The Monster Enfield Defarbing Thread [Archive] - Page 2 - Authentic Campaigner Website & Forums

Craig L Barry

04-10-2007, 12:33 AM

While it is hard to make any definitive statement from viewing pics, there do seem to be British government marks all over this one, making any US Civil War provenance unlikely. The barrel proofs are hard to make out but they do not appear to be the Birmingham commercial variety. The outside of the lock plate has a Crown over the royal cypher (V.R) behind the hammer, and unless I am seeing things what appears to be a crown over a broad arrow just to the right of the "Tower" mark. I would suspect that if you remove the lock assembly and look on the inside of the lock plate you may find either a "WD", broad arrow and a crown over a "B" and some numbers. These are government inspectors marks and British Army acceptance marks.

The price being very reasonable for the overall condition also suggests this P-53 came to the states much more recently than the 1860s. Maybe not from Nepal or India but some place in the British Empire where it was well preserved. Civil War gun collectors hate the old British Army Enfields showing up because they keep the market flooded with low cost vintage P-53s in good condition.

Beginning in 1854, the so-called "original four" Birmingham commercial gun-makers (Swinburn, Tipping & Lawden, Hollis & Sheath and T. Turner) all supplied the Crown with P-53 Enfield rifle-muskets. You may find evidence that one of the "original four" produced your Enfield as it does appear to be a Birmingham gun. Look on the bottom behind the trigger guard to see if you can locate a gun-makers name. It would not be unusual to also find a stock-makers name in the ramrod channel, with a (different) name under the barrel and sometimes another maker's name stamped inside the lock.

Doing some research to learn a bit of your P-53s history and unravel a few of its secrets can be fun. C.H. Roads British Soldiers Firearms 1850-1864 is a good book with which to start. You will find similar P-53s with the same government markings among the photographs in the book.

Hope you enjoy your new acquistion.

militiaman1835

04-10-2007, 07:13 AM

Thank you Mr. Barry. Your book is on my nightstand next to the bible!! Keep referring to it and working on defarbing my repro a bit at a time. JIM HENSLEY

Clsinclair

04-10-2007, 09:15 AM

Johan Steele

04-10-2007, 10:49 AM

I paid $1,200 for a type II Enfield at the Horse Soldier in Gettysburg about 5 years ago. Mine is in excellent condition and it seems you also got a good deal. You can take it apart and find inspector marks in the lockplate and under the barrel. Some type II's were made in the US and exported to England. Also the US did import some short rifles dated 1856 to the States. I do know of once Regiment of Hagoods Division that were issued the short rifles. I have a book regarding the P-1853 and it does state that those made in the US were of inferior work compared to the ones made in England.

Regards,

Claude Sinclair

Actually as a note everything I have read of the Windsor Made P53's is that they were every bit as good as those made at Enfield and second to none in quality. Several States, private militias purchsed numbers as well as some being available on the open market; they were well regarded. Unlike most of the non Enfield or London Armory made arms they were interchangeable. The JP Moore/Colt manufactured P53's were made up from parts made in England and merely assembled in the US.

Both the P56, P58 & P60 made their way into the US, thoigh the P61 in EXTREMELY small numbers. THe US imported about 15,000 IIRC

Craig L Barry

04-10-2007, 01:07 PM

Taking nothing away from the Lodgewood Mfg P-53s, which are excellent, the JRAs are also very good accuracy modified repro Enfields, especially for the money. For example, JRAs gunstock re-contouring is included in their price but an upcharge of $150 if performed by Lodgewood Mfg. The JRA actually feels more like an original in your hands as it correctly copies the thinness through the wrist that most other de-farbed repros lack. The JRA also gets the "football shaped" lock mortise profile properly duplicated.

For example, one particularly grating aspect of the lack of quality control with the current Italian reproduction Enfield is excessive trigger play. This results from cutting the trigger mortise too shallow for the assembly so the trigger is placed too far from the sear. In hand finishing their gun stocks, James River gets the trigger placed more deeply in the trigger mortise where it more properly fits. James River offers their own "larger" hammers as the repros are famously undersized, and so on. To my knowledge none of the other service providers offer a more correctly proportioned (larger) hammer.

One additional step in the form of stock refinishing with boiled linseed oil is recommended. None of the current service providers seem to get this part right...

Jim Mayo

04-10-2007, 01:32 PM

Has anyone found information on the numbers of bar on band Enfields imported?

I have always wondered if these were similar enough lumped into the 2 band or short rifle numbers.

Craig L Barry

04-10-2007, 05:03 PM

Curt is correct, V.R is not "wrong" (per se) for a Civil War-era Birmingham commercial export Enfield, just less common. The V.R mark by itself does not mean the Enfield was a government gun, unless accompanied by the requisite inspectors marks, acceptance marks (like WD, and broad arrow) and British government barrel proof marks.

Some explanation is probably in order on what the mark does mean. The “V.R” mark or "royal cypher" is an abbreviation for “Victoria Regina” or Queen Victoria. The royal cypher consisted of the two letter abbreviation of the reigning monarch under a stylized crown, the exact appearance of which varied. For example:

Cypher Meaning Dates
G.R. Georgius Rex 1760 to 1820
V.R Victoria Regina 1837 to 1901
E.R Edwardius Rex 1901 to 1910

The perplexing variety of marks existed because the lock plate stamps found on commercial (made for export) P-53 Enfield rifle-muskets were not regulated by the British government. Some of the London commercial gun-makers (other than LA Co) exported P-53 Enfield rifle-muskets with little to no marks on the lock plate. Other London gun-makers like Barnett marked their lock plates "Tower" under the crown behind the hammer. The V.R mark is found on almost all LA Co produced P-53 Enfield rifle-muskets, whether made for the British government or produced commercially for export.

Johan Steele

04-10-2007, 06:01 PM

Has anyone found information on the numbers of bar on band Enfields imported?

I have always wondered if these were similar enough lumped into the 2 band or short rifle numbers.

What we know is that both the US & CS imported them w/ the CS importing more. US imported 15-16,000. Judging from my own research the P56 Rifle seems to have been the majority imported by the US.

THe CS had a real liking for the "medium Enfield" w/ men like Morgon & Forrest preferring them to most other arms. My own research puts quite a few of them in the hands of CS Cav in the west.

As to the bar on band or P56 #2... my own belief is that it was rarer than the P56 yet more common than either the P58 or P60... lets not talk about the Naval version (which is the Armi-Sport Copy). We know that the CS ended up w/ about 500 for use in the CS Navy. Other than that... I don't believe more than a handful of the P58 Naval Rifle saw use by the average CS soldier; though we know of their use by the CSMC. Mt own view of the P56 #2 would be a guess of anout 20% of the total P56 Rifles imported to the CS were this model. Keep in mind said research is merely anecdotal and related more to my recent conversations w/ some collectors... how accurate it is I don't know.

Clsinclair

04-10-2007, 07:48 PM

James Gunners report on the New York made Enfield and imported to England from the "1853 Pattern Rifled Musket".

". . . The stocks are of inferior Walnut Wood, very light and open in the grain and are somewhat liable to split and break. . . barrels appear to be made of cast steel 2 ft. 9 in. long very stout and heavy (particularly at the nose end) weighing on an average 5 lbs each are clean and free from flaws and are well Rifled. The bores are rather irregular in size one admits the .580 rejecting Plug, and some will not admit the .577 . . . . . . . . . The stocking letting in of the mountings, shaping, and making off the Stocks are well executed, except the cutting of the wood which is not neatly and cleanly performed . . . the whole of the various parts will interchange from one stock to another without requiring fitting or filing."

The firm in NY produced 10,400 for the British Government. Goes on to say that in terms of standard of material and workmanship, the American rifles fell short of British requirements in may respects. Many of the imported Enfields were never used in England.

I do have a British made Enfield and an American made Springfield. The Enfield's stock is much better than the stocks of the three Springfields and two Harper Ferry's that I have owned. England used the heart of the Walnut tree to make stocks.

Regards,
Claude Sinclair

Gary of CA

04-10-2007, 09:24 PM

Pard, at $800 you did gude. When I attended the Civil War gun show in Nashville a few years back, the average price was about $1200.

Tarheel

04-11-2007, 05:00 PM

It is interesting to note that there is incontravertible evidence that Type 2 Patt 1853 Enfields saw service with the Confederate army. I refer to the well-known photograph of the three Georgian infantrymen in caped overcoats, I can't get to my library at the moment to provide a more detailed description, but the photograph has appeared in many publications. From memory, the left hand fellow is wearing a top hat of some form and I believe the description notes that one of them was killed at Malvern Hill. However the chap on the right of the photograph is carrying a Type 2. You can easily identify the wider top band and the band springs are also evident. Hope this helps.
Patrick Reardon,
The Lazy Jack Mess, UK

Craig L Barry

04-11-2007, 05:20 PM

The JS Anchor stamp was copied off a Birmingham Tower 1863 (C. Swinburn) that was borrowed from me. The JS Anchor marking was not on the lock plate and I have no clue where that idea came from...certainly not from the original from which the stamp was copied. The only marks on the lock plate of the original are "Tower", "1863" and the "crown" behind the hammer.

Johan Steele

04-11-2007, 09:53 PM

Claude, not trying to argue here just curious as the info you have provided clashes dramiticly w/ much of mine. From the #'s mentioned Gunner could only have been referring to the Windsor, made in Ct not NY, which as I understand it were considered comparable in most ways to the London & Enfield Armory P53's and considerably superior to the Non Natl Armory manufactured P53's. As to the Walnut the Windsor were manufactured w/ American Black Walnut. There were 25,000 contracted for and the 10,000 odd delivered. I believe only about 16-17000 were actually manufactured before the contract was cancelled and those ended up on the secondary market w/ some being purchased by various private & state militia's. Some were offered for open sale in Charleston in I believe in 1859.

My own experiance w/ Springfield pattern arms in comparison to the Enfield is literally the opposite of yours. That said the original Enfields I have most consistantly handled have been Birmingham trade arms. Those I have handled have a considerably poorer fit & finish than any of the original Springfield pattern arms.

I know Whitney made up a couple hundred Type 2's... IIRC the difference was in the rear sight and there was some question of the quality. I believe those were also made up for the Brit govt for Crimea War but I don't think any were ever accepted into the Brit service. Gunner's comments/complaints are quite similar to those registered by other later manufactured Whitney's. Do you think those might have been the American made Enfields Gunner is reffering to?

