Bore Sizes of Parker-Hale Enfields

Southron Sr.

Private
Joined
Jun 9, 2011
Location
MIddle Georgia
Not too long ago I got a set of "Plug Gauges" that are 1/1000ths of an inch apart is size.
As any machinist will tell you, Plug Gauges are the most accurate and reliable way to measure the diameter of a gun barrel.

Here are the bore sizes of three different, Birmingham, England made, Parker-Hales:

1. Artillery Carbine. It will accept the .578 Gauge plug but not the .579

2. P-58 Naval Rifle. It will accept the .576 Gauge plug but not the .577!!!!

3. P-53 3 Barrel Band Enfield. It will accept the .578 Gauge plug but not the .579.

The real "surprise" was the .576 bore diameter of the Naval Rifle. I have had it since 1975 and many, many thousands of rounds have been fired thru it over the years in practice and Skirmishing. That rifle still has "guilt edge" accuracy.

First of all, the Naval Rifle barrel kills the rumor floating around in some circles that Parker-Hale barrels are "soft" and "shot out" after a few hundred rounds. That rumor was probably started by the same id**t that has been advising re-enactors to drill out and enlarge the flash hole in their rifle's nipple!

The Parker-Hale barrels were made by the process of "Hammer Forging." This starts with a thick, short section of steel with a hole drilled thru the center. A polished, hardened, mandrel (a "mirror" or reversed, full length version of the bore of the finished barrel) is inserted in the center hole of the heated, steel section.

The Hammer Forging machine literally pounds and squeezes the short, thick section of the steel around the mandrel, until it extends the full length of the mandrel and the outside diameter and contour of the barrel. When the mandrel is withdrawn, a perfect bore, complete with rifling is present!

A few things that are characteristics of "Hammer Forged" barrels:

1. The metal of the inside and outside of the barrel is very "Hard" because it it was literally "work hardened" by the hammer forging process.
2. This is a fast way to make a barrel, that it is why it is used by large manufacturers.
3. Hammer Forged barrels tend to be very uniform in dimensions because they are formed around a mandrel that remains the same from barrel to barrel.

After Parker-Hale went bankrupt, the barrel making machinery was sold at auction.
What is sad now is that the old Parker-Hale machinery is still in use in England to make barrels for modern firearms. The present owners and managers of the company that own the machinery today, have the tooling to make the superb Parker-Hale barrels but have no intention of doing so because they don't even realize that there is a market for muzzleloader Enfield barrels!

The saving grace of all of this is that next Spring Pedersoli will put the P-58 Naval Rifle back in production. These will be different because they will have "cut rifled" barrels and when one considers that Pedersoli makes the most accurate rifle barrels of any manufacturer, (their Gibbs rifles constantly win the 1,000 yard "Long Range" Championships at Oak Ridge, Tennessee) there is little doubt that the Pedersoli P-58 Naval Rifles will be the most accurate ones ever made.

As for my .576 Parker-Hale Naval Rifle? Well, it shoots a heck of a lot better than I do and always has!
 
Why wouldn't they do a P-56 Rifle instead of a P-58 Naval Rifle? There were thousands of P-56 Rifles imported vs a very few P-58 Naval Rifles. Yeah, I know, they already have the tooling for the P-58 Naval Rifle and the rest of the world isn't supposed to know the difference.

Jobe
 
Well. the P-56 barrel had the standard taper of the regular 3 band P-53 barrel along with the 3 land and groove, progressive depth rifling and the 1 in 78 twist. It shot O.K., but nothing spectacular.

The P-58 Naval Rifle and the P-60/61 Army Rifles were/are different animals entirely. They made use of 5 land and groove barrels with progressive depth rifling, a 1 in 48" twist, a HEAVY barrel and were superbly accurate! Basically the P-58 Naval Rifle and the P-60/61 Army Short Rifles were "accuracy champs" of the entire Enfield series of arms.

If you want a P-60 Army Rifle just order from Peter Dyson (you can Google his website) a steel Enfield nosecap, steel sidenail cups, steel triggerguard, rear sling swivel that screws into the stock and a steel buttplate. Polish them and have them color casehardened. Then switch out the brass furniture on your Parker-Hale Naval Rifle with the steel furniture and "Presto," you have a P-60 Army Short Rifle!

The Confederacy imported tons of P-60 Army Short Rifles and reserved them almost exclusively to be issued out to their Sharpshooter Battalions in the Army of Northern Virginia beginning in 1863! The Sharpshooters were also issued only British made ammunition for their P-60 Short Rifles and when necessary, acted as snipers, getting kills out to 600 yards and sometimes beyond. They were/are great rifles!
 
