Parker Hale Musketoon Quality?

[Earl Burlin]

I just bought an early ?all English? (pre-Italian) made Parker Hale Enfield musketoon. Gun looks to be and was advertised in excellent condition inside and out.

What is the consensus on the quality of these guns? I?ve read the barrels have the authentic progressive rifling of the originals? And that these guns were made with original 19th century Enfield tooling? Are these considered a good target barrel?

Just looking for opinions and thoughts. Thanks!

-E.B.

[PoorJack]

Maybe this would answer your question-

8858

In short, yes, get a good load and it's very capable if you are.

[Southron Sr.]

The original, English made, Parker-Hale Carbines, Rifles and Rifle-Muskets are of excellent quality.

The only complaint is that the stocks of the Rifle-Muskets were of two pieces, joined (glued) together under the rear, barrel band. Unfortunately, the fore end of the stock would detach sometimes under recoil. Requiring a major repair to the stock using glass bedding. Otherwise, Parker-Hale Enfields were excellent.

[Muley Gil]

"And that these guns were made with original 19th century Enfield tooling?"


No, they were built using modern tooling. They WERE checked using original gauges from the 19th century.

[Earl Burlin]

"And that these guns were made with original 19th century Enfield tooling?"


No, they were built using modern tooling. They WERE checked using original gauges from the 19th century.


Interesting, thanks!

I got a message this morning from a member here claiming that no Parker Hales were EVER made in England, that even the early ones were covertly made in Italy?? ... not only that,they don't actually have progressive rifling? I can quote the message if anyone wants to see it.

[Lou Lou Lou]

Parkr Hale made the Breeches and springs I believe.

[geezmo]

Earl,

For what It's worth https://www.authentic-campaigner.com/forum/showthread.php?41580-THE-PARKER-HALE-ENFIELD-By-Craig-L-Barry

I assume if they were made in Italy they would, by law, have Italian proof marks.

[Kevin Tinny]

Hello:

Sorry, but I am not poking into this over the Italian vs. British " quality" aspect.
Or am I going to wallow in where a piece is "made" vs. where the parts were made.

P-H's can be fine shooters.

In my opinion, there was some marketing "puffing" involved with the early P-H Enfields.
The "gauges" were not loaned by P-H to the Italians, rather a museum example was sent to Italy.
I have been told that the gauges are now with Val's son in West Va.
The rifling was NOT done on the same machinery as used for original Enfields.

My understanding, recently recounted to me by one who was deeply involved from the beginning, but is no longer active on our Forum is that P-H Enfields were assembled in England using Italian made/drilled and reamed UNRIFLED barrel blanks. They were rifled in England using rifling machinery that was surplus WWII 303 British machinery. That machinery was modified to impart a form of "progressive" depth rifling, BUT the progressive DEPTH was not the same as in originals in that there was no provision to create the same groove depth at the muzzle for different length bores. Hence too deep at musketoon muzzles, but close for two-banders and shallower at the muzzle for three banders.

The aspect of proof house marks is interesting, but the Italian parts are a matter of history.
The breeches and springs were British made.
Didn't ask about stocks.
Rest of metal parts were Italian.

I had a very early P-H musketoon, purchased new when first introduced. It was nice.

Very respectfully,
Kevin Tinny

[Southron Sr.]

My understanding is that the British made P-H barrels were entirely made in the P-H plant in England, using the "Hammer Forging" method.

For a good overview of the various methods of rifling barrels, see this article:

http://www.firearmsid.com/Feature%20Articles/RifledBarrelManuf/BarrelManufacture.htm

[Earl Burlin]

My understanding is that the British made P-H barrels were entirely made in the P-H plant in England, using the "Hammer Forging" method.

For a good overview of the various methods of rifling barrels, see this article:

http://www.firearmsid.com/Feature%20Articles/RifledBarrelManuf/BarrelManufacture.htm

This appears to have been the understanding of many people, myself included.

But, it appears this may not have been the case. One thing is for certain, our hobby can be one of the most divisive, arcane, and muddled in lore that there is. Perhaps we will never all know the truth... :(

[geezmo]

Kevin and Earl,

Don't be sorry or worried about divisiveness. It' not that important an issue.

[Kevin Tinny]

Hello:

More info/clarifications:

Am not concerned about sensitivities; only accuracy.

