BSA collectors?

deemoney said:
Went to take a picture of the bike but to much work so here's a pic from the internet (mine's identical in the same shape). Its the bike my mom learned how to ride on and we just lost her to cancer last month so its priceless to me.
Click to expand...

One of the most fun to ride Beezers ever made....A perfect hooigan bike. I miss mine bigtime. Keep'er no matter what.:)
 
I have some how ended up with 3 of these oddball rifles, a 6.5X55 I bought real cheap from Tradex because it needed an extractor, a donor rifle in 270 Wby mag I haven't decided what to do with yet and a little full stock in 243. All 3 of these are a push feed action so I assume they are of similar vintage. As far as models go, I haven't the slightest notion of one from the other, but the donor 270 Wby looks identical to the OPs photos, the 6.5 does not have the roll over comb and does not have skipline checkering nor white line spacers nor does the full stock........the full stock has a cute little rosewood Schnabel though. Tradex listed the 6.5 as a CF2, beyond that I know nothing of the different models. These are a fine quality firearm though and bear more than a passing resemblance to the A IV Sako actions I have. I will try to take some photos tomorrow and post them.





 
Last edited:
C-FMBI,

Beside the serial #, there is a letter code that tells exactly what model you have. Post it here and I'll tell you.
 
deemoney said:
Went to take a picture of the bike but to much work so here's a pic from the internet (mine's identical in the same shape). Its the bike my mom learned how to ride on and we just lost her to cancer last month so its priceless to me.
Click to expand...

Nice, classic looking bike...I dig old school looking bikes!!!

...sorry to hear about your ma :(
 
OK, here you go...

Fiirst, I can't tell the year of maufacture with the serial. Only the proofmark will tell.

Then, I am not sure for the 17R, as the 6.5X55 caliber were expressely made for Scandinavia, introduced in 1982 until the BSA collapse in 1986..
So, the 17R is not in my records.

The "R" says they're CF-2 rifles, introduced in 1974 (but only delivered in N-A in 1975) to replace the "Monarch" line, until 1986, of course.

The 11R, model Stutzen, was introduced in 1982.

The 8R is the "Standard" model, and the 17 for the 17R must just be to indicate the differences between the Scandinavian (model unknown to me, but may well be "Scnadinavian") and the "normal" Standard model.
 
Thanks much Baribal, I kinda figured it would be something like that, like the old PH rifles in deluxe and standard grade, very similar in fact, with the Wundhammer swell, skipline checkering and rollover cheek piece and the standard one with none of the above.......at least the lesser BSA still has the forend cap, unlike the standard PH.
 
C-fbmi

Actually, they had different grades of CF-2 rifles;
- the "Classic" ('85-'86) with a reshaped bolt shroud, round fore end, straight comb stock, the entry level
- the "Regal Custom" ('85-'86) spatulated bolt handle, MC stock, without roll-over, schnabel fore end aand pistol grip with ebonite caps
- the "Standard" as per OP's and yours photos ('74-'86)
- the "Stutzen" ('82 - '86)
- the "Carbine", basically a Stutzen without full wood ('84-'86)
- the "Varmint" ('85-'86) with semi heavy barrel, similar to the "Calssic", no open sights
- the "Heavy Barrel" or "Varmint", heavy barrel, of course, ('77 to '85)
 
Last edited:
I thought my CF2 in .243 was a Stutzen that a previous owner had modified to shorten the stock, but then I discovered the existence of the carbine variant. Mine dates to 1983 production so it could be a carbine. Eventually I will try to get a Stutzen stock for it, unless I can find a complete Stutzen first.

c-fbmi if you decide to part with your Stutzen you now know of at least one person who will want it.
 
Actually, the "Carbine" is far from being common, as the sales were not there. It's a mix between the "Standard" model, as it uses the same configuration (with resewood fore end cap) but shorter stock and the "Stutzen" as it gets a 20.6" long barrel.
 
Baribal said:
C-fbmi

Actually, they had different grades of CF-2 rifles;
- the "Classic" ('85-'86) with a reshaped bolt shroud, round fore end, straight comb stock, the entry level
- the "Regal Custom" ('85-'86) spatulated bolt handle, MC stock, without roll-over, schnabel fore end aand pistol grip with ebonite caps
- the "Standard" as per OP's and yours photos ('74-'86)
- the "Stutzen" ('82 - '86)
- the "Carbine", basically a Stutzen without full wood ('84-'86)
- the "Varmint" ('85-'86) with semi heavy barrel, similar to the "Calssic", no open sights
- the "Heavy Barrel" or "Varmint", heavy barrel, of course, ('77 to '85)
Click to expand...

where those rifles ever made in left handed version?

Phil.
 
