Parker Hale 2-band Stock

[Scota4570]

I acquired a mint unfired PH 2-band. Yes the good one really made by PH. I've wanted one for a long time.

Unfortunately the stock is so high that I can not sight the rifle.

Can I get a replacement stock to modify?

Would It be a terrible sin to fix the original stock. I would refinish it to look like an original. I am very good at that an it would look better and more real after my work.

It has the shiny bowling pin finish that PH use a the time. IT looks synthetic, like a Weatherby.

 

[dodger]

You can lower the comb by removing some wood . It's your gun do what you like and remember it is only a reproduction .
Or raise the front sight
and use the existing rear sight at a higher elevation setting .The latter would not alter the gun in any permanent way .

 

[Zonie]

IMO, a British made Parker-Hale Enfield stands alone as the only truly accurate reproduction of the original Enfields and it should be left as it is.

Any modification made to it will decrease its value and these guns are not cheap.

If you really want a Enfield to change, sell your Parker-Hale to someone who will appreciate it for what it is and buy a newly made Enfield.
The Italian reproductions, even though they are well made, do not have the collectible value of the original Parker-Hale guns.

 

[Coot]

Likely the best & certainly the easiest solution is to do as dodger suggested and install a higher front sight & set the rear sight to a higher elevation. I have owned one of these fine guns (mine has the original semi-gloss finish) since purchased new in the 70s. They are scarce enough that I doubt that a market exists for a replacement drop in stock. Given the cast buttplate & relatively straight stock, any significant lowering would be immediately apparent. Modifing the original stock (no matter how nicely done) would reduce the value by the cost of a new custom stock IMHO. If working with the sights does not solve your issue, the (unmodified) gun will easily sell for enough to pay for something that is a better fit. Hopefully the sight change will be sufficient.

 

[Scota4570]

I wanted one of these for a long time. I shot a 3-band years ago. It was impressive. I have owned and shot two different Sniders. I have no recollection of stock fit issues on any of them.

I guess I can install higher front and rear temporary sights. JB Weld is handy.

I do find it disconcerting that a rifle with such high regard was deliberately made with a defective stock design. The stock on this one has dips and humps. It is definitely "chunkie". Whoever did the final shaping and sanding at PH was clueless. Coupled with the poor design it stacked up on this particular rifle.

 

[Scota4570]

I measured a couple of rifles for the drop from the sight line to the cheek weld position.

Original 1851 Springfield 2.22"
A rifle I made to fit me perfectly 2.06"
Another I made that is a little tight 1.91"
This PH 2-band 1.61"

That is definitely a problem if one actually wants to shoot it. I have to contort my head into an unnatural position to line up the sights. Raising the sights 1/2 an inch will definitely look strange.

 

[Artificer]

Perhaps I am mistaken, but I'm thinking maybe Tac or David Minshall wrote something on how to shoot a Parker Hale without getting slapped by the stock?

Gus

 

[Scota4570]

I found a great PDF by Bill Adams. Apparenlty they were deliberately made that way. The Brits use a strange shooting position that compensated somewhat. The position is ill conceived and not conducive to accurate shooting. Back then, privately acquired rifles were sometimes stocked in a more conventional way with more drop and cast off. As issued the PH will beat you up if used as issued. IMHO the Brits got it very wrong.

I will make sight extensions. I do not want to bruise may face for no reason.

 

[Sasquash]

It´s just a matter of taste between USA and Europe.

I think european models have straighter stocks with less drop than USA models.

That´s what I find in my Euroarms 3 bander and my Chiappa Zouave.

Exactly the same you have with american long rifles and german jager rifles.

 

[Scota4570]

I made a front sight base out of an old redfield 7/8" scope ring. The post is a drill bit shank. The hood is 1/2" steel tube. It is very secure and can not scratch the barrel. For the rear sight I added a piece of hack saw blade with a slot. I gained about 3/8" drop. That is almost enough.

I did research on the subject. I disagree it is just a matter of taste between USA and Europe. The distance between a person's eye and the cheekbone is no different on either side of the Atlantic. Maybe the British are more pie faced than Americans? I am convinced they screwed up on the stock design. They did not care because they were still thinking volley fire. Later British military rifle have more normal stock designs. I think they recognized the mistake.

The position that doctrine specified is awkward and not conducive to accurate shooting. It consists of a tactical looking stance. One's chest is facing the target. That is poorly supported and relies on muscle tension. That will result in poor shooting.

It only partially compensates anyway. The line of the comb is almost flat. Moving my head back on the stock only helps a little. I must twist my head and tilt foreword to line up the sights. I end up looking up at an angle to the limit of what my eye can physically do. I am not horse faced, pretty average actually. The new sights are a big help.

Bla-bla-bla. I learned something new to me. I have a cool rifle to play with. It's a good thing.

 

[2049runwer]

Google up north south Skirmish Association and look at their target shooting with the same stocks. Save your old stock.

