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 portray a company with 2 band enfields and bayonets for everyone. However there is not a good starting repro for the lorenz and the 2 banders will need as much defarbing as all the rest (and with extreme limited usage at that). Personally I have been wanting to have a nice repro 1822 cone in barrel conversion musket for a long time, however even the loyalist arms repro is not a good place to start, so I'm left waiting for that day that may never come. Honestly, it's hard enough trying to have a '61 springfield, 42 springfield and 53 enfield of appropriate weight, dimension and detail. Those are the 3 i'm working on to have on hand for any occasion and it is taking plenty of time and money. Very interesting topic, thanks for bringing this up John!

Curt-Heinrich Schmidt

07-26-2007, 12:12 PM

Hallo!

IMHO, the problem IS one of "finance" across the CW Community.
And without putting on my fossilized Broken Record Mantra of why we do so well with clothing and carry such poorly "authenitc" weapons... ;-) :-)

IMHO, it is still cheaper, more affordable, etc., etc., to do "unit, time, and place specific" clothing and gear than it is "unit, time, and place specific" weapons- as a combination of what mass produced commercial reproductions are available AND as a combination of how much money a lad has or is willing to spend to acquire a "golf bag" full of different longarms for different impressions on commercial repro's or custom-built repro's of arms not commercially available.

IF by choice or financial circumstance, a lad is limited to just one gun, IMHO, he often chooses the one that gives him the greatest range and versatility of multiple impressions with it (discounting the lad with interest in just one impression or a "generic" CW impression where say an Model 1863 "Type II" Springfield is what he likes because he likes it.)
IMHO, right now, that choice is first the "Enfield" as "proto-typical" if not "archtypical" for Confederate, followed by the M1861 Springfield.

And yes, IMHO, in this order the ubiquitous "Enfield," the M1861 Springfield," and the
"M1842" are the recommended "Big Three" to strive to acquire.

And as an aside...

The cost of Italian commercial reproductions is largely determined by the exchange rate of U.S. Dollars to the "European Euro." As the USD continues to slide, its purchasing power slides with it.
Meaning we did better when the Euro was worth .50 or half of a dollar. Now that the dollar is worth .72 to .75 of a Euro, the cost to us goes up...
(But CW is doing "better" than say Rev War, where Italian "Besses" and "Chareville's have no passed the $1,000 mark.)

Curt
Former U.S. M1855 Rifle, and Cook & Brother Rifle, etc., user Mess

1stMaine

07-26-2007, 12:12 PM

Comrades,

Too add a bit to the debate. Safety should NOT be an excuse for banning the rifles from events IF the drill is followed correctly. That means that the soldiers need to be profficient in their drill and the NCO's need to be right up on them watching and ensuring the intervals are kept correctly, that the men assume the proper stance for firing. After all, hardee's, as I said earlier, was written for the M1855 rifle and the M1841 rifle.

As to impressions, the 7th Maine carried M1841's throughout it's enlistment. They used them up until mustered out in June of 1864, including the Wilderness, Spotsylvania CH, etc.

An impression of the 7th would require a properly remade Windsor contract M1841 w/sword bayonet, a M1855 rifleman's belt, and the cap box designed for that set (large loops & shield front/full-face style). Everything else, including the cartrudge box (which, despite the M1855 rifleman's belt, was worn with a sling) is stock issue. Extant images show them with forage caps and fatigue blouses, and little to no cap brass.

So, yeah, probably $800-$1000 to add the impression to your list of doables. Yet, this little regiment was present at some significant moments, including the 7-day's and Antietam, and again at Chancellorsville, where they used those sword bayonets.

Back to the thread, however, the Enfield shows up all through the federal army, in almost every regiment armed with .58 calibre weapons. There is usually one or the other, Springfield of Enfield in the prponderance, but the other is almost always there as well.

Respects,

LibertyHallVols

07-26-2007, 12:29 PM

I think the discussion of rifles is definitely applicable. They were used in sufficient numbers that they could be considered "PEC", depending on your definition of that term.

Back to the 3-banders for a sec...
A good chunk of the reason why we all focus on Enfields so doggone much is because (1) they were the first 3-bander to be reproduced and (2) they are broadly applicable to both US and CS impressions, except for the very early days of the war. Therefore, (3) many, many reenactors own one...

Hence my "common currency" comment in an earlier post.

However, at their core, every foreign-made repro is a reproduction of the wrong darned musket. This forces us to spend a lot of dough marking up and reshaping the repro to make it "closer" to being correct. Does that save any $$ in the long run? Would it be "more authentic" to use an arm intended to look like the arm we want it to look like?

I don't even want to get into the, "...reduce demand to coerce the Italians to improve their product..." stuff. That'll only work under ideal circumstances (you know like in physics class... assume a perfect vacuum and zero friction) ;) The hobby *could* have some traction to generate interest interest in general improvement in the Enfield repros... but that won't happy because "everybody has an Enfield"... and so it goes. ;)

Thoughts?

1stMaine

07-26-2007, 12:49 PM

John,

Let me ask a silly question, then.

Has anyone actually TALKED to any of the makers about retooling to produce the "correct" model Enfield, or whatever? I know we all believe that "someone" contacted them, but has anyone actually ever done that?

Back when the mini-series "North & South" was being filmed, I contacted Bernadelli about purchasing 150 M1841 rifles. They were astounded by that request, as they were seriously considering shutting down the production line for them because so few people had expressed an interest in them, and so few (to their stats) had sold. They were simply making what the sellers were asking for, not what the customers were asking for, and although they knew abour reenacting, they didn't quite realise then what size the hobby was, and how many people actually WERE interested in accurate reproductions.

Respects,

Curt-Heinrich Schmidt

07-26-2007, 12:55 PM

Hallo!

I am a proponant of rifle use, in general and especially for the unit impressions of units that HAD them!

I even once ran a thread on Civil War era forms of the U.S. M1841. ;) :)

And bringing up, or back, points from previous discussions on the the Italian Enfield industry...

IMHO, there will be no change or little change as the tail does not wag the dog.
Meaning, we teach the Italians (and their U.S. importers) how to teach us. As long as the Civil War Community buys what the Italians produce in large numbers, there is litte or no reason to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. Or as Buck Barrow in "Bonnie and Clyde" said; "Whatever you do, don't sell that cow!"
IMHO, there are just too many sales of Italian P1853 4th Model "Enfields."

However, there was a minor "concession" when Armi Sport went to "3rd Model" barrel bands on their "4th Models." (even if they pseudo color case harden them)

And in general, the Italian U.S. M1842 Springfield/Harpers Ferry, while still flawed, IS a notch or two above the "Enfield."

IMHO, it will be interesting to revisit this discussion as the rise of the Euro has led to a look toward cheaper labor costs in China and Pakistan when it comes to a predicted possible shift with the "new generation" of CW era reproduction arms???
(Not a knock on China, India, or Pakistan. They are capable of , and do, achieve REMARKABLE copies and even clones of uniforms, gear, or weaponry in any era. IMHO, the larger issue is what level American importers contract to buy of lesser quality or "authentic" items than from the high end of what these countries can produce. Meaning, they can sell a U.S. vendor a $15 fatigue blouse or a $200 fatigue blouse. The "market" takes the $15 one.)

Curt

CJDaley

07-26-2007, 12:59 PM

Too Many Enfields?

On reason you see so many in the ranks and accepted at every event is that there are just to many in the hobby to begin with.

I recently spoke with a vendor who told me in the last 15 years he has imported and sold 250,000 Enfields. Think about that. One vendor and one type of musket.

250,000! That's more than the Confederacy imported!

This vendor also serves the N-SSA as well as our hobby, but it's amazing to think how many repro muskets might be floating around out there.

Curt-Heinrich Schmidt

07-26-2007, 01:20 PM

Hallo!

Interesting!

Although I am guilty of 50 or so of those all by myself.
One unit that I once created, for its time and place, documented that it had "Enfield" rifle-muskets... and the P1853 3rd Model" at was the required longarm.

One vendor, 250,000...

While reliable numbers of Civil War "reenactors" (even when supplemented by N-SSA members), past and present, are hard to capture...

There must be closets, attics, garages, and spaces under beds across America with more Enfields than dust bunnies!

A thousand years from now, archeologists and anthropoligists will have them behind glass in museums.
"Parental Unit Number 3707, can we go to the Reenacotor Museum today. Pwease Parental Unit, pwease? Yes? Oh goody!! I weally like the animatronic reenactors exhibit!"
"Yes Test Tube Child Number 4. The Enfield Pipe Organ display is my favorite!"

Curt

LibertyHallVols

07-26-2007, 01:49 PM

Let me ask a silly question, then.

Has anyone actually TALKED to any of the makers about retooling to produce the "correct" model Enfield, or whatever? I know we all believe that "someone" contacted them, but has anyone actually ever done that?

According to Reenactor Folklore...
Geoff Walden discussed this with "the Italians" (Armi Sport or EoA, I know not which) back in the early 1990's, or whenever his article was first published. "They" were supposedly (sp?) planning to adopt his suggestions, but... and we're still waiting.

Is this true? Idunno. Geoff...?

Maybe its just an urban legend, like "there's no such thing as 100% wool." :sarcastic :wink_smil

Charles Heath

07-26-2007, 03:06 PM

I use my '41 a couple of times each year, and usually ask permission to drag it along well beforehand. Folks who read the fine print will find a number of EBUFU events each year where this is possible.

Unfortunately, the last time we built a battalion where a company of '41s was a possibility, that worldwide number of folks interested enough to register was the same as what the owl said about licks and the Tootsie-Pop. Not too encouraging.

I am curious if folks had an 8 to 10 month lead time to acquire and modify a '41, if they'd join the 3 of us who currently use our trusty Mississippi Rifles at a living history. Curt's lengthy how-to thread on upgrading a stock '41 was excellent, and I hope it didn't get zapped in the Summer of 2006 forum crash.

Let's throw out a number. That number is 30. Any takers?

LibertyHallVols

07-26-2007, 03:27 PM

C'mon, Dude! Ever hear of the SEARCH FEATURE!?!? ;)

http://authentic-campaigner.com/forum/showthread.php?t=5767
http://authentic-campaigner.com/forum/showthread.php?t=5721
http://authentic-campaigner.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4801
http://authentic-campaigner.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4709
http://authentic-campaigner.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4705
http://authentic-campaigner.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4584

Charles Heath

07-26-2007, 03:29 PM

Cracks knuckles...Tom Sawyer would be proud. :-)

Hehehehe.

Old Reb

07-26-2007, 03:31 PM

As soon as I scrape togehter the need $125,000, I plan to purchase an Arkadelphia Arsenal Rifle. Nice two bander it is!

Bob 125th NYSVI

07-26-2007, 04:35 PM

Charles Heath

07-26-2007, 04:45 PM

Bob,

That's precisely why event guidelines list the specific weapons desired in priority order, and typically have a note as to what the unit or organization being portrayed actually carried at that point in the war -- if known.

Curt-Heinrich Schmidt

07-26-2007, 05:05 PM

Hallo!

I am having trouble with my monitor.
Is that number "3" with a dirt smudge after it, or "30?"

