Love 'em or hate 'em they are great guns. But are they truely the best American hand crafted gun, would they be considered the American version of Purdey for the time period? I have always heard or read "As a kid I always dreamed of owning a Parker". I myself have been guilty of thinking this. Now I own Parkers and absolutely love them, I have also owned many other American made guns, but they didnt stay long and have found other homes, and now I find myself only with Parkers. So is there some mystic powers that keeps Parkers in the minds of those, or is that they are truely a greatest American made gun?

is that they are truely a greatest American made gun? ???

Not relevant.

They have worked for me for decades and still do! So why shop around? Best to just go shooting!

From my observation when the "American Classics) were being built the Parker was the most expensive of the lot. Some of the other makers made a few high-end grades which were comparable with Parker, but over the entire field, Parkers were higher priced.

This I believe is reflected in a higher refined gun, particularly in the lower grades. That said I personally much prefer Lefevers even though they are not quite as highly finished internally. They finished their guns where it was important to their function but weren't as particular as Parker overall.

I haven't experience to provide an answer although I've taken satisfaction from Miller's and other's observations of quality consistent through the grades--and that must stand for something: to think my 16 0 grade and 12 VH are right up there with Parker higher-grade mechanisms, the Boss and Purdey of America!

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.

Unless you've owned a Parker and a English best made it's hard to answer. I can say, owning a number of Parkers, that the workmanship is as good as any manufacture of the day. Fit and finish and internal polishing of all parts is all excellent. Parker lost money on their cheapest grade guns because the same man hours were put in to make one.

If you ever look inside a J P Sauer you will discover what is well finished. Anything American made is finished for function ( highest grades excluded). The Germans look like they were making fancy watches not guns. Fanstic metal finish!
bill

In total agreement C'back. The Parker gun is a rather complicated design & in my opinion, not a very good design. My comments were directed solely at the care given to the internal finishing of the gun. In fact, due to their complication, it is most likely this attention to fit & finish was an absolute necessity for them to work at all satisfactory. Many other American designs were simpler & did not require this attention for function & consequently did not receive it, particularly in the lower grades.

My answer to the original is thus, Yes, I consider it America's best-finished gun, But, No, I do not consider it America's Best Gun.

Miller, I'm glad you agree with me, mostly because that means I'm not being a total idiot. Haha!

Bill, I was with CJO a couple months ago with the locks off a 1930 Purdey and a 1895 Sauer, comparing them. The Sauer is a lower grade sidelock, minimal engraving and a broken stock. But the locks! As CJO was pointing out to me, obviously a different design but the finishing, while not exactly at the Purdey level, was not far off.

Prior to the "Panic of 1907" several makers offered guns to the same price point

…………...……...Parker..................L.C. Smith..............Remington

$70...............VH........................No. 0E ($60)............BO ($75)

$80...............GH........................No. 2........................BEO

$100.............DH........................No. 3........................CE ($95)

$150.............CH.........................No. 4........................D

$200.............BH.........................No. 5........................E ($225)
(AE on Smith guns add $15)


Top of the line in 1906 William Read & Sons Catalogue
“Highest Quality” Westley Richards with single trigger - $595
W.W. Greener “Imperial” - $500
W&C Scott “Premier” - $375
W&C Scott “Imperial Premier” - price on application
Purdey - 89 pounds Sterling 5 shillings = about $436
Joseph Lang & Son “Highest Quality” sidelock ejector - 65 guineas
Parker Bros. AAHE - net price of $318.75
Lefever Optimus - $280
Remington Special - $750


1918 High Grade MSRP Comparisons
Smith Monogram - $400
Parker AHE - $410
Ithaca No. 6E - $310
(1921 Folsom) Baker Deluxe - $385
Smith Crown - $250
Parker BHE - $300
Ithaca No. 5E - $210
(1921 Folsom) Baker Expert - $215

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.

A reasonable index of the turn-of-the-century top shotguns, would be what guns were the "Top Guns" using?
Prior to 1895 clearly British - mostly Greener and Scott
After Fred Gilbert won the First DuPont Grand Smokeless Championship Handicap Live-bird Tournament October 1895 with a Smith, the Smith was most popular.
Guns used
https://digital.la84.org/digital/collection/p17103coll17/id/53099

About 1899 (Gilbert switched to Parker that year) Parker took over (with increasing popularity of Winchester 1897 also).