P-H conceived the P-H Enfield repro and took the project to Italy for parts sourcing.
They borrowed the patterns from the Leeds Museum and a sample Enfield from The Tower of London, both for loan to Italy. So Italy had BOTH patterns and a museum sample rifle.
The Italians copied the British patterns so I believe the "patterns" with Val's son are the Italian copies because whatever was loaned from England was returned.

The Italian bridles had "PH" stamped on them because P-H wanted that marking.
All stocks for musketoons as well as for the two and three banders were made in Italy.

Original Enfield barrels were hammer forged, NOT CUT-RIFLED, in a way that imparted rifling with progressive depth grooves. That same .577 equipment was later converted to do CUT-rifled 303 British barrels and LATER converted to CUT-rifle the Italian drilled and reamed blanks in England.
Since the "barrels had to be rifled PRIOR to proof", the British proof was imparted.

Again, I am not impuning in any way the quality of these P-H repro's.
I am indebted to two individuals who were "there" for this information.

Very respectfully,
Kevin Tinny

[Earl Burlin]

Hello:

More info/clarifications:

Am not concerned about sensitivities; only accuracy.

P-H conceived the P-H Enfield repro and took the project to Italy for parts sourcing.
They borrowed the patterns from the Leeds Museum and a sample Enfield from The Tower of London, both for loan to Italy. So Italy had BOTH patterns and a museum sample rifle.
The Italians copied the British patterns so I believe the "patterns" with Val's son are the Italian copies because whatever was loaned from England was returned.

The Italian bridles had "PH" stamped on them because P-H wanted that marking.
All stocks for musketoons as well as for the two and three banders were made in Italy.

Original Enfield barrels were hammer forged, NOT CUT-RIFLED, in a way that imparted rifling with progressive depth grooves. That same .577 equipment was later converted to do CUT-rifled 303 British barrels and LATER converted to CUT-rifle the Italian drilled and reamed blanks in England.
Since the "barrels had to be rifled PRIOR to proof", the British proof was imparted.

Again, I am not impuning in any way the quality of these P-H repro's.
I am indebted to two individuals who were "there" for this information.

Very respectfully,
Kevin Tinny

Extremely interesting, Mr. Tinny.

There are many people out there who own early Parker Hale reproduction Enfields who are of the belief that every last part of the guns were made in England.

it appears this is absolutely NOT the case, and in fact, only a few parts were made there and the guns instead were just assembled and rifled there, with the British only manufacturing a few parts, the springs and breeches.

Hopefully owners of these muskets will stumble upon this thread and learn the truth. I myself sought out an early PH musketoon specifically because I had read numerous times that they were totally English-made and also had progressive depth rifling.

Seems I might have been more ahead to just get the Pedersoli version which from my readings seem to be ?defarbed? right out of the box. I?ve read mixed reports about whether prog. depth rifling is even beneficial to a Minie rifle.

Alas, we might all have been dupped by false information and judgment clouded by the (false) lore surrounding these guns...

[PoorJack]

Since I'm not reenacting anymore, I couldn't care less about "defarbing". The only accuracy I care about these days is A) Is it SAC approved and B) Accurate if I do my part. Anything else is an original collectible that I'd be hesitant to skirmish with.

[dbm]

My understanding, recently recounted to me by one who was deeply involved from the beginning, but is no longer active on our Forum is that P-H Enfields were assembled in England using Italian made/drilled and reamed UNRIFLED barrel blanks. They were rifled in England using rifling machinery that was surplus WWII 303 British machinery. That machinery was modified to impart a form of "progressive" depth rifling, BUT the progressive DEPTH was not the same as in originals in that there was no provision to create the same groove depth at the muzzle for different length bores. Hence too deep at musketoon muzzles, but close for two-banders and shallower at the muzzle for three banders.

Parker-Hale rifles had hammer forged barrels, the rifling being formed by a mandrel. What you're suggesting doesn't make sense to me as the P.61/P.58 had five groove 1 in 48 twist rifling and the P.53 is 3 groove 1 in 78 rifling. My understanding also from someone who was there at the time is that each rifle had an appropriate mandrel.

My contact advised me that there was no Italian involvement other than the stock making.

Parker-Hale made the barrels, the stock being chopped, deep hole bored, reamed and hammer forged by them in the UK. Casting for lock parts and brass were made by two different British companies, and a third made the screws, before being finished by Parker-Hale. Production was based on a set of drawings made from the Inspectors gauges borrowed from the Enfield Pattern Room. Main spring and sear springs came from several sources over a period of time - none Italian. Parker-Hale also set up facility to complete the colour case hardening.

