Parker Hale - Weird grooves and lands - cut

rsako

Active Member
Hi All,

I'm brand new around here. I just introduced myself in the "Intro" folder. Great site!

So on to question number one. I recently picked up a really nice 1961 built Parker Hale Safari Deluxe in 30.06. Its a true blue Birmingham built rifle with all matching numbers and proper BPH markings. It's in real nice shape for its age and I'm refurbishing for my sons birthday. I took the barrel into my local gunsmith for a new crown...and low and behold look at what he discovered!

BTW...The black spots are just fluff from a patch..I enhanced the pic to show the grooves and lands better.

WeirdGrooves.jpg


Nobody seems to have seen this pattern of grooves before...at least not here in Canada. Obvious cut grooves. Hammer forged?? But why in the world would it have two different groove widths? Was it a two groove barrel that was reworked to a four groove? Does anyone have any info on this? There has to be a explanation...

It shoots just fine! go figure.

Anyone else have one of these? Do i have a collector (one of) in my hands?

P.S. I will gladly post pics of it when she is all done :)

Cheers,

rsako
 
Hello there,

Interesting. What markings are on top of the barrel?

Any chance of photos t them and he rifle?
 
I am unfamiliar with the PH Safari Deluxe but do know the version of the story that is repeated about the PH Midland. Is it on a Mauser action or dos it use the Springfield '03 bolt?

To wit that PH were offered of acquired a large number of US 1903 Springfield bolts ONLY and took them as it was cheaper to make an action for them than to buy someone else's complete Mauser action entire.

Or some such.

Now given that Remington for its contract '03 rifles in WWII made two groove barrels is it possible that PH acquired a batch of these cheap at some time and re-worked them? I have seen genuine Turkish military arsenal re-works using a 8mm Mauser barrel on a Lee-Enfield action!

So I guess that in theory if the barrel shank is large enough to be turned down to fit a receiving action then anything is possible! But I have never heard of such a thing!
 
As requested ...here are images of all the markings i can find on the barrel and receiver.

PHmarkings-7.jpg

PHmarkings-6.jpg

PHmarkings-5.jpg

PHmarkings-4.jpg

PHmarkings-3.jpg

PHmarkings-2.jpg

PHmarkings-1.jpg
 
Last edited:
:rofl: Methinks finnbear is far to kind. I am still learning about both the Parker-Hales and the BSA's and there are so many thing like this that throw all we thought we knew to be fact right out the window.

So if we "assume" that P-H used common sense at the beginning of their sporting rifle production, we KNOW that failed later on as the prefixes seem to have no pattern at all :rolleyes: ................................. but logic would seem to suggest that if using a prefix then "A" would be where one starts. The private view mark is for 1961 yet Parker-Hales own catalogues tell of sporting rifle production beginning in 1962 after the move to the old Sparkbrook site so this is an early rifle. Perhaps a pre production run?

The markings on the receiver some of them look German to me but I'll add that I am not that up on German production and inspection markings which is a whole study field on it's own but the "U" & "A" look German which also fit into the claim that P-H made their first production rifles on genuine German actions that were in storage at Sparkbrook..

The photos also show what to me looks like much poorer polish on the barrel than one expects on a Parker-Hale :confused: so does this show they were still getting things set up when this was made? Could the different widths of groove be an experiment so see which cut better? however the problem with that idea is that I understood the P-H always used the hammer forging method of production .................................................... but then again all the information says they didn't start making them until after the move and we know that P-H did had sine bar rifling machines on which they made the liners for their Parker rifled barrel liners so were not new to cut rifling but as far as I am aware before 1962 .............................. or should we now say 1961 they only made barrels for lining .22 L/R barrels.

It might be worth contacting Lewis Potter at Potter & Walker as I understand he spent quite a bit of his time around this period at the new P-H plant so he might be able to shed some light on this.

Until we find more information then that's about the best I can offer except that you have a very early P_H production spprting rifle and I am envious.
 
You can just make out the stripper clip thumb cut out in the photographs, that indicates to me that it is an early Parker Hale using an ex military Mauser action rather than the Santa Barbara commercial actions that they bought in later years after running out of ex military actions.
This might seem a daft question because my knowledge on rifling processes is very limited, but would it be possible to say take an 2 groove Springfield barrel and run another two grooves through it at a later date?
Edit - Silly me, that's already been suggested by several others so it must be possible.

Once again further evidence that Parker Hale were really assemblers of rifles rather than being true rifle makers.
 
Last edited:
This might seem a daft question because my knowledge on rifling processes is very limited, but would it be possible to say take an 2 groove Springfield barrel and run another two grooves through it at a later date?

Yes! As all two, four, five and six groove cut rifled barrels are, at one point, one groove barrels if the grooves are cut one at a time!

In my view the WIDE grooves are the two original grooves and the two narrow grooves the two later "additional" grooves.

Or, and I doubt this, originally the barrel had four equal narrow grroves but had pressure problems. So two of the grooves were overcut wider.

