S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forums10
Topics38,934
Posts550,870
Members14,460
|
Most Online1,344 Apr 29th, 2024
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 7,800 Likes: 567
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 7,800 Likes: 567 |
It seems to me that it was most likely the second borrower who was at fault. I would expect anyone to notice if a gun they were borrowing had two bulges before, during or after they shot it. It is a testimony to how strong those barrels were tha even after bulging they did not let go. Perhaps the shooter used to heavy loads at the end. If I borrowed it and did that to it I would be honor bound to buy it. You break it you buy it. Might be different if it were a long repaired stock but both barrels failing at once is operator error not gun defect. Wrong loads were used.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,561 Likes: 249
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,561 Likes: 249 |
I would live by the same thought, if I break it I buy it. I wonder if it had a 'mirror bore'. There was a discussion here not long ago. I wonder if the borrower could just say that there was a partial obstruction in one barrel, and then a 'pressure wave' caused the bulge in the other barrel. Sometimes, it doesn't seem to wash.
If the seller loaned it out to two people, and the seller is an expert, then the gun came back to the seller in proper condition after the first loan out came back. But, the seller didn't spot the problem until later.
I know what I would be thinking if I thought I shot the gun in a responsible way, and I got a heated call later. Unless the seller could narrow things down enough to play the fault card, they might possibly consider themselves lucky that it didn't let go.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 3,763 Likes: 68
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 3,763 Likes: 68 |
Seems to me the gun had the forcing cones lengthened and most likely had the bores honed out and were too thin. The gun looks redone, so who knows what had been done to it. Only Barnett would know.
I seriously doubt that someone borrowed it and shot heavy loads out of it. Someone that might have been thinking about this gun and willing to pay the price would know not to shoot 10000 psi loads or higher.
David
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,464 Likes: 133
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 11,464 Likes: 133 |
If the 2nd guy who borrowed the gun didn't notice that bulge, he'd have to be blind--and he would have called Barnett's attention to it. Seems to me pretty certain that it happened the 2nd time it was loaned out.
I've borrowed guns to try from some dealers at the Great Northern or its UP SxS predecessor. Several years back, I asked Bryan Bilinski if I could try a nice little Sauer 20ga he had on his table. He gave me the OK. Took it to the 5 stand, discovered only one barrel would shoot. Broken firing pin. But it worked out OK for both of us. I took it back to Bryan, told him I liked it . . . but wanted both barrels to work. Turned out he'd just taken it in on trade. Anyhow, we made the deal, Bryan had Del Whitman fix it, and we were both happy.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2015
Posts: 87
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jun 2015
Posts: 87 |
Is it assumed that everybody at these shoots knows what the hell they are doing? Knows about pressures and damascus?
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 12,743
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 12,743 |
Those certainly look like obstructional bulges. It is noted that when Bell intentionally burst a G grade Parker Damascus barrel by going up in the vicinity of 30K PSI it still burst in the chamber, actually between the chamber & the hole for the extractor leg. For those barrels to have bulged that far down if it was only from a regular shell there had to be an extremely thin weak area there. I believe you could "Bet the Farm" that it was some type of obstructional burst. Highly unusual to happen in both barrels, likely faulty reloads the shooter thought were low pressure. Probably had he shot regular factory "High Pressure" loads it would not have occurred.
Miller/TN I Didn't Say Everything I Said, Yogi Berra
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,561 Likes: 249
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 7,561 Likes: 249 |
If the 2nd guy who borrowed the gun didn't notice that bulge, he'd have to be blind--and he would have called Barnett's attention to it. Seems to me pretty certain that it happened the 2nd time it was loaned out.... I think this makes two, possibly, unfair assumptions. First, how come the seller can't be held to the same blindness standard. I'd be highly certain that the gun at least got wiped down for smudges and finger prints, as well as the bores, after the first shooter brought it back, and likely after the next borrower. To command the likely asking price, it had to present well on the table. And second, how do we know the bulge wasn't there before the two shooters.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 9,529 Likes: 354
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 9,529 Likes: 354 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 3,763 Likes: 68
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 3,763 Likes: 68 |
I agree to what Brother Drew posted on the Parker site and also agree to what the last poster said on the site "the gun needs to be inspected.
I edited this to say at the time this gun was made it would have been 2 9/16 chambers and not sure of bores of a Parker but L.C. Smiths up until the late 1930's were changed to 2 3/4" and the early ones would have a chambers 2 3/4" on barrel water table. Bores on early L.C. Smiths were .650 So it would be interesting to see what the bores are on this gun. I still say they were honed and the chambers lengthened.
Last edited by JDW; 08/15/16 01:16 PM.
David
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,142 Likes: 371
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 3,142 Likes: 371 |
Been informed both guys were told to be sure and use 2 1/2" shells only. JR
Be strong, be of good courage. God bless America, long live the Republic.
|
|
|
|
|