One for the shooting fraternity!

Hi All,

Bought a big box of engineering tooling at Sunday's car boot and was about to chuck out the rusty rubbish at the bottom when I saw these two items stuck together in a large glob of black grease covered paper.

One appears to be quite old by the patent date:

The other is by Parker Hale Model:PH16 and is well marked:

What sort of weapons would these be for? Air guns or something more potent perhaps? After some careful cleaning up they both work very well on the fine adjustments.

Cheers, Martin

[This posting has been removed]

Parker Hale made target sights for many different rifles, the PH16 was available in a number of different models, as listed:

PH16 BSA Sportsman and similar
PH16B ditto, 1/10" higher line of sight
PH16C military Mauser
PH16D Mossberg 42MB
PH16E .22 Mauser with grooves in receiver
PH16F SMLE
PH16J rifles w/flat-side receivers 1.25" wide
PH16K ditto, 1" wide
PH16M Webley & Scott Mk.3 air rifle
PH16N Brno rifles , .22RF & .22 Hornet

The other sight would, at a guess, be for something around .22RF calibre as well.

Those dates are nineteenth century. The newest gun mentioned would likely be the Webley Mk 3.

The PH16's not as substantial as the fullbore target sights I was used to, and doesn't appear to have the range of adjustment to cope with the full spread of distances and possible windages, but could certainly work well over a limited segment.

Seems to cover pretty much the full range of calibres from the better sub-12 ft.lb. airguns to 2000+ ft.lb. military fullbores. Not the sort of thing you'd want for the heavy-game express rifles, though .

I had a Parker Hale sporting convertion of a SMLE Lee Enfield .303, I actually wanted a #4* that I had used in the RNZAF, in the 1960 that was our standard weapon, were as the army had gone semi auto 7.62 mm.

The PH 16 sight is for a BSA Sportsman .22 LR

Ian S C

Edited By Ian S C on 10/07/2019 12:29:28

Good job you had the foresight to check

(ROFLing at my own wit).

Neil

Hmmm... rearsight; or maybe - considering their age - hindsight?

Fortunately not an oversight.......

Martin