I do not believe he could be talking of the JP Moore made parts guns as they were manufactured, I believe, in 62 & maybe some in 63. I believe they were all of Type 3 variety. Though again I believe there were some questions of their quality as well.

James Gunners report on the New York made Enfield and imported to England from the "1853 Pattern Rifled Musket".

". . . The stocks are of inferior Walnut Wood, very light and open in the grain and are somewhat liable to split and break. . . barrels appear to be made of cast steel 2 ft. 9 in. long very stout and heavy (particularly at the nose end) weighing on an average 5 lbs each are clean and free from flaws and are well Rifled. The bores are rather irregular in size one admits the .580 rejecting Plug, and some will not admit the .577 . . . . . . . . . The stocking letting in of the mountings, shaping, and making off the Stocks are well executed, except the cutting of the wood which is not neatly and cleanly performed . . . the whole of the various parts will interchange from one stock to another without requiring fitting or filing."

The firm in NY produced 10,400 for the British Government. Goes on to say that in terms of standard of material and workmanship, the American rifles fell short of British requirements in may respects. Many of the imported Enfields were never used in England.

I do have a British made Enfield and an American made Springfield. The Enfield's stock is much better than the stocks of the three Springfields and two Harper Ferry's that I have owned. England used the heart of the Walnut tree to make stocks.

Regards,
Claude Sinclair

Pritchett Ball

04-11-2007, 10:22 PM

Jim:

Hey, thanks for posting the pics! Would it be too much trouble if you could post close-up photos of the Lower and upper bands? I sure would like to see the stock configuration at the lower band area!:D
respectfully:

Kevin Dally

Curt-Heinrich Schmidt

04-12-2007, 12:33 PM

Hallo!

" The Enfield's stock is much better than the stocks of the three Springfields and two Harper Ferry's that I have owned. England used the heart of the Walnut tree to make stocks."

Herr Claud...

Would you elaborate on "much better" please?
More toward heartwood than sapwood, grain, fit, finish, etc., etc,?

I have spent my adult life immersed and surrounded by "Springfields and Enfields," and am curious.

Thanks!

Curt

Clsinclair

04-12-2007, 03:48 PM

All my information comes from "The British Soldier's Firearm From Smoothbore to Smallbore 1850 to 1864" by Dr. C.H. Roads.

bushwacker

04-13-2007, 10:14 PM

Fellas,
I am wondering if anyone could tell me how to defarb an Enfield. I hear all of this defarbing talk and wonder what the standard is. Why do companies make lock plates and barrels with the wrong markings? Is there documentation that shows what each lockplate should look like? Where can I get a defarbed rifle.

Thank you

Tucker49th

04-13-2007, 10:28 PM

http://www.authentic-campaigner.com/links/showlink.php?do=showdetails&l=80&catid=14.
Try doing a search on Defarb or Enfield in the search engine.

The Lonely Reenactor

04-13-2007, 10:28 PM

Mr. Perry,
The use of the search function above will reveal several good threads on this very subject and should provide some, if not most, of the answers to your questions.;)

Marty Rubin
Tater Mess

LHV1861

04-13-2007, 10:31 PM

http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Quarters/1864/enf/enfauth.htm
http://www.authentic-campaigner.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4498&highlight=linseed+oil

Hope that helps some.

Jeff Felton

Liberty Hall Volunteers
Co. I 4th Va.

Tim Prince

04-15-2007, 07:34 PM

Attached to give some images to the conversation are three pictures of original P-1853 lockplates in my current inventory.

The first is a totally unmarked lock (on the outside) that has only the double line engraving (typically seen on Birmingham made locks) and nothing else. It has matching assembly numbers on the internal parts. I belive that it was made in Belgium on contract (likely for a Birmingham maker). It was left blank to be stamped as appropriate by the maker when used.

The second is an RSAF produced lock, with all the appropriate British acceptance marks, etc. Note the "VR" under the Crown. There is no engraved, "double line" boarder.

The third is a Joseph Bourne of Birmingham contract lock. The makers name is on the inside, and the outside is marked with only the Crown, TOWER and the date. As is typical of Birmingham locks, this one has the "double line" engraving.

To throw a complete wrench into all of this, back in February I had the opportunity to handle a well used P-1853 Type II (hard band rifle musket) that was produced in Birmingham in 1856. The gun was covered with the the typical British War Department acceptance marks. The gun was also stamped clearly on the flat, opposite the lock, with the I.C. stamp that most current experts consider the "Isaac & Campbell" mark. Upon the publication of a new book in the works, we will learn what that stamp really means, but suffice to say that is not "Isaac & Campbell", but most assuredly Confederate. This mark made me look for another mark that should accompany it, and sure enough, I found a well worn Sinclair & Hamilton Co mark immediately in front of the butt plate tang. It was one of the early style marks with the S/HC/Arrow and not the later SH/C (sometimes with and without arrow) mark that was used on later imports. So here is a definitively Confederate used gun, with definitive British War Department marks- the type of gun that we constantly say should not exist and should not be so marked. The gentleman who showed me the gun was actually using it as a shooter and had no idea that it was a CS gun. When I told him about the the marks and the potential value of the gun he was floored. He had litterally been shooting it for 20 years, thinking it was just an old British military musket.

I just thought I'd share that little jewel with you. Maybe a type II in CS hands is not that odd after all......

Craig L Barry

04-15-2007, 10:14 PM

In a sense, that gentleman is shooting an old British military Enfield. After its service to the Crown, could that type II Enfield have been retired as obsolete and sold off into the commercial gun trade? Or did it appear that it was sold as government surplus direct from the British government Tower Armoury to the CS government? That would be odd. In other words, were any of the British Army marks struck over or were there condemnation or re-furbishing marks? It is rare to find British government marked P-53s with US Civil War provenance. I ran across at least one other (a LA Co 1861) in doing research for "The Civil War Musket: A Handbook for Historial Accuracy" (see p. 28, footnote # 9).

The one thing I have definitely learned from a study of the Civil War-era P-53 Enfield is "never say never". Not many of us have had an opportunity to closely inspect more than a fraction of one percent of the hundreds of thousands P-53 rifle-muskets produced during the early 1860s, at most. Very interesting.

bushwacker

04-16-2007, 03:19 PM

Thank you for reminding me to do a search first. I almost posted another repeat.

Craig L Barry

04-18-2007, 02:31 PM

Tim:

Since you provided that IC is not (Saul) Isaac, Campbell & Co, and if it is a Confederate mark, and it located opposite the lock, then it is probably a paid inspector with the initials I.C. Perhaps one who inspected Enfields for SH&C and S.Isaac, Campbell & Co? Is this in the right ballpark? If so, I can hazard a guess, but let's wait for the publication...Everybody likes a surprise.

Jim Mayo

04-18-2007, 02:42 PM

Tim:

Since as you state IC is not (Saul) Isaac, Campbell & Co, and if it is a Confederate mark, then it is probably a paid inspector with the initials I.C. who inspected Enfields for SH&C and S.Isaac, Campbell & Co. Is this in the right ballpark? If so, I can hazard a guess, but let's wait for the publication...Everybody likes surprises.

My guess would be Inspected Condemned and then sold for export. Of course that is just a guess. Sign me up for a copy of the book.

Any word on when it is to be published?

Tim Prince

04-19-2007, 04:25 PM

All,

The book in question has been in the works for some time, with some of the biggest names in Enfield research working on it. It had been stalled for some time, but should see the light of day in the next year or so.

Todd Watts

05-01-2007, 01:18 PM

A friend of mine, Craig Barry referred me to search "Blockade Runner" and "de-farb" & see what came up. I found this thread and after reading decided to pop in.

I am the guy employed by Blockade Runner to make their de-farbs and do other gunsmithing work for them. I have been de-farbing for them for going on 3 years now, and learning with each gun how to improve. I look back on my first few with some embarrassment. My how cheap they looked back then compared to now.:rolleyes: I'd love to locate some of those first guns and re-do them now.

I am much indebted to Craig Barry and Tim Prince for educating me on how to improve. When Jerry Smith (Blockade Runner owner) asked me if I'd like to de-farb for him, I asked "what's that?":D No kidding, I asked if he wanted me to drag the gun through the gravel to make it look "real" when he said de-farbing was a term used to define the process of making something look "real." Keep in mind I was only a gunsmith and had just very recently started re-enacting, so I was not really into the lifestyle at that time - yet.

Jerry, Craig and Tim had been working on the idea for some time and Jerry had ordered stamps from India. The stamps actually looked like some guy in India had made them on a railroad spike by hand and each stamp was dime-sized. The first couple of guns were really bad because of this. After cursing these first few guns, I contacted Craig myself and e-mailed back and forth with him. Through him I learned what needed to be done so I ordered good quality stamps and free-hand drew the designs for the stamps. I exactly measured the stamps off of an original BSAT Enfield of Craig's collection.

Every time I meet one of these 2 gentlemen, they tell me some new trick to add more original quality. I look at originals from their collections and take rubs or pictures and measurements frequently. I am about to start making an E.Bond Enfield based on one Tim had at a local show recently to supplement the Swinburn and Wilson that I copy from Craig's collection.

It is my intention to be the best de-farber of Enfields around, but I know I am not there yet. I do it as a hobby, not a business. As such, I am slow, but am not interested in mass-production even though Jerry sure would like me to be.;)

As for the JS Anchor stamps, the original I copied is one Craig had until he recently donated it to the archive at Stones River Nat'l Battlefield. It has the anchor at the trigger guard tang and also on top at the buttplate tang. I am no longer stamping lock plates unless the customer asks for that. I saw an original London Arms Enfield lock that had that stamp in that exact placement, a little crooked while I was researching the stamp. The picture was on-line but try as I might I have been unable to relocate the picture for a long time now. I am guessing the contractor must have stamped the lock for purchase and it was assembled into a gun, but I of course cannot verify that. And, since I cannot relocate the photo I am telling potential customers that it may not be correct there, but if they want it I will stamp it. We have found that customers ordering the de-farb CSA contracts generally specify that they do want the anchor on the lock, including the other 2 known placements. So, I give them what they want even though it is probably in-correct.

I am recontouring stocks as much as practical. The Euro especially is a club and it takes an enormous amount of rasping and sanding to get it down even to Armi's size. I reshape the Euro's rear 2 bands to mimic the Palmer bands as best as practical but these bands cannot be made to exactly match Palmers. They are cast, so welding tabs on them is out of the question.