Obviously much myth and confusion surrounds the Parker-Hale Enfields with diverse sources of information... and now here's mine to add to the mix!! :)

David

[Southron Sr.]

My understanding is that in the initial production of the 3 Band Parker-Hale Enfields had a 3 land and groove, 1 in 48" twist barrels (like the Hay pattern Enfields) but the purists in the MLAGB insisted that the 3 bander Enfields have the 1 in 72" twist of the original, standard issue, 19th Century Rifle-Muskets.

Hence, Parker-Hale heeded their wishes and produced their Rifle-Muskets with the 1 in 72" twist barrels for sale in the British Isles while the Rifle-Muskets with the 1 in 48" twist barrels were exported to the United States.

[dbm]

I am away from home right now so no access to my papers to confirm dates... but P-H original intent was to reproduce the Pattern rifles, which they did. The three band Enfield with 1 in 48 twist was a later production as I recall. The already established MLAGB Enfield competitions were for Pattern Rifles. Not being a Pattern Enfield the fast twist three band rifle wasn't permitted for those events. I do not believe that the MLAGB had any sway in insisting what P-H produced - they simply, and rightly in my view, determined that the non-Pattern rifle was not eligible for their Enfield matches.

David

[Kevin Tinny]

Hello:

To make extra sure of my facts. I asked one of the several Americans who was involved with the Italian parts supplier to read this thread.

He said:
My information is correct.
He was at the Leeds Museum and there wasn't sufficient tooling left for hammer forging.
He said the rifing machine, which appeared "lathe-like" was bolted to the museum wall.
Parker Hale wanted to use hammer forged barrels but the cost to obtain a complete set of tooling was prohibitive.
The musketoon with approximately a 22 inch barrel was chosen because of the availability of the 303 rifling machinery that rifled that length.
The Italian unrifled blanks were lapped in England to remove reamer marks and also after cut rifling to smooth the grooves. Hence they may not appear to be cut rifled.

He was amused by the longstanding insistence that lock parts were made in England and said the Italian investment cast bridle with PH was CAST into it, not forged and a skilled metallurgist can tell.
The stocks were "cut in Turkey", shipped to Italy and were in two pieces for import duty reasons.

Finally, he invited anyone who questions the Italian involvement to contact the Amati family who owned and operated Armi San Marco and later Euroarms of Italy, where the parts were made.

He observed that the Amati/Italian connection has been in the open since the beginning, but some insist otherwise.

Edited for spelling.

Respectfully,
Kevin Tinny

[dbm]

Leeds has been mentioned above several times but the Royal Armouries Museum there didn’t open until 1996, over two decades after PH began their production. The gauges that PH borrowed came from the Pattern Room Enfield. Not sure what the Leeds connection is? What is the time-line of when the Italians were supposed to be involved with the production?

Parker-Hale barrel making plant was acquired by Armalon in the UK. You can read about it here:
http://tenconi.selfip.com/rapidweaver/armalon/

My contact gave me the names of the UK companies involved in the procurement of parts and as a P-H employee from the inception of the Enfield repros. has some insight.

It will be good to discuss this further, when I am home and have access to my papers.

David

[dbm]

barrel blanks. They were rifled in England using rifling machinery that was surplus WWII 303 British machinery. That machinery was modified to impart a form of "progressive" depth rifling, BUT the progressive DEPTH was not the same as in originals in that there was no provision to create the same groove depth at the muzzle for different length bores. Hence too deep at musketoon muzzles, but close for two-banders and shallower at the muzzle for three banders.
Parker-Hale rifles had hammer forged barrels, the rifling being formed by a mandrel. What you're suggesting doesn't make sense to me as the P.61/P.58 had five groove 1 in 48 twist rifling and the P.53 is 3 groove 1 in 78 rifling.

The earliest advert for the P.61 Enfield Artillery Carbine that I have is from November 1974, which states "5 grooved, cold forged barrel of best steel, original progressive depth rifling .008" deeper at breech than muzzle". That specification is correct, the originals being 0.013in deep at the breech and 0.005in at the muzzle (D.W. Bailey, British Military Longarms 1815-1865).