25s at 1901 GAH at Live Birds and the guns used
https://digital.la84.org/digital/collection/p17103coll2/id/42076



Smith went 1-2-3 at the 1902 GAH at Live Birds (Last)
https://digital.la84.org/digital/collection/p17103coll17/id/41019


Lots more here
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1D8QkBDo-KIQYk2G8lkE-kHLUybB5NJzBahX_eFKEyuY/preview

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?

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.

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.

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.

Pete, so what do you like about the Colt? What makes it the best?

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).

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 1894’s 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.

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

Yeah, they are. All the best American makers were capable of putting out impressive guns at the high end, but compare the fit and finish of a base grade Parker to any other base grade gun and you will see the difference. To my mind, the internals of a Parker are the only ones you could run across your wife's stockings without risking a snag.

I love the Smiths, really do, but the design always seemed to me to need a little tweaking to let the gun realize its full potential. As lovely as the Lefevers are, I am often shocked at the poor finish on working surfaces; I am inherently suspicious of a gun built with so many wear adjustments. Though they finally got it right, Ithaca had a hard time designing a gun that could survive into the smokeless powder era.

Jon, is it possible the often ebullient, extremely-extravagant-with-words Americans tend to downrate themselves when it comes to shotguns? I'm common as a user but handled great guns here and overseas.

How much of "best" is embellishment, prestige and means to own one? For purpose, balance and looks I'd pull out my 16ga Parker1889 hammer (and maybe my 1925 "benchmark" 12ga Sterly) before an overseas best.

Didn't Michael McIntosh say so!

There is far more to a Best gun than just embellishments, and a best gun can still be a best gun without engraving. No American made double I’m aware of should be considered alongside a Best quality gun.

Bolt guns...some Americans rival the best.

That wasn't a part of my query but you got me thinking now, So what you are saying is there are no "Best" Quality American made guns? So where would higher end American makers fall? Would there be a "Best" gun maker out of the the American manufacturers? One that was of higher quality than the others, similar to Purdey in rep, but not in exacts.

I think Miller and few others are the only ones to actually read the post!

Just one comment ........... I'd ten times rather have a nice condition Sterlingworth than a nice condition Trojan.

SRH

Sterlingworth vs. Trojan? My answer:



...Geo

This discussion may be better asked if we use Rocketman's Brand Value category. As with the English guns there is an cache to certain names. Parker for some reason is a high brand name. Is a Fox and LC Smith at the same brand value?

Ken

Perhaps reading comprehension is not well established here. I stated you cannot compare a working class gun with a best of any manufacturer. Nuff said.

If you simply compare quality of manufacturing, you usually run into the opinion problem. Personal preference also enters. I prefer light guns. That usually means smaller gauges when it comes to American guns. Parker did make a variety of light 12's which had to convince many to prefer that maker. I don't believe Colt made light guns and only 12 & 10 were made. But their quality was exceptional. Only made in Damascus, but it was as strong as fluid steel until the 1930's when the Superposed and 21 came along.

As far as working guns are concerned, I don't believe the quality of the German Lindner has ever been matched. I believe the actions were by Sauer but the finish is all Lindner. They even left strengthenings of thin walls of wood other manufacturers simply cut out. Mine is a featherweight 12. No better in my mind.

I have a lot to say about this subject, but not a lot of time to say it. So, here goes for tonight.

American guns were factory manufactured for Americans whereas Brit/Continental guns were trade made for Brits/Europeans. There is a rather considerable gap in social attitudes and economic situation between the two groups. Each system worked well for its customers.

The Brits tended to use entirely different guns for different levels of quality. Americans tended to use the same gun design across their range of quality grades. There is no Purdey SLE counterpart to, say, the Sterlingworth. There are, however, Purdey boxlock counterpartsm to the Sterlingworth. This does muddy the water in Original Quality grade comparisons.

Stay tuned. More to follow.

