The Monster Enfield Defarbing Thread

[27VA]

I know this is was in the archives but i cant seem to find it. Long discussions and opinions on who performed the defarb and to what extent it was done. where can I find that old post or does anyone have any new input?


Shawn Stern
27VA
ssterndo@netscape.net

[major]

Post is being discussed between the moderators - Mike Chapman

[Bill Cross]

I was overall very happy with the job that Lodgewood does, despite a lingering problem with the front site/bayonet lug that took several months to get solved. The folks at Lodgewood were certainly patient and pleasant throughtout it all, and the product is outstanding.

One problem in the past with the Company Quartermaster was the arm was issued bright. While there is some argument about whether these arms were bright or blued, the evidence I've seen cited points to a preponderance of blued Enfields.

Bluing is more of a hassle than anything serious, and having tried both the Brownell's and Laurel Mountain methods, I will say the latter wins hands down, both for evenness of quality and ease of application (the Laurel Mountain is self-degreasing, which means even if your hands touch the barrel, the resultant skin oil won't affect the finish results). Curt Heinrich has a method for doing this process than even I could follow with good results. ;)

[27VA]

I agree that I think 90% (someone will say they know of one shipment) of Enfields were blued with a case hardened lockplate. So.. are the "bright" Enfields a representation of soilders who wanted their Enfield to resemble springfields and did their own "field modifications" of de-blueing? I know these questions may seem crazy but before I buy I would like to get some opinions.


27VA
Shawn Stern

[bforney]

Shawn,

If you haven't already done so, you should read the following article:

http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/Quarters/1864/enf/enfblue.htm

Brent Forney

[Johan Steele]

All of the Enfields shipped to the US and in fact all of the Enfields made in England were Blued... The US Army had a real bur up their saddle for striking every long arm bright and many Enfields were struck bright after they were issued to US & CSA troops as well. I have seen quite a few pictures of Enfields in the hands of Union troops that are obviously bright. If checked w/ the Royal Ordanance museum it is apparent that no Enfields were ever manufactured in England struck bright. However, there is some evidence to suggest that a factory on the Continent that were making Enfield clones were struck bright. I have also seen referenece to Colt Enfields as bright... this is incorrect all those made by Colt were blued. The confusion appears to be w/ the "Special Contract Rifle" made by Colt, these were all issued bright and I have seen confusion between Special Contracts and Enfields...

As to quality defarbing.... I've seen Lodgewoods work and am impressed as all get out w/ it. I've also seen some of Zimmermans work, though I admit the work was done several years ago, and it was outstanding.

There are also "kits" existing out there somewhere where a completely unfinished Euro Arms is sold unassembled and it is the responsabillity of the poor sap who buys it to properly put it together and defarb it themselves. The one I've seen was absolutely beautiful and the owner was quite content w/ it. IIRC he had sent it off to Lodgewood for the correct inspection stamps but other than that was able to do all of the work himself.

I've been told that Dixie Gun Works sells a Springfield that way but I haven't been able to track down an unassembled Enfield kit.

[Clark Badgett]

I've seen both Feds and Cornfeds with obviously blue Enfields, and same with the bright Enfields. Now this may be nit picking, but I've seen more blued Enfields in western troops hands of both sides. But granted it is very hard to get a definate answer from old photos at times. And then again I do pay more attention to western troops. ;)

[LibertyHallVols]

Blued vs Bright: This discussion has been done ad nauseum on various forums over the years. However, I think that Mr. Walden's article states that case as clearly as can be done. Reletive proportions viewed from extant photos, etc., is only the barest scant of a sampling and probably does not reflect true variability here.

"De-Farbing": Armi-Sport, Euroarms, and Parker-Hale all started off with the wrong model of weapon as their repro. Add to that the divergence from the original articles, and you have what may be compared to a photocopy of a photocopy of a photocopy of the wrong derned gun. From this point of view, defarbing will only get you about half-way there, if even that far. In a nut, any Italian repro Enfield is a compromise, at best.

Viewing Originals: This is the best way to judge any repro, etc. There are quite a few available at Shiloh Relics at the moment, including a Type 2 with barrel bands retained by springs and one supposedly owned by Bocefus hisself. Check it out at www.shilohrelics.com , then click "Firearms" and "Additional Longarms".

My Two Cents...

[Clark Badgett]

[In a nut, any Italian repro Enfield is a compromise, at best. ]

I wouldn't quite go so far as to say that. I've viewed some originals that looked every bit identical to the Italian offerings, and some that looked nothing like them. Remember these rifles were made by well over a dozen different makers, by hand, so no two will look the exact same. The Italian repros can indeed be defarbed to very closely resemble the original item. But that does usually take some key original parts. I sure miss Ole Geoff Walden, I've not known anyone else that possesed as much ready info on the subject of Brit equipment. Good Luck trying to defarb a 2 bander.

[LibertyHallVols]

I'll stick by my statement for a couple of reasons.
1) What constitutes an acceptable reproduction is rather subjective. For many, replacing modern markings with authentic period markings and adding a linseed oil finish is acceptable. For others, it is not. As with any reproduction we use (uniforms, leather gear, socks, whatever) what is acceptable for some is inadequate for others, even in the context "authentic" living history.

2) Consider the arm that you start with when you "defarb". As I stated earlier, none of the current reproductions were intended to be reproductions of the type of Enfield used in the ACW. So, to me, you are starting with a compromise whenever you begin with one of the Italian reproductions.

Let me say this, "The Hobby" has made quantum leaps in the last 15 or so years in the areas of clothing, equipment, footwear, etc. However, when it comes to the weapons we use in our portrayals, by comparison we have made only half-steps forward ... and in some cases, backward steps have been taken!

Re: 2-Bander
Not sure where that came from. In my post, I was referring to a Type-2 (a three-bander). Is that what you were referring to?

Best Regards,

[LibertyHallVols]

Here is a link to some GREAT photos of an original CS Enfield:
http://www.oldsouthantiques.com/os565p1.htm

Note:
1) Engraved number on the tang of the butt plate. This is one item you don't see on "Debarbed" repros. It is my understanding that this number was used to ID the number (e.g. "count") in the shipment and is primarily associated with CS Enfields. It would go 0001A - 9999A, then 0001B - 9999B, and so on. You can also see that the rammer and bayonet are numbered to match the musket. One might surmise that these items were shipped together as a "stand of arms"???

2) "Strike" where the barrel tang meets barrel at the breech (about the 8th pic down, or so). Yet another item you DON'T see on "Debarbed" repros! I have a friend with an "E.P. Bond" contract Enfield and this strike mark is topped by a crown stamp on the barrel end of the strike. I would presume that this mark is intended to show the alignment between breech plug and barrell. Typically on US arms (and repros of US arms), you see this mark on the bottom of the barrel (hidden under the stock).

3) Note the distinct transition from octagonal to round at the breech of the barrel. This is more distinct than I have seen on other originals or repros. Interesting.

4) Look at the brass (Triggerguard and buttplate): NONE of the Italian reproductions do a good job at replicating this. For Example: The cross-sectional profile (if that makes sense) of the guard is a convex shape with rounded "points". Reproduction guards have near-rectangular profile (look at a repro and you will see the "flat" sides of the triggerguard).

Finally, when it comes to "Defarbing" reproduction Enfields, there are soooo many variations that it is difficult to have a "generic recipe" for markings to be present/absent. On the previously mentioned EP Bond, every time I look at that rifle-musket, I find more markings! Therefore, the best thing to do is to find a good condition original (such as the one in the pics in the link) and replicate that.

