Parker Hale vs Pedersoli

[GregLaRoche]

I understand the concept that the sights being closer together, makes it easier to see the two at the same time. Also having the rear sight further away from the eye should make it easier to focus on, especially for older eyes. However, I always heard that that the greater the distance between the two sights, the more accurately a gun could be aimed.

 

[ResearchPress]

.....I always heard that that the greater the distance between the two sights, the more accurately a gun could be aimed.

Depends on your eye sight and what you can keep in focus; some find the rearsight of the P.53 too close to the eye and have difficulty aligning the sights. Young eyes may do better. The important thing is to have the foresight in focus.

David

 

[Heelerau]

I have three Parker Hale rifles, a first generation Volunteer .451, and two Navy rifles. All shoot beautifully. To any of you if you see a British made Parker Hale Enfield or Volunteer for sale grab it. Then get onto David Minshals' Research Press and read the articles on management of the Pat 53, etc They do all require bedding, that for me is the only real fault of this family of rifles. I have found original parts to be interchangeable in the locks and vice a versa. I enjoyed the articles in this thread confirming the stories I heard as a kid re the use of the original Tower of London gauges.
I was advised by the older members of the club I joined at the age of 14 to get the Navy rifle as it was regarded as the better shooter. One of my mates shot the musketoon for donkeys years till he died, another his Navy rifle till he gifted it to me just before he went to the range in the sky, along with his Volunteer. The other Navy rifle I bought at the age of 15 and have used it regularly ever since.

 

[TFoley]

It is generally agreed that the increased accuracy of the two-band rifle is due to the shorter barrel actually being thicker in diameter, hence somewhat stiffer.

As for P-H and Euroarms barrels being the same, let's not forget that the first few thousand Euroarms barrels WERE P-H barrels, until they ran out at around serial #14000 or thereabouts.

 

[Rudall]

It is generally agreed that the increased accuracy of the two-band rifle is due to the shorter barrel actually being thicker in diameter, hence somewhat stiffer..

Is that the case for all versions – Enfield, PH, etc?

 

[TFoley]

s that the case for all versions – Enfield, PH, etc?

I don't know. I have only experience with Parker-Hale and its selection of barrels and my two S*i*e*r*, one of which is a three-band and the other - far more accurate - a two-band. The Musketoon, of course has a VERY thick barrel by comparison, but that is only because of it being cut back so short.

In general, a short thick barrel is more rigid than a long wispy barrel, which is why a chunk gun has the best from both worlds - a VERY heavy barrel, and also length.

I'm certain that the real experts here can put you right, especially as I'm not quite sure what you mean by Enfield, PH, etc. The Parker-Hale rifles replicate the Enfield pattern rifles in all their variations, two and three-band, .451 and .577cal. In general they are true to the original, as Heelerau points out, even the locks are interchangeable, something that I found out many years ago for myself in the Pattern Room ably demonstrated by the much-missed Herbie Woodend MBE.

 

[Rudall]

Thank you.

 

[Dude]

I've got a 58 and a 61 and they're both two band, but the 61 is probably 8" shorter. Were there different length barrels for the 61s? Or were all the 61s musketoons? I've also heard them called carbines.

Since there are two 2 band versions of the Enfield, which one is THE two band? The 58? To differentiate, you then call the 61 the musketoon?

I've got a Navy Arms 1861 Enfield built in 1982 and it's very high quality. Fit and finish is superb. It was made by Armi San Paolo (now Euroarms) but the barrel has no Parker Hale markings. Was this barrel made by Parker Hale? If it was made by PH, does that mean it's got the progressive rifling?

What were the slings like? How were they constructed? Is there a site that gives dimensions and layout?

When you say the two band is the most accurate, which two band would that be - the 1858 or the shorter musketoon?

 

[TFoley]

The P61 is the variant known as the Musketoon. It is the shortest of all the P-H replications, but is just as well-made. Like the original, it has progressive depth rifling that gets shallower from the breech to the muzzle - a real feat of engineering. It was used by Dragoons - infantry who rode to battle, and artillery - who needed a much shorter rifle to manage when on their horses, and anybody who fancied a very handy weapon with some serious clout as a short-range firearm. that 535gr Minié bullet at 1000fps could really make your eyes water.

The P58 is the two-band rifle, sometimes called the Navy rifle. It is the favourite of many shooters because not only is the barrel some 6" shorter than the three-band P53, it is also thicker and therefor stiffer, leading to great accuracy. On board ship the shortness was an asset, as all space was at a premium.

