I was looking at my Fox, Parker and LC Smith singles and it occured to me that the Parker was the poorest due to how the action was constructed. It looks like a 410 forgeing and many of the tools were used to make the action. Inside it has perverted side by side parts, Looking at the three the L C Smith is closer to todays design than the others. Smiths shooting qualities are the benificary of a 2.75 chamber as oposed to the short chamber of the other two. Anyone else think that Parker has a 410 in it's makeup?

Bill

I never thought of the Parker SBT in terms of frame size, but as to the parts themselves, traceable DNA is everywhere. That makes sense in terms of manufacturing economy. The end result might not be the best of designs, but it is well executed, as Parkers are. The chamber length thing is a non-issue unless a person just likes to argue. I think they are delightful guns to shoot.

I am less enamored of the Smith. Smith had the sticky legacy of the rotary bolt that they were loathe to abandon. Designing a good single around that system proved awkward; the result is a gun that is less than smooth in operation. That said, I like the ergonomics of the Smith SBT.

The king of the heap was the Ithaca Knick, which had no old company baggage and was designed right the first time. It easily outsold the other SBTs despite only light advertising.

The Parker Bros. SBT came out at least eight years before the first Parker Bros. .410-bore was cobbled together.

I agree that Ithaca got it right with the Knick, but I certainly can't agree with light advertising. I'd say in all my years of searching through old sporting magazines I've seen more Ithaca SBT ads that Fox, Parker and Hunter Arms combined.

This afternoon I got out the undisputed first place winner if the race is inexpensive SBT guns. I just wanted to sit and hold it in my lap for awhile. I did have the strength to hold it up and look down the wide rib a few times. It is a Iver Johnson Special Trap, 32" barrel, .029" choke, external hammer. It is the basic Champion but with nicer wood, nice vent rib and an ejector.

The poor man's trap gun in it's day, and a fun gun to shoot clays with today. I'm toying with taking it to the dove field in January to try on some high flyers.

SRH

I agree with Stan that the Iver Johnson is a great trap gun, but the spring operated extractor/ejector is a bit of a problem with tight shells, kind of like the Winchester Model 37. If the shell is tight and the spring is not enough to dislodge the shell, you are out of business until you get a ramrod. Both are unacceptable for competition. My old Iver Johnson is the one pictured in Frank Conley's book. Foolishly I sold it. Your friend, Bill Murphy from MD.

I shoot Parkers, Foxes, Ithacas, Francottes, and Prussian Dalys. I like them all, but have never given Smiths any more than a look. The barrel on a Smith is nothing more than a piece of pipe with an extension rib that is in the way. All the other guns have a robust breech section, not just a pipe. Chamber length is not really part of the equation when discussing quality or shooting ability.

Parker did chamber 2 5/8” but their hang tags said to use 2 3/4” shells. They wanted the hull’s mouth to open inside the forcing cone to provide a better gas seal.

Chamber length is part of the system that leads the shot to the barrel. A short chamber means more damaged shot. Out of round , damaged shot means more flyers and poorer patterns. You combine a short chamber and soft shot of the era and a long shamber would be a real advantage. Even with todays hard shot forceing cones are extended trying not to damage the shot.

bill

You are comparing paper cases with fiber wads to plastic shells and plastic wads. Is today's high antimony shot any harder than yesteryear's Lubaloy or nickel plated shot? Back in the day when Parker Bros. were building single barrel traps these were the ultimate trap load --







Of course gunsmiths can make trap shooters believe anything. It is well known that you can't get that Nth trap target without a Ljutic with a Stan Baker "big bore" barrel that is essentially the chamber all the way to the choke!!

Do I remember that the only Parker that had a lot of top shoot wins was bored by LC SMITH . I don't know where I saw this but I am almost 80 so a few clouds are allowed. Researcher your production dates sure shot down my theory on a 410 relationship.
When you look inside it looks like a jury rigged double.


bill

I have never been able to find a list of the gun used each year to win the Grand American Handicap. When I've been able to find the gun used I've added it to my chart of winners. The only two Parker Bros. wins I've noted was E.C. Griffith in 1901 and Woolfolk Henderson in 1914, both before the SBT. From Charles Larson in 1917 to Don Englebry in 1945 Ithaca SBTs had 11 wins. I've recorded five wins with L.C. Smith SBTs and four with their doubles.

The early Parker Bros. SBTs had a firing pin access screw with lock screw on the right side of the standing breech.



Later Parker Bros. SBTs got a hammer with integral firing pin like the hammerless doubles.

Bill S., your statement about the inside of a Parker single needs pictures. In fifty years of shooting ten or twelve Parker singles, I've never needed to look inside one. Even Bill Mullins and his crew, in discussing Parker singles, mentioned that they had not dismantled one to check it out.

Eightbore When I recieved my SC the barrel had some rust, the action had rust or a heavy coat of floor varnish, the stock had the same heavy varnish. It was so heavy you could not see the checkering . Thats why I had the gun apart. Inside the action it looked like it had been machined for two hammers as in a normal double but the only hammer was on the right side. That hammer was highly modified (jury rigged) to hit the single primer in the center of the action.Today the gun is together and looks normal except for case color. That color disapeared in rust removal.
bill