DDA

[quote=Pete]Perhaps reading comprehension is not well established here. I stated you cannot compare a working class gun with a best of any manufacturer. Nuff said.

I dont think there is a comprehension problem, I think the post may have gone in a different direction, or maybe I failed to explain what I was thinking. Here is the original query:

"Would they (Parkers) be considered the AMERICAN VERSION of Purdey for the time period?"

There is no physical comparing a Parker to a Purdey together, thats obvious. But asking for American guns, as in only in American manufacturer's would the Parker (with a curve, as in going from a B to an A due to everyone else doing bad on a test, curve) be the American equivalent of what Purdey is to the UK. I understand Colt made some fantastic guns, but they were short lived, and you dont see many these days. As with Parker, yes they had lower grade guns, but the design, fit and finish was very high and comparable to higher grade custom guns they made, which makes them a unique American manufacturer. I hope this explains my thought process a little better, and I love the responses, so thanks guys!

Well said, Bill! My very first classic double was a pretty basic pre-WWII Sauer 16ga. When it developed a problem--the only issue it ever had in a couple decades' worth of pretty hard use, during which time it digested a few flats worth of high brass pheasant loads--I took it to my friend the local gunsmith to see if he could fix it (which he did). When he took it apart, he told me that it looked as if the makers expected someone to look inside and inspect their work.

Rick, Parker is the American version of Purdey at the time, as you thought.

Parker and Purdey are as far apart as chalk and cheese.
Not to say that Parker guns were not serviceable firearms.

if price is a function of quality, then parkers are the best production sxs gun ever made in this country...

This Parker and Purdey thing. To me it's a red herring. Both exist as two distinct things, although one of those things is related to the other.

Each is a company that made (or makes) shotguns.

But this conversation is really about the other thing both companies are and that is a brand name. Brand names are distinct from product and they have value.

But in the Purdey/Parker discussion here it's like we are trying to compare John Lobb to Bostonian. A comparison that makes no sense, except that they both make or made mens dress shoes.

It's Patek Phillipe to Omega.

There is no "American" Purdey. Nothing even close. It's not a bad thing there isn't (wasn't), it is just the way it is.

Price is never a function of quality. Price is a function of value.

This should be obvious to a man who earns income from selling things.

Again, Rick's question: "Would they (Parkers) be considered the AMERICAN VERSION of Purdey for the time period?"

I think its been answered. None should be comparing Parker to Purdey.

For the hell of it, I looked up my plain-as-pudding A&N 12ga in Diggory Hadoke's wonderful The British Boxlock Gun and Rifle (Safari).

Referring to Webley&Scott as a common supplier to A&N, he wrote: "In fact, these may well be some of the best value sporting guns available today as the quality is "best" but the brand value in today's market is very low."

"Very low." All they lack is embellishment, prestige and the means to buy one. Just a thought. I lost my letter but I think it sold for 22 or 32 shillings in 1913. It looks and handles so nicely I'd take it anywhere.

PS--Page 205, Dig notes under buy the gun, not the name, referring to photos in the book: "The photographic evidence clearly points out the superior quality of some Charles Osborne and Army&Navy boxlocks to those of Purdey or Holland and Holland."

"The most famous and probably the most highly regarded of American-made side-by-side double guns is the Parker."---JO'C The Shotgun Book

I always think of price as independent of value and Value=Quality/Price

King, I had for about 10 years a beautiful A & N boxlock with exquisite engraving. Stock was too short and it had black powder only proofs on fluid steel barrels. Dated to about 1890. But it was a beautiful handling gun. A little longer stock and it would have stayed in the safe.

Brent, I should have said price is a component of value. Your equation has it right.

Price on it's own is simply a price, indicative of nothing else.

Parkers have a certain charisma. There is something about their hinge circle that strikes the eye as cool, but... the damn things are preposterously priced. There is a Parker mystique that has hordes of demented suckers bidding them up into the stratosphere. Parkers are just like Lugers and Colt Peacemakers and early Lever-Action Winchesters: famous, neat, but so eagerly collected, that they are priced far, far beyond reason.