I have never used tung oil. For the past year I have only refinished them in real boiled linseed oil. The finish I started using which is the "secret recipe" Jerry initially wrote into the website was dark walnut stain "Minwax"! Hey, it did a great job sealing the wood and darkening it so don't laugh.:D We found when I switched to linseed, we had customers not happy with the lighter color when they saw it beside the walnut stained stocks, but I have since gotten away from stains. One problem we have is that we are so used to seeing originals that are dark that customers assume that is the "new" color as well. Wrong! Linseed darkens wood somewhat depending on the wood's natural grain and tone, but that darkness of the originals is from many coats of linseed over 140+ years plus general handling and dirt aged into the wood. I recently got one of those originals from Nepal a man wanted "de-farbed" and when I sanded and scraped the wood deeply enough to get marks out, the wood was as light as most any new stock wood. When I applied linseed to it, it was the same tone as the new stocks.

THis past week I sent a checklist to the Blockade Runner that I want them to fill out with customers to be sure I make what they want. In the past, customers ordered "de-farb Enfield" and the store handed me the gun and said "de-farb this" and so I had to guess what the customer wanted. Hopefully now I can be better organized on the things.

I hope you guys can give me constructive criticisms about my work from time to time and help me improve. I ma not an Enfield scholar by any means, so I rely on knowledge from the real experts out there to guide me to make real artforms out of our musketry.

Todd Watts
Christiana, TN

huntdaw

05-01-2007, 06:25 PM

Todd,

If you're the fellow doing the '42 Springfield nosepieces with the brass sight for Blockade Runner, I am very pleased with the one I got to replace my incorrect one. Took advantage of the $15 trade-in.

Craig L Barry

05-01-2007, 09:17 PM

I am not exactly positive of the "rules" on the Authentic Campaigner forum about recommending products and who are/are not approved vendors but I do know this much...The Watchdog is an approved vendor. The Watchdog published the book "The Civil War Musket: A Handbook for Historical Accuracy" in which Todd Watts "de-farbed" Enfield is reviewed along with the others. I would refer those interested in knowing more details to that review.

Worth noting...the workmanship on Watts proof house marks (Birmingham) and his barrel re-bluing will take the Pepsi Challenge against anybody. It is great to read (above) that Todd is now using boiled linseed oil on the stocks. I do not know of any other service provider that takes this necessary step. Todd is currently re-contouring an Enfield stock for me so that's one less thing for me to do when I get it back.

LibertyHallVols

05-02-2007, 12:23 AM

Approved vendor or not, if we can't come here and get an honest opinion about a product or service that we as hobbyists may need or want, then what's the point! As long as its honest and objective, I say speak your mind!

Todd Watts

05-02-2007, 02:17 PM

Glad you are pleased with the nose band, Michael. Yes, I am the one doing those too. They are back ordered for eternity from what they tell me at The Blockade Runner.

Todd Watts

05-02-2007, 02:35 PM

Thanks Craig. I'll redo Hunter's gun all the way through while I have it and apply the "new" stamps I am now doing for your enjoyment. I need to anyway since the barrel rusted up pretty badly at Eddyville. Seems our camp location in the bottom of the bowl was not the best place for that little shower that came Friday night.:rolleyes:

One thing I have noticed on the wood on the repros recently is that there is a lot with "sap wood" which is fine wood, but it has a total lack of pigmentation and grain curl. When linseed is applied, it simply turns this wood "creme color" unless I apply walnut stain to it. I assume this sort of wood was issued back then too, but the surviving examples of these have vanished from collections. But, back then they had larger walnut trees available and probably could have been more selective in wood quality, so it is possible they discarded sap wood stock blanks. The quality of the wood Armi Sport is supplying here recently has nose-dived. When I remove the parts I often find absolutely no stain or sealant under the barrel or trigger guard or inside the lock inlet. This has started to be the case from this manufacturer in just the past year. There is no stain even under the buttplate. Why they take the time to keep the stain off of these places is beyond me. It's be simpler and better to do the whole thing at once in a dip bath or spray than to mask off areas.:confused:

Armis make better de-farbs than Euros by the way. Their weight is closer to original and the stock is closer to original, plus they come with Palmer bands where the Euroarms has those later bands that have to be filed and still cannot be made into Palmers.

Craig L Barry

05-03-2007, 11:08 PM

Todd:
Outstanding. The boy and I will be serving the cause of the Confederate States at New Market May 18-20, can you have his Enfield done in two weeks? If not, he can use my P-53 "put together" and I will carry that very fine US 1842 you de-farbed for me last year. Either way, just let me know so I can get the right accoutrements etc, laid out.

When you do good work for a fair price, word gets out.

Todd Watts

05-07-2007, 05:24 PM

I'll get on his this week. I have been swamped with these things as of late along with "normal" gunsmithing stuff piling on. Plan on using the one you gave me.

Todd Watts

Jimmayo

05-10-2007, 09:38 PM

Has anyone seen a CW documented Enfield by Ward & Sons? I am not familiar with this maker.

benjaminmcgee

05-10-2007, 10:33 PM

Mr. Mayo,

I believe there was a sunken blockade runner that contained enfields of that maker. When I find the name of the archaeological journal I read this information in I will let you know.

Benjamin McGee

FlaYankee

05-11-2007, 02:32 PM

I have both a 1862 Bridesburg (defarbed M1861 Euroarms) and P53/1861 Tower from James River and can speak for the excellent quality work and attention to detail.
On the Bridesburg, I have an original lockplate in very good condition. He marked the side of the mortise with 3 different cartouches, and the underside with another cartouche similar to the original Bridesburg contract 1861's, as well as recontouring the stock to match that of an original and changed out band springs with square ends. The barrel also has a initial marking on the side too.
And to add, had the sling swivels riveted as well. Although they are not as smooth looking as the originals.

The reproduction Euroarms P53 I sent him was about 15 years old. Used but not abused. :D

The work done James River; stripping and reshaping of the stock, and stampings.
Rebluing of the barrel, and bands, and replacing of lockplate/and hammer with a more accurate reproduction. The wood screws were reblued as well. They were already the flat head variety replaced by myself.

Barrel stampings were already done by Lodgewood Mfg.
A new and more authentic rear site was purchased from Lodgewood Mfg..

When I recieved the P53 via Fed Ex, I couldn't believe my eyes when I opened the wood crate. It was a beautiful! I am actually afraid to take it to the field:cry_smile
I can say the only thing that bothered me was of course the wieght of the piece.

But my P53 did feel a little lighter.

If anybody wants some pictures shoot me a PM and I will ablige ya through email.
I'm pretty ignorant about putting pictures and attatchments on any of the forums. Gotta work on that.

Kindest Regards;

Stonewall_Greyfox

05-11-2007, 02:47 PM

What was the time for the upgrade to be completed?

Paul B. Boulden Jr.

RAH VA MIL '04
23rd VA Regt.

Tim Prince

05-11-2007, 03:06 PM

The general consensus among researchers has been that Enfields with British military marks are not and would have been Civil War imports. In another thread I mentioned a Sinclair-Hamilton (CS import) marked P-1853 Type II that I examined earlier this year that had British Military marks on it as well. This weekend I obtained a Sinclair-Hamilton marked P-1853 Type III that also has British military marks. The lock has the Crown/VR and the Crown/Arrow lock viewers mark. The barrel proofs are British military style and not commercial proofs. The gun is dated 1860, so there is no way it was "obsolete". While it was understandable that a Type II might have been sold as surplus, this Type III raises lots of questions. Did Archibald Hamilton divert it to CS buyers prior to it being received by the British government? Was the British government funneling arms to the Confederacy via Hamilton? This gun raises far more questions than answers. I have attached some pictures for your perusal. I'd love to hear your comments....

Before any of you ask- yes the lock & barrel and the stock go together. In fact, just about every part (including the screws) has matching assembly numbers. There is no master contractor mark, although from disassembling the gun and looking at the various makers involved, I believe the master contractor was W. Scott of Birmingham. The barrel is by Henry Clive, the stock by John Cope. The Fraser mark on the stock flat should be the stocker, but no Fraser shows up in any of my references, begging the question if it is the mark of John Fraser & Co of Charleston, SC. They were CS financiers and also handled much of the blockade shipment of arms. The "IC" cartouche is the mark that has been called Isaac & Campbell for years, but one that is now thought to be an inspector for SHC. The gun is in much better condition than the typical CS Enfield. It came from an Ohio family and was said to have been in the family "forever". The barrel shows what I believe are saber blows to it. Was this an early CS import that went home as a trophy with an Ohio soldier early in the war? If only the gun could talk!

This gun could re-write quite a bit of what we accept as gospel about CW used Enfields.

brown

05-11-2007, 03:46 PM

Thanks for the post. Nice pictures and good info. Good research always raises more questions than it answers. My tiny question in the sea of a bigger topic is "can you tell us more about the rear sling swivel?"
Thanks,

Tim Prince

05-11-2007, 03:51 PM

There is nothing unusual about the rear sling swivel. It may look odd becasue it got pushed up against the trigger guard when the pictures were taken, but it is the standard trapezoidal swivel that you would expect to see on most Enfields, other than RSAF made guns.

LibertyHallVols

05-11-2007, 04:01 PM

If anybody wants some pictures shoot me a PM and I will ablige ya through email.
I'm pretty ignorant about putting pictures and attatchments on any of the forums. Gotta work on that.

I would LOVE to see some pics, and I'm sure I'm not alone. If you need help on posting them, feel free to send me a PM.

Thanks!

LibertyHallVols

05-11-2007, 04:07 PM

Tim,

Thanks for the great pics!! Your third pic illustrates an observation of mine regarding "defarbing":
http://www.authentic-campaigner.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=5023&d=1178906231

Note the "strike" mark between tang and breech of the barrel. My hunch is that the purpose of this mark is to serve as an "indexing" line when reinstalling the breech plug. Sometimes, I've seen these with what appears to be a crown on one end. Anyway, this is one mark I've yet to see offered on a "defarbed" reproduction.

Anyone have any documentation on this mark?

Thanks!

Tim Prince

05-11-2007, 04:17 PM

John,

No specific documentation, but yes I can pretty well guarantee that the mark was an index mark for the breech plug. It is interesting to note, that even among the machine made, interchangeable parts Enfields made by LACo & RSAF, the British military felt that the breech plug was always specific to the gun it was fit to, and was not an interchangeable piece.