Once again: Enfields are VERY difficult to truly replicate, and therefore, to defarb. You can get all the "latest" stamps from the "vendor du jour", and there might not be a single original Enfield in existence that has the markings that you've paid good money to have stamped on your reproduction. It is not an exact science. The best advice I can give is to read Geoff Walden's article, view as many originals as possible, then read the article again, then view more originals, and so on.

[Clark Badgett]

Re: 2-Bander
Not sure where that came from. In my post, I was referring to a Type-2 (a three-bander). Is that what you were referring to?

Best Regards,

Oh I know all too well the different types. And I also realize that your were refering to the second version of the P53. My last statement was simply a little tounge in cheek attemp to state that it would be almost nearly impossible to correct the 2 bander, since the repros have far more wrong than incorrect rear sights, lower and upper slingswivels, barrel bands, crappy makings and so forth. And just so you know, my idea of authentic is...well many here know my stance on the subject, and it is very high. :)

[major]

John
I have been looking at the pictures of the CS Musket you provided and I have some questions. Is it just a trick of the photography or is there only one line around the outside edge of the lock plate? I know that some later muskets had a single line but I thought that all 1860s era ones that had lines had a double line.

Also on the proof marks on the barrel there is a large diamond in the middle of the proofs. I have looked in my book “the Standard Directory of Proof Marks” and can’t find any exactly like this one. The closest one I can find had a 12 and a C inside the diamond. But my book says that this mark was used on guns made from 1875 to 1887. Do you have any information on what this proof mark is? And do you have any idea why there is both a 24 and a 25 gauge mark on the breach? And speaking of the breach it doesn't have the shape of your typical P53 breach. Any ideas?

Lastly do you know if the sling is original to the gun or could it have been a replacement. After all 140 years have passed and I would think that it is possible that the original sling might have been replaced during all that time. I bring this up because recently I have been researching the British military sling and found that the one for a rifle company would have been black rough-out leather without a brass hook.

If it works you can click on the link here to see a copy of the British sling I am refering to. http://members.verizon.net/%7Evze3jhwa/Sling2.jpg
Terry :confused:

[Curt-Heinrich Schmidt]

Hallo Kameraden!

I have been trying to follow this discussion, and try to answer the questions, but I cannot seem to locate the rifle referred to on the SHILOH pages:

"I have been looking at the pictures of the CS Musket you provided and I have some questions. Is it just a trick of the photography or is there only one line around the outside edge of the lock plate? I know that some later muskets had a single line but I thought that all 1860s era ones that had lines had a double line.

Also on the proof marks on the barrel there is a large diamond in the middle of the proofs. I have looked in my book “the Standard Directory of Proof Marks” and can’t find any exactly like this one. The closest one I can find had a 12 and a C inside the diamond. But my book says that this mark was used on guns made from 1875 to 1887. Do you have any information on what this proof mark is? And do you have any idea why there is both a 24 and a 25 gauge mark on the breach? And speaking of the breach it doesn't have the shape of your typical P53 breach. Any ideas?"

Is it: http://www.shilohrelics.com/shop/custom_show_images.asp?SKU=SR10411

Curt-Heinrich Schmidt

[major]

Curt
No, that is not it, John Wicket posted it a few posts back. You can click on this link to see the musket in question.
http://www.oldsouthantiques.com/os565p1.htm
Terry

[Clark Badgett]

John, of all the original Enfields I've seen, very few look as good as this one. Also very few have had the additional markings. And last I talked to Geoff Walden, those markings were not real common on the hundreds he's veiwed, but it has been a long time since I've talked with him. He once put together a small booklet on how to correct the wrongs of the Italian repros and this was information from many viewings, not only here, but at the Museum at Leeds as well. When it comes to the P53 and P58 I doubt there are many that get the info that he has been fortunate to get.

Major, most Enfields did have the double line edge engraving. There were some that had a single line, and some makers, ie. Barnett of London didn't use edge engraving on his versions. The 24 or 25 (guage) was used rather interchangably for the caliber, some had 24, some had 25, some used both. And personally I've never seen the diamond proof used before, and like you I don't find any mention to it in any of my English proofmark references.

[LibertyHallVols]

Curt,
I was not referring to any one particular rifle on the Shiloh Relics site, but merely stating that they have a number of Enfields for sale right now (look on the "Additional Longarms" page).

Clark,
Re: 2-banders - OK! I just wasn't sure where it came from.
Re: Authenticity Standards - I never questioned that. ;) I was merely stating that some people focus in on certain elements of their impression and require a little more of themselves or their gear in that one area. I know different people who focus on food/rations, first person, uniforms, personal gear, weapons, etc. People are all different and will focus their interests on different things. Its not a "right or wrong" thing.
Re: "Very few had the additional markings..." - Not sure which markings you're referring to. This gun has LOTS of markings on it. Anyway, the markings were really somewhat beside the point. My points were that (1) putting markings on a repro will only get you part way "there" because there are fundamental problems with the repros (2) even if repros didn't have these problems, there are still marks seen on many originals that are not typically used to "defarb" repros.

Terry,
Barrel: Yes, the "diamond" mark on the barrel made me wonder, as well. As I said in my earlier post, the barrel just looks a bit "funny" in general (re: "distinct transition from octagonal to round at the breech of the barrel"). Compare it to Hank Williams Jr's Enfield at Shiloh ( http://www.shilohrelics.com/Assets/Product/Images/SR880020035141234228.jpg )

Also, (on the "Old South Antiques" rifle) do you see some marks on the top flat of the barrel on the "muzzle" end of the octagonal section? Looks like it could be "BR" or "SR"??

Lockplate: Idunno!? The pic doesn't have sufficient resolution on my screen to discern one line from two.

Best Regards,

[Clark Badgett]

John,
I think we are actually agreeing more than we are disagreeing. I do think it's best to actually copy a certain Enfield if you are going to defarb one. I also agree that some types would be almost impossible to copy. If I remember correctly Geoff Walden copied a Joseph Wilson made original when he authenticized his, and I followed suit when I did mine, as this particular maker was easiest to copy, and was quite common in the original specimens. One particular thing that really erks me is how many of the people think they have to have the BSAT stock cartouch, which wasn't commonly used until 1863, very few muskets made before this time had the stamp, some but not many.

[Pritchett Ball]

"I have been looking at the pictures of the CS Musket you provided and I have some questions. Is it just a trick of the photography or is there only one line around the outside edge of the lock plate? I know that some later muskets had a single line but I thought that all 1860s era ones that had lines had a double line.

"Also on the proof marks on the barrel there is a large diamond in the middle of the proofs. I have looked in my book “the Standard Directory of Proof Marks” and can’t find any exactly like this one. The closest one I can find had a 12 and a C inside the diamond. But my book says that this mark was used on guns made from 1875 to 1887. Do you have any information on what this proof mark is? And do you have any idea why there is both a 24 and a 25 gauge mark on the breach? And speaking of the breach it doesn't have the shape of your typical P53 breach. Any ideas?"

Curt-Heinrich Schmidt

Curt:

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

Diamond C mark & Breech Flats means COLT!
I'd bet that barrel is 40" long also...Colt contracted em that way. That rifle is one of about 2500 that Colt contracted, but was rejected by the Gov, and this one found it's way into Confederate hands! (The story this rifle could tell!)
The 25/24 means true .58 cal, the 24 designates that.
These contract guns were ordered armory bright, I'd like to see under the stock line on this one, is it bright?
Geoff Walden & I had run across this type of Enfield model before, and he gave me the above info I posted. Geoff gets the credit!

