Falconflyer
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
Did either barrel on the red label shoot to point of aim?
Ruger red label 3
- Thread starter Hunter John
- Start date
Yes the top barrel shot a little bit high
Did some homework I have 1988 and 1989 Remington catalouges that list the Parkers as avaliable through the custom shop but who knows were they actually came from ?
Last edited:
patricksbb391
CGN Regular
- Location
- Ottawa & WMU 62
I believe the Parker Reproductions came from the same plant in Japan that produced Winchester Model 23, which then became Classic Doubles.
If so, that is a fine shotgun, but not sure the few I have seen are worth the asking price given what else is on the market.
From the we
"The production was conducted at the Olin-odensha plant in Tochigi, Japan, until the factory closed in January 1989. Additionally, some Parker reproductions were manufactured in New Jersey by Reagent Chemical & Research, Inc..
Last edited:
I believe the Parker Reproductions came from the same plant in Japan that produced Winchester Model 23, which then became Classic Doubles.
If so, that is a fine shotgun, but not sure the few I have seen are worth the asking price given what else is on the market.
From the we
Reagent Chemical is the company that was owned by the Parker collector that created the whole Parker Repro project.
Last edited:
In the 1990s, I hunted, ducks, geese, pheasant, and quail, with a Ruger Red Label shotgun. I also shot many rounds of "trap" with that shotgun.
It was a bit strange at first because it only had a single trigger.
When it was offered back then, they offered different styles of stocks, as well as different barrel lengths.
I ordered the model with 28 in barrels, with interchangeable chokes, which I never did change out, and used it just as it came from the factory.
The chambers were cut for 12ga, 3 inch magnum, and I shot both 2 3/4 and 3 inch cartridges in it.
I changed the weight of shot, to accomodate the birds being hunted, live or clay.
The shotgun handled very well, after I got used to the single trigger and setting which barrel I was going to shoot first.
As mentioned in a previous post, the bottom barrel shot to point of aim at 25 yds, and the bottom barrel shot just a bit high.
As was also mentioned, the Red Label was "heavy" when compared to other OUs, but I liked that extra weight, as it helped to swing through and reduced felt recoil.
I was "custom" hunting back then, shooting geese/ducks out of silage pits for Dairy farmers, and off Golf Courses. My hunting partner and I shot a lot of birds. We did a Duck cull at the south end of Mara Lake, and I used that gun for what became a chore, and put me off of bird hunting for quite awhile.
I put thousands of rounds through that Red Label, under all sorts of weather conditions and situations.
Everything from walking stalks to boat blinds, field blinds, ditch blinds, and one of my favorites, sitting (stool) on the edge of the bull rushes, in about a foot of water. The Ducks would come onto the pond from behind, right after gorging themselves on the offal from the Dairy Cows in the pen they were released into, after being milked. It was one of the best shooting lanes I've had the pleasure of shooting.
I used that Red Label in Alberta and Saskatchewan on some relative's grain fields, and the dugouts on them.
I sold that shotgun when my hunting partner died. Every time I took it out, I felt sad, soooooo.
It wasn't the best trap gun, but it worked well enough for the crowd I shot with, some of whom were carrying Ljutics and similar types.
Was the Red Label on par with the other higher end shotguns? No, but they were spending a lot more money for not much usable gain.
OP, if you're going to buy a Red Label, the model makes a lot of difference in how the shotgun handles.
Before I bought mine, I was able to use a couple of others, notably the "English" stocked model with 24 inch barrels. It was lighter and swung faster, too fast for me.
The models I tried otherwise only varied in barrel length. I settled on 28 inch barrels, and had Ruger set the factory trigger at 2 pounds, with a 13 inch stock length. It was a bit short for some venues, but I was mostly shooting under conditions that required heavy clothing.
The stocks on my Red Label were beautifully grained, to say the least.