FlaYankee

05-11-2007, 04:20 PM

John; If you don't mind, shoot me your email via PM.

FlaYankee

05-11-2007, 04:29 PM

What was the time for the upgrade to be completed?

Paul B. Boulden Jr.

Paul; For my P53 it was about 4 weeks, and that was only because I had ordered another lockplate and more authentic hammer.

Now the total time for this project, started when I purchased the piece used, that was Nov. 98. After many defarbing mistakes over the years, and adding on more parts, it was finally completed last December. So it was an ongoing project for many years, including all of the research available via internet, library, private collections.

The Bridesburg was 3 weeks. I purchased the lockplate, a reference book, the musket, and some minor add on parts all seperately, and commenced with the research.

Richmond Depot

05-11-2007, 06:44 PM

John,

Do you believe that this indexing mark was original to the weapon at the time of manufacture or possibly an indication that the weapon has had the breech plug pulled for servicing ?

Tim Prince

05-11-2007, 07:26 PM

The index mark appears pretty consistently on the guns. Occasionally it is under the barrel, but usually very clear and visible on top. If it is not deeply struck, pitting can obliterate it. These show up consistently on Lorenz's as well.

Canton Zouave

05-11-2007, 08:34 PM

I spoke with Tim the weekend that he bought this gun, and had the chance to look over it briefly at the Mansfield Ohio Show. The pictures really dont do it justice when it comes to the condition of the Rifle.

Tim; I didnt really pay attention to the indexing mark, but was more concerned with some of the other stock cartouches. How is the mark created created? Is it a cold chisel strike or is it from a tool made specifically for the purpose of making the "INDEX MARK"?

In adidition, did you get the family name from the feller who you bought the gun from?

A very interesting rifle of exceptional quality.

LibertyHallVols

05-11-2007, 10:22 PM

John,

Do you believe that this indexing mark was original to the weapon at the time of manufacture or possibly an indication that the weapon has had the breech plug pulled for servicing ?

Scott,

I really don't know. I only know about the mark from my obervations of original examples, such as the one pictured. I first noticed it about 8 or 9 years ago. Since that time, I have noticed it on all the originals I have handled that weren't too pitted to show it.

However, to speculate, I think it was probably put there at the time of manufacture. These marks turn up on original US produced arms (as a simple strike mark, but under ther barrel, so as to be hidden when the barrel is installed) as well as repros. The function (again speculation) at the time of manufacture would be to give a gunsmith/armorer a way to index the barrel exactly after repair - incorrect indexing and the front site will be off and/or the bayonet lug, depending on model of musket.

I think subtle misalignment of the mark, however, is probably a pretty good indication that the plug was pulled at some point in time.

Interestingly, a M1 Garand I own has a similar strike mark to show the proper alignment of the front sight on the gas cylinder. ...but that discussion is for another internet forum. :tounge_sm

Great Stuff!!!

Craig L Barry

05-11-2007, 10:27 PM

There are those who would dismiss the CS inspection marks saying could have been added later, and so on. Yet I know of two or three others with a Confederate Civil War provenance and Brit Army marks, all LACo and all dated 1861 or earlier. This one is Tower, and dated 1860. It is probably more than safe to say that some unknown small number of British Army marked Enfields made it over to the Confederacy.

However, before we de-bunk this particular myth and begin stamping Brit Army proofs on our repros, we can probably all agree that these specimens are still relatively rare and they are definitely the exception to the norm. Were these government contract arms that were never delivered, and instead diverted to the Confederacy? Or is it being suggested that the British government supplied them to the Confederacy? If so, why go through SHC as a middleman? Or were these already in the gun trade, and ready for export thus procured by SHC and sold to the Confederacy? None of the weapons in question originated from the RSAF, and all known specimens are commercial contractor pieces. Is it possible that once the RSAF got up and running to capacity the Crown decided to sell off some of its inventory?

Maybe, or maybe not. There is period evidence that the British government was still entering commercial contracts for P-53s in late 1861, while the RSAF was fully operational, as more weapons than the RSAF could produce were required for their own needs. IIRC, LACo was filling a government contract when Caleb Huse first called on them in May 1861. I guess the question I have would be, why would a neutral government be diverting their own arms to the Confederacy and at the same time enter into commercial contracts to procure the same weapons for their own army? It seems very odd to operate against their own interests to assist a government they would not formally recognize.

In the final analysis, for our purposes the P.E.C. P-53 Civil War Enfield used extensively by both sides is still a London or Birmingham gun with commercial proof house marks. And while you can never say never with the Enfield, 99.99% of the p-53s used here were not British Army guns.

Tim Prince

05-11-2007, 11:09 PM

Craig,

My primary point was not to depict this as PEC. We all know how rare CS marked arms are in the first place, let alone one like this that also bears British government acceptance marks. What I was trying to point out was that those who regularly say that certain marks are never found on CW import Enfields are overstating the facts. They are uncommon, but do exist. The other point is that this gun walked the 2nd largest CW show in the US and the dealers who looked at it either missed the CS marks, or never got past the British marks. This is sort of a diamond in the rough story, look at every original Enfield closely, you never know what you might find! Don't dismiss a gun just because it has a VR under the Crown.

Todd,

No, I did not get the family name, but the gentleman took my card and promised to contact me if anyone at home had any more information about the gun.....

Craig L Barry

05-12-2007, 12:11 PM

We agree that V.R stamps are found on US Civil War P-53s. In The Civil War Musket, (Watchdog Publications 2006 p. 28 footnote # 9) it mentions that there are several LACs with Brit government markings, including the initials V.R under the crown that all LACs seem to have, with confirmed Confederate Civil War provenance. One was closely inspected doing the research for the book. The interesting thing about that particular gun was it had rack numbers identified to a soldier in Georgia, and the rack numbers corresponded with the original shipping docs coming off the first blockade runner "Bermuda" on September 18, 1861 which landed in Savannah. Hence, one can conclude commercial P-53 Enfields with British government acceptance marks and US Civil War provenance were not unknown, just very rare.

To your later point, which is 100% correct, even if another British government marked P-53 with CS provenance is never found, we do know there were at least a few and it further supports that one should "never say never" regarding any rule about the US Civil War Enfield. And that is about it. There is a huge difference in making that well known distinction and the bold statement "This gun could re-write quite a bit of what we accept as gospel about CW used Enfields." Since your new acquisition largely confirms what has already been written (and that I believe to be true) on the subject, I hope it can "rewrite the gospel". However, I know you agree we would need to find the answers to a great many questions before we can get there. We just don't know...the mystery is what fascinates us.

Glad you got your hands on that very fine specimen, Mr Prince. Thank you for sharing the pics.

Craig L Barry

05-12-2007, 07:24 PM

I thought there were Ward & Sons P-53s on the blockade runner "Bermuda" but I checked my notes and the maker was CW James, who uses a similar stock mark. IIRC, Ward & Son was a commercial Birmingham gun-maker that was fairly well known and one of several that used his firm's stock stamp not the more familiar Birmingham Small Arms Trade roundel.

Craig L Barry

05-17-2007, 04:53 PM

I bought one of the last Dixie Gun Works US 1861 kits made by Miroku (Japanese). I had built two or three of them for others years ago, and decided to make one for myself before the last of them disappeared for good. There is a chapter in The Civil War Musket: A Handbook for Historical Accuracy (Watchdog 2006) on building the Dixie Gun Works kit, which was a little tricky and did not come with any instructions either.

I digress, one of the things that was a little odd about that gun was the lock plate lettering. You know how Japanese stuff sometimes appears to be out of scale, like 15/16 size or something? The lock plate lettering was like that, and you are to be excused if little details like that wouldn't bother you, but I had to do something about it. The problem, of course is that the lock plate is annealed, and the pressure of re-stamping could easily crack the plate. In other words, some skill beyond what I possess would be necessary. Let me hasten to add that there isn't a huge inventory of replacement parts like lock plates available for a repro that has been out of production a while.

The plate was sent to James River (JRA) to have it re-done with one of their Federal contractor US rifle-musket stamps. I chose JRA because the eagle on the lock plate most closely resembled the stamp used by Alfred Jenks (Bridesburg Armory) and Parkers' Snow & Co and JRA had both those particular contractor stamps as options. The eagle sure did not resemble any US Armory eagle.

Mark Hartmann (JRA) whined a little bit about the plate being annealed and so on, but he did the job and it came out absolutely great. I was very impressed. In fact, since Federal contractor produced US Model rifle muskets outnumbered US Springfield Armory output by about 2:1, it is a sound recommendation to have your US rifle-musket plate re-worked by JRA to duplicate a contractor and correct date or if you have a Euroarms or Pedersoli US 1861, replaced with an original plate.

Marylander in Grey

06-19-2007, 09:31 PM

Gentlemen,
I recently purchased the very weapon in question. Other than the Proof stamp on the lock and the double engraving being alittle off in spots, I find it to be a superior defarb.
Mr watts is to be commended.
I bought it to be a loaner but after seeing it I will replace my '57 Springfield with it.
Todd if you ever find that photo of the lock plate with the proof please post it .
Keep up the good work.

arsenal guard

06-22-2007, 09:21 PM

I have completed sanding my enfield repro stock. My next step is to apply the boiled linseed oil (blo).

Any suggestions on how to apply the BLO is very much appreciated.

thanks in advance.

Wade Sokolosky

nick19thind

06-22-2007, 10:31 PM

Don't let any of it get on your skin.
Linseed oil contains chemicals that can cause cancer so be sure to wear rubber gloves.
Pour the oil into a bucket, fill it to the top with water. Apply with a brush

CeeBeeRebel

06-22-2007, 11:38 PM

Don't let any of it get on your skin.
Linseed oil contains chemicals that can cause cancer so be sure to wear rubber gloves.

Crap. Oh well at least I have another item to blame besides all the cigarettes and snuff I've consumed. :tounge_sm On a more serious note go lightly at first and make several coats until you get the desired look you are wishing to achieve.

Curt-Heinrich Schmidt

06-23-2007, 12:22 AM

Hallo Herr Wade!

Remember the Power of the Search feature.... ;) :) :)

Here is one set of tips from an old posting:

Hallo Kameraden!

This is a brief Q & D (Quick & Dirty) “how -to” for improving the appearance of Italian reproduction firearm stocks. It is a “Quickie” method for those with less time and less desire to follow some of the other tips on “de-farbing.”