Kevin Dally

[major]

Kevin
Thanks for the information it's nice to have this mystery solved.
Terry :cool:

[LibertyHallVols]

The attached picture is of an Enfield that was sold on-line sometime ago. The seller claimed it was a Colt Enfield and you can see the "Diamond-C" mark in the same location.

[Skeet]

Gentlemen, I just got an enfield de-farbed from Zimmerman's 2 weeks ago. He does an excellent job! As far as bright vs. blue, I asked John that question. He said that when enfields were originally shipped the were in blue finish. then I raised the question that I have basically only seen ones without. He said exactly it was taken off. I have handled originals when I worked in a museum and have only seen bright ones. The main reenactor communitys enfields need to be de-farbed. I have even offered advice on how to take off the blueing and have been shrugged off. It proves the point that a lot of them could care less. It's quite sad. Pvt.Dan Morgan 10th Va Inf.

[Clark Badgett]

Well Skeet I don't mean to bust Mr Zimmerman's chops, but he is wrong on this particular issue. How does he explain away the many original images of both US and CS troops holding obviously blued Enfields. I've seen at least 6 Kentucky Federal troops holding blued Enfields alone. How does he account for the great research of Geoff Walden on this subject that has come to the opposite conclusion of his. Yes some were struck bright in this country, some lost their bluing due to field cleaning, and some to this day remain blued. This all or nothing attitude of some, is about as wrong as blanket weight sack coats.

[LibertyHallVols]

Mr. Badgett,

Re: "All or nothing attitude..."
Amen, Brother!!
This is not an exact science, yet some folks act like it is. I just don't get it! If one wants a blued Enfield, who cares!? Documentation supports a given individual's choice to opt for either a blued or burnished finished. This "Blued vs. Bright" debate has been done to DEATH and has been shown to be of (nearly) no value. How tiresome!!!

There's bigger fish to fry, can't we let this one go?

[HOG.EYE.MAN]

This "Blue vs. Bright" debate has been done to DEATH and has been shown to be (nearly) no value. How tiresome!!! Wick, Tiresome indeed my friend........ Indeed!

[markj]

Greetings,

Before you make up your mind, I would cordially suggest you take a look at Geoff Walden's article on this subject:

http://www.geocities.com/pentagon/Quarters/1864/enf/enfblue.htm

Regards,

Mark Jaeger

[1stMaine]

Comrades,
Here's the problem with the bright vs blue debate. It's important to make a decision on the finish based upon the umbrella group you belong to. If we are going to be picky about the correct type of clothing and equipment, then that needs to extend to the Enfield finish as well.
Weapons were issued to an entire unit, and they usually got the same type. In the CS service, you can certainly find instances of mixed weapons, but by and large, or rather PEC, those weapons were found in the same company. Weapons were not mixed within a company. The same needs to hold true for us. If you want a blued finish, then great, but you ought to consider whether or not your entire unit, and it's umbrella unit has blued weapons. A review of Dean Thomas' list in "Ready... Aim... Fire" shows many Federal units with mixed weapons, but in almost every case, those extra weapons are in amounts of 12 or fewer, and most likely represent injured arms or spares kept in the regimental baggage.
Officers like uniformity. They will strive for it in every area possible, and their men will also make the same attempt. If there are to be both blued and bright Enfields in a unit, then they, by rights, OUGHT to be in seperate companies, and not mixed willy-nilly across the board.
Period images of Enfields that I have seen do NOT show a mix of bright and blued. They are either one or the other, and we ought to take that into consideration when considering using one.
respects,

[markj]

Greetings,

Well I guess, as Tim inferred, the answer to this question depends on time, place, etc. I don't think, however, Dean Thomas has ever seen the Indiana State Armorer's Books maintained in the Indiana State Archives. These detail arms/accoutrement issues/turn-ins for at least the first half of the war right down to the company level. These books are quite interesting and may, in a number of cases, challenge some of the conventional wisdom.

What I do remember from them is that, for at least the first year of the war, a pattern emerges regarding issues of Enfields (both 2 and 3-band). These were generally issued to four designated companies in a regiment (normally A, B, C, H or K depending on the circumstances) with the remainder getting whatever else was available. Altered .69's were common as dirt with European imports (e.g., "Prussian," "Vincennes," "Belgian," and "French" arms) becoming increasingly available from roughly November 1861 onward. Indiana actually received a sizeable shipment of Enfields (probably 2-banders) in late June 1861 with them being doled out to companies A and B of selected regiments (the 13th IVI was first to get them). "Dribs and drabs" of Enfields arrived throughout the summer with large shipments finally arriving after August 1861. The 10th Indiana appears to have been the first regiment fully-armed with Enfields but it didn't get them until 8 October 1861--several weeks after deploying to Kentucky. Individual Indiana regiments, as a rule, continued to be armed with mixes of arms well into 1862, acquiring uniformity after the fact through such mechanisms as intra-brigade swaps out in the field (the 32nd Indiana did this in January 1862).

In the cases of mixed arms within companies, I've found documentation indicating this did apparently happen even late in the war. For example, the 32nd Indiana (Three Years) mustered out in September 1864 with the reenlisted vets and recruits being folded into a reorganized 32nd IVI "Residual Battalion." From what documentation I've seen, these men were allowed to keep their trusty and well-worn Enfields but the new recruits were issued out-of-the-box Springfields! Given that most, if not all, of the vets were sprinkled throughout the four remaining companies it appears there was a mix of Springfields/Enfields in them until the battalion finally mustered out in December 1865. Maybe the "Annual Summary of Quarterly Ordnance Returns" will shed further light on this.....

Regards,

Mark Jaeger

[1stMaine]

Comrade Mark,
I agree completely. My remarks should not be construed as to mean that mixing of arms wasn't done. I'm simply looking at the majority of cases. It was certainly the case that the early regiments tended to have smoothbores from the state arsenals, with any rifles being assigned to the "flank" companies. Up here, the 3rd Maine left the sate with altered M1816's, and sometime after 1st Bull Run received enough .54 Austrian rifles to equip the 2 "flank" companies. This stayed the norm until shortly after january of 1862, when the entire regiment was rearmed with either M1855 or M1861 rifle-muskets, and the Auistrians transferred over to the 4th Maine, which then ditched it's .69's and drew enough of the .54 Austrians to equip the entire regiment.
The gist of my comments would be that entire units OUGHT to be like-armed unless specific portrayals deem otherwise. That also should tend to indicate that ALL of the Enfields in any unit that utilizes them OUGHT to be either blued or bright, but not a mix.
I know it's a lot to ask of folks, but some standardization needs to take place here. True, it might seem to be a petty detail, but so are many of the other details we focus on. We spend so much time trying to get all the gear right, and then we go ahead and allow most any type of weapon so long as it's period.
It's true that the rifle will probably be one of, if not THE most expensive single purchase of your kit, and so some serious thought needs to go into that decision. I don't have a ready answer. It's a sticky wicket that needs some serious discussion on the board, at least in my view.
Anyway, that's enough for one night's typing. Thanks for reading this rant.
Respects to all, and I remain,

[LibertyHallVols]

It's a sticky wicket that needs some serious discussion on the board, at least in my view.

