Parker Hale or BSA

[Rake Aboot]

My first centrefire rifle was a Parker-Hale Safari Deluxe in .243, and I liked it so much that I went and bought another one identical to it, but in .270
View attachment 385149
I've adjusted the trigger pull weights to be identical, used butt pads to get the LOP identical, and put the same comb raisers on both. Oh, and the same genuine P-H leather slings.
Since the photo was taken I've also upgraded the optics on the .243 (top rifle in the pic) so now both wear identical Leupold scopes.
The only difference (apart from calibre) is that one is screwcut (so can be moderated) whereas the other still has its original open sights.

Price wise, the most expensive of the two cost me £175

I think they're great rifles, and would have no hesitation in recommending the same.

Bloody hell !
Feeling all nostalgic looking at it now

Trying not to buy a fancy Mauser to scratch my old fashioned itch

 

[cf2fan]

I am on constant lookout for a BSA CF2 Stutzen.
Very classy rifle and scope setup you have.

 

[VSS]

Bloody hell !
Feeling all nostalgic looking at it now

Trying not to buy a fancy Mauser to scratch my old fashioned itch

It looks a lot better since I've taken that clumsy great scope off and replaced with a neat little Leupold to match the one on the .270
You will notice that I even managed to find another sling to match the one that was on the .243 when I bought it from you.

 

[Edinburgh Rifles]

Sadly this one is the one I am struggling to get to shoot - but my niece has my original 1900 243 and is taking a few roe with it, and my Swede 1900 is bang on as well.
I’ve been talked into trying harder to make this one work properly…we don’t get many over here, the actions on them are just so slick and aesthetically pleasing I had a problem not buying them when I had a slot for a rifle!

get rid of the bipod
that is your issue, barrel interference
never designed to load the skinny forend

 

[Essexsussex]

get rid of the bipod
that is your issue, barrel interference
never designed to load the skinny forend

get rid of the bipod
that is your issue, barrel interference
never designed to load the skinny forend

Fair comment that I hadn’t thought of - but, Tried with a grs bifrost stock on it, no different as far as I can tell. Bipod is fine on the other two as well. Very good observation though which like I say I hadn’t thought of, thanks. Will let you know!

 

[HandB]

Fair comment that I hadn’t thought of - but, Tried with a grs bifrost stock on it, no different as far as I can tell. Bipod is fine on the other two as well. Very good observation though which like I say I hadn’t thought of, thanks. Will let you know!

I had an issue with the skinny schnabel forend of my BSA 7x57 being too flexible when using a bipod as the woodwork was touching the barrel under recoil despite me having free-floated the barrel channel. I noticed there was a milled channel about four inches long inside the forend to make it extra light. So I filled the channel with Acraglass and it turned out to be sufficiently rigid to transform the rifle's performance with my Harris bipod and it now shoots ok out to 1000yds on Stickledown.

 

[7upwestmids]

Started stalking with a Parker Hale 1100LW in 308w using Samson 150gr sp in the 80s, scope was a Pecar 6x45. Shot a few Roe with it over the years, then sold it. A great gun.

 

[cf2fan]

get rid of the bipod
that is your issue, barrel interference
never designed to load the skinny forend

I had flexing issues with a couple of rifles with skinny forends and bipods. Excellent point.

 

[cf2fan]

Considering many of the replies, I am gravitating slightly toward a P-H or a 1950s-era BSA.
The collective knowledge and experience of this forum is truly a valuable resource.

 

[cf2fan]

Please allow me another question.
If a P-H rifle has P-H bases installed, can the P-H bases be removed and other bases (Weaver, Warne, etc.) be installed?
A basic question for many here but I really don't know.

 

[VSS]

Please allow me another question.
If a P-H rifle has P-H bases installed, can the P-H bases be removed and other bases (Weaver, Warne, etc.) be installed?
A basic question for many here but I really don't know.

You can get Weaver bases to fit a P-H.
I forget which ones you need right now, but if you do a search you'll find a chart which tells you which Weaver bases fit which rifles.
Even so, you might have to fettle the hole alignment a bit.

 

[cf2fan]

You can get Weaver bases to fit a P-H.
I forget which ones you need right now, but if you do a search you'll find a chart which tells you which Weaver bases fit which rifles.
Even so, you might have to fettle the hole alignment a bit.

Thank you for the info, I appreciate it.

 

[NB568]

Evening,

I can only comment on the BSA. I have an early 80’s CF2 in .270 with a set trigger. I’m a bigger bloke and don’t mind the recoil or the weight. I find the stock to be very pointable and natural to shoot. The stock trigger is lovely and very well weighted for stalking while the set trigger is very, very crisp and light.

It’s lovely to look at and shoot but does something I really like. It shoot most weights of bullet to almost the same point of aim.

I shoot 110gr fmj &130gr match at the range and 130gr non lead & 130gr spt on deer. All the loads will group within a hand span at 200 yards. I know its a little thing but it makes zeroing/holding off very easy and encourages me to shoot the rifle as much as possible.

 

[User00056]

The 1900s are the best of the Husqvarna line, imho. So smooth, elegant and refined. Over here, they are less common than the 1600/1640 series, which are excellent in their own right. You’re right, they deserve a whole different post. To be honest, I really never saw a 1900 that didn’t work flawlessly and wasn’t accurate. I hope it is a problem you can resolve.

I have a 1640 Stutzen in .308. 1965 vintage, and shoots 1 1/2" at 120 yards. Weighs nothing, looks beautiful (to me anyway) and shoots as well as I could ever want. I much prefer older rifles.

 

[markj1]

I've had a Parker Hale 1200TX (7.62 NATO) for over 20 years, I believe it's a civilian version of the L81A2 that what was then known as 'the cadets rifle'. It has the original sights. Great rifle, but quite heavy and can only really be fired from the prone position.

My BSA is the .22 Century, with a shortened barrel.

 

[User00056]

You can get Weaver bases to fit a P-H.
I forget which ones you need right now

Large ring Mauser action is #46 front and #45 rear. Small ring Mauser is #46 front and #55 rear

 

[User00056]

I am on constant lookout for a BSA CF2 Stutzen

I'm a huge fan of Stutzens. If I find the right rifle, I might even be persuaded to part with my beloved Abolt in .270.

 

[cf2fan]

I have a 1640 Stutzen in .308. 1965 vintage, and shoots 1 1/2" at 120 yards. Weighs nothing, looks beautiful (to me anyway) and shoots as well as I could ever want. I much prefer older rifles.

View attachment 385988

I have a 1640 Stutzen in .308. 1965 vintage, and shoots 1 1/2" at 120 yards. Weighs nothing, looks beautiful (to me anyway) and shoots as well as I could ever want. I much prefer older rifles.

View attachment 385988

Quixote,
I couldn't agree any more with your post. Stunning rifle! Excellent rifle/chambering/scope combo!

 

[cf2fan]

I'm a huge fan of Stutzens. If I find the right rifle, I might even be persuaded to part with my beloved Abolt in .270.

I am also a big fan of Stutzens!

 

[cf2fan]

Large ring Mauser action is #46 front and #45 rear. Small ring Mauser is #46 front and #55 rear

Thanks for this info, much appreciated.