You can buy lots of vastly superior British (or German or other Continental) Boxlocks for less than any Parker. A Greener, for instance, is a better gun than a Parker, better wood, much better engraving, better mechanism, and you can buy Greeners all day long cheaper than Parkers. You can, for example, buy a no-name 16g. German guild gun for peanuts that is better than a Parker.

I will admit (being not insane) I have never personally owned a Parker, but friends have lent me them, and I've hunted with them, and shot game with them, they are typically too heavy (lighter ones are rare and cost even more), they all whack you in the finger.

I will admit though, did affordable, rationally-priced Parkers exist, I'd be queuing up to get one nonetheless.

David, your second sentence is the perfect example of the "personal" in this discussion, which I have tried to stay away from. (Not to say you haven't either)

I don't think Parkers are cool. I think the recessed hinge pin looks terrible and I wouldn't buy one for that reason alone. I wouldn't buy any gun (unless it was to flip) with a recessed hinge pin. Ugly!!

But that's just me.

However, no problem assessing the skill and care with which Parkers were made and rating them as high or higher (the general consensus) than any other American shotgun make.

one of the differences between parker and other american gun makers, is that after ww1, the others cheapened their product in order to be competitive..parker did not...from top to bottom of the line...all parkers exhibit the same level of workmanship...

I beg to differ, Eddie-- My favorite American boxlock, the A.H. Fox--was not made any "cheaper" after 1918 than before that time frame-- Just two things were different: (1) No more Krupp Flusstahl barrels, and Mr. Gough changed the engraving pattern, actually before WW1-- And the Sterlingworth grade had the same receiver shape as a D grade- just no engraving, and not the same wood grain and checkering. Only the Depression and the sale of Fox to Savage in 1930 brought about a gradual "lesser attention to fit-up and finish of the later Utica mfg. Fox guns.

Parker quality began to diminish after the production was moved to Ilion, NY, under Remington aegis- just as to fit and finish, as with Fox- the basic mechanism and steel grades used remained the same--

Now I can't speak for LeFever-- but I will for Ithaca- The Flues series double was doomed for failure, as it was designed by Emil Flues in the "transition era" from black powder to smokeless-

But the NID series double design that replaced it in aprox. 1926- was a "winner" as far as a boxlock gun is concerned. Only two American doubles could take the 3" Magnum load without missing a beat-- The Fox HE Magnum, and the L.C. Smith Longrange--

And when Winchester, under Olin ownership, brought out the 3&1/2" 10 gauge Magnum double, they went to Ithaca, and Lou Smith and his gang revised the NID to handle that "Roman Candle" shell.

Are Parkers "America's Finest Shotgun"?? Some will hold that to be the case, and I can understand their point of view. Something had caused their higher retail pricing, especially over Ithacas "back in that era" between 1900 and 1941, to ingrain that idea firmly in the hearts and wallets of the American gun buying public--And as long as eager buyers follow that "marketing mystique" with their checkbooks, then maybe you are correct in your assessment- just not with my bankbook!!

Here is another personal note. The NID is the most ugly American double ever made...bar none.

Another: The Greener with its side safety is the most unusable double in existance except for German guns likewise afflicted.

Best buy: German doubles are usually found in the $600 range at gun shows...usually in 16Ga which is the only "problem". Some like the lighter weight the 16Ga brings to bear.

I agree on the NID-- BUT-- my late friend Brad Bachelder held that design in high regard- as he did the M21-- Now- I own a 12 in each "solid" doublegun- The M21 came from my late Dad, on Brad's recommendation, I bought a 1928 era 12 NID grade 2E- 30" M&Imp.Mod chokes-- #2 right barrel, #3 left barrel. I love it- it's stock dims are dead on to the M21- and also to my favorite M12's in 12 gauge. The checkering is fine, good even grained wood, forearm release latch- safety function, ejectors in time--

I will agree the engraving, as the late Jack O'Conner once wrote- is shallow and "showy" no "flying turnips"- and no where in the class of my graded pre-1913 Elsies- but I kill birds with it like downtown-it patterns 60%/40% at 35 yards paper patterning sheets- and I own it for under $500. Can't even buy a non-ejector Trojan or a Sterlingworth for that figure, in today's market. Even the original "Sunburst" red pad is in fine condition-- The previous owner must have cared for this NID, as do I. I could live w/o the "snail titties" that are the cocking indicators- A friend has a field grade 20 NID made in 1936- sans the indicator pins. RWTF

Some things I like about Lefevers. First, let me say most of mine are the post-1898 models with large cocking hook. These do not include the "Unnecessary" compensating features of the earlier models.

