Parker Gun Collectors Association Forums  

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

Notices

Reply
Thread Tools Display Modes
Unread 12-09-2021, 08:44 PM   #11
Member
ArtS
PGCA Member

Member Info
 
Join Date: Nov 2021
Posts: 751
Thanks: 54
Thanked 1,011 Times in 396 Posts

Default

Chuck

The section I read states that the notation on the 12 bore was made in the stock book in March 1892. The similar 10 bore note was reported to be a a few months later. This should allow you look for it pretty quickly.

Anything written is open to error, but this was a discussion several pages long by some knowledgeable people, so I doubt they were simply reporting anecdotal evidence. They seemed to be careful to report it as such throughout their writing. I for one would be very interested to know if these notations really exist.
Arthur Shaffer is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 12-09-2021, 09:16 PM   #12
Member
Milton C Starr
Forum Associate

Member Info
 
Join Date: Jun 2019
Posts: 1,500
Thanks: 475
Thanked 1,000 Times in 462 Posts

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruce P Bruner View Post
Yup, I have seen it also. "plaid table guy"
He does have a few interesting listings and then some of his others are puzzling.
Milton C Starr is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 12-10-2021, 12:17 PM   #13
Member
Dean Romig
PGCA Invincible
Life Member
 
Dean Romig's Avatar

Member Info
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 31,563
Thanks: 35,442
Thanked 33,042 Times in 12,322 Posts

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arthur Shaffer View Post
One thing I have never seen is any similar discussion about the 16 gauge. I have one from 1901, but it is a standard 16 ga bore size. If any lifter model 16 owners have measured their bores, it would be interesting to know if any are overbored.


My 16 gauge D Lifter 18719 measures .664” and .665” the entire length of the bore excluding the choke constriction.





.
__________________
"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 online now   Reply With Quote
Unread 06-22-2022, 01:27 AM   #14
Member
ArtS
PGCA Member

Member Info
 
Join Date: Nov 2021
Posts: 751
Thanks: 54
Thanked 1,011 Times in 396 Posts

Default

I thought I would dredge up this old thread because there was an interesting report in the most recent Parker Pages under Parkers In Pulp for 1893 which relates to this subject. I again read the section in Volume II of TPS concerning bores starting on page 516 and noticed that it quoted an article from 1873 applauding Parker for overboring their barrels. In the Parker Pages this month, there is an August 12, 1893 report from American Field covering the large display of Parker guns (300+) at the Chicago Columbian Exposition in 1893, which was overseen by DuBrey. A major talking point of the story was that all the Parkers at the time of the exhibit were made to true bore size and that up to that time, they had used barrels one gauge larger, along with the matching wads. The comment was made that this change made them perform better with Nitro powders (an allusion, I supect, to paper shells). In reading the article, it seems obvious that the article was based primarily on an interview with DuBrey who was peddling the corporate line. Given the importance of this exposition, the comments made, and the fact that this was only 17 months after the 12 gauge bore and "o" stamp comments were entered into the shop books in March 1892 according to TPS, I suspect that this was a much more considered change than just being related to barrel supply and industry standardization. It would appear that Parker made the change based on customer perception of modern trends in ammo and their competitive position. It would still be interesting from a scholarly standpoint if the statements concerning the March 1892 note and the subsequent 10 gauge note could be verified. It would certainly make it easier to evaluate the originality of pre and post 1892 barrels in a more definitive manner.
Arthur Shaffer is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to Arthur Shaffer For Your Post:
Unread 06-22-2022, 01:16 PM   #15
Member
charlie cleveland
PGCA Member

Member Info
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 12,986
Thanks: 0
Thanked 7,787 Times in 3,967 Posts

Default

one thing for sure 11 ga shells are hard to come by....I ve only seen one parker brothers 11 ga paper shell and a few 11 b brass shells....there was a discussion about this old 11 ga I got from brian our gun smith this gun was owned by Austin hogun...he discussed this gun at length....dean may can recall some of it....Charlie....
charlie cleveland is offline   Reply With Quote
Unread 06-22-2022, 01:51 PM   #16
Member
todd allen
PGCA Member

Member Info
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 2,136
Thanks: 1,890
Thanked 3,249 Times in 1,125 Posts

Default

I have pondered this subject a bit. I know I have posted about an early Lifter (1874) I bought from Chadick's some years back that was sold as a 10 gauge (based on bore size) but turned out to have 12 gauge chambers. Someone back in the day suggested that maybe it was actually built to be an 11 gauge chambered for brass cartridges. I dunno.
I understand the mistake, and had no problem keeping the gun as it shoots 12 ga. just fine.
todd allen is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to todd allen For Your Post:
Unread 06-23-2022, 07:46 AM   #17
Member
John Davis
PGCA Lifetime
Member
 
John Davis's Avatar

Member Info
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,824
Thanks: 3,619
Thanked 6,247 Times in 1,227 Posts

Default

You never know what you might find in “Parkers ln Pulp.”
__________________
"Life is short and you're dead an awful long time." Destry L. Hoffard

"Oh Christ, just shoot the damn thing."
Destry L. Hoffard
John Davis is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to John Davis For Your Post:
Unread 06-23-2022, 08:44 AM   #18
Member
Dean Romig
PGCA Invincible
Life Member
 
Dean Romig's Avatar

Member Info
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 31,563
Thanks: 35,442
Thanked 33,042 Times in 12,322 Posts

Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Davis View Post
You never know what you might find in “Parkers ln Pulp.”


My favorite ongoing contribution in Parker Pages to the collective knowledge of
Parkerphiles, bar none.






.
__________________
"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 online now   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Dean Romig For Your Post:
Unread 06-23-2022, 04:11 PM   #19
Member
Researcher
PGCA Lifetime
Member
 
Dave Noreen's Avatar

Member Info
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 3,597
Thanks: 1,617
Thanked 7,773 Times in 2,353 Posts

Default

Looking at the early UMC price lists on the International Ammunition web site I see 1869 and early 1870s show 10- & 12-gauge brass shells. By 1878 they show 8- to 14-gauge brass shells. The 1880 price list shows a wider array of brass shells including No. 11 & 15 and they mention A & B shells along with the addition of paper shells.

1880 UMC Catalogue.png

In the 1882 UMC catalog they only list No. 11 B shells --

1882 shotshells.jpg

By the 1884 UMC catalog the No. 11 shells are gone --

1884 shotshells.jpg
Dave Noreen is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

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 08:30 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 1998 - 2023, Parkerguns.org
Copyright © 2004 Design par Megatekno
- 2008 style update 3.7 avec l'autorisation de son auteur par Stradfred.