doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com The New Parker Gun

I won't speak for others here, but I like double shotguns, admire old cars (don't have any), old well crafted wood furniture, old saddles, old airplanes (I have a bi-plane), old houses and buildings, etc. I think there's a bit of that admiration of old things in all of us, some more than others. Marketeers know this and it's evident in those selling sxs shotguns (new and old), the new retro cars, antique furniture, new old-style saddles, new old-style anything.

I had the opportunity of watching Kolar make me a bespoke SC gun since i am about 30 minutes drive away. Every person i met whether in the office or machine shop was finely in tune with what they were doing and proud of thier product. The finished product is second to none in the world. I haven't yet visited CSMC but I don't doubt that its the same environment.
The past is the past, hand work won't come back and doesn't inherently make for a better product and frankly from an engineering perspective today's fine doubles are better made. One area that I found different is weight. The hand work/liability leads me to believe the doubles of years gone by have weights that can be hard to achieve. But anyway, to fix on a certain spot in time and then regard all other products as 'reproductions' short changes the individuals making thse products. You can purchase your older Parkers but frankly after 30+ years of collecting doubles, I have seen all sorts of problems/modifications made by individuals to these guns. For now, I and I suspect quite a few others, are turning to the handful of gunmakers in this country that turn out a decent product. In 50 to 100 years, these will be judged the 'Classics' of today and not as reproductions. -Dick
+

Well said.

The term 'reproduction' seems to have taken on a negative stigma. The term is not only unfair with regard to the CSM Fox, but also inaccurate if you understand what CSM produces as compared to the guns of the A.H. Fox company. I suspect a similar situation with the Parker that CSM produces for Rem.

Not to be a pest on this, Chuck, but I have a thing about the use of the words reproductions, replicas and "exact replicas." Maybe it's just me but I don't think any of them are what they say. Reproduction does not connote a negative with me, only if not used accurately. I don't think I'm splitting hairs, either. Either it is or it isn't. What do you think?

Yes you are right it either is or it isn't. But I think the question remains what makes it original? Is it the same factory building, same employee's, same owner, can I buy the name and continue on, if I buy the name can I change the product, ect ect ect?????????

1m89,
I'm not sure it can be put in terms of black & white. Take the Smith & Wesson, Winchester, or Colt companies as an example. They've changed hands enough and maybe even moved enough that you wonder. Tooling has changed (for good reason). H&H has changed hands more than once, and it's tooling has changed as well.

King,
My take is that the term 'reproduction' is being used to put these guns in a catagory of 'copies', somehow of lesser qualities.

Like most products, especially machines, sxs guns evolved from copying earlier variants and incorporating improvements. H&H didn't invent the sxs, nor did they perfect it. But, they did contribute to raising the bar. Their guns incorporate many previously developed features or features others developed as their guns developed. But, we'd not use the term 'reproduction' or 'copy' when discussing an H&H.

Is a new H&H, S&W, Winchester, or Browning an 'original'? Is a AMF Harley a real Harley? I dunno, but you buy because of brand recognition as well as the actual quality. If you really want to tie your mind up, read the history of Atkin, Grant & Lang. http://www.atkingrantandlang.co.uk/history.html What would we call these guns? But, 'repros' doesn't seem right.

Thanks, Chuck. Yes, they're renditions; they look like the original guns, models and grades. Some may be surpassingly better guns for our times than the originals, some may not. "Copies" don't make them lesser guns unless you're divining their souls.

I understand the marketing of repros but would rather buy a "Made by Tony Galazan" than a repro Fox by CSMC. It's Tony's gun in the same way a H&H is still a Holland and Holland. I don't know about the Harley but my o/u is not an Ithaca---it's a SKB.

Get a 20, Chuck; you'll be a demi-god on those California quail.

Chuck,

Well said and I don't and can't dispute what you are saying. What I ment by they are or they are not is in the individuals mind. I see Mr. Galazan carring on a tradition. I respect that and I support it. I don't see it as a repo. I see it as he bought whatever rights were needed to build these and he is building them here in America as they were back then. Matter of fact in Connecticut in the case of the Parker and Winchester. Neither original built very far from his facilities in New Britian. I see him carring the torch. I think they deserve to be called Parkers, fox, and Model 21's. Thats my opinion. I am not forcing my opinion on the rest just voicing it.

I have to admit I'm surprised if nothing else. When I made my first comment about 'soul' I assumed I'd just be preaching to the choir. I didn't expect the choir would tell me they had dropped the gospel in favor of Britney Spears and Ashlee Simpson.

I never said new guns are lousy or won't fire shells. I just said the reason we treasure old guns is they have a character you can't buy today, and they represent a time, a good time, that is come and gone.

I also think it's fascinating to pick up a gun (or any other product) made 100 years ago and realize that despite the efforts of thousands of gunmakers over the years they've never improved on what some guy in 1900 did. A guy who had no cell phone, DVD player, college degree, ISO 9000 quality standards, or possibly even running water.