1st, in spite of the bad mouthing of the ball hinge joint as being only a "Cheap" making expedient it is quite precisely fit. It uses a taper in the threads so the screw becomes tight when in the final position to prevent it vibrating loose & still allow enough adjustment to compensate for moderate wear.
2nd the mainsprings are checked just before striking the firing pins with the inertia of the hammer carrying on to fir the gun. Firing pins thus never stick, even on a well-used gun to hinder opening.
3rd the gun can be taken down with hammers at either full cock or fired position, it matters not a whit which.
4th disassembly & reassembly is about as you will find on any hammerless double, bar none. the hammers can be removed & replaced without even taking out the mainsprings. To do this of course the hammers will need to be down in the fired position. The mainsprings themselves can be easily set out or replaced with very little compression required.
What the Parker gains in the fit & finish, which as I stated earlier, in my opinion, was a necessity to make the Rube Goldberg design work, the Lefever more than makes up in design & pure workable simplicity.

The model 21 gained its reputation on two factors, first, it was made of modern steels which are stronger than used on most older doubles. 2nd was "Brand Name" value. Offhand I cannot think of a single design element which had not been previously used.

I will grant that top safeties are a bit more convenient, but I've owned some Greeners and I still use a favorite 5 lb. 9 oz. 16 gauge all the time, and I find it easy enough to flick off the side safety and slightly shift my grip and shoot quite rapidly.

There are some of us who use hammer guns as well, and cocking two hammer all the way out of half-cock positions is a bit more of a chore than a side safety, but we have no problem doing it.

The Greener safety, it must be noted, is the one and only drop-proof, definitively reliable, never accidentally going off, box lock safety.

You might want a 10g or 12g for ducks and geese. A 12g would be better for driven grouse in Scotland or those ringnecks and sharptails in South Dakota wearing bullet-proof vests. But for grouse and woodcock, the 16g is the best choice. It's lighter and handier than a 12g and yet it's not a kid's or lady's gun like a 20g. In Upland Hunting, lightness and speed are of the essence. And I do not find that the Greener side safety slows me down significantly.

Pete,
Here is another personal note. The NID is the most ugly American double ever made...bar none.

Explain to me what you do not like about the NID, is it the shape of the action, engraving?
Just curious, not trying to start a debate. This is the first time I've heard it called the ugliest American double ever made.

Stan

Folks here used to call'em BUNIDS "butt ugly NID's". Personally, I like mine...Geo

I like them all, have killed birds and won money with most of them. Shotguns are only overpriced when you agree to write the check. Otherwise you have no earthly idea how much any individual gun will sell for, until someone writes the check. These comments remind me of the idiots who attend a gun show and complain about the high prices. How can they possibly know what the "prices" are until something changes hands.

A gun is overpriced if you can buy lots of better guns for significantly less. People are characteristically overly influenced by fame & fashion. I once bought an absolute top-grade London best hammer gun for $900, because nobody had heard the maker's name.

Comparing manufactured guns to trade made guns is much like comparing boxlocks to sidelocks. All four catagories can produce a "best work" gun. Manufactured is for high production numbers and trade made is for versatility. Parker sold a high percent of a large number of relatively pedestrian guns. Purdey sold a high percent of a relatively small number of "best work" guns.

Is Purdey's the Parker of the UK?

DDA

Good question, Don. A neophyte compared to so many others---and I have your list---maybe Boss compares favourably with Purdey today.

You might recall, in your comparison of the UK and the Purdey, and the USA with the Parker- that Parker, until they sold the gun mfg. rights to Remington in the Depression era- also had the backing of a financially sound mfg. company- hardware, silverware, etc.

