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
Posts550,873
Members14,460
|
Most Online1,344 Apr 29th, 2024
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,042 Likes: 27
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 2,042 Likes: 27 |
I think CB and 2-piper make good points. There isn't anything mystical about them, but they have a mystique that comes from their well-deserved reputation. For my part, I think they're prettier than other American guns. The Fox is a much simpler design, but I had a hammer break in one. That hasn't happened with a Parker, not that I shoot nearly enough to generalize.
Bill Ferguson
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2015
Posts: 1,130 Likes: 19
Sidelock
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Nov 2015
Posts: 1,130 Likes: 19 |
I think to compare Parker to Boss or Purdey is just foolish. Entirely different kinds of companies making different kind of product. Just as we would not compare Ferrari with Volvo.
The OP starts really with a different question.....are they the best of American factory brands.
What gets missed by many in these types of discussions and it may be easier for a non American to see it, is the nationalism at play. Collectability, current market pricing....these things are driven hugely by a desire for Americana, for lack of a better term. And the value due to that aspect affects the judgment about how Parker (and the rest of American guns) fit into the wider world of shotguns.
Take off the "American" or the "English" hat and judge any and all guns based on design and workmanship. I don't know where Parker would line up in that but I doubt it would be anywhere close to Boss or Purdey. I'm Rick by the way, I totally get where you are coming from, not comparing Purdey, Boss in the same quality i.e. side by side as in next to each other, but looking at it regionally, you have American makers that run the gambit and then you have English,and so forth and within their regions they are tiered by quality, fit and finish. So the Q wasn't saying the Parker was on Par with Purdey, but giving a curve to American makers "would Parker have been the Purdey of America"? I hope that makes sense?
Last edited by RARiddell; 05/01/19 11:05 AM.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 12,743
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 12,743 |
Rick; Yes, that makes total sense & was actually the way I was looking at it & my attempt to give an answer based on that. That still leaves me with the same answer. I personally believe that as far as Fit & Finish of all parts goes the Parker was at the top of the line in American made doubles.
That said with all things considered, especially from a design standpoint, I will still put the Lefever as the most desirable, "To Me", double of American make.
C'back; I also have a JP Sauer & Son sidelock. It was made for sale on the US market through VL&D as their Knock-About at that point, Ca 1901/02. The sears on this gun sit vertically in the lockplate & engage the hammers on their outer periphery, a Design I believe to be extremely good. It does not have intercepting sears, but personally, I believe the design is such it truly does not need them.
I am sure similar statements could be made concerning Englis "Best" guns. Obviously, some preferred a Boss or H&H to a Purdey.
Miller/TN I Didn't Say Everything I Said, Yogi Berra
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 6,996 Likes: 493
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 6,996 Likes: 493 |
I've never quite understood the Parker mystique. There are lots of ways to evaluate "best" and most of them are subjective and personal. Because I am not a big fan of them, I also do not know a lot about them from personal experience, so how would a Parker rate at
1. Handling = most important to me, I give Lefever the edge and Parker a distant 4th, well behind Smith and Fox as well.
2. Looks = Same as above. They maybe be well fit and finished but the actions look clunky to me.
3. Reliability = I don't know, but probably higher than Lefever I'm guessing
4. Strength = Again hard to judge but perhaps this is their forte. I have never see this evaluated objectively.
5. Value = For the dollar, Parker seems pretty pricey in comparison to the other 3.
I don't want to denigrate a Parker as I am sure they are very fine guns, but relative to some of the others, I do not see them as special in anyway other than some people just seem to like them a lot more for unlisted reasons.
_________ BrentD, (Professor - just for Stan) =>/
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,468
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,468 |
I think the greatest advantage of Parker was the availability of so many different frame sizes and stock fittings.
You can only compare an English "bests" to an American "best". Any other comparison is only foolish.
David Trevalian once told me that he considered the 1883 Colt the best made American shotgun. I've owned several and cannot disagree.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 6,996 Likes: 493
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 6,996 Likes: 493 |
Pete, so what do you like about the Colt? What makes it the best?
_________ BrentD, (Professor - just for Stan) =>/
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 9,350
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 9,350 |
I anticipated my exclamation mark would indicate Parker as the Purdey of America---not overall (although I lean to agnostic comparing the popularity, practicality and durability of the two).
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 7,800 Likes: 567
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 7,800 Likes: 567 |
Parker design is overly complex. I prefer a clean simple design but as 2-piper notes the internal finish level may have been required because of the design. It is not a superior design, not a Best gun in the British sense at all. It is what it is. A solid reliable gun capable of giving decades of service. But for that matter there are several others as well. I like Fox and Lefever, my son likes Remington 1894s and a small bore Smith I gave him.
Internal finish was always done only to the level required for function in America. Extra labor, to go past that point, was just loss profit and profit margins were always thin on guns due to cheap imports and the invention of simpler repeaters. Repeaters never took over the market in Great Britain like they did here. Remington got out of the double market early to make repeaters, then Winchester followed. Ithaca remained in both markets the longest. And I have not forgotten the Model 21. It was the personal pet project of the person who ran Winchester and I bet sales of repeaters made it possible from a money standpoint.
Truth be told there are no real American best guns except for a handful of the highest custom made high grade guns. Call it 1/2 of 1% to be generous. Where Boss, H&H and their equivalents were almost all Best or near best quality.
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 8,158 Likes: 114
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 8,158 Likes: 114 |
Huumm- "best Guns" hey-- OK, why did Limey gun scribe Gough Thomas rate the Model 12 Winchester so highly=in function and in appearance as well-= ditto Steve Bodio-- Winchester was never "in the double gun market" in their early years- when they offered the ugly lever actioned shotguns in 10 and 12 bore-- They imported the doubles they then sold here in America..
Both the Browning Superposed and the Winchester M21 were developed in answer to the thought of reducing shotgun magazine capacity in re: waterfowling and excessive bag limits-- John Olin liked the M21- and he was the main reason WRA kept it in production after Olin bought the Co. in the 1930's--
Are Parkers the best of the American made boxlock doubles? Hard to answer, but I'm more of a mind like the late Michael McIntosh-- I vote for the A.H. Fox-- RWTF
"The field is the touchstone of the man"..
|
|
|
|
|