 

[TFoley]

Sir, with respect, the next Parker-Hale stock I see, after almost fifty years of dealing with them, that has lumps and bumps and a 'bowling-pin' finish, will be the very first one I've EVER seen. As I'm sure you know, the Parker-Hale replications were based on the original patterns provided by the Enfield Arsenal. I have personally tried exchanging P-H stocks with original P53 and other similar pattern rifles and carbines, not one, but dozens of times - ALL fitted perfectly - that is to say, they all fitted each other, perfectly, no matter how you mixed them up.

To add to that, last year I looked at around 400 two and three-band genuine Parker-hale rifles in one place - on the gun racks of HMS Warrior in Portsmouth - with the aim of recording their serial numbers.

They were all as original, and all had the usual semi-matte finish.

I can assure you that no wonky stock as you describe would ever have left the factory in Golden Hillock Road, a place I came to know well over many years. The quality control was absolute and tested to the utmost, even before the guns were assembled and completed. Every part was tested against the gauges, and that, of course, included the woodwork, and I never saw a part that didn't comply. THAT is why the P-H product will never be equalled, by Pedersoli or anybody else.

tac
Owner of Parker-Hale products since 1974

 

[TFoley]

Yeah, that's why a quarter of the planet was British...their guns beat them up, right? :hmm:

tac

 

[14Tenn]

Hello, The parker Hale enfield is meant to be shot in the English fashion. That is, your head well back on the stock, close to the butt. It is hard to get use to shooting this style of gun.

 

[TFoley]

1. Welcome to the forum.

2. Why are you telling me? I've been shooting them since they came on sale.

3. Every one I've shot since 1974 suits me just fine - including my own.

tac

 

[TFoley]

I'd just like to point out something that seems to have been ignored or avoided so far in this discussion.

Between 1861 and 1865, your country suffered to most horrendous civil war with BOTH sides shooting one or other pattern of Enfield rifled musket or rifles - all of which had this seemingly unmanageable stock that was only suitable for the 'pie-faced' Brits. :nono: The Confederacy even had very successful sharpshooters using three rifle designs, Whitworth, Kerr, Beasley, that were exactly identical in stocking to the Enfield rifle from which they were derived. :hmm:

Military long arms of the day were designed to be shootable by most every person who picked them up, whether or not they were 'pie-faced' or 'spoon-faced'

The comfort of the soldier was not an issue. I earnestly suggest that a close examination be made of the Springfield musket and rifled musket and rifle, and the subsequent Trap-door variants made from them, and see just how user-friendly they were.

tac, NOT pie-faced

 

[Heelerau]

Original Pat 53s, including the various Volunteer rifles all seem to be a little more comfortable to shoot as the stocks are all a little slimmer. Original parts are interchangeable with Parker Hale reproductions. I have three Parker Hales, two Navy rifles and a first generation .451 volunteer. All are comfortable to shoot, but not "quite" as comfortable to shoot as originals. You could consider slimming your stock, that would include improving the shape of the lock panels. I considered doing that with my rifles, but as they have all been refinished with linseed oil and have lovely patina I have not done so myself. My only criticism of the Parker Hale is the barrels require bedding at the breech and shimming under the barrel bands for optimum accuracy. Research Press, run by David Minshall is an absolute must to read with excellent articles on the Parker Hales use and maintenance . If you have a ver broad face the Parker Hale could be a problem with the thickness of the comb. I have shot my Parker Hale Naval rifle regularly since 1977.

Cheers and good luck
Heelerau

 

[dodger]

I think this perceived stock fit problem is a transatlantic phenomenum that should be "faced" ;
pork pie and apple pie are incompatible .
:rotf:

 

[dodger]

Could this rifle , by any chance , have a Euroarms stock fitted ?

Below is a video from capandball that compares a Euroarms Enfield with a Pedersoli and mentions a higher combed stock on the Euroarms .
Admittedly not a direct comparison with a Parker Hale but Pedersoli claim that the dimensions of their Enfield are true to the original .
Food [or pie] for thought perhaps . https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WVkEc6bd6lQ

 

[TFoley]

OK, Gentlemen. I have just this afternoon measured -

1. TWO Parker-Hale rifles, a two and a three-band version of the P53 in .577cal.

2. ONE P-H Musketoon in .577cal.

3. TWO P53-based MkII Sniders, a two-band short rifle and a three-band rifle,

and come up with the following dimensions -

Every single specimen had the same drop of 2".

Every single specimen had the same circumference at the wrist of 5".

Every single specimen had the same circumference at the toe of the butt wood of 12.2".

However, the distance from the nail to the extreme end of the butt was 15.00" for all the Parker-Hale examples, 14.75" on the two-band Snider, and 14.25" on the three-band Snider.

While not settling any particular argument except the matter of the drop, it is nevertheless of some interest, no doubt.

tac