You can also make that case for the Win M21- as the other more profitable Winchester rifles and shotguns was a buffer to the high mfg. cost of the M21- at least from 1931 to 1959-- The nub of this "wind in the willows" might be- which firm employed the most highly skilled craftsmen, how were they paid- what was the "mark-up" on a bespoke Purdey- what was the financial base of customers of Parker Bros- who had the $$ to order a high grade "Old Reliable" made to their order, as were most of the customers of J. Purdey & Sons-- "back in the day" RWTF

You stopped too short for me, Fox. Are you saying price has unwarranted influence on ranking quality---Purdey more expensive so the best?

Interesting raison d'etre for the different types of companies. Sure makes sense for Parker.

I'm not sure, however, that I would ever describe Purdey or Boss as being "versatile" companies or as having a versatile product line. They had/have extremely narrow product lines, appealing to an extremely narrow segment of the potential market. The only way they can survive today is to market that narrow product line to the entire world. That's almost the very definition of "not versatile".

OK- when you pay the going higher price for a "bespoke" luxury item, the expectation of a higher inherent quality goes w/o saying so. You have your H&H Royal 12 bore, and you are hunting pheasant with me and my dog-- I have a 12 bore Parker Trojan- we are both using RST No. 6 pheasant loads, and we both shoot well- what difference does it make to the deceased pheasants which end of the opposite quality and price spectrum killed that bird?? RWTF

That "narrow" product line has widened. The big names are often owned by clothiers. The guns hold their own. The clothes make the real profit.

I'm not going to knock Parkers or Purdeys, since I own and shoot both, don't see any difference in shooting or handling quality. Taking two of them to compare, this is my finding. My Purdey Whitworth barrel bar in iron Purdey hammer pigeon gun weighs about seven pounds, six ounces, handles very well. My #1 frame grade 1 Parker hammer gun also weighs within ounces of seven pounds, six ounces a lightweight for a Parker hammer gun. Both guns are extremely high condition, have modern stock dimensions, and no mechanical problems. I expect both guns will be shooting well more than 100 years from now, like they have for the last 100 years, the Parker maybe 130 years. Even more important, they are both very handsome guns and would be mistaken for one another if examined by someone who knows guns but doesn't know the brand (maker). I guess our discussion should degrade into a debate about why one would sell on the auction market for about $2000 and the other will probably sell for about $30000.

Right on, Bill! Because I'm opinionated, I'd look with greater favour on the Parker owner in the case above for buying the gun and not the name, particularly if I encountered both of those guns afield or in a blind in North America.

Comparing a Parker, of any grade, to a Purdey is like comparing a Casio to a Rolex. If you don’t get it, you never will. Sure they both keep time, in fact, the Casio probably keeps better time than the Rolex and with much less maintenance but the Rolex’s quality, fit, finish, history, style, ergonomics, etc makes it what it is. Liken it to a new Toyota Carolla vs. a Aston Martin Db5. They both do virtually the same thing, the Toyota is probably hands down the cheaper, and much more sensible car...but the Aston, well, it’s an Aston.

If you haven’t ever seen a Purdey with its stock removed, just the inletting alone is light years ahead in overall quality over ANY Parker ever made. A lot of people don’t understand what internal finish means. It’s not just the polishing of parts. It includes shaping and fitting of the parts. Many times lock and action parts were shaped and styled in certain ways....just because it was a sign of quality and skill level. Gunmakers knew that hardly any customer would ever look inside the gun, and most customers would probably care less how the action bits were shaped up....but it mattered to the gunmaker. Tumblers are an example....most tumblers in English guns will be contoured and rounded off, shaped up and aesthetically pleasing to the eye...they certainly could’ve left them blocky with edges, wouldn’t have effected the function in the least....but they didn’t. You have to see and and understand what the gunmaker did just because they could and wanted to and because that’s how they insisted their guns be made. That’s the difference.
No, the bird getting killed and clay getting broken isn’t going to know the difference, and if that’s how you think about guns.....you’ve missed the entire point of this hobby “fine guns “. That’s the kind of argument someone who knows nothing about fine guns would use.

What that guy said.