Curt
Once user of the M1855 Rifle, 1862 and 1863 Fayetteville Rifle, and Cook Brother Rifle Mess
Proud Member of the where did I put those two Mississippi short nosecaps Rifles

"That's a nice Enfield."
"Thanks. But actually it's a Walter Watson "M" Rifle."
"Elitist! @#*#)(@(#)$&^*@!!!"

Todd Watts

07-26-2007, 05:27 PM

I am still trying to get the Liege / Belgian repro project of mine off the ground. Seeing this project first-hand, I can see why the repro makers only want to offer 1-3 vraiants. Once my project is up and running, the Lorenz, done correctly (no need to do it wrongly since that has been done) is next on the "to do" list followed by the Pottsdam and perhaps a c.1840 London or some other lesser knowns. My own unit was historically issued 3-bander Enfields so my own Enfield-use is correct. But it is really sad to know of all the many gun variations that are all but lost to us because the repro market is set on selling what they know sells and not spending the capital to offer others.

1stMaine

07-26-2007, 05:36 PM

Well the figures I have are approximate (and I'm sure Curt can correct them) but

1,300,000 Manufactured Springfields (all models/manufacturers/derviatives)
830,000 Imported Enfields (At least)
225,000 Imported Lorenz's (About)

And about 500,000 .69 muskets were available in 1861

But only around 30,000 1841's were ever built. So even if they were all available in 1860 only about 1% of soldiers would ever be equipped with them. How can we seriously justify fielding more? Pumpkin slingers, yes there were a lot more of them around, but rifles?

Generically would it be:

a Yankee in order of likelyhood of being armed with it would be Springfield, Enfield, Pumpkinslinger, Lorenz?

a Reb Enfield, Pumkinslinger?

Unless you're doing something very historically specific I just don't see how there can be too many Enfields in the rebel ranks and very many rifles at all on either side.

And shouldn't Yanks be about 50/50 Springfields/everything else.

Just as an example, historically my unit was equipped with Enfields (which the rebs kindly relieved us of when we got captured at Harper's Ferry) and then re-equipped with Springfields once we were allowed back in the war. So for me (base impression) either a Springfield or Enfield, a second weapon (or third) would just be a luxury I can't yet afford.

Bob,

With all due respect, that sort of math just doesn't add up.

You are also leaving our many thousands of M1855 rifles and Enfield rifles.

As to the 1% of soldiers, that's not correct either. You are looking at overall numbers, although no where near that served at any one time. The figure that some 2.5 million men served under arms is a misnomer, because it also includes a significant number who served more than one enlistment.

The real numbers to look at are the ordnance returns of the various units within the armies. However, this would only give us a statistical review of the various types of arms OVERALL. The important thing is to understand what type of weapon was being carried by the units we are represnting at whatver particular event we are attending.

For example, what good is creating a reenactment of the Irish brigade at Gettysburg if the weapons are not correct? 4 of the 5 regiments in that storied brigade used .69 caliber weapons. Only 1, the 28th Mass, had .58 rifle-muskets.

To carry it further, up until the beginning of 1864, a full 40% of the AOP carried .69 calibre weapons of one type or another. The remaining 60% consists of 2/3rd Springfield and Enfield weapons, and 1/3rd of .54 calibre weapons.

Thus, up through Gettysburg, the single largest percentage of weapons in the AOP is, statistically, the .69 calibre in it's various formats. Of the balance remaining, 20% are .54, both US and Austrian and other models, and 40% are various .58 calibre, to include the Enfield, Springfield and other .58 calibre RIFLES.

Seems to me that, until 1864, the most common weapon OUGHT to be a .69, if we are just talking statistics, and army-wide representation. However, we are interested in scenario-driven arms, so those percentages can change dramatically.

For example, if we are to recreate the Peach Orchard on 2 July, we'll need at least one regiment with Sharps rifles, another (7th NJ) with equal numbers of .58, .577, .69, and 10 or so Austrian .54's. and so forth.

Anyway, the numbers produced, purchased, etc, are not accurate as far as what was actually used. examples abound of regiments drawing 1 type of weapon, and then returning it for something else, exchanging for better arms off the field, etc.

Example: 3rd Maine Infantry left the state with .69 smoothbores (converted M1816, with cone-in-breech conversion). After 1st Bull Run, the 4 flank companies were issued with Austrain .54 rifles. In December 1861, the M1816 conversions were turned in and M1861 rifle-muskets were issued, except for the flank companies who retained their Austrian rifles. Sometime in the spring of 62, the rifles were turned in and M1861 rifle-muskets issued to replace them.

The 4th Maine left the state with .69 smoothbores, like the 3rd Maine's, but in December of that year (1861) they turned those in expecting to recieve M1861 rifle-muskets. Instead, they were issued with Austrian .54 rifles. Go figure.

The 20th Maine were armed with Enfields, but greatly disliked them. After Gettysburg, the survivors tossed their Enfields and scavenged .58 Springfield rifle-muskets from the field, and used these until the end of the war.

Anyway, that's some examples of the time/place.unit specific arms. Percentages of the weapon types are best viewed at the brigade level, as that is where we most often act out our shows.

Respects,

Jimmayo

07-26-2007, 05:46 PM

IMO the following should be considered when discussing in general terms the number of Enfields that should be in the ranks .

1) US or CS
It is a well known fact that the South used more Enfields than the North. Nobody in this thread has made a distinction between North or South.

2) Year of the war that you are portraying. That would make a big difference in numbers say between 1861/ 62 and 1864/65.

3) Eastern or western theater may also make a difference.

I do have a very small shapshot of the contents of one CS trench about 30 feet long near the Petersburg lines. This trench was taken by the Feds and then covered over to prevent it's reuse. What it also did was to preserve very deep, the contents of the trench. I don't think anyone else had hunted this section of trench due to the depth and what was being found. Out of this trench came 9 muskets ( 5 Enfields and 4 Springfields). There was also a quantity of dropped bullets, all of which were CS or English. Another indication that the trench was CS (besides location) was the presence of a pewter cartridge box liner. The picture below was one days dig.

I know this does not indicate that all CS units were equipped with these type arms in these numbers but it is a small piece of the pie which I have always found interesting.

Curt-Heinrich Schmidt

07-26-2007, 08:20 PM

Hallo!

I hate to use a worn out cliche, but will anyways... ;) :)

Apples and oranges.

I think "Apples and Oranges" because there is a difference between the concept and living-history practice of impressions and portrayals of actual units as to their arms being fixed by time and place, AND looking at totals of weapons between "1861 and 1865" and trying to come up with a statistical concept of what might have been the most "common" type of gun in use based upon weapon numbers that end in April 1865.

AND, being unable or unwilling, or not needing by Mental Picture, to have the arms of actual units/times/places due to financial issues and availability issues- coming up with what might could be presented as something of a "universally representative" Civil War longarm. And just ONE that can be inserted, Federal or Confederate, anywhere between April of 1861 and April of 1865 events without too much error.

Meaning that the '53 "Enfield" or '61 "Springfield" is the perceived choice as a "universally representative" concept CW longarm that traditionally "works" for the majority of the CW reenacting Community.
Especially for lads whose Mental Pictures, interests, desires, needs, and disposable incomes and finances allow but ONE weapon.

Or, perhaps more simply, is the choice of longarms driven by actual historical unit/time/place specifics, or representative or generic universals where specifics do not apply or matter?
(For example.... in some circles, it can be hard to portray a Manassas 1861 or Shiloh 1862 unit and be armed with say an M1863 "Type II" Springfield in a unit that was actually there armed with M1822 flintlocks. In other circles, not.

Curt

DannyJoe

07-26-2007, 09:56 PM

Over the past several years, I have been able to acquire Lodgewood defarbed Italian repros of what has been referred to as the Big Three: P1853, M1842, and M1861. When given the option, I prefer carrying the P1853. It is just a personal preference. I like the handling of the Enfield over the Springfields. I have had others in the hobby express the same opinion. Regardless, I agree that the M1842 is a better repro than the P1853.
Regards,

LibertyHallVols

07-26-2007, 10:58 PM

Good points, stated well... thanks, Curt.

For those who cite the portrayal of a home "unit", something to ponder:
- Events listed on the AC have scenario-specific regs.
- In all my time with the "LHV", I actually portrayed them at an event a grand-total of once (I WAS properly armed, though! ;)
- Throughout the war, one can find references to .54, 58, and .69 cal ammo being issued to this single company, as well as references to 1851 cadet muskets, converted 69 cal US muskets, and even a captured Belgian musket described as a "veritable cannon". ...that's ONE COMPANY!

So, if one's "personal impression" or "home unit" is the Xth VA, Company Z, who were armed with Enfields for 1862-1865... what do you do at an event when you're portraying the Xth TN, Company Y in 1861 when they were armed with 1842's?

Good discussion... Thanks!

tmdreb

07-26-2007, 11:47 PM

John,

There are not too many events that will kick you out if you don't have an 1842, because people who put on events recognize that just about everyone has an Enfield, but not everyone has an 1842.

I have built my impression around a specific unit, and I use that impression several times a year. Yes, part of that impression is an Enfield. Of course, most everyone, no matter how specific or generic their impression is, also uses primarily a .58 rifle musket. So, I'm not quite sure what your point is about specific impressions. Personally, I also own a smoothbore for other impressions, as do most of the rest of my company.

Tim,

I agree with your assessment of the math as well as the fact that there should be more .69 smoothbores represented. The latter could be better accomplished if there were a good reproduction of a converted flintlock in addition to the excellent AS 1842.

LibertyHallVols

07-27-2007, 05:55 AM

John,

There are not too many events that will kick you out if you don't have an 1842, because people who put on events recognize that just about everyone has an Enfield, but not everyone has an 1842.

Agreed. I wouldn't propose that folks be kicked out. Just offering up food for thought.

I have built my impression around a specific unit, and I use that impression several times a year. Yes, part of that impression is an Enfield. Of course, most everyone, no matter how specific or generic their impression is, also uses primarily a .58 rifle musket. So, I'm not quite sure what your point is about specific impressions. Personally, I also own a smoothbore for other impressions, as do most of the rest of my company.

Several folks mentioned the selection of an Enfield based on the portrayal of a specific unit. I merely wanted to offer up a counter-point... not that folks are wrong for building up an impression of a specific unit.

plankholder

07-27-2007, 11:48 AM

I am a Spriingfield man, I just prefer the feel of my 55/61 Springfield, and just love the "sewer pipe" barrel on my '42. But I sure am hoping that LA gets the snags worked out of their Lorenz, its already got my interest. So to answer the question, yes I feel that Enfields are over represented in the hobby. -ELI GEERY

Bob 125th NYSVI

07-27-2007, 03:19 PM

And with all due respect back Tim

The real numbers to look at are the ordnance returns of the various units within the armies. However, this would only give us a statistical review of the various types of arms OVERALL. The important thing is to understand what type of weapon was being carried by the units we are represnting at whatver particular event we are attending.

