Another Parker-Hale P53

[Stantheman86]

Picked up a well used but not abused Parker-Hale P53. Serial number in the 3000s.

No idea what happened with this lock.....how the color case got wiped off......maybe aggressive cleaning?

In case anyone was wondering what kind of box these came in originally

The wood is saturated in cigarette smoke odor and so is the box, I love it. I quit years ago and it made me want to light one up.

The muzzle has some ramrod wear but I'm not worried about it, I doubt a millimeter or two of crown wear will affect accuracy any perceivable amount.

I know this topic is strongly emotional and has been beaten to death probably since the 1960's , but I had been playing with the idea of doing this one "struck bright " , i think it would look great with the well used stock and be historically accurate.

 

[TFoley]

Here's one for Mr Minshall to add to his register - a real pretty early P53. Good find there!! You can recover the crown quite easily by using a ball-shaped mounted point in a SLOW drill, having first plugged the bore with tissue paper or the like. See how it's done on Youtube.

 

[Stantheman86]

Here's one for Mr Minshall to add to his register - a real pretty early P53. Good find there!! You can recover the crown quite easily by using a ball-shaped mounted point in a SLOW drill, having first plugged the bore with tissue paper or the like. See how it's done on Youtube.

Thank You Sir

I will take the barrel out of the stock and look for stamps , also, I wanted to take it out to wipe it down anyway

I'll have to look at the YouTube video. If it shoots a nice group with .575's I may just leave it for now although a counter bore would be a good idea.

I won't need to bother with a crown protector on this one for it's first time out.

It's a slow twist 1-78, I have another P-H P53 that is also a 1-78. I was hoping this would be one of the 1-48 models but it's fine, I'll keep it

For the price of an ArmiSport kit I found a "previously loved" P-H P53 with lots of life left in it. They're out there , sometimes in disguise as misidentified Italian repros.

 

[TFoley]

No need to look for any proof stamps unless you really have to - there is no doubt that your rifle is a P-H product. If you do, then they should look like this - or similar - the crossed sceptres at the RHS will have a letter each side and a number in the middle.

BTW, I wasn't suggesting that you counter-bore the muzzle - all I meant was to remove enough of the damaged crown to give a good finish.

 

[Stantheman86]

The crown may not be all that bad after all, just a slight little bit of rod wear at the very end of the lands and grooves

I figure it's probably due for a lock cleaning and a barrel wipe down anyway. Whoever owned this liked to shoot, which is good, these aren't safe queens they belong on the range.

The stock has weird dings on the left side of the buttstock like it rubbed against a piece of gear or something and there's hand wear by the muzzle.

Also I can't help but wonder how the case hardening got totally wiped off the lock. It doesn't look bad though

 

[frankie]

No need to look for any proof stamps unless you really have to - there is no doubt that your rifle is a P-H product. If you do, then they should look like this - or similar - the crossed sceptres at the RHS will have a letter each side and a number in the middle.

View attachment 142812

BTW, I wasn't suggesting that you counter-bore the muzzle - all I meant was to remove enough of the damaged crown to give a good finish.

agree

 

[dave951]

Before you do anything, go shoot it first. Sometimes even an "ugly" gun will shoot surprisingly well.

 

[ResearchPress]

I will take the barrel out of the stock and look for stamps , also, I wanted to take it out to wipe it down anyway

If you do remove barrel from stock, please message me the proof date code (two tiny letters and a number between crossed swords or within a circle). I have a record of several hundred P-H serial numbers, which serves some purpose in understanding production, but the proof information is critical in understanding timeline of production. I can let you know the year the barrel was proofed. Barring the serial number and type of rifle, it is the next most useful piece of information in trying to understand Parker-Hale production. Without it we have an incomplete record. Thanks.

David

 

[Stantheman86]

Before you do anything, go shoot it first. Sometimes even an "ugly" gun will shoot surprisingly well.

Back when I collected and shot military bolt action "unmentionable " rifles, I learned this I had some rifles with pitted bores , that looked so unsafe to shoot guys at the range would move 10 lanes down to get away from me.....then I'd go get my 100 yard target with a 2" group on it

 

[Stantheman86]

If you do remove barrel from stock, please message me the proof date code (two tiny letters and a number between crossed swords or within a circle). I have a record of several hundred P-H serial numbers, which serves some purpose in understanding production, but the proof information is critical in understanding timeline of production. I can let you know the year the barrel was proofed. Barring the serial number and type of rifle, it is the next most useful piece of information in trying to understand Parker-Hale production. Without it we have an incomplete record. Thanks.

David

I definitely will, I'll message you all the info and pics.

 

[Youngblood]

I was watching that one and i almost put a bid on it. Good deal.

 

[kh54]

About five years ago I found a gently used PH P53 with the 1:48 rifling. I still regret trading it but recently I found another, although it has been less gently used. The bore, however, is shiny and bright - no rust, no pitting. Both are in the 2000 serial number range. I have only fired the newer one without getting serious about load development. I'm looking forward to shooting it more.