Tim,

Is that supposed to be some kinda crack about me!? :D

[bluebellybugleboy]

Pards:
as the title may tell you . this is a thead to help new reenactors figure out witch brand rifle to buy, post your thoughts on each brand the good and bad , how reliable , authentic and anything else you wish to know or tell

[Doug Potter]

Well neither one is great I have a EA I don't like the finish on the barrel, I like the Armi-Sport finish better but I think both makers have about the same quality, or lack there of, if you want a good orignal quality reproduction rifle If I had the money I would buy the parts and have one put togather with an orignal lock good reproduction stock and Barrel, like anything quality is out there but it cost money,
I really like my Armi-Sport Enfield defarbed by Company Quatermaster it has a much tighter lock then my EA Springfield, I have seriously considered trading my Zimmerman defarbed EA on a new 61 made by Armisport, and starting over.
I had one of the first Navy Arms Springfields made when they first started making them back in the late 70's I Paid if I remember right $165.00 for it new, I wish I still had it, it was twice the rifle that my EA is.
I don't know if Navy Arms still has the same quality that they used to.
or if they make a 61 my navy arms was a 63 model.

[hardtack1864]

I would go with a Armi Sport enfield because it's cheaper then euroarms, it is much lighter then Euroarm rifles, a bit more authentic, and the enfield has far less problems then the repro Springfields, but it would be a good idea to get the musket defarbed or just go with Zimmerman's famous Rifles.

[KentuckyReb]

Bear in mind, if you're going with a '42 Springfield, AS is your only choice. Mine's actually quite a solid, business-like weapon, well-made with good fit and finish of metal parts and good wood-to-metal fit. The stock wood's a little too reddish, being European Walnut, but Linseed oil is taking care of that nicely. Gotta be one of the best decisions ArmiSport ever made, getting rid of that godawful urethane coat on their stocks. I got it stamped with correct inspection cartouches earlier this year, gonna have it defarbed soon as I can before the season picks back up. But if you're looking for a good, strong smoothbore repro, AS is the only source for the '42, and fortunately they do it well.

[rogue]

Pards:
as the title may tell you . this is a thead to help new reenactors figure out witch brand rifle to buy, post your thoughts on each brand the good and bad , how reliable , authentic and anything else you wish to know or tell
If you are not in a hurry, look into the model '61 that Dixie Gun Works sold. I use past tense as I understand they are no longer being made, and are limited to stock at hand. They were Japanese made and could be had finished or in a kit. They were mucj closer in weight and feel than either of the Italians mentioned, did not have a super heavy barrel either, and a slimmer stock, again closer to the original. They were made by Miroku I believe. Dixie now sells Italians, so if you call them make sure you have them understand you are looking for a Japanese product.
Vicka :D

Full name on every post please FIRST WARNING. JS Moderator

[Yellowhammer]

Okay, there is some info in this thread that needs clarified.

Rob,

Step one in asking a question is to learn the right vocabulary. None of the longarms being discussed in this thread are "rifles." Speaking in general terms, the US M1842 is a musket while arms like the US M1861 and P53 Enfield are rifle-muskets. When referring to Civil War firearms, "rifle" typically refers to shorter barrelled rifles like the Enfield rifle, US M1841 "Mississippi" and the like.

Sean,

In your post, you state:

"I would go with a Armi Sport enfield because it's cheaper then euroarms, it is much lighter then Euroarm rifles, a bit more authentic, and the enfield has far less problems then the repro Springfields, but it would be a good idea to get the musket defarbed or just go with Zimmerman's famous Rifles."

I disagree with several points in this statement. While it is true that Armi-Sport products are generally less expensive and somewhat lighter than the corresponding Euroarms products, I disagree completely that the "enfield has far less problems than the repro Springfields." In fact, I find the opposite to be true.

In my experience, Euroarms guns are higher quality, tend to be less prone to mechanical problems, and are less prone to rust. I've also had fewer misfires from the Euroarms sold guns I've owned than the Armi-Sports. Last, I'm also more confident about Euroarms products for live-firing. Yes, there are trade-offs in regards to authenticity but most of these can be fixed during the defarbing process.

Getting back to Rob's question, the first step is to find out which arm is correct for your unit's impression. If it's the M1842, you only have one option as Micah noted. If it is the M1861 Springfield or P1853 Enfield, take a look at what is on the market and make a choice based on your preference.

[Bill]

[QUOTE=Yellowhammer]Okay, there is some info in this thread that needs clarified.

"In my experience, Euroarms guns are higher quality, tend to be less prone to mechanical problems, and are less prone to rust. I've also had fewer misfires from the Euroarms sold guns I've owned than the Armi-Sports. Last, I'm also more confident about Euroarms products for live-firing. Yes, there are trade-offs in regards to authenticity but most of these can be fixed during the defarbing process."

John,

For what it's worth, I've had the exact opposite results. I own an Armi-Sport M-1861 and an Euroarms Richmond rifle-musket. My Armi-Sport shoots very well, while the Euroarms key-holes about half the time. My guess is the real problem with all these weapons is lack of quality control. I think you can find both excellent rifles and dogs from both manufactures. It's just a matter of looking at what's available.

IMHO, the M-1861 Springfields are more prone to misfires then Enfields when firing blanks, because of the design of the original weapon. That 90 degree turn in the firing channel on the M-1861 tends to get clogged up pretty quickly.

[markmason]

This could be hashed out and kicked about all da lib long day.. :rolleyes:

I have a EuroArms Enfield RIFLED-MUSKET that is now, 10 years old, defarbed by Zimmerman. Very solid gun and lived fired many times witout a breakdown.

Bad points on this particular arm ?

1) Incorrect barrel bands (cost to replace with correct bands $125) :rolleyes:
2) Weight (compared to original)


Your very truely

Mark Mason

[Curt-Heinrich Schmidt]

Hallo Kameraden!

In all of these comparisons between reproductions, the goal should be comparing the modern reproductions against the original firearm rather than each other, and then which modern reproduction can be most easily and economically modified or "remedied" (why and how) to appear most like the original.

And in brief, it appears both Italian companies have made changes over the years. My 1986 purchased Euroarms is lighter, less bulky, less squarish, less chunky, etc, etc., than what is on the rack today. So, some of the "used" guns for sale out there can be a bit different over the last 20 years or so.

Compared to an original, to list only two bad points on a Euroarm (OR Armi Sport for that matter) is a bit "brief."

While clarifying a point or two, additional period vocabulary:

The "Enfield" (Pattern 1853 Rifle-Musket, Third Model) is not a "rifled-musket."

The period use of the term is for a musket that has been later rifled, such as that which was done to some M1822 and M1842 Muskets.

(Not to mention when a rear sight is added, they can become "Rifled and Sighted." )

Sure do miss our Forum Archives as the fine points of these questions and discussions are well recorded...

Curt-Heinrich Schmidt

[bluebellybugleboy]

pards:
actually I used those terms because they are easier for everyone to understand , some people might get confused, if I offended you , then I am sorry. myself I am leaning towrads the armi sport brand because of the price and from what most reenactors tell me reliability , as far as wieght I am not concerned as long as there is no extensive wieght difference between it and the original's,
the odd thing is , in most units around in our area (kentucky, west virginia , and ohio ) not everyone in a unit has the same rifle, you'll see a mixture of enfields ,springfields, richmond,even a couple pistols here and there. But all the guys in our unit carry springfields , when we can't work with our cannons, every one owns a sprinfield , and our commander(marshall steen of Steen cannons) owns a collection of around 50 firearms, maybe more!

[rogue]

If you are not in a hurry, look into the model '61 that Dixie Gun Works sold. I use past tense as I understand they are no longer being made, and are limited to stock at hand. They were Japanese made and could be had finished or in a kit. They were mucj closer in weight and feel than either of the Italians mentioned, did not have a super heavy barrel either, and a slimmer stock, again closer to the original. They were made by Miroku I believe. Dixie now sells Italians, so if you call them make sure you have them understand you are looking for a Japanese product.
Vicka :D

Full name on every post please FIRST WARNING. JS Moderator
Been a while since the website worked with me, so I used a name from another site, sorry. I still like the Japanese 1861 Springfield from Dixie Gun Works with its 90 degree shooting channel problem better than an Italian.
Steve Sullivan

[privstull]

Does anyone know exactly why the Euroarms is more heavy than Armi Sport? Also, would one be more authentic in weight than the other and why? The reason being is mine is a Euroarms and is more heavy than the Armi sport and I have been qurious for a while over these 2 questions. Thanks.