Parker Hale wanted to use hammer forged barrels but the cost to obtain a complete set of tooling was prohibitive.
Parker-Hale advertising for the Enfield family of rifles consistently refers to "barrels are rifled by the cold forging method." See also their history on-line that notes: "Once the largest producer of high power sporting rifles in the country, Parker-Hale invested heavily in the most modern machinery & techniques, and was acclaimed for having one of the finest barrel producing plants in Europe. Large scale horizontal forging machines, the first all-British barrel cold forging systems in the world, were actually designed by Parker-Hale. Together with several GFM cold forging machines and double spindle deep hole drillers, the company's machining capability for producing a perfectly finished bore to extremely fine tolerances is legendary."
http://www.parker-hale.co.uk/index.php?pg=History&

Parker-Hale barrel making plant was acquired by Armalon in the UK. You can read about it here:
http://tenconi.selfip.com/rapidweaver/armalon/




The musketoon with approximately a 22 inch barrel was chosen because of the availability of the 303 rifling machinery that rifled that length.
Interesting then that they also managed to make the P.53 with its 39 inch barrel.





They borrowed the patterns from the Leeds Museum and a sample Enfield from The Tower of London, both for loan to Italy. So Italy had BOTH patterns and a museum sample rifle.

He was at the Leeds Museum and there wasn't sufficient tooling left for hammer forging.
As per my comment a couple of days ago? I'm not sure what the Leeds connection is. The Royal Armouries Museum there didn't open until 1996, over two decades after PH began their production. The gauges that PH borrowed came from the Pattern Room Enfield.
https://royalarmouries.org/about-us/history-of-the-royal-armouries/royal-armouries-museum-in-leeds/




insistence that lock parts were made in England and said the Italian investment cast bridle with PH was CAST into it, not forged and a skilled metallurgist can tell. . . . Finally, he invited anyone who questions the Italian involvement to contact the Amati family who owned and operated Armi San Marco and later Euroarms of Italy, where the parts were made.
That comment and the Euroarms connection is interesting, and makes me wonder if time lines have become confused here.


I got a message this morning from a member here claiming that no Parker Hales were EVER made in England, that even the early ones were covertly made in Italy??

Am not concerned about sensitivities; only accuracy. P-H conceived the P-H Enfield repro and took the project to Italy for parts sourcing.
Parker-Hale conceived the Enfield reproductions in 1971. Twenty-years later Target Gun (June 1991) magazine in the UK reviewed 'Euroarms .577 3-Band Enfield,' It as observed that "many people seem to suspect that in fact the Euroarms and the Parker-Hale Enfields were really made up with the parts from the same source, certainly the lock parts." When comparing Parker-Hale and Euroarms it was noted that "The hammers had some identiccal markings on them at one of two points, but intriguingly, the markings on the Euroarms hammer appeared less distinct - as if their mould had been taken from a Parker-Hale hammer!"

Interesting that Mr. Tinny refers to "the Italian investment cast bridle with PH was CAST into it." The magazine review further notes "In the middle of the Birmingham gun?s bridle are stamped the letters P-H and there, in the same sport on the Euroarms part the same marks, faint and barely decipherable, could just be seen on its rough cast surface!"


So in the many years since the first Parker-Hale Enfields appeared, is the production time line becoming confused? Does Mr. Tinny's Italian connection refer to the period of the demise of Parker-Hale in the UK and the licensing of their name by Euroarms?

Can I be messaged how to contact the Amati family please? Thanks.

David

[Kevin Tinny]

Hello, David:

I spoke with the fellow that related the Leeds info and he agreed that it was in your timeframe that he visited, which was well after the P-H Musketoon appeared. But, he was also involved with the Amadi parts aspect in the beginning.

He reaffirmed:

P-H may have considered making the entire musketoon in England using a hammer-forged barrel, but told him that what was left of the machinery and tooling from the Enfield days was incomplete and that the cost to rebuild/replace missing original tooling was cost prohibitive.

I may regret the following, but have no dog in this fight, so here goes:

This morning I spoke with Tom Hunger, who was involved along with Brannen Sanders in Euroarms and the Amadi family, both the father and son. Tom strongly shared that he, Brannen and one other know for sure that the production PH musketoons, where ever sold, were ALL built in England using mostly Italian parts and Italian barrel blanks that were rifled and proofed in England. Tom doubts the Amadi family will be responsive. He added that it is possible that P-H made prototype samples completely in England, but NOT the production ones.

Tom said this subject has been beaten to death and that for some reason people simply want to believe in the "All British" version.

Tom spoke well of Brannen and added that he may be the only remaining first-hand witness.