Original U.S. “Springfield and Harpers Ferry armory firearms had stocks that were made from Pennsylvania American Black Walnut (ABW), that were dipped in period boiled linseed oil sometimes to referred to as “hard oil.” (Note: NOT modern “boiled linseed oil).
Original British “Enfields” used Northern Italian Walnut or occasionally English beech.
Italian reproductions use Italian hardwoods (IH) or occasionally Northern Italian Walnut (NIW) (some use beech or basswood).

Stripping the poly finish from Italian stocks, or removing the “Italian oil,” and them reoiling with modern boiled linseed oil is a commonly accepted and often practiced so-called “de-farb” technique.
However, for Springfields, the grain pattern and color of the NIW does not look like ABW. (Fine for Enfields, though.)

To get NIW’s ,and to get sundry IH’s, to look something more closer to ABW used on Springfields, I recommend this short-cut, quickie technique. Please refer to the archived threads/posts for greater detail, or detail on sliming the forestock, wrist, or butt, etc.). While we are stuck with grain pattern and can at best hide it with darker stain, we can replicate color,

1. Disassemble the gun.
2. Using “Dad’s” brand stripper (in my experience, I have found this band superior to any other I have tried), or any other quality stripper, remove the poly-urethane “dip” coating, or “oil-finish“ from the stock.
It may take 4-5 applications. I use “Dad’s” which bubbles up and can be scraped carefully with a dull knife.
For the “oil,” I use an old towel to wick and raise the oil, as well as stock color/stain (which is often more like brown shoe polish to hide poor wood).
3. Lightly, carefully sand the wood with 120, and 220 sandpaper- being careful not to “round” crisp edges or mortising- to “open” the sealed surface of the wood. When “open,” final sand with 440 or so to remove any trace of scratches (they fill in with stain and appear like dark lines if not removed…)
4. Mix up a 50/50% mixture of Tandy Leather's Dark Brown leather dye, and lacquer thinner. Apply a test spot to the barrel channel or butt. This is to check how your particular piece of wood will react. Some wood will shift the dye to yellow ranges, others to red (a common problem if one uses “walnut” rifle stock stain, as I have a comrade with some nice red "cherry" looking stocks).
That usually means, for your particular piece of wood, you will need more dye in the dye/thinner solution.
5. Apply a medium “coat” or application of dye/thinner, being sure to be even with no concentrations or runs. Dry stock wood will drink this in, and appear dark. Allow to penetrate into the wood for 2-5 minutes. (Wear surgical gloves unless you want brown hands...)
6. Using a piece of towel slightly dampened with lacquer thinner, gently wipe down the wood. The thinner will “lift” surplus dye and the towel will “rub off” some. This is how one controls the color, as well as “grain coverage.”
7. Repeat Step 6, twice or three times (depending upon how the wood is behaving, and how dark you want the stock to appear. Surviving originals often appear blackish, but this is due to the hard oil finish taking dirt and grime over the years, as well as from the hard oil acting as varnish- which as on oil paintings darkens and blackens with age and exposure. (Note: The color will lighten slightly when oiled, and the color will fade over time due to sunlight.)
8. Color is a tricky thing on undarkened originals as the ACW or NIW varies tree to tree, and where the wood was cut from the tree. Some will appear light, other dark. I try to find sample references in originals, or sometimes colored pictures (never exact due to camera lighting and printing), and duplicate that.
But to hide “bad Italian wood,” I tend to go on the darker side of ABW ranges.
9. Mix up a mixture of 2 ounces of Laurel Mountain Stock Finish (not their sealer) for the “hard oil” properties, 2 ounces of Lacquer Thinner, and 1 ounce of Japan Dryer. (Half that will do for most stocks…).

Apply a heavy coat with a lint free rag. Allow to soak in and penetrate for 2-3 minutes. Wipe of the excess. Allow to dry. The Japan Dryer radically accelerates drying time, down to 1-2 hours an application.
Steel wool with 0000 Steel Wool to reduce grain that have popped up.

Apply a light film with a lint free rag. Allow to soak in and penetrate for 2-3 minutes. Wipe of the excess. Allow to dry. The Japan Dryer radically accelerates drying time, down to 1-2 hours an application.
Lightly steel wool with 0000 Steel Wool to reduce grain that have popped up.

Apply a very light film coat with a few drops in the palm of your hand.. Allow to soak in and penetrate for 2-3 minutes. Wipe of the excess. Allow to dry. The Japan Dryer radically accelerates drying time, down to 1-2 hours an application.
Lightly steel wool with 0000 Steel Wool to reduce grain that have popped up.

10. Most woods will now have a uniform, dull satin or “egg shell” look to them as found on originals. Do not apply further coats once this even “slight sheen” has appeared, as the 4th or 5th application may start sealing the wood under a semi-high gloss like a modern hunting rifle!

11. Using 0000 Steel Wool and oil (like 3-in-1 brand) gently work the stock to cut any excess shine or sheen. (I also rub the stock down with Birchwood Casey’s Stock Finish, which contains pumice and acts as “rottenstone” for a period slight “egg shell” sheen (look an excellent to mint original stocks for what this appears like).

12. Reassemble the gun.

13. Wax the stock with a 50/50% mix of beef or mutton tallow and beeswax, and even as periodic “maintenance.”

I have refinished stocks using this method in one afternoon of a few hours of “easy work.” (While I would recommend the better, and longer method and “mixes” found in the “de-farb” posts- IMHO this also produces a much more “period looking" Springfield and Enfield stock with little effort, little cash (cheaper if more than one comrade joins in) and little time invested… ;-)

(Hint: Look at the originals…make your gun look like them, not an Italian reproductions!)

Others’ mileage may vary.

Curt-Heinrich Schmidt
Former CW Gunmaker Mess

Curt

C.R. Henderson

06-23-2007, 12:32 PM

I've always just worn gloves and used a small pail and a natural bristle brush. Put on a light coat and let it soak in for a few days. Re-coat when the first is dry. Remember that the heavier the coat, the longer it takes to dry. It took 3 coats on mine and I use 3 in one oil for periodic mainenence. If my stock starts looking "ashy" or dry, I recoat it with 3 in one when I'm cleaning the barrel- usually with the oil patch that I have run down the barrel and wiped everything else down with. The wood will darken up considerably with the application of oil.

Frank J. Aube

06-23-2007, 12:45 PM

If you are in need of the correct hardware and swivels with screws shoot me a pm I will give them to you for what I paid for them... I purchased them a couple of years ago and never used them. I ended up buying a really nice defarbed one from James River Aesenal, Excellent workmanship

Sincereley

Frank J. Aube

arsenal guard

06-23-2007, 01:06 PM

Thanks to all who posted suggestions.

Beyond the point of no return, I have crossed the LD and rubbed the first coat into the stock.

Wade Sokolosky

arsenal guard

06-23-2007, 01:40 PM

Frank,

sent you a PM.

thanks

Wade Sokolosky

Bob 125th NYSVI

06-24-2007, 10:54 AM

Are you moving the manufacture's markings to the underside of the barrel?

If you were planning to just remove them don't because in some states that is consider a felony defacing of the firearm.

I know (from my uncle the lawyer) moving them to another spot on the gun barrel is ok, just removing them is a felony.

GWagner

06-26-2007, 04:23 PM

Adding some Japan Dryer to the oil helps in the drying process. I actually use 8 parts oil, 1 part mineral spirits, and 1 part japan dryer.

Galen Wagner
Alabama

Craig L Barry

06-28-2007, 11:29 AM

As Geoff Walden put it "never say never about the Enfield". However, I think that photo of the JS anchor on the lock might have been something else. A government stamp like a crown/arrow or something? To my knowledge, Confederate inspector marks like the JS anchor or the SHC cypher were stamped in the wood. Once the lockplate was casehardened (as it would have been during the buyers final inspection) it would be very difficult to hand stamp a mark on the lock plate without a press of some sort.

As far as the double line engraving around the lock plate, my original Tower P-53s are not perfectly linear around the perimeter either.

blue steel

07-17-2007, 04:23 PM

Long story short….a couple of years ago I was about to start the hobby. I went to a training with a unit and was very enthused. I had already compiled nearly all my gear from approved vendors and was in search of an Enfield. About one month after the meeting I was out riding on my grandfather’s farm. We took a tumble and I destroyed my left foot. The horse was fine (thank God). I went into a funk and depression. My girlfriend bought this w/o my knowledge as an attempt to try to end my year long depression.

While I can’t say it’s better than or worse than any others on the market, here are some pics.

http://s2.photobucket.com/albums/y19/Scooby_308/?action=view&current=002.jpg
http://s2.photobucket.com/albums/y19/Scooby_308/?action=view&current=003.jpg
http://s2.photobucket.com/albums/y19/Scooby_308/?action=view&current=007.jpg
http://s2.photobucket.com/albums/y19/Scooby_308/?action=view&current=014.jpg
http://s2.photobucket.com/albums/y19/Scooby_308/?action=view&current=017.jpg
http://s2.photobucket.com/albums/y19/Scooby_308/?action=view&current=018.jpg
http://s2.photobucket.com/albums/y19/Scooby_308/?action=view&current=019.jpg
http://s2.photobucket.com/albums/y19/Scooby_308/?action=view&current=020.jpg
http://s2.photobucket.com/albums/y19/Scooby_308/?action=view&current=021.jpg
http://s2.photobucket.com/albums/y19/Scooby_308/?action=view&current=022.jpg
http://s2.photobucket.com/albums/y19/Scooby_308/?action=view&current=024.jpg
http://s2.photobucket.com/albums/y19/Scooby_308/?action=view&current=026.jpg
http://s2.photobucket.com/albums/y19/Scooby_308/?action=view&current=030.jpg
http://s2.photobucket.com/albums/y19/Scooby_308/?action=view&current=031.jpg
http://s2.photobucket.com/albums/y19/Scooby_308/?action=view&current=032.jpg
http://s2.photobucket.com/albums/y19/Scooby_308/?action=view&current=033.jpg
http://s2.photobucket.com/albums/y19/Scooby_308/?action=view&current=036.jpg
http://s2.photobucket.com/albums/y19/Scooby_308/?action=view&current=037.jpg

Craig L Barry

07-17-2007, 05:03 PM

If there is any interest in a dialog on this subject from another thread, we can continue it here.