If you have been reading the dozens of post here recently, you will have read that Parker-Hale ceased production of all their firearms products in the early 1990's - opinions differ as to when this actually happened, but let us say that it was 1992. I'm sure that THE Parker-Hale expert, David Minshall, will pop up and put us right.

By that time, Parker-Hale had produced around 9000 muzzleloading rifles [and a few smooth-bored Musketoons] of all kinds. Sold off were the entire assets of the factory, including another ~5000 PROOFED barrels, to Euroarms in Italy. They were already stamped with 'Parker-Hale Birmingham' and showed Birmingham proof marks under the barrel at 6 o'clock, and a serial number on the left side adjacent on the breech - like this on one of my P-H Whitworth rifles -

Euroarms in Italy continued to make all the patterns of gun for which they had barrels and parts to do so, right up to about serial number 14000 or so, when ALL the barrels had been used up, and they could no longer be sold as Parker-Hale-barrelled firearms. A few Whitworth barrels seem to have ended up at Davide Pedersoli SPa, who made them up and sold them with Parker-Hale and Whitworth clearly stamped on them.* A poster on another forum sent me images of his, and I wrote Pedersoli asking for an explanation and was told about the use of P-H barrels for a time. Needless to say, they were not keen to tell me how many there were, but it's fair to to say that the guns show at IWA in 2016/17 were probably wearing P-H barrels.

So your Navy Arms/ASM rifle has no connection with Parker-Hale of any kind, having been made and proofed and dated [yes?] in Italy in 1982, when P-H were still producing their products. The rifle you see above dates from 1986, BTW, but may not have been made in that year. Only examination of the proof marks can tell us the year it was proofed. This one is even earlier -

and this Musketoon of mine, oddly older than both but with a higher serial number of 1137.

So here are two Whitworth rifles -

I don't have a P58, but I DO have a Canadian Snider Short rifle of the same dimensions, as it shows the five-grooves and thicker dimensions of the 1862-dated P58 from which it was converted - I hope Zonie will forgive me for this one -

and the 3-band Snider converted from a 1862-dated P53 -

The difference in barrel length is clear.

* If I can find that correspondence, and the recipient give me permission, I'll post it here, Okay?

 

[Dude]

Thank you TFoley! It makes a difference getting the terminology straight.

What a beautiful collection of guns!

As I understand it, the Volunteer was sort of a civilian version created in 1856 that was shorter (2 band) and came in either .451 or .58. It's called the Volunteer because they were used by the Volunteer Militia. I'm guessing the civilian versions were shorter for two reasons - no bayonet, and the military rifles had to be long enough for the second rank to project past the first rank in the firing line.

Yes, I pretty much figured the Navy Arms musketoon had no connection to PH since it's got Italian proof marks and no mention of PH. Is there a way to tell if it's got progressive rifling without removing the breech plug?

Other than that, everything about the piece looks the same as a PH with the same quality of finish.
Well, except for two things - the barrel bands are black painted brass and the finish looks like it might be verathane.

I'm still confused about the progressive rifling. I've had the idea the rifling is deeper at the breech - true? Or do I have that backwards? Either way, it doesn't make sense to me. I could understand a breech loader having deeper rifling at the breech end, but not a muzzleloader. And if I have it wrong and the rifling is deeper at the muzzle, how would that help anything?

What's the story and why is this special?

 

[kh54]

Greetings all. I've been a black powder/muzzleloading shooter for only a couple of years. I am new to the forum and this is my first post.

My interest in BP began because I wanted to acquire a firearm such as had been carried by one of my American Civil War ancestors. His regimental history says that they were issued "English Enfield rifles" in late 1863. I looked for a reproduction because of the relatively high cost of originals and because I wanted something to shoot and not just have something pretty to look at.

I did a lot of reading about the various modern reproductions and learned that the Parker Hale p1853 Enfield was sort of the gold standard, but also very hard to find. Coincidentally, two years ago this month I was just about to order a new Chiappa or Pedersoli when I decided to take a chance and call a few gun shops in New Mexico, where I lived at the time. My first call was to a small shop in Albuquerque. When I asked if they had any antique or reproduction muzzleloading rifles the gentleman responded, "No, we just don't often carry them, except for this old Parker Hale that we happen to have at the moment." I drove there as quickly as I could from my home in Santa Fe, afraid that the gun would be gone before I could get there. About an hour and $820 dollars later I was the proud owner of a 1975 proofed PH that had only been lightly handled and appeared to have never been fired. (BTW, if anyone is expecting something, there's no moral to this story. ;-)

After corresponding with Mr. Minshall (thanks David!) I checked the rifling and found it to be 1:48, not 1:78 per originals. As I recall, David explained that PH specifically made some 1853s with the faster rifling of the 1858s for the American market. Do I remember that correctly David?