[markmason]

DEPARTURE OF THE FIFTY-THIRD
This rgiment left Camp Morton yesterday afternoon and marched down to the Armory when, after changing their arms, they were marched to the depot and took a special train upon one of the railroads leading toward the scene of Genral Halleck's military operations.
The regiment is ........The men are all thoroughly equipped, clothed and armed, the arms being the celebrated Enfield rifles.

Indianapolis Journal, March 15, 1862

mark mason
Tarwater Mess
GHTI

Hallo Mark! AC Forum rules require that one's avatar image be of oneself and not a graphic, cartoon, or image of someone else. Please edit yours to reflect the actual you. Thank you. Curt-Heinrich Schmidt, Moderator

[LibertyHallVols]

Folks,

This thread began as an amorphous blob, but seems to be shaping into the ages-old comparison of the two better-known vendors of reproduction Enfield rifle-muskets (yes, as Curt said... Enfield "3-banders" are "rifle-muskets", not "rifles" or "rifleD-muskets").

Although this discussion is taking place in the "Camp of Instruction", the same standards apply with regard to the judgement of reproductions.

*** Compare the reproduction to ORIGINALS, not other reproductions. It makes no difference how one reproduction compares to another. Rather, we should be concerned how close each reproduction compares to the original article from which it was reproduced.

The same goes for boots, drawers, caps, hats, belts, shirts, jackets, frocks, smocks, roundabouts, or anything else you can name.

For example...
Weight: Find out how much originals weigh, and compare this with the weight of the reproduction. The statement "Euroarms are heavier Armi-Sports" contains no useful information... Heck, it borders on content-free speach, as far as I'm concerned!

I would like to see this discussion bolstered by some solid information, rather than speculation and repro-to-repro comparison. If this cannot take place, I see no usefulness to this thread.

[Minieball577]

DEPARTURE OF THE FIFTY-THIRD
This rgiment left Camp Morton yesterday afternoon and marched down to the Armory when, after changing their arms, they were marched to the depot and took a special train upon one of the railroads leading toward the scene of Genral Halleck's military operations.
The regiment is ........The men are all thoroughly equipped, clothed and armed, the arms being the celebrated Enfield rifles.

Indianapolis Journal, March 15, 1862



A number of the Indiana Regiments were in fact armed, or partially armed, with Enfield RIFLES, 1856 Enfield Short (two band) Rifles, with Saber bayonets. Particularly so in the early part of the conflict, say through mid 1862. Among them were the 11th IN, 25 IN, 53 IN, and 63 IN Regiments. Photographic evidence exists of the 11th IN, in their three-month grey uniforms with this arm. I am unaware of the photographic record of the other regiments.

[Curt-Heinrich Schmidt]

Hallo Kameraden!

From: WEIGHT and DIMENSIONS, & c. of ARMS and ACCOUTREMENTS used in the BRITISH SERVICE in 1864 (excluding India)

LONG ENFIELD RIFLE, Pattern '58 With bayonet: 9 lb. 12 oz.
Without: 8 lb. 14 1/2 oz.

As with the Italian M1861 Springfield's, one will find the "weight differences" centering particularly in the thicker barrel and breech section.
But this is an involved and lengthy, point by point discussion ending up with such things as a ramrod that is thicker than the original.
Perhaps the larger question is just how much does an individual's Mental Picture of what is wrong, what can be fixed, who can do it and where, and how much does that cost (being on a sliding scale from just replacing the 4th Model bands all the way up), and how much or how much or little wrong can an individual live with?
And that can make these discussions somewhat pointless if not endless...

Perhaps I would start, IMHO, with Geoff Walden's most excellent 1985 primer AUTHENTICIZING YOUR REPRODUCTION ENFIELD and build one's knowledge base as well as ideas for answering the above questions.

Curt-Heinrich Schmidt

[KentuckyReb]

Anybody besides John Zimmerman for defarbing my '42? Bear in mind, I don't ask because I don't want to have him do it. I'm just asking if there's anybody else to consider for the job as well. After all, considering that it involves metal-work, it's something that can only be done once. So... anybody know of anyone else?

[BarryDusel]

Try Lodgewood. I have used Zimmy bunches of times. I've made lots of purchases through him as well.
Yet, if you want another option.......as I said. Try Lodgewood.
Good Luck

[dusty27]

I have only used John Zimmerman (loved his defarb work) but these are the sources approved by the SWB standards committee through 2003

Company Quartermaster
Terry Schultz
258 Zimmerman Street
N. Tonawanda, NY 14120-4509
1-866-693-3239
http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3jhwa (http://members.bellatlantic.net/%7evze3jhwa/)
t.schultz5@verizon.net (t.schultz5@verizon.net)


John Zimmerman
PO Box 1351
(1195 Washington Street)
Harpers Ferry, WV 25425
304-535-2558
www.edsmart.com/jz/ (http://www.edsmart.com/jz/)


Lodgewood Manufacturing
PO Box 611
Whitewater, WI 53190
262-473-5444
www.lodgewood.com (http://www.lodgewood.com/)
lodgewd@idcnet.com (lodgewd@idcnet.com)

[KentuckyReb]

Thanks much.

[Clark Badgett]

Concerning the images on the "Company Quartermaster" page, the barrel proofmarks look a little large, but it could be just a picture thing. Also keep in mind that the stock cartouche wasn't very common until 1863.

[Curt-Heinrich Schmidt]

Hallo Kameraden!

Based upon over 60 originals I have fondled, er examined, and the several that I had owned, IMHO the "Enfield proof stamps" used by all three of these services are larger than any I have yet to encounter.

However, one could argue that the oversized breeches of repro "Enfields" might would make "original range" stamps look too small...

The issue is that the modern stamps are often struck with a steel hammer, which often produces a very shallow strike in the hardened rifle steel of modern barrels.
In the softer "iron" of period weapons, the stamps often tend to go deeper. Of course, the strength of the inspector's blow varies the impression on original weapons- but deeper rather than shallower is common.
Several that I have examined have been struck so hard that the stamp image is at the bottom of a square impression caused by the square side of the stamp sides imprinting as well.

A friend of mine, who is a barrel maker, uses a 2 ton striking arbor to strike more "period looking" proof stamps.
I had purchased a 2 ton myself and a 10 pound lead hammer (steel bounces on steel and deflects impact energy away from the striking arbor- or stamp for that matter) a while back for a "failed before it started" weapons and clothing stamping service, and wished I had gone with a 3 ton arbor!

Curt-Heinrich Schmidt

[CSA Engineer]

I have recently purchased an Enfield and I want to begin the defarbing process. The first thing I want to do is remove the original manufacturers finish, and replace it with linseed oil. What is the easiest, and best way to accomplish this? Thanks in advance for the help!

Pvt. Michael Moffett
Co. E 3rd Regiment
Confederate Engineers

[gdarrell]

Michael,

IN RE: refinishing the stock. Elbow grease, elbow grease and just a little more of it ...

I've re-finished two stocks. The first time I sanded all the p-urethane down to the wood. The second time I used a chemical stripper to remove most of the p-u :p and sanded the remainer to the wood. I recommend the second option for two reasons: 1. saves beau coup time, 2. sanding alone removes detail (flattens/reduces relief, rounds edges, et c.).