Back then, we were able to custom order things like trigger pull length, trigger let offs, and barrel lengths, and even cast off warping of the rear stock. My stock was straight, with a pistol grip and a minimum cheek riser. It fit perfectly.
It was considered to be a high end "utilitarian" shotgun with "style" back then, and IMHO, it was. It did everything it was designed to do, without a hiccup, broken part, or other failure over close to 10K rounds, and it still looked great, when I sold it.
The one thing I will say is it "smoothed up" quite a bit, from when it was new, after about 500 rounds. It got to be smooth as silk with more use.
It never got "sloppy" as some more expensive shotguns do, with fewer rounds through them.
It was a bit strange at first because it only had a single trigger.
When it was offered back then, they offered different styles of stocks, as well as different barrel lengths.
I ordered the model with 28 in barrels, with interchangeable chokes, which I never did change out, and used it just as it came from the factory.
The chambers were cut for 12ga, 3 inch magnum, and I shot both 2 3/4 and 3 inch cartridges in it.
I changed the weight of shot, to accomodate the birds being hunted, live or clay.
The shotgun handled very well, after I got used to the single trigger and setting which barrel I was going to shoot first.
As mentioned in a previous post, the bottom barrel shot to point of aim at 25 yds, and the bottom barrel shot just a bit high.
As was also mentioned, the Red Label was "heavy" when compared to other OUs, but I liked that extra weight, as it helped to swing through and reduced felt recoil.
I was "custom" hunting back then, shooting geese/ducks out of silage pits for Dairy farmers, and off Golf Courses. My hunting partner and I shot a lot of birds. We did a Duck cull at the south end of Mara Lake, and I used that gun for what became a chore, and put me off of bird hunting for quite awhile.
I put thousands of rounds through that Red Label, under all sorts of weather conditions and situations.
Everything from walking stalks to boat blinds, field blinds, ditch blinds, and one of my favorites, sitting (stool) on the edge of the bull rushes, in about a foot of water. The Ducks would come onto the pond from behind, right after gorging themselves on the offal from the Dairy Cows in the pen they were released into, after being milked. It was one of the best shooting lanes I've had the pleasure of shooting.
I used that Red Label in Alberta and Saskatchewan on some relative's grain fields, and the dugouts on them.
I sold that shotgun when my hunting partner died. Every time I took it out, I felt sad, soooooo.
It wasn't the best trap gun, but it worked well enough for the crowd I shot with, some of whom were carrying Ljutics and similar types.
Was the Red Label on par with the other higher end shotguns? No, but they were spending a lot more money for not much usable gain.
OP, if you're going to buy a Red Label, the model makes a lot of difference in how the shotgun handles.
Before I bought mine, I was able to use a couple of others, notably the "English" stocked model with 24 inch barrels. It was lighter and swung faster, too fast for me.
The models I tried otherwise only varied in barrel length. I settled on 28 inch barrels, and had Ruger set the factory trigger at 2 pounds, with a 13 inch stock length. It was a bit short for some venues, but I was mostly shooting under conditions that required heavy clothing.
The stocks on my Red Label were beautifully grained, to say the least.
Back then, we were able to custom order things like trigger pull length, trigger let offs, and barrel lengths, and even cast off warping of the rear stock. My stock was straight, with a pistol grip and a minimum cheek riser. It fit perfectly.
It was considered to be a high end "utilitarian" shotgun with "style" back then, and IMHO, it was. It did everything it was designed to do, without a hiccup, broken part, or other failure over close to 10K rounds, and it still looked great, when I sold it.
The one thing I will say is it "smoothed up" quite a bit, from when it was new, after about 500 rounds. It got to be smooth as silk with more use.
It never got "sloppy" as some more expensive shotguns do, with fewer rounds through them.
Falconflyer
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
No over and under should get "sloppy" in ten thousand rounds Bearhunter.
Of course that's with the caveat that many cheap guns we see these days are sloppy in hundreds of rounds.
