Parker-Hale .22 Conversion

[mrcabinet2122]

I have read about these and seen photos of the S&W revolvers that were converted after the war, but had never seen one in person - until last weekend at a local gun show. The seller said he bought it twenty-some years ago and it has been sitting in his safe ever since. Based on it's condition, I believed him. At the last minute he decided to bring it to the show, and I'm glad he did! We worked out what I considered a fair price for both of us and brought her home. I didn't buy it for any type of collector's value, but for the uniqueness, history behind it, and what I consider to be very well done creative workmanship.

Can anyone tell me what this started out as (I believe a Victory model) and the year of manufacture?

 

[Wiregrassguy]

Well, congratulations! I can't tell you what it started as, although it likely was a .380 BSR. Serial puts it in 1943, I believe, but someone with better data will come along and pin it down for you. That's a nice looking conversion and I'm waiting to hear how it shoots.

 

[22hipower]

Saw one of those at a gun show a couple years ago. Interesting conversion and I was somewhat interested in it as a novelty but the $800 asking price seemed way too high to me. Let us know how it shoots.

Jeff
SWCA #1457

 

[mrcabinet2122]

Saw one of those at a gun show a couple years ago. Interesting conversion and I was somewhat interested in it as a novelty but the $800 asking price seemed way too high to me. Let us know how it shoots.

Jeff
SWCA #1457

Well, that makes me feel great about the $380 I paid for it!
I can't shoot it just yet - it's is missing the rear sight blade and finding an original is impossible. It shouldn't be too difficult to fabricate one and will be a fun weekend project. There's enough photos out there that I have a good guideline for it.

 

[delcrossv]

So is the cylinder and barrel sleeved or replaced?

 

[mrcabinet2122]

The cylinder is sleeved (with a half-rim to prevent empties from jamming), but the barrel is replaced with one that PH made just for these conversions. I'm actually surprised that they didn't sleeve the barrel, since PH was well known for their Enfield .22 conversions, in which they sleeved the barrels.

 

[Absalom]

Interesting find. And a good price. V 260069 is originally from spring 1943, likely around May.

The proofs on the left are clear, but your photo's resolution does not permit reading the inscription on the barrel's right side. What does it say there? Parker Hale usually marked their Victory conversions with a cartouche on the barrel attesting to that, which I do not see. See below.

 

[.357magger]

Interesting find. And a good price. V 260069 is originally from spring 1943, likely around May.

The proofs on the left are clear, but your photo's resolution does not permit reading the inscription on the barrel's right side. What does it say there? Parker Hale usually marked their Victory conversions with a cartouche on the barrel attesting to that, which I do not see. See below.

I wondered this too.

And the front sight doesn't look like any of the PH conversions I've previously seen (although those were all to 38 Special from the original 38/200), but that could be because of caliber and POA/POI shifts.

Interesting nonetheless, thanks for sharing it.

 

[Green Frog]

P-H had been building good guns for a long time before that one passed through their shop. I have never heard a negative word said about their quality. At $380, I would have been all over that gun like white on rice! I know purist collectors blanch and wail over any alteration to original configuration but this piece has more historical value, IMHO at least, than any but a pristine example preserved with Mongomery's Fingerprint under the oil. Congratulations on a great find and I know you'll enjoy it.

Froggie

PS Does the rear sight use opposing screws to retain and adjust the sight blade? That would indicate one step up in quality from the basic drift adjustable blade used for Bisley revolvers.

 

[mrcabinet2122]

I agree that this is an odd one without the cartuche on the right side. This all that's stamped on the right side of the barrel. I wonder if it might be an early model, before they went to the expense of recessing that section.

As for the sight blade, it is indeed the type with screws on both sides, and adjustable for height as well.

 

[Absalom]

I agree that this is an odd one without the cartuche on the right side. This all that's stamped on the right side of the barrel. I wonder if it might be an early model, before they went to the expense of recessing that section.
.

Aha. These are Belgian proofs, and it becomes a chicken-egg question where this gun was built and first proofed, since the Birmingham proofs are also for .22 and thus post-conversion. But I suspect the barrel is Belgian.

Did you actually find Parker-Hale's name anywhere on the gun or are you going by the seller's word? P-H were not the only Birmingham gun makers to fabricate these conversions. P-H even sold their branded sights into the trade, and P-H marked front sights can be found on guns of other manufacturers.

 

[BigBill]

Just when I thought I seen everything something different pops up. Surprise, surprise, surprise.........

The last time I was stumped and lost for words was when my LGS offered me a 38-44 I had no clue as to what it was. He wanted $800 for it. Of course I asked here about it after.

 

[Art Doc]

I doubt it was a new barrel. That flat spot is where they ground off the original caliber marking. Sure it was sleeved.

 

[mrcabinet2122]

The seller did say it was a Parker Hale, which may have skewed my perception. I thought I saw a small PH stamp on it, but it turns out my ageing eyes tricked me once again. The half rim sleeves appear to be indicative of PH, and the rear sight looks like just like the ones in ad photos from back in the day. But the Belgian barrel has really thrown me off.

So I guess the question now is, what the heck did I buy???

 

[Absalom]

I doubt it was a new barrel. That flat spot is where they ground off the original caliber marking. Sure it was sleeved.

It has to be a new (or at least different) barrel, because I can guarantee that V 260069 did not leave the factory with a 6" barrel.

 

[mrcabinet2122]

The barrel is definitely not sleeved nor original. Any idea who would have made the Belgian barrel?

 

[Muley Gil]

The barrel is definitely not sleeved nor original. Any idea who would have made the Belgian barrel?

The Belgians???

A Ruger rear sight may fit or could be modified to fit. George Dye on this forum usually has original pre war S&W rear sight blades that may fit also.

BTW, WAR EAGLE! Class of '77.

 

[mrcabinet2122]

I forgot to mention that I'm 99% sure the grips, with the crown medalion,
are PH.

Muley Gil - I'm a Yankee that finally made it South about 10 years ago. Definitely WAR EAGLE!

 

[mrcabinet2122]

I had some time over the weekend so I decided to try my hand at making a rear sight blade for it. I'm not a machinist by any means, but I do wield a pretty mean Dremel. Not knowing what the height needed to be, I made a practice blade out of plastic, then used a laser boresighter to mark a spot about 25' away. After adjusting the base's elevation half way up, I eyeballed it and marked where the top of the blade should be.

I found some .032" shim stock that fit the slot perfectly, so I grabbed the Dremel, some files, and had at it. I put a pyramid shape on the lower section so the screws will hold it down and tight. It looks kind of tall from the rear, but it gives a perfect 6 o'clock hold on the laser. I just cold blued it for now. Next time I set up for a rust blue project I'll throw it in the mix. Hopefully the weather will clear up later this week so I can take it to the range and try it out.

It's not perfect, but I'm happy with it. Not bad for an old wood butcher, lol.

 

[Wiregrassguy]

Looks perfect to me. Great job!