Regarding final finish I used straight boiled linseed oil on my first project, approximately 12 thin coats. On my second stock I used only four coats but started with one part to three parts mix of boiled linseed oil to turpentine, and finished with a 3:1 mix (boiled linseed oil:turpentine). Rub it on with a soft lint-free cloth until it won't absorb any more, allow the stock to stand until dry to the touch between coats. The turpentine allowed the oil to penetrate the wood better and decreased drying time. Sanding between coats is imperative to attaining a smooth finish. I am happy with the resultant finish of both stocks, and both shed water well :) .

Of course your milage may vary. I remain your obed't servant,

[hireddutchcutthroat]

Micheal

You may want to consider one of the approved vendors to de farb your musket (Lodgewood, Zimermann The Quartermaster ect.) I dont own an Enfield myself, but I have had great results with my Springfields and Austrian Lorenz from from the above vendors.

Keep in mind that there is more to the stock to be defarbed on most repro muskets.

[Stonewall_Greyfox]

Robert,

Where did you get your Lorenze from?

Thanks,

Paul B. Boulden Jr.

RAH VA MIL '04

[hireddutchcutthroat]

Robert,

Where did you get your Lorenze from?

Thanks,

Paul B. Boulden Jr.

RAH VA MIL '04

I looked and looked and looked some more...I finaly found mine in a gunstore in Northen California. I payed $795.00 for mine with the bayonet.

[CSA Engineer]

Thanks to all for the help with my musket defarb. I appreciate all the responses!

Pvt. Michael Moffett
Co. E 3rd Regiment
Confederate Engineers

[MuleyGil]

I've read the various articles & threads on defarbing Euroarms & Armi-Sport Enfields, but I haven't seen anything on the P-H. I understand the P-H was copied from a version that was not imported to the US (& CS) during the 1860s. What needs to be replaced? Barrel bands? Sling swivels? Lockplate screw washers?

All replies are welcomed.

Gil Tercenio

[K Bartsch]

Gil,
Is this P-H an older model or is it one of the recently produced ersatz P-H's marketed by an outfit called Gibbes Rifle Co.?

Cordially,

[Enfield]

Basically, all of the 3-band Enfield repros are repros of the so-called 4th Model P1853 Enfield, which type was *generally* not exported in the early 1860s.

There *were* London Armoury Co. guns of this type exported to America - could have been puchasers from either side. These weren't common, but they *were* there. These guns would have had the type of furniture pieces found on the repros. Trouble is, their markings were different.

For just a little bit of history, when the original Parker-Hale company in England started making their repros in the late 1970s, they used a set of gauges from the Royal Small Arms Factory at Enfield, which turned out parts for the 4th Model P53 (except, for some reason I have never discovered, the upper sling swivel was wrong). So the Parker-Hale (the original one) is basically a copy of the RSAF-Enfield produced 4th Model P53, which would *not* have been exported to the US or CS (this is probably one Enfield "fact" that really does hold true).

When Euroarms and (later) Armi-Sport in Italy started making their repro P53s in the early 80s, they basically copied the Parker-Hale repro (my 1982-vintage Euroarms has internal lock parts that have faint P-H markings on them - from when the Euroarms makers copied the P-H parts). Euroarms did at one time have a lock marking that was for the London Armoury Co. (the correct L.A.Co. mark - not the spelled-out name that you usually see), which made their repro more "correct" than others (at least as far as the lockplate markings went).

Armi-Sport tried to make their repro more like a 3rd Model P53 - the type that comprised the vast majority of WBTS Enfields - but all they did was change the barrel bands (and their barrel band really isn't a very good repro, but it is more like the 3rd Model type). But the Armi-Sport guns still have incorrect sling swivels and lock screw washers (unless they have changed them recently - but if so, I haven't seen one). That is, incorrect for the standard commercially-made P53 that was sent to America.

The new "Parker-Hale," being made in Italy as well, would suffer these same shortcomings.

OK, to cut this long story short - you have to do the same sort of de-farbing to your Parker-Hale as you would do to a Euroarms or Armi-Sport. You just have a better quality gun to start with (assuming it's an old British P-H).

Geoff Walden

[MuleyGil]

This is an older, 1970s, English made Parker-Hale. By the way, Gibbs is a part of Navy Arms.

Gil Tercenio

[K Bartsch]

Congrats. As Geoff has indicated, you own a well made piece. That said, you've still got a lot of de-farbing to do.

Cordially,

[PieBoy96]

You may want to get the book by Geoff, "How to Authenticize Your Reproduction Enfield." I got mine for $5 through the lady who runs the Citizens Companion magazine a few years back. A GREAT resource for what you will want to defarb and lots of pictures of examples.

It was great because I not only learned about what just needed to be done to my rifle, but also WHY it was to be done. It's one of those things like "Sure, a sack coat made by Jones Smith is authentic, but WHY is it so authentic."

Geoff, is this publication still available?

[Michael McComas]

This is an older, 1970s, English made Parker-Hale. By the way, Gibbs is a part of Navy Arms.

Or is it the other way around? When Val Forget Sr. passed away, Val Jr., the owner of Gibbs Rifle Co., took over Navy Arms and moved it from NJ to Martinsburg, WV. Semantics, I guess.

[major]

This is an older, 1970s, English made Parker-Hale. By the way, Gibbs is a part of Navy Arms.

Gil Tercenio
Gil
If it is one of the older P-H muskets then you might be further ahead financially if you sold it to someone that wanted a good shooter and then purchased a defarbed Armisport for reenacting. You would also not have to worry about that pesky P-H stock cartouche. If you go to www.n-ssa.org and click on there bulletin board you could post it there for free. I think the going price for an older P-H is about $700. but I could be wrong about the value.
Terry

[2MDF&D]

I second Terry's advice. Older P-H's are very good shooters. And their stocks and barrels are more like originals. Lighter like the originals, too. I wouldn't mess with it by defarbing.
Hey, you should keep it, get another reenacting gun and defarb that, and then hook up with an N-SSA team! For me it's the closest to the real firing line as one can get. 400 or so folks throwing lead! Gets your gear looking right, too. It's a grin!

Regards,
Rob McFarland
Co E, 2MD Fifes and Drums
1st MD Infantry, N-SSA

[Minieball577]

I second Terry's advice. Older P-H's are very good shooters. And their stocks and barrels are more like originals. Lighter like the originals, too. I wouldn't mess with it by defarbing.
Hey, you should keep it, get another reenacting gun and defarb that, and then hook up with an N-SSA team! For me it's the closest to the real firing line as one can get. 400 or so folks throwing lead! Gets your gear looking right, too. It's a grin!

Regards,
Rob McFarland
Co E, 2MD Fifes and Drums
1st MD Infantry, N-SSA
I have to agree with Rob and Terry on this! Many teams would welcome you aboard without hesitation. In addition, you can be "dual enrolled" so to speak in both a reenacting unit and N-SSA team, and particpate in each as much/as little as you wish. Check it out!

Where are you from, maybe I could direct you to someone who can help with this!

[MuleyGil]

I would like to thank everyone for their suggestions. Any other hints will be also be welcome.

I bought this P-H in January of this year, but I haven't seen it yet, as I have been working out of town, waaay out of town. The most common weapon I see is an AK-47. My P-H is sitting at a friend's house in IL, so I can't tell if it needs to have the lockscrew washers replaced w/ square eared ones or not, and I haven't handled a P-H in about 5 years.

I was an active reenactor from 1991 to 1995, carrying a Euroarms 1853 Enfield.