 

[TFoley]

As I understand it, the Volunteer was sort of a civilian version created in 1856 that was shorter (2 band) and came in either .451 or .58. It's called the Volunteer because they were used by the Volunteer Militia. I'm guessing the civilian versions were shorter for two reasons - no bayonet, and the military rifles had to be long enough for the second rank to project past the first rank in the firing line.

Yes, I pretty much figured the Navy Arms musketoon had no connection to PH since it's got Italian proof marks and no mention of PH. Is there a way to tell if it's got progressive rifling without removing the breech plug?

Other than that, everything about the piece looks the same as a PH with the same quality of finish.
Well, except for two things - the barrel bands are black painted brass and the finish looks like it might be verathane.

I'm still confused about the progressive rifling. I've had the idea the rifling is deeper at the breech - true? Or do I have that backwards? Either way, it doesn't make sense to me. I could understand a breech loader having deeper rifling at the breech end, but not a muzzleloader. And if I have it wrong and the rifling is deeper at the muzzle, how would that help anything?

What's the story and why is this special?

Deeper at the BREECH end to get the maximum expansion of the Minié bullet skirt from the get-go. I have very serious doubts that ANY modern manufacturer apart from Parker-Hale every made progressive depth rifling - I'm pretty sure that Mr Minshall has already answered this question though, as indeed, he has with most questions of this ilk.

BTW, I also had a .451cal THREE-band Volunteer from Parker-Hale but sold it after a few years as it was redundant to my shooting, and as you might know, here in UK if you don't actually show usage of a firearm, it can be taken from you.

And THIS is the information that Mr Minshall and I would like from your new rifle - under the breech - please try and get a better image than my poor effort...

 

[Dude]

Ok - that makes sense now. I can see how deeper rifling at the breech would help expand the skirt deeper into the grooves.

Are you saying you'd like the data off the Navy Arms musketoon? I can do that, but thought you were only interested in the Parker Hales.

You know, I don't see that it would be horribly difficult to deepen the rifling at the breech of any rifle. But there's such a controversy about removing the breech plug I'd be hesitant doing so.

 

[Zonie]

Ok - that makes sense now....

You know, I don't see that it would be horribly difficult to deepen the rifling at the breech of any rifle. But there's such a controversy about removing the breech plug I'd be hesitant doing so.

IMO, it would be very difficult to do the job like the originals or the Parker-Hale rifling was done.

Yes, it was deeper grooved at the breech but it isn't all at the breech that this was done. That rifling depth kept getting shallower and shallower as it moves towards the muzzle. In other words, it is "progressive". Almost impossible to do without some very specialized rifling machines.

 

[Dude]

If a guy took his time with a home made tool that cleans up the rifling, it could be done. Someone here (I think it was here) posted how to make a tool to clean up a bore that involved notching a dowel about the size of the bore and inserting pieces of a file 180 degrees opposite each other. That's the simplified explanation. However, in this case, with five grooves it gets a little more complicated. The process wasn't fast, which is good, and would involve progressively shorter strokes so that the most material was removed at the breech end of the bore.

I can see how it could be done, but I'm not planning to take on that project.

 

[Dude]

BTW, I also had a .451cal THREE-band Volunteer from Parker-Hale but sold it after a few years as it was redundant to my shooting, and as you might know, here in UK if you don't actually show usage of a firearm, it can be taken from you.

I didn't know that about unused guns in the UK. That raises many questions such as where the H**L did that law come from? What's the sanity in that? How can they take your gun? How do they keep track? Who are 'they'?

This must have come from a time in the long distant past when guns were scarce. I sure can't fathom enforcing it now.

How often do you have to shoot it to keep them from confiscating it? Do you have to log into a shooting range and log in the gun's serial number to prove ownership? This is one of the goofiest things I've ever heard!

 

[TFoley]

IMO, it would be very difficult to do the job like the originals or the Parker-Hale rifling was done.

Yes, it was deeper grooved at the breech but it isn't all at the breech that this was done. That rifling depth kept getting shallower and shallower as it moves towards the muzzle. In other words, it is "progressive". Almost impossible to do without some very specialized rifling machines.

