Have enjoyed all the back and forth, but still await an answer for the question I put forth (twice). From post #366059:
"I mean, why in the world would a barrel man put two barrels together with a converging angle, which is to counteract the recoil which pulls the gun to one side or the other, then make the bores parallel?"
From 366066
Stan I am not contending that the back to back bananas give parallel bores. I am contending that curved tubes are part of SxS barrel regulation.
Does that answer the question you asked? If it didn't I need more feedback on what I am missing.
Stan this is about the maker setting the convergence of the tubes. If, as you and Miller argue, both tubes are straight and since Parker muzzles all touch then the convergence is not set by the maker on a two-frame Parker, it is set by geometry. The two-frame designation sets the distance between the centerline of the bores at the breech, the touching muzzles set the centerline of the bores at the muzzle. Parker doesn't set the convergence, geometry does. If the tubes are straight and the muzzles touch then all two-frame Parkers with 26" barrels have the same angle of convergence. If the tubes are absolutely straight then all two frame Parkers with 32" barrels have the same convergence angle. The 32" angle is different than the 26". It is only by curving the barrels that Parker would be able to set the angle of convergence on those guns because, for whatever reason, they built their guns with touching muzzles. Could we just focus on two frame Parkers for a little bit. Once we have a meeting of the minds on Parkers we can go on to guns that don't have touching muzzles and other variables.
Thanks Miller. Just finished up Mother's day at the in-laws and look forward to continuing the discussion tomorrow.