Somehow I can't see this but i do understand that Holland & Holland did alter the boring of their 240 H & H barrels in the latter 1960s because of pressure problems.
 
Hi Folks,

You guys are a true wealth of info! This rifle may not be a 'fine firearm' by todays standards, but it sure has been fun figuring out its history since we acquired it...and making it our very own.

Have a look at these pics...and yes...the wood is that nice. The stock has about 25 coats of Tung oil on it so far (not done yet). I've safety'd, tuned, polished, re-blackened and replaced the safety with a Timney low profile version (the original was broken). I've also replaced the original trigger with a Timney...It breaks like glass now :)
sorry about the dust in the pics.

enjoy..

More to follow when she is all done.

PHmarkings.jpg

PHmarkings-2-1.jpg

PHmarkings-4-1.jpg

PHmarkings-3-1.jpg
 
Hi Brithunter,

Your comments/findings are very interesting indeed. Funny how the history of Parker Hale is so fuzzy...and it's not even that old in relative terms.

It might be worth contacting Lewis Potter at Potter & Walker as I understand he spent quite a bit of his time around this period at the new P-H plant so he might be able to shed some light on this.

Does anyone have an email addy for Lewis Potter? I can't seem to find a website for these folks.

Cheers,
 
I was the one doing the work that discovered this oddity. Just to clear a couple of things up. The barrel is indeed cut rifled and not hammer or roto forged. Going from the date stamp in the crest I don't believe PH was hammer forging barrels for sporting rifles when this was produced anyway. Although I know for a fact they were experimenting with button and hammer forging at the time. Inspection shows that the grooves seemed to have been all cut at the same time. Both the wide and narrow grooves are cut to the same depth and the wide grooves seamed much to shallow to be of a two or one groove variety. The wide grooves appear to be exactly double that of the narrow. Because of the way barrels are cut it is very unlikely that the rifling head would have been accidentally removed from the sine and replaced with a wider one. Although it does not rule out that the rifling head could have been broken off and accidentally replaced with a larger box. But it would seem that if it was an accident why wasn't the barrel scrapped or sent back for re-drilling after the error was discovered? It would have been MUCH cheaper than re-indexing the sine again. The barrel may have been re-blued at one point in time, it is impossible to tell but it has NEVER been re-polished. All of the lettering still bears its original crests. All of the proof marks also appear correct to the time. The safety, bolt handle and shroud have been altered to facilitate modern optics but this is beside the point. What really strikes me as odd and some other gunsmiths out this way is that if it was to cover up some ones screw up. How on earth did it slip out of the plant unnoticed. And even more interesting is how did it slip out of the proof house unnoticed. I can see stuff sometimes falling through the cracks at an American or a Canadian proof house and I myself have seen a lot of oddities in that respect but never like this. British proof house's have always been noted as being rather sticky anal about consistency and standards. If some one did managed to sneak this one out I have to tip my hat to him. I hope the fellow rushed out and bought an Irish Sweepstakes ticket that evening because the gods were indeed smiling on him. lol When I first looked down this bore I immediately told the customer something was defiantly not right. I wasn't certain exactly what was wrong until I re-cut the crown. 30 years of gunsmithing coupled with going through over 800 guns per year, this is the first time I have ever seen a barrel like this. Going on this fact, I'm willing to bet its a puzzle that will never be solved.
 
Last edited:
...I'm willing to bet its a puzzle that will never be solved.

It may never be solved..and you're so right about this one Rod. But I'm not done trying to figure it out just yet :)

I hope this Lewis Potter lead can shed even more light on the history of this ol' girl.

See you soon for more projects on the go :)
 
You can just make out the stripper clip thumb cut out in the photographs, that indicates to me that it is an early Parker Hale using an ex military Mauser action rather than the Santa Barbara commercial actions that they bought in later years after running out of ex military actions.

8x57....'Stripper clip'? Do you mean these cut-outs on the rear part of the action? see pics below...Like the military quick load strips/rails?

Maybe we're on to something! The action may be a true German Mauser type...But the Barrel may remain a "puzzle"...

PHmarkings-8.jpg

PHmarkings-2-2.jpg
 
Yes I do mean the cut outs at the rear of the loading port and also the cutaway in the left receiver wall to allow the shooters thumb to push the stripper clips into the magazine. So obviously the action is based on a military Mauser receiver. Just don't wander down into the U.S.A. with this rifle because I believe they have a law against allowing entry to ex military actions? Perhaps Muir can let us know if that is correct?

From the photographs it would seem to me that you have a fine looking rifle there rsako. It's a tried and tested Mauser K98 action which may not be to some modern tastes but is a true classic that will see off most modern rifles.
 