Many people don't understand what is meant when we talk about high round count. I do about ten thousand rounds per year but I know guys that do thirty thousand annually and a good gun will last them several years before showing wear and heading to the shop for a rebuild.
There's lots of documented cases of high end competition guns going millions of rounds with a few rebuilds along the way. A Perazzi gun can be rebuilt for around a grand then it's back in business.
Of course that's with the caveat that many cheap guns we see these days are sloppy in hundreds of rounds.
Many people don't understand what is meant when we talk about high round count. I do about ten thousand rounds per year but I know guys that do thirty thousand annually and a good gun will last them several years before showing wear and heading to the shop for a rebuild.
There's lots of documented cases of high end competition guns going millions of rounds with a few rebuilds along the way. A Perazzi gun can be rebuilt for around a grand then it's back in business.
Falconflyer, I won't disagree with what you say, but comparing trap loads and especially handicap loads to heavy field loads in any shotgun is sort of a moot point.
I've seen some pretty sloppy high-end shotguns in the field that were "sloppy" from honest wear, with a steady diet of heavy field loads.
I'm not knocking those fine shotguns one bit, by the way. The fit, finish, and balance are incredible when the shotgun is "fit" to the shooter.
$4K and six months to a year to get one rebuilt is a stretch for some folks that don't appreciate the extra care put into high end shotguns they're going to use under harsh field conditions. In most cases, it's a disposable item, nursed along and cast aside when it becomes too tedious or broken to use.
Even the Red Label is too high end for the majority of shooters, who consider their firearms to be tools of the sport. They don't abuse them, and they usually take good care of them, but it ends there.
I've seen some pretty sloppy high-end shotguns in the field that were "sloppy" from honest wear, with a steady diet of heavy field loads.
I'm not knocking those fine shotguns one bit, by the way. The fit, finish, and balance are incredible when the shotgun is "fit" to the shooter.
$4K and six months to a year to get one rebuilt is a stretch for some folks that don't appreciate the extra care put into high end shotguns they're going to use under harsh field conditions. In most cases, it's a disposable item, nursed along and cast aside when it becomes too tedious or broken to use.
Even the Red Label is too high end for the majority of shooters, who consider their firearms to be tools of the sport. They don't abuse them, and they usually take good care of them, but it ends there.
Last edited:
Falconflyer
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
That's fair bearhunter.
Hunting loads do generate higher stress loads on a gun than do handicap loads for sure, they don't necessarily generate higher pressures but are moving a heavier load to the same velocities or higher than target loads.
That said, I still don't think that hunting loads should make a decent gun sloppy in under ten thousand rounds and I've put lots of hunting loads through my previously owned Beretta target guns. Perhaps some hunters don't take the same amount of care that a lot of target shooters do in cleaning and lubing. My last 682 Gold E had just under 100k through it and was not what I'd call sloppy before I got rid of it.
I will clean and relube my target guns after every outing, I may have shot 300 rounds or only 50, it's all the same to me but my gun never goes uncleaned between rounds and I don't tend to wear guns out prematurely. I'm not the type of shooter to spend a lot of money on a gun only to shorten it's lifespan by not taking care of it.
Hunting loads do generate higher stress loads on a gun than do handicap loads for sure, they don't necessarily generate higher pressures but are moving a heavier load to the same velocities or higher than target loads.
That said, I still don't think that hunting loads should make a decent gun sloppy in under ten thousand rounds and I've put lots of hunting loads through my previously owned Beretta target guns. Perhaps some hunters don't take the same amount of care that a lot of target shooters do in cleaning and lubing. My last 682 Gold E had just under 100k through it and was not what I'd call sloppy before I got rid of it.
I will clean and relube my target guns after every outing, I may have shot 300 rounds or only 50, it's all the same to me but my gun never goes uncleaned between rounds and I don't tend to wear guns out prematurely. I'm not the type of shooter to spend a lot of money on a gun only to shorten it's lifespan by not taking care of it.