Getting my CF2 ready for the upcoming season. Bought a Vortex Viper HS 2.5-10x44 and a set of Burris Zee rings and bases for it. This rifle flat shoots, so I liked spending what I paid on the rifle for glass. I consider this set up to be lower quality than the rifle still however! This is a huge improvement on the low rings from what it was like last year with the borrowed 1" vortex scope on high rings. That set up was terrible.

014_zpscvxwwvw7.jpg


013_zpsjbdlcrzl.jpg


Now I just need a good sling, a well developed load, and to zero it and it'll be ready to bring home a freezer full this year.
 
flying pig said:
Getting my CF2 ready for the upcoming season. Bought a Vortex Viper HS 2.5-10x44 and a set of Burris Zee rings and bases for it. This rifle flat shoots, so I liked spending what I paid on the rifle for glass. I consider this set up to be lower quality than the rifle still however! This is a huge improvement on the low rings from what it was like last year with the borrowed 1" vortex scope on high rings. That set up was terrible.

014_zpscvxwwvw7.jpg


013_zpsjbdlcrzl.jpg


Now I just need a good sling, a well developed load, and to zero it and it'll be ready to bring home a freezer full this year.
Click to expand...

A beautiful rifle FP, I remember when these were brand new and not too bad priced either. I have one question for you as I missed this post last year. Have you determined the twist rate for the .30-06? The ones I had hands on experience with, a .308Win and a .300WM, both had very slow for caliber twist rates. I believe the 300WM I determined it was only 1/14" or maybe 1/12" but no faster, IRRC this was over 30 years ago. When you said the '06 was lack luster with 220 gr and sweet with 150's ,I guessed you have a typical slow twist English rifle in NA caliber. My PH1200 was only 1/14", bit it was ideal for the 150gr bullet, in fact it shot 762NATO IvI ball ammo(145-147ish) the best I'd ever seen, and there's a trophy around here somewhere from yesteryear to prove it.
Just curious if you actually determined the actual twist rate, don't rely on published data. The 300WM would put Federal Premium 200grBTSPs through the paper nearly sideways at 100 yards, totally unstabilized with the slow twist rate, long bullet and lowr velocity producing too slow a bullet rpm on exit.
Cheers RTS
 
I know it has been said by all of us before, but it really is a beautiful rifle.
Maybe by taking these pics with the lawn background instead of snow makes it even nicer ( just kidding ) !

Again, Thanks.
 
Some stunning BSA's posted here!! A recent acquisition changed my attitude towards BSA's! This one is a 1912 BSA Martini .310 Australian Cadet target rifle and it's a real joy to shoot. I originally bought it as a cheap beater "companion rifle" for my Swiss 1882 revolver, but it turned out to be so well made and shot so well that I put a few dollars into it to clean it up. I really like the lines of the early BSA falling blocks.

17984191075_d0c5f435d5_b.jpg

17984921321_9947bf24b6_b.jpg

17957751026_e0b7429dcf_b.jpg

17796321548_e72bbb08ed_b.jpg
 
Now that's a pretty little rifle! Congrats!

Not sure on the twist rate. It stabilized the 220s just fine, but it was a very light start load and they were RN flat based bullets. I believe the lack of accuracy hopefully came from just being a bad combination. The 150s also were RN flat based, but they shot fantastically. I'm going to try some 165 spitzers boat tails and see how they do. I want to push them a bit harder than I was too, get them up to speed and see. If that doesn't work I'll go back to the 150 RNs. I also had tried my last few Spitzer BT 165s last time and they were very comparable to the 220s. I feel that 165s may be a good choice all around. My dad shoots nothing but 165s from his -06 and takes everything on four legs with it. I'll likely only be after white tail and elk so I think a decent bullet at that weight should be good, getting to know the rifle and where it shoots will be a more important factor.

As for the twist rate, no clue, but I saw no signs of destabilization with any of the loads I tried in it so far.
 
FP try the cleaning rod with a jag and fairly tight patch method for a close guess at the rate of twist. Make sure your cleaning rod freely rotates at the handle. Insert the jag/patch and run it in around 2 to 3 inches and stop. Place a black marker dot on the top dead center of the cleaning rod close to the handle and then mark the rod right at the receiver with a sharp line mark. Push through the bore till the rod rotates one full turn so as your dot is back up to top dead center again. Now place another mark at the receiver on the rod. Remove and measure between the two marks. This should be your twist rate within 1/2" or so.
My .308 shot the 165's fine at 1/14". I'm guessing your '06 is 1/12" so should be good to go for 180's as well or those long monolithic 165's. Like I said just curious when ever I encounter an English made sporter concerning what they ran for twist rates in different North American rifle calibers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom