Barrel composition of pre 1900 Parkers

[Harry Reed]

I have seen various grades of Parkers with different composition barrels. For example, my Parker has Bernard barrels. There are some with Acme steel or Titanic steel. For Parkers made before 1900's is there a better barrel composition? Do all pre 1900's mfg Parkers require load considerations? Is there any info on barrel composition and load limits? Is one barrel composition stronger then another?

[Dean Romig]

The Parker Story, a two-volume set published in the 1990's has all of the information you seek except for load limits. Your questions would require several paragraphs to reply to each of them. I can think of three different fluid pressed barrel steel names and more than six different composite barrel steels used by Parker Bros. before 1900.

[Bruce Day]

TPS in the chapter on barrels includes generalized load limits by gauge including service load and proof psi. The Parker Small Bore Shot Gun pamphlet includes recommended loads. I have previously posted photos here of those tables for those interested, the last time several days ago for recommended shot shell loads. Hang tags included with each gun state the loads that Parker used for pattern testing that gun. Many users conclude that such pattern loads are correct for their gun.

In answer to Mr. Reed, 1900 has no special meaning for Parkers. All Parker barrels met proof standards at the time, first at 13,500, then 15,500. Parkers met SAAMI standards. Proof loads do not define rupture limits. There is no evidence that any given Parker barrel composition is superior in rupture resistance than any other. Parker built guns intended to handle stout loads. The Small Bore pamphlet on pp. 6,7 provides recommended 20ga loading matched to gun weight.

Persons interested in Parker shot guns are advised to study The Parker Story; most Parker questions are answered in it, besides it's a great read. Persons interested in Bernard barrels may be interested in Leopold Bernard and the history of French canon making; the Bernard canon used by Napoleon's light infantry enabled his armies to move faster and over greater distances and out-maneuver opponents. Bernard shot gun and rifle barrels were the prized French designer barrels of their day and used in best guns.

Parkers made with Bernard barrels are known in D, C and B grades and in 10, 12 and 16 gauges. I am still looking for any of the few 20's made.

[Harry Reed]

Thanks, I will take a look at The Parker Story.

[Kensal Rise]

Your barrel questions seem to include a subtle concern for relative safety. As BD has well explained, the composition or name on the barrels (rib) is of more marketing value than insurance against bursting with stout loads.

In all older doubles, the primary concern with barrels should be pits and wall thickness after honing. With barrels that still have relatively safe walls, there is little worry no matter what the name of the steel used may be.

[Bruce Day]

I agree with John's comments, except I don't know about marketing. Some people simply prefer the look of Bernard, or American Bunting, 3 blade Croille, etc over other composites. And Acme and Peerless are better finished than Vulcans. There are finish and appearance differences which fill preferences. But, again, no evidence is known that any Parker barrel is more rupture resistant than any other, particularly at SAAMI proof load pressures. So no, in answer to the common question, no evidence has been presented that Parker iron/steel composite barrels rupture at any less pressure than fluid steel.

[Holeshot]

An 1880's Parker catalog states this. If an iron barrel, no matter how thick and strong is defective and does not pass test it will splinter into small pieces, While the Damascus, Bernard, and laminated will tear like woven fabric. Our experience is that if there be the same percentage, iron and steel placed in each there is no material difference in there durability. As the hardness and strength will be the same in each. The only preference being the choice in the figure. It then states that Damascus barrels are recommended.

[Bruce Day]

Yes, David, that is true for early 1880's iron barrels; that Damascus was better than the iron barrels of the day. It was not until the advent of the Whitworth process for fluid compressed steel that fluid steel barrels equaled Damascus for strength and the Whitworth process was a closely guarded secret for many years, and costly until Krupp figured it out and began competing and prices fell. Of course all the Vulcan, Titanic, etc. Parker fluid steels were compressed and void free.

Bernards are Damascus and there are several Bernard Damascus patterns, but Parker used only one of them.

For general interest, I'll post again the Damascus Parker barrels with Terrell made into the croille.

[Dean Romig]

Originally Posted by John Campbell

The composition or name on the barrels (rib) is of more marketing value than insurance against bursting with stout loads.

I think this statement may be the case for the majority of fluid pressed steels in the Meriden days... with the exception of Whitworth Steel imported from England to be used only on the finest of Parkers.

Refer to Charlie Price's article in the 2013 Autumn Issue of Parker Pages.

[Holeshot]

Mosiac laminated Parker barrels, has an uncommon look.