Best,
Ted

I’m going to add that the American version of the English Purdey was, in fact, the English Purdey. They were available in the new world, assuming your pockets were deep enough.

As an aside, I have never seen a Purdey with a bolt through the head of the stock. I’ve lost count of how many times I’ve seen Parker’s repaired that way.

The mystique is a mystery.

Best,
Ted

Purdey has a firm grasp of the gold ring in the English market. Parker has the same reputation among American guns. Neither are always the actual best of the market...Geo

Purdey inletting courtesy of C.J. Opacak



Remington era 20g Parker with the "dumb bell" (for a reason) insert courtesy of Dean Romig

Might just be me Dr. Drew, but I don't view sidelocks as being superior to boxlock designs. Opposite in fact...Geo

Huh? Where’d he say or allude to that? Did I miss it? If the pic he posted shows anything....it absolutely proves my point of a gunmaker going way above and beyond what is required to make a gun just work. The Parker stock is inletted just enough to allow the gun to work...which is fine, nothing wrong with that...but the Purdey inletting...that’s art, and way above and beyond what is simply required to make the gun function.

Ted, sidelocks begin life with a bolt through the stock and the lockplates act as reinforcing to that part of the stock. That’s one of the main reasons you’ll seldom see a Lefever head split.

makes sense...but how to explain why so many lc smith brand side lock guns have cracked stocks at the head...

I suggest that the prices of Parker guns is irrelevant to the levels of overall quality.

Parkers are no where near the quality of a British best gun. Even A&D boxlocks are of better design and general overall quality. Parkers are good guns (as are Fox guns) and have been loved (and collected) by Americans for generations. But they do not compare favorably to many British, German, or French guns of the day.

C'mon ed. Smith guns are not the topic, and this is the design defect that we have discussed many times

Amazing how fast this went off topic! Thank to everyone who responded!

Riddell, once you’ve driven to the end of the road a feller has to turn in a different direction.

I know very little about really fine guns, and I certainly would never consider any of my hatcheting as "fine", but I do understand that concept, Dustin. When I was inletting the lock on the last m/l long rifle I built I went to great pains to leave every bit of wood possible. I left a very small area that is between the two leaves of the sear spring. It ended up looking a bit like the forward part of an arrow. When my mentor inspected the inlet he said he had never seen anybody leave that piece of wood in a lock inlet, and asked why I did. I replied "Because I could". He smiled and nodded in agreement.

Thanks for expressing it so well.

SRH

stan, as a failed long rifle builder, i would appreciate seeing pitchers of your work...my sense is that it is top grade work...

an doc drew,thanks for providing pic of lc smith design flaw...that also makes sense...

Take a good, hard, look at the amount of wood left under the lock plates on the Purdey, pictured above. The bolt has some material to work with to hold the gun together.
The Lefever has more wood than an LC Smith, but less than either a Purdey or a Holland. It isn’t real hard to find any of the American guns named here, with wood problems. To be fair, they are all getting pretty old.

The Parker has a splitting maul bolted to the front of the wood. They will all fail, eventually.


Best,
Ted

I'm surprised that the Preacher is just jumping to conclusions based upon a picture of the small surface area at the head of an L.C. Smith stock. This is exactly the type of knee-jerk observation that he criticized me about in the current barrel burst thread.

Just think, if he wasn't wasting time attempting to discredit me for simply using my eyes and stating the obvious, he could be engaging in "Wood Stress Analysis"to find the true cause of shotgun stock failures.

Why, he could spend hundreds or thousands of dollars to hire some wood research facility to analyze gun stock breaks. He could start Threads with photos of broken stocks, and photomicrographs of the fracture areas. He could impress us with descriptions of "waves in the sand" and other phenomena. He could lament the valuable knowledge we might glean from missing chunks and splinters. He could even Copy-and-paste a bunch of links to things that have little or nothing to do with the subject, to create the illusion that he is a big-time gunstock expert and guru. He might even use some big scientific words he doesn't understand, just to dazzle people who are easily fooled.

But simply stating the obvious as he did here is a missed golden opportunity to be something he isn't. What an incredible faux pas!