I am surprised they used a hammer instead of a Burton Rolls system. Even more surprised they used a mandrell the size of the bore instead of a bit smaller and first straightened then bored, then straightened and bored as was the more usual method. Use of mandrells was common with steel as it was harder on tooling than iron but that is the first time I have heard of the use of a mandrell without some boring and straightening.
 
Dear Kansas:

My description of the "Hammer Forging" process that was used to make the Parker-Hale Enfield barrels was based on descriptions I have read of the process. I have never seen the P-H barrel making machinery, nor am I familiar with the minor details that such a manufacturing process entails. Bill Curtis actually visited the Parker-Hale plant years ago and commented in one of his posts that the machinery made a great deal of noise when a barrel was being made. It would be great if you could write a complete description of how a Hammer or Roller Forging machine works and include the details. I am much more familiar with the Deep Hole Drill-Ream & Rifle method of barrel making.

As for Burton's method of barrel rolling, I have seen his sketches of his basic concepts of the process that are in his papers. As exactly how the barrels were made at the Enfield plant when Burton was Superintendent there, I don't know. Maybe you can shed some light on the processes and the machinery used there.

THANKS!
 
Southron, Sr. -

I didn't ask how to convert a Parker Hale to a P-60. I asked why the modern manufacturers don't make a more historically correct arm. OK, maybe it was a rhetorical question because I'm prety sure Pedersoli isn't going retool for a more correct 2 band British rifle. Even if it would be a copy of one of the most popular imported rifles used by the Confederacy.

Jobe
 
Oh I have no doubt about the noise, the hammer was likely to be a good heavy fast one and the only one i have seen like that running was very loud. I do not doubt they made their barrels in this manner either. I like the machinery of that time and enjoyed your post.
 
I got in a Parker-Hale P1858 Naval rifle today in the mail. Nice bore (scoped it this evening). Serial number of 1137 so probably one of the first ones?? My 0.579 plug gauge will fit in the end of the barrel, so my regular "out of the mold" Minnie' bullets will probably work best. I resize them to 0.5755 for my P1853 Enfield (Armisport) as it is a .578 bore at the end.
Funny thing is under the barrel is the crossed flags?? with Z\3/B nestled in the area at the bottom of the flags. Not much other markings on top of the barrel except Birmingham, England, Ltd. and the crown over BP on both the barrel and tang.
 
I saw Parker Hale hammer forging Enfield barrels and they were made that way because that was the barrel making machinery Parker Hale had. I also got to see the genuine original gauges they used and everything Parker Hale made was checked against those gauges. The only thing of lesser quality than the period interchangeable Enfields was the woodwork which relied entirely on machine work not surprisingly due to modern woodworkers expecting modern wages.

The economics of reproduction weapon making are more complex than might be expected. The target shooters are a very small part of the market. The 'mass' market is reenactment who largely only care about the outside and the price. An illustration is the Indian made Pattern 1853s. As necessarily smooth bores they could be perfectly good reproduction Sepoy smooth bore Enfields but the market has no interest in those, even if they would be good percussion musket competition guns. So they are made as imitation Pattern 1853s and target the cheap end of that range to capture a market that Pedersoli cannot reach.
 
Yes, that's an early P-H P.58. The proof information will normaly be found under the barrel, and the crossed flags and letters/number are date code for the proof and viewer rank. Your barrel was proofed in 1974.

David

David, I thank you a whole lot for the info. My son was born in November of 1974, so it's as old as he is now. Wondering what year Parker-Hale started production on those 1858 Naval Enfield reproductions? Yes, there are British proof marks on the underneath of the barrel, as well as on top and on the tang. Tang has 2 holes drilled and tapped as does the end of the barrel just back from the front sight, so I suspect it may have been fitted with "other" sights at one time for shooting. There is some small glass bedding in the stock at the breech end. Nice round and deep impression on the right side of rear part of stock with "Parker Hale Ltd."
 
Did the Parker Hale1858 replica, like I now have, come with those sling swivels that the front was offset just a bit and the rear one looks like what came on my Armisport P1853. I pulled those off the 1853 Enfield 3 band and put regular sling swivels on it, but the ones I took off look exactly like the ones on this "used" Parker-Hale 1858.

ADDENDUM:

Got an answer of the above from David of Lodgewood. Rather than delete, I think I'll just leave it and put an addendum for anyone that may be doing a search and wonder the same thing. It appears that Chiappa / Armisport copied the sling swivels of the Parker-Hale when they started up making replica Enfields. THIS is why they look so much alike. Parker Hale originally came with this stile of sling swivels.
 
Last edited:
The upper sling swivel, which is off-set, were British surplus from their SMLE series of arms. They were cheaper than a reproduction could be made, so they "cheaped out" and used them instead of a more correct sling swivel. I have even seen those WW2 sling swivels used on the Parker Hale muskets with the WW2 Broad Arrow on them!
J.
 