Again, I am only speaking about parts sourcing, not quality.

Very respectfully,
Kevin Tinny

[dbm]

P-H may have considered making the entire musketoon in England using a hammer-forged barrel, but told him that what was left of the machinery and tooling from the Enfield days was incomplete and that the cost to rebuild/replace missing original tooling was cost prohibitive.
Parker-Hale had no need nor insofar as I know intent to use original Enfield machinery. They had their own barrel making machinery for cold forging as related in the two links that I posted in my previous message. I'm not sure what the apparent confusion is over this.


I may regret the following, but have no dog in this fight
Me neither, it's an interesting story and worth teasing out as there is so much myth and misconception. I don't know Tom, but Brannen and I have had infrequent contact for a number of years.


Tom said this subject has been beaten to death and that for some reason people simply want to believe in the "All British" version. Tom spoke well of Brannen and added that he may be the only remaining first-hand witness.
I know the Parker-Hale production engineer who instigated matters back in the early 70's, who sourced the inspector's gauges from the Enfield Pattern Room, prepared the production drawings from them and set up the bone charcoal colour case hardening workshop. I'll have another chat with him in a few days.

David

[John Holland]

Thank you, gentlemen, for this absolutely fascinating discussion....Please continue!

[Blair]

Hi All,
It has been awhile.
I would like to suggest two correction to the above info...
1. is, It is Armi San Paolo for Euroarms. (not Armi San Marko)
2. It is Enfield Lock on the Leeds Canal. This being a canal lock, not a gun lock. I hope this helps clear things up a bit.
Aside from these two suggested corrections, I would like to say that what info Kevin has imparted is very true.

My best,
Blair

[dbm]

2. It is Enfield Lock on the Leeds Canal. This being a canal lock, not a gun lock. I hope this helps clear things up a bit.
Enfield Lock is on the Lee Navigation, a canalised river connecting to the River Thames.


Aside from these two suggested corrections, I would like to say that what info Kevin has imparted is very true.
Please confirm your source of information that supports the assertion that Parker-Hale Enfields were made using Italian sourced parts. Thanks.

David

[ikesdad]

I reckon David will get to the bottom of this.

[dbm]

know for sure that the production PH musketoons, where ever sold, were ALL built in England using mostly Italian parts and Italian barrel blanks that were rifled and proofed in England. Tom doubts the Amadi family will be responsive. He added that it is possible that P-H made prototype samples completely in England, but NOT the production ones.
Swapped a few emails and had a good chat with the Parker-Hale Production Engineer, that along with the Chief Designer and Works Manager brought the Parker-Hale Enfield rifle reproductions to us in the early 1970s. This is the man that sourced the Inspectors Gauges from the Pattern Room, Enfield, and prepared drawings to enable tooling.

He has confirmed that the lock components i.e. hammer, sear, tumbler, bridle & link were produced by Deritend castings (UK) who also cast the breech plug, trigger, barrel bands and sight components; all parts were machined in house at P-H to the specified drawing tolerances. Barrel stock was sourced from British Steel, and chopped, deep hole bored and reamed by P-H. Rifling was completed by cold forging on P-H plant.

Following is an advert for the 1861 Enfield Artillery Carbine from the MLAGB's Black Powder magazine of November 1974.

8879

David

[ikesdad]

Figured as much.

[Earl Burlin]

Friends, when I started this thread, I had NO IDEA of the conversations it would ignite. This is a very informative thread, for sure! Lots and lots of things to chew on. What is fact? What is the truth? Perhaps we might never know the total answer...

Regardless, my musketoon arrived today, and what a sight it is to behold!!

8881

Its in excellent shape. I love it!! Came in the original factory PH box and has a bunch of nifty literature to go with it. This is my first Civil War style long arm. WHOEVER built it, the quality appears to be outstanding. I?m just waiting on my range rod and jags to get here before hitting the range.

Guys, let?s keep this discussion going. I feel very honored and proud to have made new friends here and am so thankful for everyone helping me on my journey!! :)

PS: What would be a correct civil war era sling for this rifle, and does anyone make a reproduction? Thanks!

[ikesdad]

David is on the ground in the UK. I would think he has the straight skinny.