Yes, that is what I have said a number of times in answer to similar queries. It's about 15 hundredths at the breech and 5 hundredths at the muzzle. The rifling reamer was divided into sections - imagine a banana skin - and had a spreader screw inside that rotated anti-clockwise as the reamer/cutter went from breech to muzzle, this reducing the effective cutting diameter. It is not impossible to emulate these days, but a. there is no need to do it with a modern rifling, and b. mucho $$$$$$ would be required to do the research and to make the appropriate cutter.

 

[TFoley]

Dude wrote -

I didn't know that about unused guns in the UK. That raises many questions such as where the H**L did that law come from?

In the Firearms Act of 1967 etc you are expected to show regular use of the firearm for which you have applied and been given authorisation to Acquire and Possess on your Firearm Certificate [FAC].

What's the sanity in that?

I never wrote it was sane, but it IS in the Law.

How can they take your gun?

The authorisation to Acquire and Possess is a certificate, that certifies that you are a fit person to blah blah blah. If you are not using the gun for any reason, then you can, in law, have no reason to possess it, and it can be struck off your Firearms Certificate, or, more likely, your firearms certificate can be revoked and your firearms subject to seizure, since without said certificate you are illegally in possession of Section 1 firearm. This, in UK Common Law, is an absolute offence - IOW, you either have or have not a gun in your possession. There is no defence is you have no FAC but still have the gun - you ARE guilty.

How do they keep track? and Who are they?

Every time a target shooter goes to the range they are required to fill out the attendance register part 1 - the date of attendance like a school register. Part 2 details the gun you are shooting by calibre and serial number on that occasion. Because I have a larger number of guns than most, I have a page detailing my guns, with a basic number 1 through XX. So I I just write down gun #x. This is a legal requirement from the UK Home Office, and not something made up just to p*** people off. I means that 'they', the FAC-issuing authority - the county Police via their Firearms & Explosives Licensing Department can, at any time ask to see the record of attendance on the range. This would obviously give details not only of the shooters there on any given day, but what they were shooting as well, although not the amount of ammunition they shot.

In this way they can keep track of the number of times that you shoot any particular firearm in your possession.

This must have come from a time in the long distant past when guns were scarce. I sure can't fathom enforcing it now.

Nope. The compulsory registration of date and time of shooting activity, along with the details of the gun that you are shooting, is very recent - I'm not sure how new, but probably less than ten years old.

How often do you have to shoot it to keep them from confiscating it?

No idea what goes on in their minds, but I make it a point of shooting everything I have at least two or three times a year - that keeps me busy.

Do you have to log into a shooting range and log in the gun's serial number to prove ownership?

That's two questions, part one of which I have answered above. It is NOT proof of ownership, nor are you required to prove ownership - if the gun is on YOUR FAC then YOU are the registered owner-keeper. In any event, all your guns are already registered in the National firearms Register. Unlike the US of A, we can't just sell our guns when we feel like it to any TDH who wants to buy it.

This is one of the goofiest things I've ever heard!

Quite.

 

[TFoley]

Ok - that makes sense now. I can see how deeper rifling at the breech would help expand the skirt deeper into the grooves. Are you saying you'd like the data off the Navy Arms musketoon? I can do that, but thought you were only interested in the Parker Hales.
You know, I don't see that it would be horribly difficult to deepen the rifling at the breech of any rifle. But there's such a controversy about removing the breech plug I'd be hesitant doing so.

Nope, my post there was a general one aimed at ANYBODY who has a Parker-Hale rifle and would like to share the information for a worthy cause. Thanks all the same! TBH I can't see why anybody would actually go to the trouble of pulling the breech plug and deepening the rifling nowadays. Which is probably why nobody does it.

 

[Dude]

If you shoot a burglar does that count as proof of usage?

Remind me never to move to the UK!

You said there is no need for progressive rifling with modern rifling. Why is that?

I read through W.S. Curtis' write up on Managing the Enfield and have a few questions for you. It was a good read!

You have mentioned putting a copper washer under the nipple. Curtis recommends using teflon tape on the threads. Are you using the washer instead of the teflon?

Do you use a flash pan under the nipple?

And one last question - what is the steel ramrod good for besides stiffening the stock? The previous owner of my gun tried using it as a cleaning rod, but the sharp edges of the slot cut the rag. I've since de-burred the thing, but think it could still slice a bit of cloth pretty easily.