As far as I can determine the practice of using rack numbers on Confederate imported arms varied. In researching original invoices from some of the first CS shipments of P-53 Enfields that ran the blockade aboard the Bermuda, landing in Savannah during Sept 1861 (which were issued to Georgia troops) those had rack numbers engraved in the tang. They were primarily Barnett and LAC. However, none of the few originals I have owned showed any rack numbers including a Swinburn & Son with fairly clear CS inspection marks, a piece of junk made by Barnett, an 1861 LA Co, a nice W. Sargant & Son, and a Charles Maybury. There are a variety of reasons for that.

The person I consider the most knowledgable about the US Civil War Enfield is a professional researcher and arms collector named William O. Adams. Bill assisted with wrote the foreward to The Civil War Musket, and contributed quite a bit to An Introduction to Civil War Small Arms by Coates & Thomas. Many of the CS Richmonds shown in CS Armory: A History of the Confederate States Armory, Richmond VA by Paul Davies are from Adams collection, and so on. Adams chided me once for writing that he had 200 P-53s, a fact he dismissed as an understatement. Most of us have never even seen 200 Enfields at one time much less owned and had them in hand to compare. He told me he actually has owned over a thousand. Anyway, the point is Adams has some in his collection that are marked with rack numbers, and many that are not. While a thousand is a drop in the bucket compared to the total number imported here during the early-to-mid 1860s, it is still a statistically significant sample for purposes of making some general statements about rack markings.

Geoff Walden offered the number as 10%. I don't know that the number is 10% or it is some other number or if that number could ever be conclusively determined. Like most of us, I am a student of the subject. According to the heavyweights, which Walden and Adams are, what can be said is the research available suggests that rack numbers were not used for the majority of P-53 rifle-muskets that ran the blockade during the US Civil War. If we are more specific, we can be more correct ie: you could say for Georgia troops issued Enfields that ran the blockade early in the war, rack numbers were common.

Dan Munson

07-17-2007, 05:18 PM

Having recently completed my own Enfield de-farb project, I would like to offer a couple of observations, if I may.

Todd Watts is quite right that trying to grind/file down Baddely patent barrel bands to "look" like Palmers is at best a semi-satisfactory stop-gap until one can find correct bands. The Baddelys simply are not thick enough down in the screw-hole area to leave enough "tab" when you finish grinding. You can do it...but put it next to a real Palmer band and the differences will leap out and strangle you. I know this -- I did such a grinding project and, at this moment have two ground-down Baddelys and one correct Palmer (Armisport replacement part) on my re-worked EOA. But I now have in hand two more correct Palmer Bands (castings by The Rifle Shoppe - I gave up trying to get more Armisport parts) and just have to tap in the screw threads). In any case even if you grind down Baddely bands, you still have the wrong band screws.

Todd is also right -- as far as I can tell by comparing -- that Armisport Enfields make a better starting point for de-farbing than EOAs (if nothing else, you're already $60-$80 to the good just by not having to change the barrel bands). Also, my EOA did take quite a bit of wood work to get the stock down to somewhere nearer "right." I worked off a number of photos, including those in G. Walden's excellent article, so it's possible I still could have taken off a bit more in places than I did. (By the way, Walden's illustrations of stock cartouches made hand-tooling my own "L.A. Co." Cartouche a snap).

I do want to put in a good word for The Rifle Shoppe as a supplier of correct Enfield hammers and barrel bands. The re-curved hammer especially looks marvelous when compared to the straight-backed repro hammers. The bands also look pretty sweet. But a warning: TRS supplies castings, not finished parts. The parts come a dull grey and have to be buffed/polished. Also the parts come with some casting sprue and flashing which needs to be ground or filed off. It's easy enough if you have a few tools -- took me about an hour and half this past weekend to get the hammer and two bands into shape.

Jimmayo

07-17-2007, 05:49 PM

Craig: I for one agree with your assesment that rack numbers are on a small minority of the enfields used by the south. (By the way, I refer to them as inventory numbers because rack numbers usually refer to a smaller number than some of the engraved numbers out there.) I don't know what they are supposed to be called.

While not drawing on a large sample for my conclusions, I have been looking at enfields at shows for a number of years. Numbered butt plates are just plain scarce.

Several years back I dug 6, P-53s from a CS trench. None had any butt plate markings. Nor have several dug butt plates I have uncovered over the years.

Three CS ID enfields I own or have notes on do not have any butt plate markings.

If they were common I could afford one.

I also believe that more enfields are devoid of the BSAT stamp than have it. I am going out on a limb here but since the use of this stamp is becoming widespread for de-farbing perhaps we should include it in the discussion.

Todd Watts

07-17-2007, 05:59 PM

Good idea moving this to its own thread. I have looked at up to 10 (I can remember 6 for sure and am pretty sure there were 2-3 others) this year so far, and only 1 did I note mentally as different in that it did not have anything engraved or stamped on the buttplate's tang. But, in years past I noted that the engraved or stampred versions seemed uncommon compared to non-stamped tangs. I don't know if they really were a "rack number" or "inspection number" or "lot number" or what they were. I wonder if anyone really knows what these were.:confused: It would make sense to me that a buyer would want to number the ones he is buying and maintain some sort of record so as to prove he bought them and that they were inspected and deemed "good" for his later payment. Militarily, these numbers also would serve an inventory purpose it seems. When an arsenal rec'd arms, it would make sense to inventory the guns, match bayonets and rammers to them and who they were then issued to. Not every gun was so marked though, but as evidenced by the numbers of surviving examples it had to be common enough to allow so many examples to be left around.

Another real issue with these guns is probably next to none left are 100% intact as-issued. Parts got interchanged a lot I suspect. Now that's something new to yap about.;)

Jimmayo

07-17-2007, 08:48 PM

The P-53 was not the only model enfield that used the numbering system. See the link below for a P-56 Army that was stamped on the wood since the furniture was iron.

http://www.oldsouthantiques.com/os905p1.htm

Here is another example that Shannon Pritchard recently sold with matching ramrod and bayonet numbers.

http://www.oldsouthantiques.com/os565p1.htm

Todd Watts

07-18-2007, 12:43 PM

Yes, I regularly see all sorts of numbers on all sorts of guns. I have an 1842 Belgian "Liege" I am working on right now that has some stamped numbers on the butt plate tang as well as on the stock itself. Who knows what these markings really are for, but I suspect it is correct to stamp numbers on guns of any sort. With literally tens of thousands of any gun we today would be using in use back then, there were bound to be all sorts of numbers on them that we today have no clue what they were used for. On this one for instance, it is my suspician that the numbers were already on it before it was imported for our CW use, if it was indeed imported and not brought over after the war's end. The stamps just seem to have more of a European design to me. It is the number "43" on the tang, on the left of the stock butt and on the lock saddle, all cock-eyed so they were obviously struck by hand in a rapid fashion by someone that had probably struck hundreds by the time it came along. It also has a small round stamp containg some sort of initials in 2 places on its right side of the butt, which I guessing was an inspector's mark.

Buyers of de-farbs also tend to want as many markings on their guns as possible. I no longer advertise the "JS anchor" on the Enfield lock plates, for example, yet still have had 2 customers request this even after I tell them that this placement is probably not correct enough to be used.:rolleyes: Whatever floats your boat, it's your money. As for the number of BSAT roundel stock stamps, that may be correct that they are rarer than non BSAT-marked stocks, but we can't really say how many BSAT marks were in use back then. There were thousands of Enfields imported, and only a portion were BSAT stamped compared the entire import numbers. Still, there is no way all of the BSAT de-farb marks today come close to equalling the total number of BSAT marked Enfields back then - but I'm working on filling the order.;) By the way, yesterday I rec'd my E.Bond stamps so I can do that version now as well. That is one pretty roundel!

Craig L Barry

07-18-2007, 01:25 PM

Yes, you are correct in noting that...this is why I phrased this as "...Confederate imported arms" rather than "... CS imported Enfields". The practice, however common or uncommon was not limited to the P-53s, it is just that so many P-53s were imported that they tend to make up more of the examples of the rack or inventory numbering practice.

You are to be excused if you don't find all this as fascinating as I do. Interesting point on the commercial P-53 BSAT stock stamps, my C. Maybury Tower Enfield does not have that stamp and of course the Barnett being a London maker does not...the other two are marked with the Birmingham Small Arms Trade stock "roundel" as it is sometimes called. However, WW Greener Ltd commercial P-53s, while also produced in Birmingham are not going to be found with BSAT markings (this is probably one never about an Enfield you could be secure with). William Greener Ltd, was located in Birmingham but competed with and was not cooperative with the other gunmaking firms in the BSAT. The locks were also marked differently by Greener. On the other hand it is believed that the vast majority of the commercial P-53s produced by the so-called (by CH Roads) "Original Four" that included Tipping & Lawden, T Turner, Hollis & Sheath and Swinburn, were found marked with the BSAT roundel. Since these firms founded the original Birmingham Small Arms w/ some others, that makes sense.

Other Birmingham gunmakers varied on the practice of the BSAT (or other) stock stamp, for example Eyton Bond (not to be confused with London gunmaker EP Bond) had a unique stock stamp with the firm's address. The E. Bond oval cartouche is particularly eye catching. Ward & Sons used a larger than average circular maker’s mark that abbreviated “Birmingham” as “–BIRHM-.” C.W. James used a smaller roundel but spelled BIRMINGHAM out fully on the lower half circle (vs. the upper half circle on the BSAT roundel), obviously in smaller sized capital letters. Calisher & Terry did not use a stock mark. Oddly, the well known London gun-making firm of Potts & Hunt invested in a stock stamp that reads “Potts & Hunt Birmingham” for reasons that now appear to be lost to history. These examples are not intended to be an exhaustive study, but serve to demonstrate the broad variety of stock markings found on original specimens. Others, as Jim points out, were not found marked at all.

Craig L Barry

07-18-2007, 01:52 PM

Yes, Geoff Walden makes that observation (someplace) about his mixed results grinding the Baddeley patent bands to resemble Palmer type, and I can also say that my experiments along those lines have been mixed. The consensus seems to be original Palmer bands are the best possible alternative, though fitting them on a repro may be an issue, followed at quite a distance by Armi Sport repro bands.

