Steve's new GH

[Bruce Day]

1911 GHE SN 155,033, barrels redone by Dale Edmunds.

If your barrels look something like this, I'd leave them alone. If all the pattern is gone and they are just silver, well you can see how pretty the damascus pattern is. If the pattern is thin, wiping Formby's Tung Oil on the barrels can bring some of it back.

[Stepmac]

Originally Posted by Bruce Day

1911 GHE SN 155,033, barrels redone by Dale Edmunds.

If your barrels look something like this, I'd leave them alone. If all the pattern is gone and they are just silver, well you can see how pretty the damascus pattern is. If the pattern is thin, wiping Formby's Tung Oil on the barrels can bring some of it back.

The barrels look like your gun for about 60% of the tubes. Tell you what I'm going to do. I'll shoot it for a while and then decide how much I want to guzzy up the piece. The gun is in good enough shape that I can see what it'd look like if spruced up a bit. It is an 1895 gun! That's a long time ago. My grandfather was 2 when the gun was made, and he was OLD! He has been dead for nearly fifty years! So when I handle this GH I know that she is an antique and needs to be treated with respect.

But she cries to be shot.

[Stepmac]

Stub Twist: I like your load, and if I can find the components I'll use it. I have stacked up copies of Sherman Bell's damascus shooting articles in DGJ and read them end to end. I am therefore pretty confident with shooting my GH.

The gun hefts heavy. I'd say it weighs more than my Superposed, which is also a heavy shotgun. The barrels look thick. I haven't even thought to flick them to see if they "ring".

The Parker is so heavy that I think it'd be hard to "hump" on a long upland game hunt. However, I think it'd be very good while shooting sporting clays with appropriate shells.

I read about the several frame sizes in Parkers. My 2 is not the heaviest, but next to it. I suspect that a 3 is very heavy. I guess that a 1 1/2 is about the best, but I've never held one. I also see a no. 1. Is there an 0? In any event my Parker GH no. 2 frame made in 1895 is no lightweight, just the opposite.

[Bruce Day]

Steve, some early 1 frame 12's weigh more than some 2 frame 12's. By the 19teens, it seems they got the weights more stabilized, so as a general rule then , the higher the frame number , the greater the weight. There are no known 0 frame 12's, although there are 1/2 frame 12's, which do not necessarily weigh less than 1 1/2 frame guns. Although a person would have to search for a while, the lightest 12's that a person can reasonably find are the post about 1910 1 frame 12's with 26" barrels, which will be maybe 6 1/2lbs. 1 1/2 frame 12's in 28" often weigh around 7lbs, which is a nice upland game shooting weight for a 12.

I posted this on the assumption that you are serious about pursuing a light 12. Some (me) would suggest you just go find a 16 ga.

Being a Parker novice, I'm sure others can explain the frame/weight relationship better.

[Stepmac]

When it comes to shooting these late 19th Century double barreled shotguns I am drawn to my "I" grade Lefever which is feather light.



My GH, as I've said is new. I don't even have any shells for it yet. It must weight two pounds more than the Lefever above. It is a 1901 gun.

[Stepmac]

My GH has pretty nice barrels, but are worn silver above the forearm.

[Stepmac]

More of my GH.

[Stepmac]

This shows my gun pretty well. It is untouched.

[Carl Erickson Jr]

Steve: Your barrels look better than mine-someone has thoughtfully cold blued mine ..... On the other hand they pattern well.

[Stepmac]

Originally Posted by Carl Erickson Jr

Steve: Your barrels look better than mine-someone has thoughtfully cold blued mine ..... On the other hand they pattern well.

I wonder if Kearcher could remove the cold blue and refinish the damascus. I understand that the cold blue, however; soaks into the barrel material pretty deeply. It is not cheap to refinish those tubes...something close to $300 or maybe more now.