Agreed and I did use my historical unit as an example, they started with Enfields and moved to Springfields. For me to carry a 'rifle' or .69 at any time would be inappropriate for that portrayal. At this time I have neither the money nor desire to develop multiple portrayals. Some day I might, but then the problem (as far as reenacting is concerned) that I might bring the "right" weapon for a specific unit portrayal but then I could wind up being the only guy with the right weapon. At least in a mixed Enfield/Springfield unit you can use the rational that it happened but it makes real no difference because everybody can use the same ammo. Unlike say having one .69 weapon in the ranks.

For example, what good is creating a reenactment of the Irish brigade at Gettysburg if the weapons are not correct? 4 of the 5 regiments in that storied brigade used .69 caliber weapons. Only 1, the 28th Mass, had .58 rifle-muskets.

To carry it further, up until the beginning of 1864, a full 40% of the AOP carried .69 calibre weapons of one type or another. The remaining 60% consists of 2/3rd Springfield and Enfield weapons, and 1/3rd of .54 calibre weapons.

Thus, up through Gettysburg, the single largest percentage of weapons in the AOP is, statistically, the .69 calibre in it's various formats. Of the balance remaining, 20% are .54, both US and Austrian and other models, and 40% are various .58 calibre, to include the Enfield, Springfield and other .58 calibre RIFLES.

Seems to me that, until 1864, the most common weapon OUGHT to be a .69, if we are just talking statistics, and army-wide representation.

I can buy into this but if we do this aren't we asking reenactors to go for a very very generic impression? Don't portray a specific unit but be prepared to portray a "generic" AoP infantryman. And then isn't this is going to play the devil with the other equipment. For example what is the percentage of Forage Caps v other types of hats? Knapsacks v bedrolls? Etc.

If we could afford it this would be the way to go, maybe one unit specific kit and one very generic 'army' kit but now what about galvanizing? Another two kits?

We can argue the the proper ratios all we want but unlike say hollywood very few of us have unlimited funds to throw at our impression.

And that leaves the event organizers with an additional headache. They don't know how individual reenactors are armed. So let's say they want to portray the Irish at GB. What do they do, say .69 only? It's going to be a very small brigade. Especially if they want to enforce other "equipment" requirements to actual make the whole unit look like the IB.

However, we are interested in scenario-driven arms, so those percentages can change dramatically.

Agreed the ideal would be if we could morph into what ever is needed but I think that is a unrealistic goal.

And I think there is a very strong case for more .69s in reenacting.

Still I'm not seeing numbers that would convince me that we need a lot more 'rifles' in the ranks. Unless of course you want to portray a very specific scenario that would call for it.

And then we just wind up back 'who can afford it' connundrum.

Secesh

07-27-2007, 04:59 PM

When one has a mortgage, property taxes, car payments, kids in college, etc., multiple rifles has a really low priority....

BrettKIllinois

07-27-2007, 05:09 PM

The weapon should fit the impression, plain and simple. I really wish there was an accurate lorenz. (correct calibre, correct size of the stock etc)

For many folks their weapon is the most expensive thing they have. But compared to most accurate jacket reproductions, its close in price. So, just as we have different jackets for different impressions, we should have different arms aswell. I have an enfield and only an enfield, I have often barrowed weapons from pards who have an arsenal in their house in order to accurately portray the impression as needed. When I couldn't find correct arms for a portrayal I have simply opted not to attend just as I would if I didn't have the correct jacket etc..

BrettKIllinois

07-27-2007, 05:13 PM

As for the money question... This is an expensive hobby, It requires constantly loads of cash to participate. The initial uniform purchase is just a portion of the expenses, as I am constantly finding myself adding to the closet of uniforms and gear. In theory weapons should be no different.
If we spend nearly 1000 dollars per event to attend (for those of us living far from an actual battlefield) I see no harm in skipping one event a year to add another weapon to your arsenal.
I don't want to be hypocritical because i have yet to purchase more, but it is a goal of mine in which I will take as seriously as having the rest of my impression as accurate as I can make it.
also as a foot note:
I think it should be a goal for all of us to constantly add new kits to our stockpile of uniforms and gear. There are so few of us in order to interpret the lives of so many, versatility is a must in order to have decent numbers at great events in all theatres, in all years in all seasons.

Focus on setting your personal goals high, and not focus on excuses.

LibertyHallVols

07-27-2007, 05:52 PM

Focus on setting your personal goals high, and not focus on excuses.

Good point...

Back in High School, my buddy Paul Herring told me that he spent almost a hundred bucks on a jacket that wasn't even sewn together yet just because it was made of "jeans", or some other such nonsense. I thought he was crazy as hell. ... I could of bought two top quality jackets from Jarnagin for that price!

You hardcores are ruining this hobby! :tounge_sm

Secesh

07-27-2007, 06:20 PM

Brett,
With all due respect, in regards to your statement about making excuses, I have to ask if you still live at home???....

BrettKIllinois

07-27-2007, 06:26 PM

I just don't like a defeatist mentality when it comes to your impression. When I first started becoming one of the "the hated" authentics, I realized I couldn't afford to purchase some of the uniform parts, hell I was 16 and worked part time minimum wage... So I talked to my mom, my mom knew of a her great great aunts sewing machine that was in storage, vintage 1870s-1890s range, I'm not sure the exact date but surely more authentic than a modern electrical sewing machine. She taught me how to use it, my pards taught me how to hand sew, running, locking, button hole, whip, flat felling etc... so bought the correct material and patterns and made the uniforms myself.
Sure I had some help teaching me, but with a little help all of us can get better at our impression. My enfield I bought from a good pard who had an original and a de-farbed enfield and felt that it was time to part with the repop, sold the defarbed one to me at a discount due to the fact that there was scuffs etc... on it so I didn't pay full price.
There are ways around high initial costs, IE: barrow, DIY, Installment purchasing, small loans.... The fact that so many great vendors sell kits for their uniforms is an amazing contribution for all of us and we should thank them for it.

BrettKIllinois

07-27-2007, 06:32 PM

Brett,
With all due respect, in regards to your statement about making excuses, I have to ask if you still live at home???....

I've been on my own since 18, a renter, I do not own my own home. But nice try. For the past 3 months between leases I have been renting an apartment from my mother, but I pay the same as I payed renting at my previous home. In 2 weeks I am relocating again and not longer renting from a family member.
That being said, my family has never had a high enough economic status to assist me in any way, thats why I went in the military after high school etc...

I'd like to own my first home once I complete college. I have worked in business for the past two years, and now I am a bouncer and work odd jobs.

My point in response to your inference... is that I am entirely self suffient, and self supporting, I wish it wasn't the case, it'd be nice if I could get some help... but it is not. My mother is a retired school teacher and I often have to help her with her bills, and not the other way around.

Cheers

Secesh

07-27-2007, 06:49 PM

Brett,
The point I was trying to make is that, unless one has all the aforementioned responsibilities I stated, it's a lot easier to find the "extra cash" to dedicate to this hobby. The rest of us, though, do find that we often have to go "lean and hungry", cutting the fat in our impressions and making purchases that are absolutely necessary to one's impression, as opposed to impulsive and / or unnecessary ones. This is especially true if one lives in a State, for instance here in California, where economically the cost of living is higher than the rest of the Country. 2 to 3 bedroom homes typically run about $400,000 to $600,000, and that's just an average family home of about 1500 square feet! My hats off to you for it seems like you are on the right track to life. Best regards, Tom

paulcalloway

07-27-2007, 07:56 PM

I'm still rolling around that 250,00 Enfields number - Chris, someone is pulling your leg. At a $400 price tag, that's $100 million in top-line sales selling Enfields to CW Reenactors.

If there was that kind of business to be had selling Enfields at CW reenactments, Sam Walton would have been setting up a tent.

Parault

07-28-2007, 12:04 AM

I have the typical Einfield that most people start out with when they make that "plunge". I have since then purchased a EA 1853 Springfield conversion.
I would like to purchase another Springfield late model soon.

Chad Teasley

07-28-2007, 03:08 AM

When one has a mortgage, property taxes, car payments, kids in college, etc., multiple rifles has a really low priority....

Amen, and amen.

After having been absent from the hobby for a while, I'm in the process of gearing back up for both my son and me to participate after my return from overseas. I'll be springing for two muskets in the near future, and have been thinking long and hard about what models they will be.

My conclusion: More than likely, both will be the venerable P-53 Enfield. Why?
Quite simple: The Enfield is acceptable for a fairly wide range of impressions.

I've been tempted to go with the model 1842, but as I'll probably do more late War events than early War, I think the Enfield will be better, for the simple reason that it is more likely to be appropriate for most events that I hope to attend.

Is the Enfield already over-represented in the hobby?
Quite possibly.
Will I be ADDING to that over-representation by adding two more of them to the ranks?
Yep.

In a perfect world (i.e. one in which Uncle Sam paid me six figures per annum), I'd just get P-53's AND 1842's for both me and my son.

Unfortunately, the world isn't perfect, and two of my other teenagers at home are currently in need of braces...

And that takes priority over having a musket to fit every impression. :)

jhuether

07-28-2007, 04:26 AM

In a perfect world (i.e. one in which Uncle Sam paid me six figures per annum), I'd just get P-53's AND 1842's for both me and my son.

Deployment has always been the best time to update my kit, or even add a new impression. To be honest it is the only time that I can afford both of my hobbies (homebrewing being the other) on a NCOs pay scale. I probably could cut a few corners here or there, but to be honest with my schedule I am lucky if I can attend one event a year. And, while my wife encourages my hobbies, she doesn't want to see any more of our money sitting in the closet, hardly used.

Since I have been here this past year, I have decide to get back into the military side of the hobby, having to start from scratch, since it has been almost 7 years since I last had a military impression, and I sold everything when I joined the Army.

"Hello. My name is Jason and I am going to buy an Enfield.":)

7thNJcoA

07-28-2007, 08:35 PM

I agree about it being easier to change uniforms for diffrent impressions rather than weapons. I love firearms and collect many diffrent types. I have alot of repro civil war muskets and use them mainly for living history ecsp the lorenz, because most reenactments in the east coast are springfield and enfield NAZIs so It is hard to introduce the diffrent types of weapons to the public. The biggest thing for the event organizers is SAFETY!

EDIT: Sign your full name to every post.

rlendt

07-29-2007, 06:12 PM

Hi,
I have owned a P-53 Enfield for about 30 years and have never been able to figure out what the number "6410" stamped on the ramrod is. Could this be a rack number or is it too high for a rack number? The only other potentially Confederate markings are faintly stamped "CS" markings on the lock plate, trigger guard, and butt plate.
The lock is stamped "Potts & Hunt" "London" and the barrel (Which was made by "Barnett" according to the stamp on the bottom of the barrel) has the normal London commercial proof marks stamped on the top left breech. There are no English, or Confederate for that matter, governmental inspection marks of any type that I can locate.
Thanks for the interesting discussion.
Bob Lendt

BrettKIllinois

07-30-2007, 02:31 PM

Sure I don't have kids or a mortgage or live in California, all of these are choices I have made to not have.

Secesh

07-30-2007, 02:52 PM

Obviously you've missed the point entirely .....

Bob 125th NYSVI

07-31-2007, 08:12 PM

Todd:

Ley me see if I've got this right, because I'm in the market for a defarbed Enfield.