Some people prefer EOA for reasons of their own, in my previously published evaluations the original Birmingham made (not the newer Italian made) Parker-Hale was the "best" or "least worst" to begin with, if you could find one. Followed by the Armi Sport (Armi Chiappa), which is a better copy though not of a commercial P-53, but rather it appears to be a copy of the Parker Hale (?). It is lighter in weight and has better bands, though they are chemically case colored vs blued for some reason I have never understood. The earlier Armi-Sports were more like the Parker Hale then they are now. Then in last place, not as accurate in detail and more expensive is the Euroarms. Their P-53 is so grossly overweight it handles more like a boat anchor than a military arm.In 1993 Geoff Walden wrote in The Watchdog that he had discussed necessary accuracy modifications with Paulo Amali of Euroarms and the changes were in the works. That was 14 years ago...

In addition to the Rifle Shoppe, James River Armory also offers some more correctly proportioned hammers in a finished state for the current reproductions.

Todd Watts

07-18-2007, 02:59 PM

[QUOTE= Others, as Jim points out, were not found marked at all.[/QUOTE]

Just to give us something to debate over 140+ years later. Weren't they thoughtful!?:D

I do find it interesting to know who stamped what and where, for the purpose of being able to offer the correct stampings on my work. I like these littel tidbits of info and debating because it helps me make adjustments to my work as time goes on.

ACo.

07-18-2007, 04:19 PM

...the number "43" on the tang, on the left of the stock butt and on the lock saddle, all cock-eyed so they were obviously struck by hand in a rapid fashion by someone that had probably struck hundreds by the time it came along. It also has a small round stamp containg some sort of initials in 2 places on its right side of the butt, which I guessing was an inspector's mark.
...

Very simple explanation. The number "43" is the gun's number within the batch that was being assembled at the armory. Such a marking is very common with non-interchangeable arms. And you may be correct about the "inspector's mark". Many European weapons, especially those imported from the German states, were regimentally marked and have no relation to their use in our Civil War. US and CS regimental markings are almost unheard of and I have always looked at markings on American weapons as being post military and until proven otherwise (by period documentation) I will continue to do so, the soldier was not allowed to cut or mark his stock in any way according to regulations, to deny that is to say that the regulations didn't exist or that the sergeants were not doing their jobs. Now, did such markings occasionally slide by without notice? Possibly, but to say it was common is just denying reality. Also, I have to agree with Jim as far as the number markings on the buttplate tang, they are extremely uncommon - downright RARE. I have seen two documentable examples in thirty-seven years of looking at Enfields. Sorry, that's just the way I see it.

Craig L Barry

07-18-2007, 05:13 PM

TP:
No need to apologize for conclusions reached after 37 years of studying what is for many of us the most fascinating military arm of the Civil War period. And you are correct on the individually numbered parts which was done for a distinctly different reason than the rack numbers. The M-54 Lorenz was one that often came part numbered with a corresponding numbered bayonet. There are also recollections by soldiers of "hammering" the bayonet onto the barrel of the Lorenz when issued unmatched.

It appears we are in agreement here, it is tough to put an actual figure or percentage on the total of rack or inventory numbered weapons unless you can be very specific to a time period and unit issuance, then research it back that way. We know two things (for sure) about that...there are many unmarked surviving examples and there are less than complete records which survive and can be matched to existing specimens.

Jimmayo

07-18-2007, 05:34 PM

Here are some snaps of a nice enfield. I could find no other markings except on one of the bands. The hammer is a repro. The carving is for Company B of the 9th Va. Inf. Kinda hard to make out as the 9 is backwards. I could not make out the name in the ramrod channel.

Jimmayo

07-18-2007, 05:49 PM

And while we are on the subject of markings, take a look at these gauge marks:
One with the 24 is ID to the 38th Va.
The one with the 26 is a post war shortned.

Both are 61 towers.

Todd Watts

07-18-2007, 06:14 PM

I wonder if there is a regional difference in the number of variatiosn we see? I certainly have seen a lot of Enfields with engraved or stamped number on the buttplate tangs, but it seems like some of you have only rarely seen them. I know with "modern" arms, there is a regional difference in prices and availability of many guns. As I said, I only saw 1 Enfield not engraved this year and can recall for certain 5 others that were engraved, and am pretty sure there were a couple others I looked at this year that were engraved/stamped.

The parts-interchanageabilty stampings are probably correct. The Enfields do seem to have a Roman numeral on parts and after having had 3 torn down to pieces on the same table I can understand why this was a good idea. On the Liege however, the 43 is not on anything except the stock and buttplate tang, and is on the stock twice. It doesn't seem to be to match parts, unless at one point or another other parts were replaced. But the lock and hammer do not have any markings like these.

The American Rifleman magazine about a year ago had a piece on a Enfield that is 100% certain to have been in Confederate use. It was a good article. The soldier had scratched his reg't and co. into the stock as well as his name "upside down" on the stock. It was explained in the article that it is only "upside down" unless the gun is seen standing in a stand of arms in which case it is "rightside up." This was certainly not done post-war when the gun never would have been seen in a stand of Enfields ever again.

I personally have not come across any copies of soldier manual from the period that state "do not mark your gun stock" and with the influx of mixed and matched doo-doo some of these poor fellows were handed, I don't really think there were a lot of regulations to keep those particular gun stocks "pretty." A brand new 1861 issued to a regular soldier, sure, but a used import foreign gun shoved ito the hands of pvt. Bob of the 3rd AK Comp H? The Sgt may well have been the first to name his own gun.:D

We see quite a few guns marked with names and reg'ts etc today. Were they all done after the war? Maybe some, but surely not all of them? If the guys took them home, they had no real purpose to name the gun, or scratch the reg't or company into it. The guys were going back to a hard living on the farm, or working factories and the gun was stuck into the closet or under a bed or left in the barn at that point. I am just trying to think like a soldier of the era here. Most of the guns back then are long since gone, sadly. There's no way to know how many survive today or even how many guns of which types actually were issued. But, mathematically, if 1000 Enfields survive today, and 100,000 were issued, then statistically a gun that has engraved numbers must represent about 100 of them originally, right? And if 10 guns survive today with a soldier's name in the stock, then it would represent roughly 1000 of them back then did - if my math skills are to be believed (which according to many math teachers over the years, they are not).

Jimmayo

07-18-2007, 08:18 PM

I wonder if there is a regional difference in the number of variatiosn we see? I certainly have seen a lot of Enfields with engraved or stamped number on the buttplate tangs, but it seems like some of you have only rarely seen them. I know with "modern" arms, there is a regional difference in prices and availability of many guns. As I said, I only saw 1 Enfield not engraved this year and can recall for certain 5 others that were engraved, and am pretty sure there were a couple others I looked at this year that were engraved/stamped.

Todd: Were the ones you looked at in collections? If they were, that would not be a good sample since most people have the best available in their collections.

The parts-interchanageabilty stampings are probably correct. The Enfields do seem to have a Roman numeral on parts and after having had 3 torn down to pieces on the same table I can understand why this was a good idea. On the Liege however, the 43 is not on anything except the stock and buttplate tang, and is on the stock twice. It doesn't seem to be to match parts, unless at one point or another other parts were replaced. But the lock and hammer do not have any markings like these..

All of the part markings to keep specific parts with specific guns that I have seen are roman numerals also. I have seen it on 1816s, and 42 model Springfield. I think it was SOP. I remember reading that the Enfields were fitted and assembled and then the stocks were removed and finished. It would have been necessary to mark the parts and stocks since most were hand fitted.

The American Rifleman magazine about a year ago had a piece on a Enfield that is 100% certain to have been in Confederate use. It was a good article. The soldier had scratched his reg't and co. into the stock as well as his name "upside down" on the stock. It was explained in the article that it is only "upside down" unless the gun is seen standing in a stand of arms in which case it is "rightside up." This was certainly not done post-war when the gun never would have been seen in a stand of Enfields ever again.

I agree. I have seen quite a few upside down.

We see quite a few guns marked with names and reg'ts etc today. Were they all done after the war? Maybe some, but surely not all of them?

A friend of mine has a letter from an officer in a Vermont regiment written from Suffolk. In his letter he states that he has spent all day marking the men's muskets and the next two days will be spent marking cartridge boxes and belts. Several months ago my friend spotted an Enfield at an on line dealer with the regimental markings exactly as described in the letter. He bought it of course. Bottom line is that it was marked at an official level.

Craig L Barry

07-19-2007, 12:13 AM

I am going to have to check my notes, but I think the M-1854 Lorenz was marked in block numbers on the parts, as in a "1" w/ a "5" next to it. The P-53 gauge mark "24" was fairly common as it corresponds to .58, and I have seen "26" but rarely, only a few. You must have an interesting collection there Jim.

The collectors are now saying that the bottom has fallen out of the P-53 Enfield in terms of prices with all the middle eastern stuff coming back here. We have ourselves seen several postings here with fellows buying reasonably priced Enfields in good condition. Not too many rack numbered though, out there in the Khyber Pass.

rogue

07-21-2007, 02:36 PM

1stMaine

07-21-2007, 04:19 PM

Comrades,

In an earlier thread this year, I remarked about Enfield rifle-muskets purchased by the State of Massachussets. I off the following exceprt from my comments:

In fact, the English accoutrements were part of a contract for 10,000 sets and some "20,800 long Enfield rifles" negotiated by Francis B. Crowninsheild, who was acting as agent for Governor John Andrew and his council.

For what it's worth, the Enfield rifle-muskets came partially from the Burmingham makers, and also from the London Armoury company as well as the firm of Barnett, Potts, & Hunt, also of London. Despite encroachments by Schuyler (of Schuyler, Hertley & Graham, NY) and Confederate agents, Crowninsheild still was able to send an initial issue of P-1853 models to Massachusetts in 1861 of 14,700 weapons. The rest followed shrtly thereafter.

The 2, 7, 10, 12, 13, 16, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 25 & 27 regiments all drew arms from this intial contract in 1861. The 24th also drew Enfields, but returned all but 3 as unsuitable and exchanged them for M1861 Springfields.

Enfield rifle-muskets purchased by the state were considered to be state property and, as such, were marked on the butt plate with a rack/issue number, and an abbreviated reginental number and company letter. Excavated remains of these weapons, as well as extant examples bear out this stamping.

Emphasis by me. I cannot post scans at the present time of the images I have of these stampings. My scanner is hard down, and I cannot seem to get a useable image with my camera. When circumstances permit me to replace th scanner, I'll be happy to upload scanned images to this thread.

Respects,

Curt-Heinrich Schmidt

07-21-2007, 04:39 PM

Hallo!

"Probability" is a strange beast to tame... ;) :)

Having essentially two sides, a penny has a 50/50 "probability" of landing a "head" or a "tail."
However, one can toss a penny ten times and come up with 10 out of 10 heads, or 10 out of 10 tails.