Incidentally, of the three Parkers I own, one has been restocked due to the aforementioned design flaw, and another has a screw through the cheeks to repair a split. I see a lot of these "American Purdey's" with screws, pins, stove bolts, and dowels through the cheeks. My Syracuse Lefevers don't have that problem. But thin, fragile wood above and below the sideplates is a major weak point in that brand. It remains to be seen how the plastic stocked guns of today will fare in 100 years.

Keith- one of many good reasons why I shoot 1100 fps low pressure loads in my 12 bore Smiths- 3 are graded ejector guns pre-1913, one is a Ideal LONGRANGE made in 1929- that gun will never see a 3 inch shell or a steel shot load- so I use it for turkeys, and "arch-angel" barn pigeons- they all love RST loads-- Also, I had Brad epoxy coat the thin wood areas in the stock head, and I do NOT remove the lock plates, to avoid over-tightening the head through bolt-- Facts of life if you want to shoot Smiths today.

Thoughts by Dewey Vicknair on his May 1 blog entry
http://vicknairgunsmithing.blogspot.com/

Interesting, even the ole great didn't pick up what I was putting down, I think next time I better try and word it differently! He did confirm what I was looking for. Good to see he still frequents this site!! Unfortunately no white hair here!

Hand Made vs Machine.
In 1964 I started a machinist career as an apprentice. 8 yrs later in 1972 I took a job at a new location & was employed as a ModelMaker. We built models for the space industry & I can tell you I pushed a file for a million miles or so. We used a method called straight-lining for making wings etc & used a series of templates filled in with epoxy to make a pattern which was then traced on a milling machine for fuselages etc. In or about 1975 I ran the first NC machine this company employed. Life became easier, models began to be built with greater precision & far faster.

"WHY" would anyone pick an item totally "Hand Made over precision.machining.

Vive La the American Machine made gun.

The devil in the details. Compare a Lyman Great Plains rifle to a Brant Selb made Hawken. I'm sure you would appreciate and pay for the difference. However, your point is well taken about the precision that is possible (though not always achieved) via machining. However, sometimes the hand crafting look and feel is desirable.

The debate 122 years ago

Jan. 2 1897 Sporting Life
Charles Grimm defeats Doc Carver in Chicago for the “Cast Iron Metal” using a 12-bore L.C. Smith gun, 7 3/4 pounds, 3 3/4 drams Schultze, 1 1/4 ounce No. 7 shot, in U.M.C. Trap shell.

Jan. 30 1897 Sporting Life
Letter from Carver re: J. “147” L. Winston, “The Wizard of the West”, St. Louis representing Austin Powder Co.
Dr. W. F. Carver wrote a funny letter in a Chicago journal last week, in which he states that Winston could not kill good birds because he had a cheap American machine made gun, and if “147” had used the same kind of imported gun that he did the matches would have been closer. Will Dr. W. F. Carver kindly explain why Charles Grimm, using the same kind of machine made gun (L.C. Smith) as Winston did, managed to kill 98 out of 100 live birds and take the “Cast Iron Medal” away from him? In this match Grimm used the American machine made L.C. Smith gun, while Carver used an imported gun that he advertises free when he gets a chance.
Now if Carver’s gun is so much better than Grimm’s why did he not kill more birds? or was it because the cashless (Carver used a Cashmore) gun was only good on hard, fast zig-zig screamers, and not adapted for soft easy duffer birds? The “Evil Spirit” had better think again.

For exactly the same set of reasons anyone would buy a painting instead a photo of exactly the same subject.

I am imagining "Best Work" guns hand made by Robot XYZ, Master Maker. Then what?

DDA

Well Yes, I, of course, realize all of that, BUT comparing an oil painting with a photograph is not truly comparing apples to oranges. My machine made guns are still made of steel/twist/damascus & walnut same as the hand made ones. Even my H grade Lefevers have "Imported" Walnut, not American Black Walnut.
My true point was that machine made guns served a very real purpose in providing more common people with the ability to procure a good, long lasting gun at a reasonable price which they could afford.
If my ancestors, for the most part, had to wait until they could buy a Purdey, Boss or H&H it is highly doubtful if they would have ever owned a shotgun.