You prefer the Armi model because the stock starts closer to the original than the Euro. And the profile of the barrel/mounting parts are closer to the original.

You both stain (Minwax) and linseed oil the stocks in order to get the color right and you're willing to do a lighter color than you see on most stocks (saw a Bridesburg with a light stock).

You also correct some other items.

You're working off of an original/information provided by Tim Prince.

It does however seem that the defarb you do is appropriate for a CSA impression or a western Fed after Vicksburg, but not an eastern Fed.

Do you do a version that would be appropriate for an eastern Fed?

Thanks

Todd Watts

08-02-2007, 05:20 PM

Well, kinda-sorta. I only apply walnut stain/Minwax to the guns that have a lot of "sap wood" which is a very light figureless wood located on the outer few inches of tree trunks. These must be stained to look decent because regular linseed oil will leave them eggshell white. There is nothing structurally wrong with the wood, it is just completely without natural pigmintation so I have to darken it manually. (I don't think I have ever seen an example of sap wood on any original muskets from back then. This may be because none survived, or they simply threw that wood away and only used the core wood. Back then they had plenty of gigantic walnuts with which to carve stocks and these were large enough that they could have easily steered clear of the sap wood. Today however, wood is at a premium and the trunks are not large enough to allow the mass-producers the luxury of carving away from the sap wood.) Otherwise, I only apply a couple of hand-rubbed coats of boiled linseed just like the originals got. I seal this with wood wax.

All of mine can be either CS or US and are correct for any theater. Federals did obtain Enfields that were CS contract-bought as Grant reported at the fall of Vicksburg. What he described as "new stands of English rifles" had to be new Enfields. He had some of his troops trade-in their own "obsolete" muskets for the captured new guns and then offered as the "captured stores" his own guns. (Clever fellow!)

I do the BSAT versions of Joseph Wilson, Charles Swinburn and now, Eyton Bond. To make them "CS" all I need to do is apply the "JS over anchor" stamp or the "anchor over S". If you want, I can engrave the rammer, buttplate tang and even bayonet with matching "inventory/rack/lot" numbers/lettters which can be correct for any style from what I can tell. I have seen several examples with such markings and many without. I don't stamp these numbers and letters because I simply do not have the fancy stamps of the size they liked to use. I hand-engrave the markings in a rather simple fashion which mimics closely what some markings were done like. Some were obviously "engraved" with a straight file and these look so bad that I don't like doing them. If a guy if paying that much for a musket and then a hundred or so for me to improve it, I am afraid he'd gasp in horror if I made it look too original.;)

I am glad to see the pics of one of my defarbs up there. I remember that one, and it is funny that when I do see pictures of them I often can remember the gun in particular. Each one, just like the originals, is unique because no two stamp exactly alike, blue alike, have the same wood, etc. I'd like to add 1 major caution regarding the Euroarms barrel bands. They are cast and do not weld too well.:D I only tried to build up the tabs with the welder once! :eek:

Oh, the wood will take the color it will based on its own pigmentation as it soaks up the oil. Some come out nearly blonde and some turn a deep brown. I can force them to darken by adding dye, but otherwise there is not much control over what tone it will take. What Euroarms does is add walnut-stain dye to make theris dark brown. Armi Sport for some reason applies a reddish dye. Linseed was all that was used originally - so that is what I use.

Bob 125th NYSVI

08-03-2007, 12:05 AM

I'm not sure where to put this one so mods move it around as you see fit.

I've been researching the various vendors who "defarb" weapons.

But based on that research there are only (currently) two manufacturers of ACW muskets (Armi & Euro) and that even those people who build one from the ground up are using one of the two manufacturers base parts with either custom or original parts mixed in.

However I haven't seen anybody who claims to be making a correctly profiled and weighted barrel.

Did I miss someone?

Thanks.

mrgrzeskowiak

08-03-2007, 12:17 AM

Bob, I am friends with someone locally that de-farbs weapons,, PM me and I will send you his info if you are interested. I am aware of only armi and euro as makers of repro guns..

Western Blue Belly

08-03-2007, 05:28 AM

One maker not often mentioned is Davide Pedersoli. They make a repo '61 Springfield. I have never seen one of the rifles in person so I cant say anything about it, but at $1050.00 it better not need de-farbing of any kind.

http://www.cherrys.com/pedpics/s243b.jpg

LibertyHallVols

08-03-2007, 05:56 AM

I haven't seen anybody who claims to be making a correctly profiled and weighted barrel.

Did I miss someone?

Yep!
http://www.edsmart.com/whitacre/

mrgrzeskowiak

08-03-2007, 08:51 AM

csuniforms

08-03-2007, 09:59 AM

I shoot with N-SSA and the whitcare barrels are good, but they are made more for accuracy and not authenticity. Just as Bob Hoyt manufactures and re-line barrels. Nobody is making EXACT reproductions of barrels. As I understand it they are shaped differently than euro or armi barrels to compensate for there competition, (progressive) rifling. As a previous owner of a Pedersoli Musket, They are NOT de-farbed.. and still have modern markings. The 42 comes semi-de-farbed out of the box..but, that is a smoothbore and may not be correct for your impression....

I am 99% sure you can have the old style rifling done in your Springfield barrel, and no, original barrels and new barrels made by Hoyt and Whittacre are made to fit original Civil War era wooden stocks and WILL NOT fit in an Italian Repro--

I still say buy an original musket for reenacting-- your paying $700 or more with defarbing and it is possible to find original firearms in that price range-- not new but useable--

Tom Arliskas
CSuniforms

Clsinclair

08-03-2007, 10:17 AM

I don't have my Enfield book in front of me but it seems that the repo barrels are about a pound heavier than the originals. That's a lot of metal to shave. I have an original Enfield in excellent condition with a strong bore and rifling but the metal is thinner than the repo. BTW - It cost me $1,200 from "The Horse Soldier" but it is defarbed.

Regards,
Claude Sinclair

Todd Watts

08-03-2007, 01:26 PM

Daniel Whitaker of Whitaker's Machine Shop in VA makes progressive rifling repros. He can contour them to fit the barrel channel of the stock you have and the breach plug you have. A problem is that if you have an Armi or Euro, the barrel channel is already carved for their barrel contour. You can drop a new barrel with original dimensiosn into it, but the fit is very loose. Armis are closer to original contours than that boat anchor club of the Euroarms. The best as far as contours are the old Parke hales although finding one is hard to do. Pedersolli doesn't make their own guns, and I think they are made by Euroarms but can't swear to that off-hand. Uberti was offering some of these guns but I have never got my hands on any to see the dimensions. Dixie Gun Works imports some Japanese-made repros that are reasonably close to the right contours, but they have poor wood to metal fit which opens a whole new set of issues to deal with. A gunsmith can build you a perfect copy from the ground up, but the gun is going to cost you around $1200+. Personally, I wouldn't build one like that for less than $2000 because it would cost me a lot in new dies and machining parts that would only get limited use later. When a decent repros like and Armi can be had for $400-$500 and another $200 can have it de-farbed close enough that only experienced experts would notice the subtle differences, it just isn't worth going to the trouble of building one from scratch unless you have a burr up your butt to spend the money.

Why are the barrels so hefty? Essentially, liability. Modern owners are apt to sue if a barrel blows apart in their hands because they overloaded it. Originals and Parker Hale barrels are a joy to carry and shoulder compared to an Armi or Euro. However, some putz is bound to double charge one with a thickly patched ball someday and the Armi and Euro will hold where the Parker Hale or original-contoured ones might not. A good buddy of mine bought an Armi Richmond a few year back and was playing with it, uping the charges to see what it could do over a chronograph. He got a wierd reading on one shot that he said felt strange. When he tried loading the next Minie into it, the slug stopped solid about 3/4 the way down. We had to pull the slug and clean it and still couldn't get another slug down. I pulled the breach and we found a skirt fused fast about 4" from the breach. I had to heat and chip it out. I later learned he "thought" that charge was 120 grs of "P" Pyrodex, roughly the same pressure that 155 grs of FFFg would have given him. The barrel, however, contained it even though the Minie could not.

Bob 125th NYSVI

08-03-2007, 01:26 PM

Thanks guys.

I was aware that the repo barrels are way too heavy.

I was also under the impression from the websites that the competiton shooting barrels are exactly that, barrels modified specifically for competiton shooting and not better reproductions of the originals.

If somebody can categorically state otherwise, I'd love to hear about it.

Thanks

Curt-Heinrich Schmidt

08-03-2007, 01:56 PM

Hallo!

Hmmmmm. My last reply disappeared. (May be I screwed up or it will appear later).

"I was also under the impression from the websites that the competiton shooting barrels are exactly that, barrels modified specifically for competiton shooting and not better reproductions of the originals."

Yes and no.
My friend of 30 years, Steve Jencso, used to offer repro original replacement stocks and barrels.
He would make say a M1855 or M1861 or M1863 barrel that matched the dimensions and profile of the originals- but EITHER with the Period three broad groove standard depth rifling, same twist- OR 6, 7, or 8 deep multi groove, progressive depth rifling, faster twists for the competitors that wanted them for the type bullet they were competing with.
Etc., etc.

Curt

LibertyHallVols

08-03-2007, 02:48 PM

I was under the impression that many arms of the period were progressively rifled... Specifically Enfields. Is this not correct???

fahtz

08-03-2007, 03:17 PM

One musket manufacture not mentioned is Navy Arms.

Curt-Heinrich Schmidt

08-03-2007, 04:03 PM

Hallo!

Yes... Original Enfields were progressive depth rifled, as were the "original"
(late 1970's) Parker-Hale's.

Navy Arms is an "importer" of generally Italian reproductions, rather than a "manufacturer." The Italian industry makes them, and surcharges the barrels with the "Navy Arms" info.
(Another example is Dixie Gun Works. "Uberti" will say, make a firearm line and surcharge them for the importer Dixe."

Curt

fahtz

08-03-2007, 04:12 PM

Thanks Curt. I had no idea they were importing. Just like the springfield XD I carry, not many american arms are made in america I guess!!!! :)

Craig L Barry

08-04-2007, 01:23 AM

A couple things:

First, there are presently no known reproduction barrels correctly proportioned and identical in weight to an original P-53 Enfield or US model 1861. The Armi Sport US 1842 is "close" and the old made in Birmingham Parker-Hale .577 repro P-53 barrel is also "close" (at least to an RSAF P-53).

Also, the D. Pedersoli US 1861 is reviewed in The Civil War Musket. Guess what? It is made from Euroarms parts and is identical to their own US 1861, except for final finishing by D Pedersoli. It is not identical to the original is shape, weight or anything else although most of the Euroarms lock parts will interchange with an original US 1861. This is like the "Italian made" Parker-Hales. They are not what they seem to be.

Curt is correct (as usual), Navy Arms does not "manufacture" the guns they sell. The early 70s Navy Arms were from Miroku, and now they are mostly all Euroarms. Same with Dixie Gun Works.

Prodical Reb

08-04-2007, 01:25 PM

Navy Arms does not "manufacture" the guns they sell......... and now they are mostly all Euroarms. Same with Dixie Gun Works.