[dbm]

David is on the ground in the UK. I would think he has the straight skinny.
Cannot get any closer than interviewing the Parker-Hale production engineer who was responsible for implementing the introduction of the Enfields! :)

David

[Bruce Cobb 1723V]

Fact ......... There is the English model and then the Italian made model. Fact ......... The barrels may be marked exactly alike. The locks internals ARE made differently. The 1st, English made guns have a PH circle stamped into the stock BEFORE the finish was applied. The Italian stocks stamp is stamped AFTER the stock finish was applied. This stamp clearly shows raw wood underneath. If you look you can see it is through the finish. A lot of the previous information is true, but you need to understand that there we are talking about 2 different manufacturers involved and and that they were not made the same way.
Val Jr or his dad, I heard, bought the trade name PH after they stopped production of the English made guns. His guns have a lot of Italian content. The earliest made Italian guns may even have some left over English made parts in them. When they bought the PH company name they may have also bought the remaining stock left in England.
Facts need to be presented in the correct sequence in time, in order to understand them..............

Some additional info that may also be of value : When Parker Hale stopped making muzzle loaders, they sold the naming rights to Euroarms Italia, SrL. For a period of time, Euroarms produced and sold what was essentially their own reproduction Enfield with a Parker Hale barrel for about twice the price...... I found this on a civil war talk site. This may refute the Val influence as I had heard it or Val Jr may have played a part in this at the time, I don't know.

[ikesdad]

Do you have a serial number sequence that Forgett's rifles were made ?

[Bruce Cobb 1723V]

Do you have a serial number sequence that Forgett's rifles were made ?

Contact info
Navy Arms, LLC 54 Dupont Rd, Martinsburg, WV 25404 304-274-0004 info@navyarms.com

[dbm]

Fact ......... There is the English model and then the Val Jr made model. Fact ......... When they bought the PH company name they may have also bought the remaining stock left in England. Facts need to be presented in the correct sequence in time, in order to understand them..............
Bruce all good points and I understand that.

My discussion points and information direct from a Parker-Hale engineer relate to their Enfield reproductions that started with a boardroom meeting in 1971. The first result was the P.1861 Artillery Carbine introduced in 1972.

The Muzzle Loaders Association of Great Britain published an announcement in June 1992 from Vale Forgett III, President of Navy Arms and Gibbs Rifle Company Inc. It was confirmed then that Enfield reproduction rifles would be in production by mid summer. In February 1993 news appeared that their production of the "Parker-Hale" type Navy 1858 rifle had commenced.

David

[Kevin Tinny]

Hello:

Tx, Bruce.

There is also the public lawsuit trail between Val and Roger Hale and the Italians.
Soon after Roger started his Enfield venture, Val "registered" the name "Enfield" and began to legally assert that P-H was infringing. Roger and others also sued ended up in some settlement that left P-H selling to Val.
At least one other person Val sued successfully defended his use of "Enfield" in U.S. Federal Court.

Three Americans who lived through this stuff have, this week, shared with me that they are simply tired of all this and don't care about clarifications any more.

Most respectfully,
Kevin Tinny

[Bruce Cobb 1723V]

All great information from knowledgeable people who have a historical perspective regarding these reproductions .... Thanks

[ikesdad]

There are 2 different timelines here....the UK made rifles and then the Italian made rifles.
Nothing new with that, old info.

[dbm]

Soon after Roger started his Enfield venture, Val "registered" the name "Enfield" and began to legally assert that P-H was infringing. Roger and others also sued ended up in some settlement that left P-H selling to Val.
That's interesting. I'm aware of one unsuccessful attempt by Val to sue a company for alleged copyright infringment, but not the Parker-Hale connection.

Do you have any more information on the timeline of this? The Parker-Hale 'Enfield venture' commenced in the latter part of 1972 when the P.61 Artillery Carbine was introduced. News of the sale of part of Parker-Hale business, including its percussion rifle section, to Navy Arms was reaching public domain in the latter part of 1990. That's potentially a long old lawsuit.

Thanks.

David

[dbm]

There are 2 different timelines here....the UK made rifles and then the Italian made rifles.
Yes, that's my understanding, and with around 20 years between the two stories. It's an engaging subject and I think worthwhile teasing out the details. Through the MLAGB archive I hold there is much coverage and advertising of P-H rifles in their journal, and match reports recording for example Roger Hale's attendence shooting prototype P.53 and P.58 rifles.

David

[Bruce Cobb 1723V]

I hope I have helped shooters to now know, visually, how to distinguish which of the two manufacturers they are looking at. We should have started a thread called " Would the Real Parker Hale please stand up" LOL