This one, although over 40 years old, still shoots great!
Parker-Hale_1858_3-shot_100yds.jpg


ParkerHale_100yd.jpg


Parker-Hale_1858Naval (1).JPG


1858_Parker-Hale-w-3-shot.jpg


2nd target was with the Lyman 510 grain molded bullets (new style) and the 4 shot group was done with the Old Style Lyman cast bullets. Both were sized to 0.576 for my P1853 Enfield. 56 gr FFFg Goex and Schuetzen musket percussion caps. 100 yards, off a rest. One fouling shot, but I noticed after the 2nd shot on the first target (group of 4) that my slider for elevation slid forward after shooting from the recoil; last 2 shots of the 4 were done making sure that the slider was all the way back. Seems like a really nice rifle for having been around since 1974.
 
Very well done, and a nice Parker-Hale rifle, too!l You did well because a friend recently purchased a Parker-Hale P-53 at a local show that turned out to have a bore that was worn to the point that the rifling is very poor. As you may imagine, the accuracy is poor at best.
J.
 
The upper sling swivel, which is off-set, were British surplus from their SMLE series of arms. They were cheaper than a reproduction could be made, so they "cheaped out" and used them instead of a more correct sling swivel. I have even seen those WW2 sling swivels used on the Parker Hale muskets with the WW2 Broad Arrow on them!
J.

I'll be a thankin' ya Jobe Holiday for the complement and info on the original slings. Then the Enfield 1858 would have teh same style of slings that I have replaced on my replica TOWER 1862 3 band. Glad to have gotten this rifle. Found out the other day at the Opthamologist that I had a blood blockage in my left eye around the nerves and that affected my vision... only giving me now faint images, and blurry. I can see my wrist watch with left eye, but can't tell you at all what time it is, nor can I shoot or actually read from my left eye.... probably 80% visual reduction. Right eye is still OK, but they are trying to prevent the same condition happening on the right eye. If that happens, no more shooting, or reading, internet, or much else that involves good vision. SO... I am taking it one day at a time and taking opportunities as I get to enjoy target shooting and other things. Seems like a really nice and well cared for rifle. I like the 5 groove and 1:48 twist. I have built both an AR-15 and AR-10 (style) rifle using 5R rifling, and think highly of that style of rifling with 5 lands & grooves.

65 and hope to keep on shooting for a good many more years. :smile:
 
Southron, Sr. -

I didn't ask how to convert a Parker Hale to a P-60. I asked why the modern manufacturers don't make a more historically correct arm. OK, maybe it was a rhetorical question because I'm prety sure Pedersoli isn't going retool for a more correct 2 band British rifle. Even if it would be a copy of one of the most popular imported rifles used by the Confederacy.

Jobe

I actually discussed "why not a P56" (which I recommended) with Pedersoli back when they were doing their P53....they wanted to use more of the P53 parts like like the trigger guard with front mounted sling swivel in brass vs iron for the P56, etc. They basically cut down a P53 and there is the P58. They do actually use the correct 5 land and groove rifling, as I understand. Cost differential was less to create a two band Enfield rifle for those wanting one. You probably guessed that much though. The numbers of P56 vs P58 in use during the Civil War did not figure into it.
 
I got in a Parker-Hale P1858 Naval rifle today in the mail. Nice bore (scoped it this evening). Serial number of 1137 so probably one of the first ones?? My 0.579 plug gauge will fit in the end of the barrel, so my regular "out of the mold" Minnie' bullets will probably work best. I resize them to 0.5755 for my P1853 Enfield (Armisport) as it is a .578 bore at the end.
Funny thing is under the barrel is the crossed flags?? with Z\3/B nestled in the area at the bottom of the flags. Not much other markings on top of the barrel except Birmingham, England, Ltd. and the crown over BP on both the barrel and tang.
Gibbs--Just thought I'd mention I have some half size pin gauges for doing valve guides (.3775 .3785). I don't remember if they had .5775 .5785.
 
From the rounds I've shot through this, so far, it appears to not have issues with bullets too small in relation to bore size. Not like my Armisport P53. With the Parker-Hale 1858 I've cast and shot both "out of the mold" and resized to 0.576" and no incidence of key-holing of the bullet on the target. That has happened with the P53 if I used FFg powder, and somewhat with low charges of FFFg powder, but NOT if I shot with at least 50g the FFFg powder I am using 55- 56 gr of FFFg Goex powder in the 2 band 1858 and no issues with bullet engaging the rifling on firing. Bullets whether sized, or not, go down the bore quite smoothly.

Seems like I read on some forum, some thread about getting bright steel furniture, butt plate, trigger guard, nose cap, and then able to "convert" the Navy rifle into the P1861 Short Army rifle. Probably fewer of those than the Naval rifle that saw service in the ACW.
 
Back
Top