Craig, I hate to disagree with such aknowledgeable fellow such as yourself, but Dixie Gun Works sells Enfields made by everyone: they have Armi-Sport, Euro Arms, Parker-Hales. They carry other mfg's as well for other models. (e.g. Sharps by Pedersoli and IAB) Along with many original parts and repro parts for numerous other rifles and other shooting accessories. I just hate paying their prices. Taylor's is the same way. They sell mostly Armi sport weapons.

I have a question concerning this topic. Does anyone know whether the Colt '61 Springfield repros made a few years ago how accurately they were made? Did Colt actually make those or were they contracted out to someone else? Would the Colt need to be de-farbed or is is good right out of the box?

Craig L Barry

08-04-2007, 05:06 PM

Yes you are right, that was an over-generalization. Dixie Gun Works does sell Armi Sport and D.Pedersoli however the "majority" of their muskets are from Euroarms, including all the new US 1861, 1863 and P-53 kits they offer. Navy Arms is mostly Euroarms and D Pedersoli. Point being of course, neither of them "manufacture" anything and the majority of the Civil War repro muskets are coming from Italy including the Parker-Hales. The Parker-Hales serial number 15000 and up (after the mid-1990s) are being made in Italy by a division of Euroarms and bear little resemblance to the original UK (Birmingham) produced version. They are not that much different except in very minor detail from the Euroarms P-53 Enfield and pale in comparison to the Birmingham made Parker Hale of the 1970s. I was fortunate to recently pick up a 70s vintage P-53 Parker-Hale, serial number 2802, in almost out of the box condition, except for a few minor scratches and bumps from moving/handling over the years. Apparently it was sitting in somebody's closet unfired for decades, like a time capsule. Anyway it is vastly superior to any of the Italian Enfields. An original LACo lock assembly dated 1861 from my collection drops right into the lock mortise and fits it like a glove. It feels like an original in your hands instead of a boat anchor. I have owned and used a couple of the UK Parker Hales in years past, but never one this pristine. I paid $500 for this one, an amount I consider ridiculously low given the quality and condition of the piece. If you can find a Birmingham made Parker-Hale P-53, my recommendation would be to buy it. It offers the greatest potential for a good Civil War Enfield after de-farbing.

The Colt Special Model 1861 repros you are inquiring about are assembled in the US from parts made in Italy. This is also covered in the "The Civil War Musket". You will find that after pulling the lock, the internal parts all interchange with Armi Sport, but not with an original Colt Special Model. The sellers were evasive about the distinction between "assembled in the USA" and "made in the USA". The giveaway on the Colt is found when you take a close look at the Armi Sport (Armi Chiappa) US 1863 "Springfield" in the A-C catalog you will immediately note the similarities between it and the "Colt Special Model". I happened to have both on hand at the time. It is identical except for a few stamping details. The gun stock in particular is not the US Model type, but rather follows the contours of the Special Model, and so on. The Colt Special Model repros are available on gunbroker.com starting at $899, for which you are essentially getting an Armi Sport US Model 1863 with "Colt" stamped on it. By the way, Taylors & Co (last time I checked) does not import the Armi Sport US Model 1863.

As far as de-farbing the Colt Special Model reproduction, the first thing would be changing the date on the lock from 1861 to 1862 or later (the first Special Models were not delivered until August 1862), refinishing the stock with boiled linseed oil and filing off the farby "Samuel Colt" autograph on the trigger guard. Not too bad, but there are much better choices for less money.

Prodical Reb

08-05-2007, 07:19 AM

Craig,
thanks for the info about the Colt Special Model 1861 and the PHs. I didn't know that about the serial numbers. I don't own a Colt repro. I've always wanted to but the cost is has prohibited owning one. Now I don't know. I do own one of DGW's 63 springfields by Miruko. That has been my old faithful since starting reenacting in mid eighties. Unfortunately I really farbed it up back then by having it chromed and brushed for ease of maintenance and looks. I've wisened up a bit since then! Now I don't know what to do with it in this condition. Very Shiny but not authentic........BTW Great buy on the PH for $500.

I'm currently over here in Bagram, Afghanistan and have shipped a '56 Tower type II to Lodgewood where it is currently getting a new stock. I hope to have it and use it at Sep Storm. The original stock was very worn down, so much so the bands were loose and 1 retaining spring didn't "retain" the band. Under the trigger guard tang where the stock is inletted for the trigger guard, it is stamped "J SWIFT POOL" . I was told the he was either the Stock maker or assembler. the ram rod channel was also made for the windsor type ramrod with the swell near the jag head.

I also bought a P60 short rifle here also. The lock is stamped "1860 Enfield" with all steel furniture(butplate, nose cap, triggerguard) Only the small eyelet for the nipple protector and chain attachment is missing. Unfortuneately both rifles are no longer rifled and both were formerly in the service of the Queen. They appear to have been bored to shotguns. I'll probably have the P60's original barrel lined to return it to shooting condition. I'm still straddling the fence about re-bluing it.

Craig L Barry

08-05-2007, 09:53 AM

I am having to do this a lot in this thread...let me re-phrase that. An original P-53 Enfield rebuilt with original and reproduction parts offers the greatest potential for a good Civil War Enfield. Any reproduction is not going to be the same or as good. You are doing what we call a "put together", both Wick and I have P-53 Enfields like this.

Take care in the Middle East and stop by The Watchdog tent at Boonsboro (Sept Storm) to say hello. Bill Osbourne (Lodgewood) will know what to and he has a large inventory of parts. Sounds like this is a type II, hardband w/ band springs? I want to hear about the outcome of your rebuilt "put together" project.

As far as your repro Dixie/Miroku US 1863, you could post it for sale here and a dozen guys would jump on it, despite it needing refinishing. The Mirokus, while slightly (and oddly) off in that Japanese way, are very popular now among the "Get It Right" crowd because the overall proportions and weight are pretty close to an original. Actually it is not that hard to reproduce "armory bright" from chrome bright. I would give it a dose of something like Birchwood-Casey blue remover (an acid) which will dull it right up, wash that off with steel wool and then start again. You could probably send our resident firearms expert Curt Heinrich Schmidt a private message as he may know of a better method for restoring the correct finish. His hands on knowledge exceeds mine, but what I've suggested will work.

Prodical Reb

08-05-2007, 11:48 AM

Craig,
Will do, I'll stop by and say "Howdy!". I dont want to miss this event. I'll be home on R&R and our unit has over 100 registered. That and the fact that for once the US will out number the CS. This was done by limiting the CS Registration. 800 CS and 1200 US is the goal.I know the CS has been reached and was pretty close on the US. I'll also be participating in the AP Hill preservation march. Harpers Ferry to Sharpsburg on Thursday and Friday.
The '56 is getting the stock and ramrod replaced. The rammer wasn't correct but will be, it should turn out nice. While it may be considered a "bitser" as some would say it, it will serve the purpose quite well. It was all original except for the ramrod when I bought it. It does has solid bands with retaining springs. These were bought by both Union and Confederate armies as this was a 2nd rate weapon by the Brits at this time.
The '63 Springfield was brushed by a wire wheel after chroming looks like armory finish. and still looks pretty darn good after 20 plus years of service. While I was in HI my brother in law used my gear. I got him hooked into the hobby and had to feed his habit.

Todd Watts

08-08-2007, 03:49 PM

I was just browsing at the Gunrunner site http://www.gunrunnerauctions.com/ and they are selling an 1862 dated Enfield which they claim has the Confederate "anchor" on the lock plate. I can't tell by the pictures attached if they do or not. I did see an original on the internet a year or so ago that had a distinct JS over anchor mark on the lock plate of an Enfield. This one they are selling is not the same one I saw because its condition is far worse. It appears that it was done in at least a very limited number of instances but "why" I can't be sure.

Craig L Barry

08-08-2007, 10:58 PM

Stock engraving, too. That should make you happy. Two for one.

jhodnett

08-09-2007, 03:38 PM

Here are some pics of my Barnett Enfield that I purchased from James River.

CJ Roberts

08-09-2007, 04:16 PM

Jeff,

Very nice looking rifle. The hammer looks particularly good. Do you happen to know if this is the so called "fat hammer" that JRA is producing? It looks heavier than the standard Euroarms/Armisport hammers.

C.J. Roberts

Craig L Barry

08-09-2007, 06:11 PM

That is indeed the more accurate repro "fat" hammer. JRA offers them for both Armi Sport and EOA models. The London hammer is unmarked as in the example above. The Birmingham version has the double line engraving around the perimeter and "flames" extending down the nose. A real improvement to the overall appearance.

jhodnett

08-09-2007, 06:26 PM

From what Mark told me at James River the hammer is actually from a run of M1861 Special Models that was done a while back and I am pretty pleased with it. Overall I am very happy with the weapon. Thank you for your comments.

Craig L Barry

08-10-2007, 04:55 PM

Yes, that is absolutely true. The Colt Special Model of 1861 hammer is virtually identifical to the Potts & Hunt London gunmaker hammer and there is a very good reason for that similarity.

Joe Walker

08-10-2007, 05:58 PM

Jeff-

Remember back to the 125th era when most of the 20th Tenn carried originals? I carried and 1862 Springfield or an 1842 and didn't worry about this stuff.

Joe Walker

jhodnett

08-13-2007, 10:38 AM

It sure would be nice to have those weapons Joe. But for now I think I'll be happy with my repop Enfield.

rogue

08-13-2007, 11:31 AM

Seems as fall approaches the Way Back Machine (a phrase that means little unless you are of a certain age) is in full operation.
Because the only repros that were available at the time were Zouaves and 1863 Springfields from Val Forgett, I carried a original Colt produced P-53 Enfield at the 125th Shiloh, Gettysburg and Franklin. The Parker-Hale 3 band was just introduced, but at near $300.00, it was too expensive for most to afford. I bought that long barreled Enfield for $45.00 when I was in grade school, and even factoring in inflation it was not too bad a deal. I still have it, a right handsome piece of work.
AC people today have such a wide variety of weaponry (and uniforms and accoutrements) to chose from, I certainly hope that this variety is appreciated. Back in the day we had to really work at trying to get it right.
I fell in with the 33rd Wisconsin and Don Rademacher later, and we were poster children for the way things should have been (save for my 20th century tummy).
The authentics of today have, I hope, benefitted from those who started in this hobby when the Cold War was hot, a dollar was a meaningful item, and Reagan was in the White House.
Steve Sullivan
knew the Rock brothers and Scott Cross in the olde days...

Curt-Heinrich Schmidt

08-13-2007, 12:10 PM

Hallo!

We see as far as we do because we stand on the shoulders of giants .

Curt
Mr. Peabody Mess

Craig L Barry

08-13-2007, 12:15 PM

A few still walk the earth. We just lost Howie Maddaus. Off the subject, sorry. May be a subject for a new thread...

Curt-Heinrich Schmidt

08-13-2007, 12:38 PM

Hallo!

Indeed!

Here's to Howard, who taught me most of what I know about the U.S. M1855 series of arms.
(and who filled up closet of mine with Troiani prints..)