@Stantheman86: I'm not familiar with the "struck bright" polemic. Can you enlighten me? Thanks.

 

[TFoley]

If you do remove barrel from stock, please message me the proof date code (two tiny letters and a number between crossed swords or within a circle). I have a record of several hundred P-H serial numbers, which serves some purpose in understanding production, but the proof information is critical in understanding timeline of production. I can let you know the year the barrel was proofed. Barring the serial number and type of rifle, it is the next most useful piece of information in trying to understand Parker-Hale production. Without it we have an incomplete record. Thanks.

David

As noted in post #4.

 

[Shotgunblast]

About five years ago I found a gently used PH P53 with the 1:48 rifling. I still regret trading it but recently I found another, although it has been less gently used. The bore, however, is shiny and bright - no rust, no pitting. Both are in the 2000 serial number range. I have only fired the newer one without getting serious about load development. I'm looking forward to shooting it more.

@Stantheman86: I'm not familiar with the "struck bright" polemic. Can you enlighten me? Thanks.

Removing the bluing on the barrel.

 

[TFoley]

About five years ago I found a gently used PH P53 with the 1:48 rifling. I still regret trading it but recently I found another, although it has been less gently used. The bore, however, is shiny and bright - no rust, no pitting. Both are in the 2000 serial number range. I have only fired the newer one without getting serious about load development. I'm looking forward to shooting it more.

@Stantheman86: I'm not familiar with the "struck bright" polemic. Can you enlighten me? Thanks.

American service long arms of the day were left shiny iron - finishing a barrel is called 'striking, so 'struck bright' means that the barrel is left in the white - another term for a lack of finish. Image thanks to the National Firearms Museum.

 

[Stantheman86]

I was watching that one and i almost put a bid on it. Good deal.

I expected it to go higher but people tend to go for the P58 2-Banders more aggressively

 

[dave951]

About five years ago I found a gently used PH P53 with the 1:48 rifling. I still regret trading it but recently I found another, although it has been less gently used. The bore, however, is shiny and bright - no rust, no pitting. Both are in the 2000 serial number range. I have only fired the newer one without getting serious about load development. I'm looking forward to shooting it more.

@Stantheman86: I'm not familiar with the "struck bright" polemic. Can you enlighten me? Thanks.

Do some proper load development. You won't be disappointed.

 

[dave951]

I expected it to go higher but people tend to go for the P58 2-Banders more aggressively

That's because they're handier to carry and generally more accurate than the 3 band. I've heard many reasons but IIRC, the 2 band has a faster twist and the barrel walls are a bit thicker.

 

[Stantheman86]

About five years ago I found a gently used PH P53 with the 1:48 rifling. I still regret trading it but recently I found another, although it has been less gently used. The bore, however, is shiny and bright - no rust, no pitting. Both are in the 2000 serial number range. I have only fired the newer one without getting serious about load development. I'm looking forward to shooting it more.

@Stantheman86: I'm not familiar with the "struck bright" polemic. Can you enlighten me? Thanks.

The "Struck Bright" P53 Enfield debate is probably the most emotionally charged and hotly debated topic among Reenactors that has ever existed, and although it's died down a lot in recent years it still lurks on message boards and at gun shows.

Even in the early 2000s when I started using internet message boards to discuss firearms, it was a hot topic.

Basically, in a nutshell, it was theorized or in some cases proven, that some Union or even CS Officers ordered armorers to "Strike Bright " shipments of Enfield P53's so they were uniform in appearance with 61 Springfields or .69 Smoothbore percussion conversions that were also Bright.

The old saw about soldiers using brick dust to "shine up" Enfields has been disproven.

It is now basically an accepted fact that some P53's were ordered Struck Bright by both US and CS commanders, but usually by armorers, not individual soldiers. Most were left blued

The whole thing most likely started because after the war, when the US Ordnance Dept was selling off vast stockpiles of rifle-muskets to foreign buyers, it was easier to Polish them up then reblue hard used rifles for resale. Also , places like Bannermans likely "spruced up" Enfield rifles by removing the blue to make them look better rather than rebluing them. So a bunch of surplus Bright P53s led people to believe most were "struck bright" in the field during the Civil War

There is a 70+ page thread on this on the Authentic Campaigner site, it's such a vast and heated topic.

Reenactors believed for years that defarbing an Enfield required it to be Struck Bright.

Me, personally I think it would look sharp to Polish up a P53 and the consensus is, it is not "wrong " to do so since it was done by some Units on both sides.

Here's a beautiful Bright commercial P53 that was probably made Bright after the war but no one will ever know

 

[Stantheman86]

That's because they're handier to carry and generally more accurate than the 3 band. I've heard many reasons but IIRC, the 2 band has a faster twist and the barrel walls are a bit thicker.

I've heard the heavy barrel made for the enormous bayonet used for Naval fighting , accidentally resulted in an extremely accurate rifle favored by Sharpshooters and currently by target shooters