Of the roughly 50 P1853's I have owned and/or been able to view or examine, I would say I recall three, maybe four, with tang markings (stampings or engravings).
But, I would not say that based upon my limited sample pool, that only three or four Enfields out of fifty some were tang marked- just that of the roughly 50 or so P1853's I have owned and/or been able to view or examine three or four of THOSE were marked.
The next 50 or so may be all marked.
(Doubt it though, but that is just a bias..)

Others' mileage, and experience with marked tangs, will vary...

Curt

Jimmayo

07-21-2007, 08:58 PM

This maybe late, and somewhat off subject, but digging into the pile I found an English made sea-service musket I have (lock marked TOWER-PROOF) and undated, that has a number 3 on the top of the butt plate. Is this the type of engraved rack number being discussed here?
Steve Sullivan

That number looks to me to be engraved the same way as the ones we have been discussing. Any other marks on the stock?

Is that the dog from MIB II? Can he talk?

rogue

07-21-2007, 10:36 PM

Jim,
No this is Loki, not Frank. He loves rubbing against jean cloth and urinating on my copies of the ORs. My son's dog.
The Enfield pictured was found in a North Carolina sporting goods store some years ago by a former student of mine. A very large caliber smoothbore with a replacement (later period) ramrod.
There is a stamped something on the stock opposite the lock, but it is unreadable.
Steve Sullivan

jhodnett

07-21-2007, 11:59 PM

I just recieved my Enfield from James River and am very pleased with it.

Craig L Barry

07-22-2007, 02:06 AM

Probably the name or mark of the fellow who did the lock mortise, if it is a British government gun.

prestontoprail

07-23-2007, 01:29 PM

Jeff, is there anyway you could post some pictures of the enfield? Or perhaps a list of fixes that you have noticed?

FederalDrummerBoy

07-23-2007, 06:19 PM

Can anyone post Pics of a few of these muskets on here for everyone?

_________
Alex Kuhn
CCFD

Kace

07-25-2007, 06:01 PM

I think everyone pretty much agrees that James River does a fantastic defarb. One thing folks have not been mentioning is the quality of their Customer Service which is FANTASTIC. They work with you to make sure you get the musket you want. They give you an accurate timeline for the project. Also, talk about an awesome shipping container: bubble wrap, popcorn all nice in save in a WOODEN box!! They will be getting my business again.

Kace

jhodnett

07-25-2007, 09:22 PM

I'll try and get some pics in the next few days.

Thanks,

LibertyHallVols

07-25-2007, 11:38 PM

A brief survey of posts on the A-C reveals a plethora of posts on the various aspects of reproducing various versions of the P1853 Enfield, or looking at original examples of the same.

A brief review of authenticity regs of any quality event reveals that Enfields are either the first or second choice for most events and are accepted at virtually all other events, including pre-war militia-muster events.

While it may be "handy" to have one musket serve as "common currency" among us, are we not slanting the truth a bit by allowing them at every event and suggesting them at most events?

Those Lorenz posts from a few weeks ago were a breath of fresh air (although the repop being discussed was sorely lacking).

Just curious others' take on this.

Thanks!

toptimlrd

07-25-2007, 11:47 PM

John,

I concurr but this may be one of those unfortunate compromises that has to be made from time to time. First the musket is probably one of the most expensive parts of the Infantry kit so owning more than one or two different ones is rare and then asking for particular models for relatively few events may become cost prohibitive leading to the inability for many to attend said event. You mentioned the Lorenz and the shortcomings the current repo has, there have been so few repos of the Lorenz that if you had an event that requested them it would be difficult to produce enough people with them to make it worthwhile.

Me for example, I mainly do late war events in the Western Theater. My weapon of choice is the 61 Springfield. It was the most common musket during the war and found its way into both Federal and Confederate units.

Ross L. Lamoreaux

07-25-2007, 11:55 PM

I, on occasion , had thought the Enfield was overused in reenacting, but it always depends on the who, what, where, how, and why for each event. I've made due with the same tired-out model 42 for years without too much issue, and since the bulk of my Federal reenacting has been Ohio regiments, the Enfield is a better choice. In a perfect world, we could all afford several muskets to always have that right fit for each event, but I think is does indeed fall more on financial issues and some laziness to see that same old enfield being used at everything by the majority of troops.

1stMaine

07-26-2007, 12:18 AM

Comrade,

Well, if push comes to shove, I would rather see more M1841's or Springfield or Enfield rifles in the ranks than Lorenzs'.

Some of the most interesting and even well known units carried rifles instead of rifle-muskets, and they are usually even rarer than he's teeth at an event, and that's a shame. A darned shame indeed.

If everyone here is as cognizant of history as we like to think we are, then we ought, by rights, to be considering putting together a unit from time to time armed with rifles. Heaven's, Hardee's manual was designed for them.

But yeah, it's probably true that the tried & true Enfield & Springfield rifle-muskets will be the arms of the great body of troops for quite some time. There are compromises we have to make occasionally, regardless of how much we would rather not.

Respects,

clconboy

07-26-2007, 12:23 AM

It may just be me, but I have noticed a rise in the cost of rifles in the last year. (anyone else notice that)so its even more of a cost issue for me at least as a college student. I have also noticed that the enfield seems to be in the majority of the ranks at the events I've been to.

Johnny Lloyd

07-26-2007, 01:22 AM

Hello-

Maybe it's just me, but I seem to be the only one with an Enfield in my reenacting group. I've thought it to be just the opposite- too many Springfields of every make and model. But, then again, it maybe it's a South Carolina/local area reenactor thing at local events here...

Tchuss- Johnny Reb

LibertyHallVols

07-26-2007, 06:16 AM

To phrase it another way:
If one were to make a hobby of attending hardcore living histories as a spectator, would such a person walk away from a year or two or three of events with the proper perspective of how the Civil War soldier was armed?

The resulting impression would probably be that he (the CW soldier) was armed with the following, in order:
Enfield (70+%), '61, '42, Converted Muskets (teeny tiny %)... and they'd have no idea about the Lorenz or, to Tim's point, that 2-banders were used.

Don't get me wrong, I think we do a great job in many areas. Most guys I see at events today can put together a quality US, CS, and Civilian impression, in many cases representing multiple theatres of the conflict.

...but if you've got 4 impressions in the closet and plan on getting more, then it ain't money standing between you and a second musket.

Not trying to change the world here. Just food for thought. It would be neat to see (for example) a Federal company armed with '61's and '63's ...or an early war group of Hoosiers dressed in gray* with 2-band Enfields and sword bayonets (THAT would be cool!).

*all apologies, as I realize such an impression would be, like zoaves or jaguar-trousered westerners, not PEC. ;)

Prodical Reb

07-26-2007, 10:26 AM

Well, if push comes to shove, I would rather see more M1841's or Springfield or Enfield rifles in the ranks than Lorenzs'.

Some of the most interesting and even well known units carried rifles instead of rifle-muskets, and they are usually even rarer than he's teeth at an event, and that's a shame. A darned shame indeed.

I agree Whole heartedly with Tim! I believe that the rifle is way under represented in reenacting whether it is mainstrean, campaigner, hardcore, or progressive. This won't stop until event organizers allow 2 band rifles on the field. I'm not talking about carbines either. Most events specify "no 2 band rifles allowed!" I believe they do this for safety. A rifle is only approx 6 inches shorter than a rifle-musket. Still giving the user plenty of room to safely place the rifle over the front rank's should and safely fire the weapon from any position. Another safety reason was given to me that from the rear rank, the front rank is endangered of recieveing a negligent discharge in the back due to the shorter barrel. Both of these dangers can be managed by training with a rifle and muzzle awareness.

There are only a hadful of units that even allow a P56, P60, (P58 was a Navy rifle and P61 a carbine) M1841 Mississippi, Special M1861 or Fayetteville rifle(Copy of M1841) in as a usable weapon. I don't know if the Remington Zouave can be placed in this category due to I'm ignorant to actual numbers issued or used.

prestontoprail

07-26-2007, 11:31 AM

Now this is a really interesting question and has made me conjur a bit about the subject. Are enfields over-rated? As long as we are portraying units that were known to carry .58 cal rifled muskets and were specifically NOT issued any austrian or belgian rifles, then I think it would be extremely hard for us to figure out the percentage of fellas that had enfields and '61/'63 springfields in the same unit. We know that many to most units would try to keep their men with the same caliber of rifling to make ammunition distribution easier. I look through photos of western federals through 63-65 and I see enfields and springfields side by side in the columns with a majority of enfields (only through the limited photographic evidence available). What is not overrated are enfields with the proper modifications to them, and I have been guilty of this as well to a certain point of finally having the funds to go all out with the defarbing. But this bings me to my next point.

Any of the current reproduction rifles and rifled muskets are going to cost 500 to 600 dollars straight out of the box. And there is not a single reproduction that is perfectly acceptable straight out of the box (even the armisport '42 needs fixing here and there). Therefore, whenever any of us decides to add "another" weapon to the arsenal then we're looking at budgetting around 700-800 dollars. As John put it, alot of us spend so much time and funds on our uniforms and equipment that saving up for such a thing is very conceivable, but boy is it a giant chunk of time and money to get that specific arm in presentable conditin (for our standards). If I were to do this for a 2 band musket for a specific event, then I would have spent close to 800 dollars buying and defarbing a weapon that I would use only a handful of times. Not to mention 2 banded weapons are banned from most events, including many EBUFU events as well. If the friggin Italian manufactuers made these things correctly in the factory, then we'd only be talking about saving around 500 bucks to aquire the thing all said and done.

But are we deceiving the public by over-representing a certain musket? Hmmm, unless there is an antique weapons dealer in the crowd, then I can't see the general public noticing if are carrying austrian lorenz or enfields with the wrong barrel bands. This is where the uniform and headgear takes most of the spotlight, that is the "image" that I feel the public perceves over the detailing on the weapon. And honestly, not to offend anybody , but I think we decieve the public more so by portraying infantryman as 200+ Ibls and 45+ years of age at so many events. That is the hardest thing to get by in the hobby these days and I shudder when I see guys sell off their whole kit because they are getting fatter, I would like to recommended backing off the junk food as opposed to trying to get your whole wardrobe redone to compensate for an expanding size. That is slightly off topic, but the point is I don't think that public is being duped by there being to many enfields on the field.

However, I too wish we could por