Curt

Craig L Barry

08-14-2007, 12:39 PM

The subject of this thread is the recurring theme of at least one book, and other articles/essays on this subject but I'm not even sure where to begin here. Let me start with...

1. The Italian reproduction P-53 is the most over-represented firearm, as well as being one of the least correct "out of the box" in the US Civil War enactment hobby. This point is beyond serious debate. There is a cottage industry dedicated solely to making historical feature or "accuracy modifications" to (de-farbing) this model.

2. Re: Mr Daley's post on 250,000 Italian repro P-53s reportedly sold by a field merchant. To add to Paul Calloway's skepticism on the reliability of that figure...Serial numbers on the barrel of reproduction firearms give excellent insight into the number of firearms produced and sold over the course of the last 20 to 25 years as they are progressively numbered in a linear fashion, meaning 10,001 followed by 10,002 and so on. As far as I know none of the Italian manufacturers are beyond the low-to-mid five figures (ie: 30,000s) yet for any model.

3. When Geoff Walden was an Assistant Editor and wrote for The Watchdog he provided product feedback and received a commitment from Euroarms president Paolo Amali to make suggested improvements to their P-53 based on the information in his excellent monograph "Authenticizing Your Reproduction Enfield". That mongraph first written in 1985, and updated at various points in time was and still remains the baseline research on the subject for the Civil War enactment community. This "commitment" from Euroarms was 13 or 14 years ago now. I discussed much the same topic with both Taylors & Co as US importers for Armi-Chiappa (Armi Sport) and Euroarms of America while doing research for a book (The Civil War Musket) a few years ago, with the same promises made by both manufacturers and the same lack of results. Bottom line: DO NOT HOLD YOUR BREATH FOR A BETTER ITALIAN MADE REPRODUCTION P-53. And don't feel obligated to buy one. There are alternatives.

4. Two band rifles are very much under-represented in the hobby. Most here would probably agree with me that the Watchdog publication Columbia Rifles Research Compendium 2nd Edition is a very good one volume book on the AoP. However, one criticism that has been brought to our attention is that readers could well conclude from the firearms section that the soldiers in the AoP were solely armed with 3 band muskets and rifle-muskets. Of course, nothing could be further from the truth. For example, when General US Grant called up the Heavy Artillery units to reinforce the infantry during the 1864 Overland Campaign, they marched out of Washington, DC armed with US 1841 percussion rifles.

In terms of total numbers of US 1841s there were many, many more than 30,000 produced. There were 25,000 US 1841 rifles produced alone on contract from Robbins & Lawrence, not including 20,000 from Remington, 22,500 from Whitneyville and 25, 296 from the US Armory at Harpers Ferry. If my math is right, this adds up to 92,296. There was also a small contract of 5,000 made by Tryon of Philadelphia, 1,000 of which were sent to Texas. Additionally there were Confederate copies of the US 1841 pattern being produced throughout the war by various southern contractors like Mendenhall, Jones & Gardner, J.P. Murray and Dixon, Nelson & Company. A rough estimate could conservatively be made at 100,000 US 1841s and variants available and in use during the US Civil War. The 9th VA carried their US 1841s to the high water mark of the Confederacy at Gettysburg during Pickett's Charge. Jim Mayo may want to chime in with any details I may have missed there. There are a number of examples of contractor produced and CS copy US 1841s in The Fuller Gun Collection at CHCH (Chickamauga/Chattanooga) National Battlefield Museum.

There is a very decent reproduction of the US 1841 percussion rifle made by Euroarms. It is certainly a better reproduction "out of the box" than the P-53s, however it is in the minority. The two band reproduction Enfield rifle is actually what would have been called a "Naval Rifle", but even of that model it is not a very good reproduction. The 1862-1863 Remington Contract Rifles (modern nicknamed Zouave) are completely anachronistic, having spent the war years unissued, gathering dust in Watervliet Arsenal. And there are numerous two band rifles for which there are no reproduction offered, ie: US 1855 rifles (Harpers Ferry), Fayetteville rifles and so on.

5. My comrade Tom Ezell has previously shared information suggesting that it is the distance of the bolster from the ear drum of the front rank soldier soldier that dictates the "safety" of two band rifles when used by the rear rank. I think the key distance was 13 inches? Anyway, it has nothing to do with the number of barrel bands. This is just a myth or some form of "mainstream" misinformation that allegedly originated in an attempt to exclude the use of the aforementioned anachronistic "Zouave" rifles. Who knows? There should be no issues for those who do NPS living histories and/or EFUBU.

6. Lastly, isn't the real issue on firearm choice the "historical accuracy" of the overall impression? As Charles Heath indicated, this information is often provided in conjunction with other specifics about the event. Even if not provided, this kind of information isn't a mystery. For example, An Introduction to Civil War Small Arms by Coates & Thomas has an appendix on what units were issued particular firearms. Another good source is Todds Military Equipage. Shouldn't the final decision on what arms to use be based on what was originally issued to the unit being portrayed at the time of the event, to the extent that is possible? Granted, it depends on the unit and theater of war, but as an over-generalization it can often be accomplished with a smoothbore musket for early war, and whatever rifle or rifle-musket was issued later. As Todd Watts points out, the unit we both normally fall in with was issued a variety of "US" smoothbore muskets (models not specified) early in the war, and by April 1862, P-53 Enfields. Arguably, it could be harder for others and some compromises are probably necessary. And if that's the case, in the interest of some balance, consider another choice besides an Enfield.

Or I could be missing the boat again.

1stMaine

08-14-2007, 01:36 PM

Comrade Barry,

For what it's worth, when the 1st Maine Heavy Artillery was called up in '64, they were carrying Enfield rifle-muskets.

The 7th Maine, however, DID use M1841's until they were mustered out in mid of '64. They wre some of the contract ones made in Windsor, Vt.

The 4th Maine carried Austrian .54 calibre rifles from dec of 1861 until they, too, were mustered out in 64.

Respects,

Craig L Barry

08-14-2007, 03:44 PM

Tim:

Great point and as stated, an over-generalization by me. My thought there could have been made clearer as it wasn't only the specific usage of US 1841s by those Maine units. Though it is interesting to me that twenty years after their introduction, these fine rifles were still far from obsolete. Rather, what I was trying to get at there was that in the context of "other than three-band muskets/rifle-muskets", two-banders like the US 1841s were in fairly wide use even late in the war. IE: The Heavy Artillery units called to back up the infantry in 1864, though obviously not all of the units.

The broader point of the thread is most important. The lack of well made, correctly prorportioned and historically accurate reproduction firearms is a particularly grating aspect of the hobby, and lags behind the progress made in other areas like uniforms and accoutrements. And by association the repro Enfield is over-represented and it is not a panacea for every impression. It would be great if we could move past the "I can only afford one gun, so I got an Enfield" perspective. There are better ways to approach the purchasing decision of this major expense item, including the realization that one particular firearm may not meet the requirements of every scenario, and an Enfield may not be a good choice.

When other aspects of 1860s material culture are over-represented in the hobby, the reaction of the progressive segment is normally toward "balance" as in the recent discussions on canteen covers. I like what Justin Runyon recently posted on that thread "To expand, the argument that I generally hear is that blue covers are merely over represented among the mainstream of the hobby. Hence you see many on our side of things eschew blue covers to balance things out."

It would be great if "those on our side of things" took that same approach w/ respect to the over-represented P-53 Enfield.

Curt-Heinrich Schmidt

08-14-2007, 04:48 PM

Hallo!

"It would be great if "those on our side of things" took that same approach w/ respect to the over-represented P-53 Enfield."

I almost said:

It would be great if "those on their side of things" took that same approach w/ respect to the over-represented P-53 Enfield 4th Model.

But didn't. (just back from five miles around the lake in the heat and humidity and not thinking...) ;) :)

Seriously, I drift back and forth. Do we "really' need a four gun "golf bag" of say M822 percussion conversion, U.S. M1842, U.S. M1861 Springfield, or British P1853 3rd Model Enfield to be "representatively effective?'
Or would one say $1500-2000 correct custom built gun or an original one fully "restored to CW appearance" be the truely "Hardcore/Authentic" Segment way to go? Or if so, what gun then??
Or has the tail evolved to wag the dog? (I think it has...)

Curt

Craig L Barry

08-14-2007, 05:29 PM

Herr Kammeraden:

Good dialog here. A golf bag for all the muskets, I like that analogy. That would work for me. Like most things in the hobby, the level of commitment is variable, even among this segment. We may like to think otherwise. At the risk of over-generalizing on the material culture aspect, if one choses to "Get It Right" the correct choices depend on the known equipment of the unit being portrayed. The baseline should be "what was originally used by the soldiers in that unit" to the extent that is possible. This is the accepted standard in other aspects of the CPH impression. The necessary information is available with a minimum of research. If it is more than one model of rifle or musket and none of them were an Enfield, well...at least pick one of the historically correct models.

One of my favorite ironies with the "out of the box" reproduction Enfield, is that (as you state) being copies of the RSAF fourth type (*) they have no known US Civil War provenance. You coined a term that fit so well, I think it was in the chapter you wrote in the CRRC..was it retro-verting? In other words, back dating the repro to the correct third type commercial P-53.

It is not the tail wagging the dog to acknowledge that there are Too Many Enfields in use. There are and it is fairly easy to address, ie: don't buy one unless it fits your impression.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(*) Actually the Italians copied not an original P-53, but the reproduction RSAF P-53 fourth type Parker-Hale that was produced in Birmingham, even copying the mistakes like the offset top swivel. Now there's another good reason to pick something other than a reproduction of the wrong reproduction.

Curt-Heinrich Schmidt

08-14-2007, 07:57 PM

Hallo!

An excellent point on the Italians kinda/sorta "copying" the Parker-Hale RSAF repro of the mid '70's- I haven't seen that posted in quite some time!

Geben Sie mir bitte ein.... von Dreyse "Needle Gun" (Zündnadelgewehr)

If the unit, time, and place of my Impression du Jour had them, we would have used them.
Just kidding! ;) :)

Curt
Ripe de Bois Mess

Who is adding one U.S. M1841 Rifle to the Hobby by selling an 1855 Harpers Ferry conversion to M1855 Rifle long range rear sight and 1854 short front band.

Craig L Barry

08-14-2007, 08:31 PM

All that said, of course I do have a couple P-53s in my closet. Obviously, me and Wick, who started this thread and has one of the most historically accurate and beautifully crafted P-53 "put togethers" I have ever seen, should use our Enfields. Todd Watts, too since the unit we portray was issued P-53s. However, the rest of you boys need to go ahead and get something else in the interest of "balance". Fair enough?

Ironically, beside both having P-53 "put togethers", Wick and I also have the exact same early war smoothbore musket, the D. Pedersoli repro US 1816 cone-in-drum conversion. Now what are the odds of that?

1stMaine

08-14-2007, 09:18 PM

Craig,

Oh, things can get really interesting if you truly want to go with the unit/time specific portrayal stuff. I'm not picking here, just making an observation. I refer to the 3rd Maine infantry a lot, because I have a huge amount of data on it. Eventually, I'll finish their regimental history, but for now, there's only one chapter and some sections completed. More or less...