I was the one doing the work that discovered this oddity. Just to clear a couple of things up. The barrel is indeed cut rifled and not hammer or roto forged. Going from the date stamp in the crest I don't believe PH was hammer forging barrels for sporting rifles when this was produced anyway. Although I know for a fact they were experimenting with button and hammer forging at the time. Inspection shows that the grooves seemed to have been all cut at the same time. Both the wide and narrow grooves are cut to the same depth and the wide grooves seamed much to shallow to be of a two or one groove variety. The wide grooves appear to be exactly double that of the narrow. Because of the way barrels are cut it is very unlikely that the rifling head would have been accidentally removed from the sine and replaced with a wider one. Although it does not rule out that the rifling head could have been broken off and accidentally replaced with a larger box. But it would seem that if it was an accident why wasn't the barrel scrapped or sent back for re-drilling after the error was discovered? It would have been MUCH cheaper than re-indexing the sine again. The barrel may have been re-blued at one point in time, it is impossible to tell but it has NEVER been re-polished. All of the lettering still bears its original crests. All of the proof marks also appear correct to the time. The safety, bolt handle and shroud have been altered to facilitate modern optics but this is beside the point. What really strikes me as odd and some other gunsmiths out this way is that if it was to cover up some ones screw up. How on earth did it slip out of the plant unnoticed. And even more interesting is how did it slip out of the proof house unnoticed. I can see stuff sometimes falling through the cracks at an American or a Canadian proof house and I myself have seen a lot of oddities in that respect but never like this. British proof house's have always been noted as being rather sticky anal about consistency and standards. If some one did managed to sneak this one out I have to tip my hat to him. I hope the fellow rushed out and bought an Irish Sweepstakes ticket that evening because the gods were indeed smiling on him. lol When I first looked down this bore I immediately told the customer something was defiantly not right. I wasn't certain exactly what was wrong until I re-cut the crown. 30 years of gunsmithing coupled with going through over 800 guns per year, this is the first time I have ever seen a barrel like this. Going on this fact, I'm willing to bet its a puzzle that will never be solved.

Speerchucker, I was intersted to read your peice, quoted above, as I did not believe that the Americans had proof houses. I thought from all I had read and been told that it was up to the individual manufacturer to provide a safe firearm or risk litigation, is this untrue?

Simon
 
You are correct. Every manufacturer has its own proof house in America and that is why you often see irregularities coming out of the American proof houses. With the proof house in the plant its much easier to play off a run of inconsistencies such as abnormal barrel lengths etc. Much of the politics and confusion are eliminated in this manor as one hand knows exactly what the other is doing and why at all times. In a lot of other countries the proof house is a government installation so running abnormalities through or making changes on the fly is much more difficult to do as each is a separate entity. In Canada gunsmiths run the proof houses under the supervision of their respected manufacturer for whom they install provable parts for. All of this is controlled as it were by The Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers' Institute (SAAMI). SAAMI keeps and distributes the accepted dimensions for chambers and ammunition plus the recommended operating pressures and maximum or proof pressure for manufactured proof loads and how these pressures are measured. Europe has much the same set standards which are regulated by the Permanent International Commission for Firearms Testing (C.I.P). Both systems work well with the exclusion of politics. Inadvertently some of the dimensions used by these two do not interchange and there are a few cartridges that fall under what we now call the delta L (ΔL) anomaly or problem. It would seem that when both factions drew up their standards they never bothered to sit down and compare notes and in rare instances cartridges of the same caliber can not be interchanged between American and UK firearms. If memory serves CIP was originated in Belgium and of course SAAMI in the USA. Getting the Americans and the French to work together or agree on anything is akin to cats and dogs. The delta L (ΔL) anomaly has drawn a lot of press in recent years mostly from military and government hype, but its really not the serious issue it has been made out to be. As gunsmiths on either side of the puddle we have known of it for years but with a greater understanding we never deemed it serious enough to mention or make serious note of. Its more of a slight annoyance than a problem at best. In this day and age proof houses have actually become more or less a redundancy. With modern steels and designs pretty much all arms today will withstand almost double what they are proved at without coming apart. Like the waiter that smells your wine cork in a fancy restaurant and declares it fit, they are more for show these days. When I took my proof housing at Remington Arms in Ilion NY I asked the fellow in the proof house how many guns failed the proof. He smiled and said "two to five or so out of 100 will have an extractor or an ejector fail and have to go back". "The odd rough chamber has to go back to be burnished, but as far as a barrel, receiver or bolt failure, never !" I expect every major manufacturer in the Americas and Europe today can make much the same claim. The materials we use today and manufacturing practices are actually far to good for their intended purpose.
 
Last edited:
I would not see why, despite the "odd" grroves that this would not have passed Birmingham Proof. Proof is un-concerned with the "cosmetics" of any RIFLE barrel. So even a worn and eroded barrel would pass proof in the UK.

Indeed I have seen revolvers rifled on one side of the barrel only pass proof at Birmingham. A so-called "Khyber Pass Special" copy of a Webley .32 Mk IV that had two grooves only both starting on the left side...so that the right side was smooth!
 
As long as they are aware of whats going on and its withing excepted standards its not a problem. I'm told one offs can be troublesome or guns that they are not familiar with are where problems crop up.
 
Back
Top