I did N-SSA from 1970 to 1976 and yes, I really enjoyed it. That was my first intention, to get a good shooting gun. Now, I want to have an Enfield on the line that shoots good AND looks correct. When I get home, I'll be looking for a N-SSA unit in the SW VA/ Western NC/ East TN area that wears an authentic uniform. My old units didn't.

If finances permit, I'll have two muskets, one for lead and one for living history. If not, I promise to pull the breachplug before shooting blanks. I have been told that I'm a little anal when it comes to safety and I consider that a compliment.

Who would be the best vendor to get the proper bands & sling swivels? Lodgewood?

BTW, I did some research in the early '90s & my great, great grandfather, Cpl Elijah Sanford Davis of Co. I, 6th Alabama Inf, carried a 1853 Enfield.

Once again, thanks for all of the help. Like most of us reading this forum, I wish to be as authentic as possible, living history or N-SSA.

Gil Davis Tercenio

[Michael McComas]

Gil,

When you get the chance, email me at p58enfield@rica.net and I'll put you in touch with the just the team you're looking for.

Stay safe,

Michael McComas

[BarryDusel]

I purchased a PH 1853 in 1980. During the intervening years I've done several things toward defarbing, ie, refinishing the stock, new barrel bands, removed offensive markings from the piece overall , and had the correct markings applied, etc.The only thing missing was a correct lockplate. I'm happy to say that recently I accquired a "repro 1862 Tower Plate from Lodgewood. I think I can say that I have now accquired a totally defarbed piece.The lockplate accepted all of the orginal PH workings with the exception that I needed to rethread the old lock plate screws to 10/32nd, and I needed to remove a "smidge" of the mortise along the leading edge.
Anyway, because I've posted here in the past about the lockplate problem . I thought it appropiete for me to spread the word.
It's finally done!

[Nighthawk]

Gil,

When you get the chance, email me at p58enfield@rica.net and I'll put you in touch with the just the team you're looking for.

Stay safe,

Michael McComas
Mike-
I hope you mean the 34th!

[Michael McComas]

Paul,

Of course, who else is there? I sent him email addresses for Bill and Ken.

See you in two weeks!

[SCTiger]

I found a source for "raw linseed oil", has anyone had any experience refurbishing or maintaining their rifle stocks with the modern version of raw L.O.? How long did it take to dry? Did you use pure, raw linseed oil?

Curt Heinrich Schmidt had a great write up on this subject on the old forum, about removing the polyurethane from repo weapons and replacing it with the raw linseed oil vs. the boiled version which contained chemical dryers. I also remember some comment about mixing a 50/50 blend of boiled and raw, however; I have read that this may cause the finish to skin or peel.

http://doitbest.com/shop/find2.asp?find_spec=linseed+oil&mbrid=4724&mscssid=3LJDT0K4JS9J9GF8E1DSTJ55PASS4GJD&SAFE=1&redir=

Anways I know a few folks that could use the information. Also any information on period stocks, especially replacement stocks for the current Armi-Sport Enfiled would be appreciated.


Greg Deese

[A Sykes Regular]

Greg: I have used both boiled and raw linseed oil. Boiled linseed oil (BLO) tends to dry faster (24 hours) because it has addititives. Raw oil can take days to dry, depending on humidity and ventilation. On some woods, BLO darkens the wood a bit more than the raw variety.

I usually hand rub a *light* coat of BLO on a prepared stock. The stock of course needs to have any varish or other finish removed. If a stock has already been oiled some time it the past, it can take longer to dry as the linseed oil will have a tough time sinking in...

[Silas]

I used raw linseed oil with some turpentine at a 50/50 ratio. Pretty slow dry time. I rubbed at least four solid coats into the stock over that many months. That was a year ago. Now I just dip a rag once or twice into my 50/50 mix and rub that small amount into the stock. (The rag is then placed in a plastic bag, tied, and placed into the garbage. I don't want my shed turning to flames from a spontaneous combustion of drying linseed oil rags.)

At an event last weekend, I cleaned my musket with some fresh fish who were using chemicals gallore. I needed to take care of something away from the fresh fish and layed down my dirty musket next to their clean muskets. The fresh fish complemented my musket and stock for it's ultra cleanliness. I told the kid it was actually dirty. I hadn't cleaned it since I did a solid field cleaning atop Lookout Mountain last November. (This was my first firing event since then.) In lubricating the lock, stock and barrel at events, I typically use hog fat or olive oil.

You can really tell the difference in the sun light between the linseed oiled stocks verses that brand new, modern finish.

Take your time removing the finish from your musket. You'll likely have to strip it several times before you remove all the varnish. Also, take your time applying the linseed oil. Stock refinishing isn't something one does the weekend before an event. It's a long term, boring project which yields substantial results when done properly.

[JohnTaylorCW]

As part of my "From the Old Forum" series (grin), here is a discussion on defarbing muskets that includes Curt's piece on Raw vs Boiled linseed oil.

John T




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Rifle Stack Jonah on December 15th, 2002 10:42 PM:
When defarbing your musket...

Should you get rid of the engraving on the bottom side of the barrel too? Thanks

__________________
Tom Billings
52nd IL INF
www.52ndill.com
ThomasCBillings@Yahoo.com



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Kriegslok on December 15th, 2002 11:05 PM:

I removed everything that was visible (and not period correct) when the gun is assembled. I moved the serial number to the underside of the barrel. I would imagine originals were marked with a serial numbers, but not with the modern style stamps used by Armisport or Euro Arms. I did my 1861 Springfield (Euroarms) with pretty good results including making rivits for the sling swivels. My 1842 Springfield (Armisport) with the bright finish, was a bit tougher. The stamping was very deep so it took some careful filing plus buffing to get the bright finish back. I had to work from books as I do not own any original pieces. Be slow and careful and the results are very satisfying.

__________________
TJ Markert
11NJVCoE



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Curt Heinrich Schmidt on December 15th, 2002 11:27 PM:


Hallo, Kameraden!

Contrary to the scene in the movie GLORY...." Arsenal produced "muskets" were not generally numbered.
However, arms like the Sharps rifle and carbines were.

Contrary to persistent reenactor lore, there is no federal requirement that reproduction muskets carry modern serial numbers (although it has been said they do so purely for customs purposes). Removal of the bogus Italian serial numbers does not break any FEDERAL laws.

However, in this wonderful Country, we do have bewildering state and municipal laws that may conflict with that. Generally, they do not. It is a VERY GOOD idea to check your "area's local" law before removing a serial number.

Some lads like to restrike the modern serial number underneath the barrel for personal identification and/or insurance identification purposes. Some strike their name instead,or name and birthdate. Some use their Social Security numbers, but in this New Day of identity theft issues, that may not be such a good idea...

Curt-Heinrich Schmidt
We've Got Your Number Right Here Mess

__________________
Curt Schmidt
I didn't like him anyway... he wasn't right...in the head.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Rifle Stack Jonah on December 15th, 2002 11:46 PM:
Asking?

On the bottom of the barrel it says "CAL 58-3 DRAMS BLACK POWDER ONLY" This is what I am asking if i should remove. Thanks

__________________
Tom Billings
52nd IL INF
www.52ndill.com
ThomasCBillings@Yahoo.com



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Dave_Grieves on December 16th, 2002 12:16 AM:

There's no reason not to. It's just telling you what caliber your musket is, and how much black powder would be the maximum load. No reason to keep it there.

BTW, 1 dram = 27.34375 grains.

__________________
Dave Grieves
122nd New York
Potomac Legion



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Curt Heinrich Schmidt on December 16th, 2002 12:28 AM:


Hallo, Kamerad!