But I digress. The 3rd Maine went off to war carrying those same M1816 w/Belgian conversions that you and wick have. Around December, the 4 flank companies were given .54 Belgian rifles. These were roundly retested by the men. Shrtly thereafter, these .54 Belgians were taken back, and the entire regiment was issued with either M1855 or M1861 rifle-muskets. These they carried until the end of their enlistment.

The 4th Maine also had state-issued conversions of the M1816 muskets, and when the 3rd was given the new-issue Springfields, the 4th got the .54 Belgian rifles, which they also carried until muster out.

The 7th Maine carried the Windsor pattern M1841 throughout it's enlistment, and when 5 companies of the reenlisted men, along with the reenlisted men of the 5th & 6th Maine were formed into the 1st Maine Veteran Volunteers in July, 1864, they were all issued with newly-made Springfields. My supposition is that these were M1863 patterns based upon period references as to the rifle-muslets being "brand new".

The 20th Maine left the State with Enfield rifles, but detested them. After their engagement at Little Round Top, the 20th "lost" their enfields and replaced them with Springfield rifle-muskets salvaged from the ground(s) around them.

So, depending upon the unit & time frame, one may as well end up with a "golf bag" of long arms... sigh..... I need another source of income. :D

Respects,

Craig L Barry

08-14-2007, 10:11 PM

Tim

Sadly, I just found out via private message that Wick and I do not both have the same US 1816, his is a Belgian conversion...and mine is the Colt style "cone in drum". Still quite a coincidence.

Yes! The 20th Maine 1863 diary excerpt from William Livermore..."July 4th. Weather cloudy. We went out and picked up Springfields and left our Enfields. Nearly everyone did so." You know, we don't see all that much of this particular form of historical interpretation going on these days do we...Civil War enactors discarding their Enfields and picking up Springfields or anything else for that matter? Reinforces the point of the thread in a way. There is a strong and deep seated interest with the P-53 Enfield w/in the hobby, some (self included) would say to the point of obvious over-representation. And it is not the initial slight cost advantage. It is very well known that the P-53 repro "out of the box" isn't very good and will require a couple hundred dollars in accuracy modifications to be passable.

So why is that? What is there about the P-53 in particular that inspires this strong preference, even among a group of enthusiasts who really should (and probably do) know better? I have some theories...

fowler1861

08-22-2007, 08:35 AM

I own two 53 enfields, a 61 tower with "rack" numbers on buttplate and a 63 marked E Bond in oval on stock with an anchor with an s over it on the top of the stock just in front of the butt plate. The Bond musket also has the initials js very small on the lock plate. Does any one know what the anchor s and the js stand for?

Todd Watts

09-11-2007, 02:13 PM

I read someplace (and it may have been from Mr. Barry) that it is believed that the "JS" was the initials of "James Smiles" or something similar who was a London Armory inspector, contracted by a State in the South to inspect and purchase arms. His JS anchor stamp is seen on Enfields as well as on some European revolvers. But, it is probably impossible to know for sure that this was the guy. We have put that "conjecturism" onto the de-farb page at The Blockade Runner's site just to give a bit more trivia for potential customers. On the S and anchor stamp, I hear from Mr. Prince that there is a new book in the works that has more info on this stamp which is considered an even more rare Confederate contract stamp. I am now reproducing the E.Bond with the S anchor stamp that Mr. Prince recently had posession of. I like the E.Bond stamp best of all of mine. It is a pretty mark.

Craig L Barry

09-11-2007, 03:23 PM

Educated guess would be...I C = Isaac Curtis.

riptailedroarer

09-11-2007, 04:02 PM

My guess would be Inspected Condemned and then sold for export. Of course that is just a guess.

When British government arms were unfit for service and sold into the public market, a new broard arrow was stamped opposite the exsisting one to make a mark like this -><-
hope this is of help.

Just found this in arms & equipment of the British army, 1866

"Rifle muskets made at the Royal Small Arms Factory are distinguished by the word [I]Enfield[I] engraved on the lock-plate, and have their corresponding parts exactly identical in size and interchangeable.
Those made on the same principle by the London Armory Company have L.A.C on the lock-plate.
Rifle muskets manufactured by contract have the word TOWER on the lock-plate.
All rifles belonging to the government are marked with a crown and the letters V.R., besides a small crown and broad arrow on the lock-plate and barrel."

Slouch

10-03-2007, 12:28 PM

Hi folks,

I would love to see some pics of James River's defarbed Enfields. Using the search function, I did find pics of a Barnett. Id like to see their Tower lockplate and any of the contractor lockplates.

Thanks in advance to anyone willing to share their pics with me.

Mike

CJ Roberts

10-12-2007, 02:23 PM

Mike,

I was reluctant to post this photo because it is not a stock JRA. While it is a JRA degarbed Armisport, I have refinished the stock, replaced the hammer and trigger with originals. It will give you an idea of the London lock plate markings however, which is what it sounds like you are seeking. The lock plate compares quite favorably with an original Potts & Hunt in my collection. Hope this is helpful.

Sincerely,

C.J. Roberts

Slouch

10-12-2007, 05:09 PM

thanks! Im mainly interested in seeing the different lockplates they offer. The Potts & Hunt stamp looks really good. I think I like it better than the Barnett I saw. The Barnett didnt match the script Ive seen on originals, though I know there are variations.

Was it difficult swaping the repro hammer out for the original?

CJ Roberts

10-12-2007, 05:31 PM

I got very lucky. The orignal hammer, which by the way did not come close to fiting on my Euroarms Enfield, fit just fine. As you may be able to see in the photo, the hammer does not strike the nipple exactly on center, but it is very close and functions just fine. The original trigger was surprisly easy to install. As you know, it's always a gamble when installing original Enfield parts.

C.J. Roberts

CJ Roberts

10-12-2007, 05:34 PM

When I have a few minutes, I'll email a side by side comparison of the repro P&H and an original P&H for your comparison.

CJ Roberts

10-12-2007, 05:51 PM

Here's a side by side comparison between a JRA Potts & Hunt (top) and an original (bottom). Hope this is helpful.

Jimmayo

10-12-2007, 10:30 PM

Mr. Roberts: Nice job! Did you take the flame grooves off of the original hammer? I couldn't tell from the picture.

This points out another strike against the Euro Arms repro. The original hammers will not fit. I have one and have been unable to find a plain hammer that will fit.

Here is a pic of a P&H bar on band lock with the engraved lines.

Craig L Barry

10-12-2007, 11:20 PM

CJ:
Wow, that is a pretty nice original Potts & Hunt! JRA borrowed a lock assy in my collection for their LACo 1861. I saw one of their repros at Mill Springs (at Regtqm) and the markings were slightly higher on the lock plate than on my original lock plate. Not sure how that happened. The JRA Potts & Hunt is very decent, though. Did JRA blue vs case color the lock plate or are my eyes playing tricks on me?

Jim:
Barnett was the Eli Whitney of the British gun trade. Yes, there were variations in their lock plate lettering. Barnett is the gunmaker that ocassionally put "TOWER" under the crown behind the hammer. The "Barnett Gunmaker" stock stamp is cool looking, too.You are also right about the EoA Enfield, there is only so much you can do with that one. And they weigh a ton. Original hammers may or may not work well. Mostly not. The problem is they often don't quite reach the cone on the repro.

I was in the middle of doing my most recent acquisition (a mint mid-70s Parker-Hale P-53) as a LACo 1861, and planned to use that original lock of mine in it, which fits in there like a glove. In fact, I had been saving that LAC lock for just that purpose, hoping one day to find a worthy P-H to put it in. Decided against it after seeing Todd Watts new "E Bond" Birmingham. Zing went the strings to my heart.

MassVOL

10-13-2007, 08:43 AM

Has anyone had the opportunity to compare the Peter Dyson Ltd, and Blockade Runner Enfield Combination tool to an original?

CJ Roberts

10-13-2007, 09:00 AM

Jim: Fortunately I was able to find an original unengraved hammer. It's probably odd logic, but I purchased a London maker reproduction because it matched the hammer I already had, as opposed to buying the gun first and then trying to find a hammer. I took a gamble that it would fit. I got very lucky. BTW, the JRA came with a standard Armisport engraved hammer even though the lock was not engraved. I'm not sure why JRA is not taking the time to at least grind the engraving off the hammers so that they match the London lock plates.

Craig: I can see how you would think the lock plate is blued. It isn't, but the colors in the case hardening are very weak, almost a solid gray. I think this is something that I would like to have redone at some point.

My biggest frustration with this piece and all the Armisport Enfields is the shape of the bolster. My frustration is particularly compounded by the fact that the bolster on my Euroarms Enfield looks much better, in spite of the thicker and heavier barrel. I haven't figured out how to fix this yet. I welcome any one else's thoughts on the subject.

FlatLandFed

10-13-2007, 09:04 AM

Seek out this man:

Tim Prince
Member CWDCA (The Civil War Dealers & Collectors Association)

at

collegehillarsenal.com

Regards,
Paul Hadley

BrianHicks

10-13-2007, 09:49 AM

Has anyone had the opportunity to compare the Peter Dyson Ltd, and Blockade Runner Enfield Combination tool to an original?

The Blockaderunner tool, compares extremely well to an original. Now... if they'd do the same for Sgts. tool.

Craig L Barry

10-13-2007, 09:51 AM

Good news. Regt Quartermaster has an Enf Sgt's tool for $39, the one with the mainspring vice on the post, and it is a good quality tool with a deep blue/black finish. It functions well except the worm is incorrect (they said they will switch it out). I bought one at Mill Springs to evaluate for a future article, and used it to completely tear down an Enfield when I got back from the event. That one is coming with me to events.

I have the Blockade Runner Enf Pvt tool as well. The metal (mild steel) is not quite hard enough to for the intended purpose of tearing down the rifle-musket, the screw driver blade bends under the requisite pressure to remove some of the screws, but the other parts function well enough like the worm and cone wrench. I am not familiar with the Peter Dyson, Ltd version.

Craig L Barry

10-13-2007, 10:06 AM

This was a point of discussion with Mark Hartman (JRA) a few years back so I am pleased that he is now case coloring the lock plates. As you state the plain lock should accompany an unadourned (as Geoff Walden put it) hammer. I had a Potts & Hunt they did for me and the hammer was plain. I have to assume this detail slipped by. A Colt Special Model hammer makes a good hammer for a Potts & Hunt because they were business partners of sorts. It will fit.

If you are talking about the "snail" you can carefully re-shape that part of the bolster with a moto-dremel tool. The problems with the Armi Sport bolster do not end with the cosmetics.

Stonewall_Greyfox

10-13-2007, 11:33 AM

Anyone know what kind of steel is on the BR tool? I'm wondering if it couldn't be heat-treated and hardened?

Paul

BrianHicks

10-13-2007, 11:45 AM

I've been using one of Tim Princes Repros (which were made in partnership with the Blockaderunner) for about four years now. I've never encountered the issues that Barry described above.

Craig L Barry

10-13-2007, 11:48 AM

Try using the screw driver blade to remove a stubborn screw and see what happens. Although Brian has a point in that I have bent and broken the blade on other (modern) screw drivers in removing stubborn screws. This happens when you work on old guns sometimes. It could be the nature of how I have used the tool. Your experiences may vary and Brian reports no problems. I would still say the Regt QM Enf Sgt tool is the better made of the two.

