Parker Hale Target sights for FN FAL and SLR

[mrclark303]

Thanks for all the comments. I have only just joined the forum and this was my first post.
As regards the Lithgow SLR, it had coachwood furniture and was purchased from Tom Collins at the London Armoury around 1982. It was in very good condition and I had to strip it down to clean out all the gunk that had been packed into it. I only fitted the target sights for a short while because as Peter said it never was a target rifle. Great fun for knocking down the falling plates though!

Welcome to Milsurps John and thanks for such an interesting first post!

I wonder, I know it was good few years ago now, but do you remember if your Singapore contract L1 was a Police issue example?

It would have had a unique identifier on the left rear of the TMH, starting with SPF.

Those Singapore Police issue L1's and L2's appear to have had very little use indeed.

[Gil Boyd]

I can confirm from PH records that several were indeed fitted to L1A1's many years ago but only on range days, as an interest shoot. Bill Smallwood and others were duly disqualified when they demolished the falling plates in record time
A couple were sold to someone in Australia for his SLR about 5 years ago FYI....Enjoy

[Peter Laidler]

ON the down side, it doesn't matter what sight is fitted or the size of the hole, the position of the moon or the breakfast menu that day. The rifle isn't a target rifle and never will be. And while the rear sight base is articulated against the foresight and the barrel, this or any sight mounted to the TMH will not make a jot of difference. Just my opinion based on nothing more than a goodly dollop of experience, a modicum of common sense and what my mum used to call the bleedin' obvious. Just my view of course.

[mrclark303]

ON the down side, it doesn't matter what sight is fitted or the size of the hole, the position of the moon or the breakfast menu that day. The rifle isn't a target rifle and never will be. And while the rear sight base is articulated against the foresight and the barrel, this or any sight mounted to the TMH will not make a jot of difference. Just my opinion based on nothing more than a goodly dollop of experience, a modicum of common sense and what my mum used to call the bleedin' obvious. Just my view of course.

I wouldn't have thought that there would be much, if any difference between using the PH sight or a Hythe on an issued military rifle, that would have seen 20 plus years of service by the early 1980's ... maybe on the other hand, it would make a difference on a really tight, little used civilian rifle, like Johns ex Singapore contract example..

[Gil Boyd]

For some reason there seems to be a resurgence on the SLR again people wanting straight pull options, and a lot appearing out there too for whatever reason. Have some appeared from a far off country???
Can't think of anything worse than shooting an SLR with anything other than that being issued to it on the sights situation but thats just me, as it was my best friend for a while".

[Peter Laidler]

Ready for a bit of mathematics everyone......? If there was, say, a .010" deflection left and right of the TMH on the body - and there would undoubtedly by a great deal more, even on new production believe me - then just multiply that possible deviation in the form of accumulative error left and right out to a range of 200 yards onwards. Naturally after a few rounds of steady shooting the rifle settles down into the shoulder following recoil and the following reciprocation of the working parts. It's what's called 'settling' or 'normalisation' for obvious reasons*. You can get the feel of it when it assumes its seemingly natural firing feel....., difficult to explain in detail. But then you get up and move - so does the body against the TMH no matter how or do a 100 yard rundown to the falling plates and then..........

There were all sorts of methods of tightening up from inserts, spreading the body a tad, ring punching the axis mech to spring loaded ball bearings and........... But the rifle will just do what recoil and the action tells it to do.
*that's why we always fired a few rounds into the bank prior to range and accuracy testing and where possible always fired from the layer

As for the hole size, that's all very well on a nice manicured range at Tidworth but in the dark or half light in the eerie bush, the bigger the hole you've got, the better if you'll excuse the phrase

[Gil Boyd]

Absoblimmin right Peter, shoot it as issued, nothing thereafter ever worked well, including all the various bits bolted to the top cover

[mrclark303]

For some reason there seems to be a resurgence on the SLR again people wanting straight pull options, and a lot appearing out there too for whatever reason. Have some appeared from a far off country???
Can't think of anything worse than shooting an SLR with anything other than that being issued to it on the sights situation but thats just me, as it was my best friend for a while".

Have you seen the price of the new arrivals on the market Gil, heading north of £3,000!!! ... getting a bit silly really .. I guess its down to supply and demand, after all an L42A1 is only an old military bolt action rifle when all said and told, they go for £9,000 plus!!

Ready for a bit of mathematics everyone......? If there was, say, a .010" deflection left and right of the TMH on the body - and there would undoubtedly by a great deal more, even on new production believe me - then just multiply that possible deviation in the form of accumulative error left and right out to a range of 200 yards onwards. Naturally after a few rounds of steady shooting the rifle settles down into the shoulder following recoil and the following reciprocation of the working parts. It's what's called 'settling' or 'normalisation' for obvious reasons*. You can get the feel of it when it assumes its seemingly natural firing feel....., difficult to explain in detail. But then you get up and move - so does the body against the TMH no matter how or do a 100 yard rundown to the falling plates and then..........

There were all sorts of methods of tightening up from inserts, spreading the body a tad, ring punching the axis mech to spring loaded ball bearings and........... But the rifle will just do what recoil and the action tells it to do.
*that's why we always fired a few rounds into the bank prior to range and accuracy testing and where possible always fired from the layer

As for the hole size, that's all very well on a nice manicured range at Tidworth but in the dark or half light in the eerie bush, the bigger the hole you've got, the better if you'll excuse the phrase

Agreed Peter, HM Government never bought them for sub MOA paper punching ... But rather for punching enemies of the State, plenty accurate enough for Government work.

[nzl1a1collector]

John H Turner, if you look at the underside of your sight what number is stamped on the main parts? Mine is numbered '18' It came from the UK a number of years ago, I managed to get it off of that wonderful auction site.

Here's the rare Australian NRA Target Rifle. There is no magazine well and the majority of machining operations to the receiver weren't done, it a huge lump of steel a lot stronger than the L1A1 Body. The problem with them was they were a straight pull rifle and when up against the conventional Omark Target rifles it lost out. About 130 rifles were made in both left and right handed versions.

[John H Turner]

I don't recall any other markings on my Lithgow SLR other than serial number, proof marks and Lithgow markings as per "British and Commonwealth FALs". The woodwork was marked SLAZ. I didn't use the PH sights for very long, soon swapped back to the issue version. But at the time I think they only cost about £10 and I just bough up any relevant SLR bits that were on offer. Not sure why I have kept hold of them for so long really.