want to make the finest shotgun on the market that would out-perform all the others, and they certainly can't be faulted for that - but times were tough in the 1930's and many things changed as a result.
.

Or perhaps they were forced to adhere to SAAMI standards.

[charlie cleveland]

i know one thing for sure the old paper wad in a 2 1/2 inch 410 shell will pattern in a 3 inch chambered gun as it will in a 2 1/2 inch chchambered 410... just as a 2 3/4 inch 12shell will patern the same in a 3 1/2 inch gun as well as it will in a 2 3/4 inch chambered gun..with paper wads....charlie

[Double Lab]

I have a D grade hammerless with damascus barrels ordered in 1892 with 2 3/4" chambers as per Parker letter. Is that unusual for a gun of that era to be ordered with that chamber length? The gun was ordered by DuBray and it also specified 3 1/2lb. trigger pulls.

[Researcher]

Originally Posted by Daryl Corona

I have a D grade hammerless with damascus barrels ordered in 1892 with 2 3/4" chambers as per Parker letter. Is that unusual for a gun of that era to be ordered with that chamber length? The gun was ordered by DuBray and it also specified 3 1/2lb. trigger pulls.

The ammunition companies were offering a lot of different length cases well before that time. The only UMC 1892 vintage paper I have access to is a price list and it doesn't mention anything about lengths. At that time they offered their 12-gauge smokeless powder loads in their SMOKELESS shell from 2 1/2 drams pushing 1 1/8 ounce of shot for $47.00 per thousand to 3 1/4 drams pushing 1 1/4 ounce of shot for $49.50 per thousand. If loaded in their higher brass TRAP shell an extra $5 per thousand. Their black powder NEW CLUB 12-gauge shells started at $25 per thousand.

Unfortunately we can't look into the mind of the customer and know if he wanted the gun to shoot, 2 3/4 inch shells or 2 7/8 inch shells? I do remember reading an magazine article about DuBray being on a trip through the south doing a lot of hunting with a 16-gauge using 2 7/8 inch shells.

Is there a difference in what was done when the records say "chamber 3-inch" or when they say "Chamber for 3" shells"? Would the first give the customer a 3-inch chamber and the second a 2 7/8 inch chamber?

We can certainly tie ourselves in knots over this chamber length stuff!!

[Paul Harm]

Frank, even some of the early humpback auto guns had short chambers. A friend reloads for his at 2 9/16 - believe it's a 16ga. So yes, the shell manufactures would have made a number of factory shells what we now consider short.

[Researcher]

Originally Posted by Paul Harm

Frank, even some of the early humpback auto guns had short chambers. A friend reloads for his at 2 9/16 - believe it's a 16ga. So yes, the shell manufactures would have made a number of factory shells what we now consider short.

The Browning A5 16-gauge was made for 2 9/16 inch shells up to WW-II, and our North American ammunition manufacturers continued to supply 16-gauge shells in the 2 9/16 inch length up to the early 1960s. The 12-gauge A5 was made for 2 3/4 inch shells from the get go as was the Remington Autoloading Shotgun later known as the Model11.