I do know this...The Tim Prince/BR Enf Pvt tool is made in India. I am going to assume that the metal used has the same properties as the low carbon (mild) steel they use in the repro bayonets that we all treasure so much. If you heat treated the tool (which is a very good idea) that would add carbon which should harden the metal, I don't see why that wouldn't work. We do it on the soft repro Italian gun parts all the time. Let me hasten to add I am no metallurgist, but I like that idea. The BR tool looks very accurate to the original, and if it were made more functional it would be a winner. I use mine for a cone wrench, vent pick, etc... just not the screw driver appendage.

BrianHicks

10-13-2007, 11:51 AM

BrianHicks

10-13-2007, 12:31 PM

I have, and had no problems with it. Perhaps the original run of those tools were a better quality?

The Sgts tool I posted above, is an original I am fortunate enough to have acquired. It is a Model No. 4 which began being manufactured in 1859 and was replaced by the No. 5 which began being produced in 1861. The difference between the No. 4 and No. 5, is the length of the main shaft.

Edwin Carl Erwin

10-13-2007, 12:44 PM

For the past year I've used the Enfield Sergeant's combination musket tool from Track of the Wolf www.trackofthewolf.com with success.

Regards,

BrianHicks

10-13-2007, 12:58 PM

Regarding the 'Y' shaped Sergeants Combination tool for the Enfield. I have seen a few of those reproduced, but I am not familiar with the 'Y' shaped Sgts tool with regards to when it was originally produced/used.

MassVOL

10-13-2007, 01:35 PM

I picked up a sergeant’s tool from someone at the NSSA Nationals a couple of years ago and had some similar problems. The worm wasn’t quite right and in setting it next to an original the difference in shape etc jumped right out at you. I have purchased an extra worm from Blockade Runner and will see if that one will fit on it. I have also purchased the private’s tool from Blockade Runner and want to compare it with an original private's tool when I get home but I was curious about the Peter Dyson tool as a Sergeants tool. Coming in at 50 pounds sterling I would like to know something about it before I bought it and whether it was much of an improvement over the currently available Sergeants tool I already am dithering with.

Craig L Barry

10-13-2007, 02:38 PM

Threads are different. The arm has to be re-threaded for the right worm

FlaYankee

10-13-2007, 06:27 PM

Mike; did you get the pics I sent you via email?
Regards

Joe Walker

10-13-2007, 08:01 PM

Years ago Parker Hale supplied their version of the"Y" shaped sgt's tool with their 2-band Enfield and possibly their artillery musketoon. I have one, and most likely their are some floating around.

Joe Walker

Craig L Barry

10-13-2007, 08:04 PM

The one pictured on the Track of the Wolf website looks like the one Regt QM has. Y shaped. Note the tiny worm...that's the one.

BrianHicks

10-14-2007, 01:59 AM

The 'Y' shaped Sergeants Combination tool was the first model of the Sgts Combination Tool and was produced for the 1853 Enfield from 1853 to 1855, then was replaced by the 'T' shaped tool. The 'T' shaped tool went through a few Models, with each progressive model being produced with a slightly shorter central shaft piece.

With the 'Y' shaped tool being produced for only two years, and that being at the very beginning of the 1853 production, I would dare to say that it's presence over here during the Civil War might have been very limited, while the 'T' shaped tool would have been far more prevalent.

The problem is of course... no one is reproducing eh 'T' shaped tool. Only the 'Y' shaped tool is available as a reproduction.

27thNCdrummer

10-14-2007, 10:05 AM

Pards,

Does anybody have an opinion on who is best at defarbing a musket?

Does anybody know of anyone that could defarb it over the course of an event weekend?

CJ Roberts

10-14-2007, 04:52 PM

Craig: You've sparked my curiosity. You mentioned that the problems with the Armisport's bolster go beyond cosmetics. Having only snapped a cap and not yet fired my Armisport Enfield, I am curious if you were referring to performance as well as cosmetic issues.

Also, while one could thin the snail section of the bolster, it appears that the "tail of the snail" extends too far into the "drum" area immediately below the nipple. In other words, while there is too much metal on part of the bolster, there is too little in other areas. Very frustrating.

MassVOL

10-15-2007, 03:47 PM

Thanks for all the comments.
I checked out Track the Wolf and they actually have two versions of the Sergeants tool, one that is called Parker Hale and one that is just called a Combo tool. Both are "y" shaped and the same picture is used for both. The reply I got back was that the Parker Hale tool was one of those that were produced in the 70's when Parker Hale made their guns. I have heard great things about the Parker Hale Enfield, but not so much feedback on their tool.

As for the style of tool perhaps someone more read in on the McRae papers could comment. The Horse Soldier has been known to sell both types, but with what frequency of the type I don’t know.

Stonewall_Greyfox

10-15-2007, 03:53 PM

I wonder...if the T-shaped tools are more appropriate over the Y-shaped tools, why haven't we pushed to have these produced? What sort of cost would be involved in producing this?

I am not advocating doing this myself, but would the community support the developement of the "percieved" more common tool type? If so, who would we work with in this project? Understanding we would need an original to copy, someone to produce the tool, and the capital to back it up.

Paul

FlaYankee

10-15-2007, 04:05 PM

I purchased a fine Enfield Tool from Tim Prince a couple of years back when they were advertised on this board. Before that I was using a Parker Hale tool that I purchased from Lodgewood many years before.
Tim's tool is dead on accurate and functional, which I was extremely happy about.
The Parker Hale tool, and very soft metal is no longer used by this party, and is sitting in a box somewhere.
A pard in my unit saw me using the TP 'privates" tool in the field and showed me the one he purchased from Blockade Runner. Nearly identical, except he kept having problems with the soft metal on his. Needless to say he was quite p.o.'d.
Nice to see that Tim made a tool that was accurate and functional!:tounge_sm
Hopefully Blockade Runner has fixed the problem with their gun tool.
Kindest Regards

Civilwardude22

10-16-2007, 08:21 PM

I bought an Enfield from blockade runner and the defarb was excellent. Call them and ask for Todd

John Ramone

yipper

10-16-2007, 08:32 PM

Gents,

For those of you who have been able to compare the Blockade Runner’s “Enfield musket private’s tool”(private’s tri-armed nipple wrench) with an original, how does the size of the worm compare?

I have one of the early production models. The screwdriver blade was too large to fit any of the Enfield screws and I had to file it down and re-blue it. The “pricker” or vent prick retaining screw was massively over tightened and had to be loosened.

The base of the worm on the reproduction is .55 in (1.4 cm) in diameter and .49 in (1.25 cm) in height. The diameter of the base provides a fairly snug fit within the bore and prevents using a patch in combination with the worm for cleaning the barrel. A few of us discussed this situation a while back (pre-latest crash) in regards to the difference in official firearm cleaning techniques between the British and American manuals, but the lack of access to an original to verify dimensions precluded any sort of conclusion.

So, can any of you provide measurements from an original?

Thanks,

geoffrey lehmann

Tom Ezell

10-17-2007, 11:21 AM

I've had one of the Blockade Runner Y-shaped Enfields tools for about three years now... and have noted exactly the same thing that Mr. Lehmann did. As it came in the mail, the screwdriver thing didn't fit any screw on my ArmiSport Enfield, nor my pard's EuroArms, nor my other pard's original Enfields. The edge of the blade was simply cast too wide, and required a bit of work with a bastard file to thin it down enough to engage the screw slots.

The wiper was sized just enough to slide snugly down the bore, but will not fit wit a cloth patch of any size.

The cone wrench did work.

Don't try to keep your armor oil in the little bottle, unless you want to add a little extra water-proofing to certain spots of your clothing.

Beyond that, it did look cool as all heck... I just need to carry a separate wiper and cone pick in addition to the "issue" tool.

Stonewall_Greyfox

10-17-2007, 11:49 AM

Curt-Heinrich Schmidt

10-17-2007, 02:55 PM

Hallo!

The first "Y" combination tool was the Parker-Hale Pattern No. 1 Sergeant's Wrench (Combination Tool), which IMHO was no up to the standards of the Parker-Hale "Enfield' line.
IMHO, it was costume jewelry and not intended to be functional- just decorative.

Historically, the Pattern No 1 Privates', and Pattern Number 1 Sergeants' Wrench were roughly 1855-1858. (This gets messy as the Pattern dates seem to overlap as there was no apparent Pattern No. 2 and the Pattern No. 3's ("T" tool with dismounting arm) also came out in 1855.

Someone, I forget, made a semi-decent Pattern No. 1 Privates' tool (I recall) about ten plus years ago or so. But it was color case hardened, which could be stripped and oil-quenched blackened and a leather "gasket" or "seal" made for the oil resevoir....

And yes, as shared, the "Y" tool I see sold now suffers from too narrow a screw driver blade and arm, as well as an undersized wiper.
(And yes, the Italian repro "Enfields" seem to suffer from too narrow a screw slot on their screws, particularly the lock plate screws... IMHO, it is better to widen the slot, than narrow the screwdriver blade).

Curt

Rob

10-17-2007, 07:30 PM

I purchased one of the Y-shaped tools from Track of the Wolf. My advice? Don't bother.

It won't fit in the cartridge box's tool pouch, and my musket wrench, oil bottle, worm, and cone pick together don't weigh as much as this monstrosity does. Plus, the screw which secures the cone pick to the main body goes into the oil cavity, so, unless you want to take the trouble to seal the threads with JB Weld, you cannot carry oil in it. It now has a permanent place in my toolbox - at home.

Cyclesmith

10-19-2007, 03:49 AM

Pards,

Does anybody have an opinion on who is best at defarbing a musket?

Does anybody know of anyone that could defarb it over the course of an event weekend?

I think like anything it is a matter of experience and preference. Personally I like Lodgewood Mfg... well known in defarbing and many people (even in this forum) have used them. Personally I use them because I live only 30 mins away (please note being a Midwesterner I measure distance in time...LOL) and that makes it even easier to deal with them because I can pick-up my orders when done and they frequent many of the local events here, which is nice. So if you can find a person that does quality defarbing close to you I highly recommend it... if not... bite the bullet and pay for shipping.

As far as time-line to do a defarbing project it depends on the level of defarbing you want to do. Without knowing the type of musket you have I am speaking generally, noting that most often people are defarbing Enfields. If your looking at doing a really basic defarb...aka stripping the blueing, replacing the bands and swivels, strip the finish etc… you can do that yourself with the purchase of a few parts and a couple of hours of work on the weekend. If your looking at a full defarb… replacing the lock, band, swivels, rear sight and screw escutcheons… recontour the stock… relocate the modern marks and replace with period stamps…etc. your talking a couple hundred bucks (assuming you already own the musket) and a lot of work that should only be done by a pro. Typically I expect to wait about a month. My last musket I ordered took longer because the musket had to be ordered and a fairly extensive defarbing just after that… in all took about 3 months to get it… but well worth it. It really all depends if they have what you need in stock, and how many other project their working on.