If one subscribes to the level of authenticity that says that if a Civil War soldier did not have to look at it, why should we...
Yes, it is an unnecessary and unauthentic modern intrusion.
(Now for some, out of sight is truly out of mind.... :-) )

Curt-Heinrich Schmidt
3 Drams Will Shoot Your Eye Out Mess

__________________
Curt Schmidt
I didn't like him anyway... he wasn't right...in the head.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Rifle Stack Jonah on December 16th, 2002 12:46 AM:


Thanks Pards.

__________________
Tom Billings
52nd IL INF
www.52ndill.com
ThomasCBillings@Yahoo.com



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Kriegslok on December 16th, 2002 01:11 AM:

Jonah, I am guessing when you say the Bottom of the barrel you mean at the breech end rather than the muzzle. I thought you were talking about something you found on the barrel "under the wood". Yes remove it.

Mr Schmidt, you are correct about the serial number and the Federal requirements. Unfortunately, I live in one of those "check with your local laws" places. Here in NJ, black powder arms are considered firearms just like a Garand or AR-15. You have to have a permit to buy one in NJ and you cannot have them shipped here. Luckily, PA is a short drive away and black powder arms can be legaly bought and transported into NJ by NJ residents

You are also correct in that the movie "Glory" was confusing to us newbies when they handed out rifles by serial number.

__________________
TJ Markert
11NJVCoE



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Fl. Reb on December 16th, 2002 02:59 AM:
What do I use?

What tool do I use for defarbing my gun?
I don't want to mess up my gun, I don't exactly have tons of moola.
Alec Sutton


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Mutt on December 16th, 2002 04:45 AM:
Tools, not the people kind ;)

Hey Alec,

Welp, to get the markings off the barrel you need a good ol file. Actually several files is ideal. You start with a rougher file and work down to a finer one. Also, some emery clothe to polish it off.

Look into getting Geoff Walden's pamphlet on defarbing your Repro Enfield. If you have an enfield, it's obviously very valuable to your efforts. If you own another rifle, it'll at least be abel to guide tou through the filing process.

Also, check the past posts of this Board. I know Mr Heinrich has posted a helluv-a-lot on our friend the Enfield and rifles and muskets in general.

Regards,

__________________
Matthew Mickletz
"Mutt"
Phoenix Iron Pards



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Fl. Reb on December 16th, 2002 01:27 PM:
thanks

Thanks. But can I use a grinder?

--------------
Alec Sutton


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Dave_Grieves on December 16th, 2002 02:34 PM:

You can use a grinder if you're good at it. They tend to take too much metal too fast.

You just want to go deep enough so that you can't see the markings when you have finished polishing out the filed area. To remove too much will make it obvious that you ground somthing off, and if you want to fire the gun, it could be unsafe if too much metal is taken out in a spot on the barrel.

__________________
Dave Grieves
122nd New York
Potomac Legion



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Cpl. Ston-e on December 16th, 2002 04:00 PM:
Stock work?

Should you sand all the poly off of the rifle stock???
I was thinking of doing this, using linseed oil and re staining
the stock. What is the correct procedure for refinishing a stock authenticly? Thanks for the help!

__________________
J.T. Clements
18th Va Inf. Co.G
Longstreets Corps
" Doc, I'm belevin I've got the glimpses."



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Curt Heinrich Schmidt on December 16th, 2002 04:00 PM:
Some people like fishing with grenades...

Hallo, Kameraden!

Although power tools can be our friends... they can be most unforgiving of mistakes.
IMHO, a grinder is "too much tool" for the job at hand (removing shallow stampings) in that they remove too much metal too fast, tend to leave behind "flat areas," and more importantly leave deeper scratches and gouges that require more work to remove.
Polishing metal involves removing larger scratches and replacing them with ever smaller and finer scratches until the human eye can no longer see them and the surface looks dull (then shiny).
A decent 6 or 8 inch "mill" file, and a couple or three sheets of 220 and 400 grit wet-or-dry sandpaper and/or emory cloth will do the trick safely and professional-looking. (The fewer scratches put on, the fewer need to be removed.)
A sanding pad or "disk" with the same grit sandpaper disks, for a 1/4 inch power drill, saves on elbow grease- but moves toward the risks and dangers of the grinder or grinding wheel!

Curt-Heinrich Schmidt
Tim "Tool Man" Taylor Lessons Mess

__________________
Curt Schmidt
I didn't like him anyway... he wasn't right...in the head.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Curt Heinrich Schmidt on December 16th, 2002 04:13 PM:
Long....

Hallo, Kameraden!

Period linseed oil is not the same as the modern stuff, so using
modern boiled linseed oil "simulates" but does not "replicate" the oil-dipped finishes in use at the time of the Civil War. Here is an overall view...

" Raw vs. Boiled Linseed Oil

It was not uncommon in the 17th century for gun stocks to be painted black, brown, or at times even red or blue. By the 18th century, instead of linseed oil based paints, the stocks were treated with linseed oil itself.
By the time of the Civil War, finished stocks were dipped into heated tanks of linseed oil for a few minutes, the excess wiped off, and the stocks set aside to air dry.
Availability, tradition, lack of synthetic substitutes, and later the lack of suitable plastic stock materials made linseed oil the armory finish all the way up to the M1 when shortages in 1942 and the desire to waterproof stocks led to the use of tung oil instead.
It is believed that the use of linseed oil was not intended as a finish, but rather as a means of protecting the wood from drying out and cracking or splitting prior to being issued. Many a private between World War I and World War II would be kept busy with “stock maintenance” and a little bottle of linseed oil.
But, exactly what is linseed oil?
Linseed oil is a liquid vegetable oil made from the seeds of the flax plant that contain polyunsaturated fatty acids. Short of returning to high school chemistry, these fatty acids have molecular bonds that are attacked by oxygen to form radicals, which starts a chain reaction that increases incrementally over time to form polymers or a natural plastic in the form of a tough, elastic, film. (water dries by vaporization, linseed oil by oxidation)
Because of this reaction, linseed oil eventually “dries” at normal temperatures and is often referred to as a “drying oil” and it formed the basis for “oil-based” paint.
However, the location that the flax plants were grown, the climate, and other factors can alter the content of the fatty acids present in the linseed oil. Too much of certain acids such as linolenic acid causes linseed oil to dry too fast, turn yellow, or turn brittle. In addition, containing fatty acids, linseed oil is subject to attack by fungus and mildew, and like fat will turn rancid.

Raw Linseed Oil

Linseed oil that was just expressed is a golden brown or yellowish color that then could be refined and bleached for use in the art industry.
“Raw linseed oil” is linseed oil that has been extracted and packaged without additional additives. It still contains the gums that occur naturally in the oil and gives it its “hard” finishing quality.
The problem with linseed oil is that it can take days, weeks, or even months to dry.
Somewhere around 200 A.D. the discovery was made that if the raw linseed oil was boiled it thickened and dried faster.

Boiled Linseed Oil

However in the modern era, it was discovered that the drying or film formation process could be sped up by adding driers in the form of oil soluble metal salts usually lead oxide,
and more recent times cobalt, manganese, or calcium salts. To effectively dissolve the chemicals, the linseed oil was heated to near or boiling, and then often thickened by bubbling oxygen through it.
Today, so-called “Boiled Linseed Oil” is not what one would think- Civil War era linseed oil. Instead, it is raw linseed oil that has been processed, usually with sulfuric and phosphoric acid to remove the gums. It is then further altered through the addition of chemical drying accelerators. 19
Although a partial, water-proof barrier can be imparted to a stock with modern so-called “boiled linseed oil” through many applications, the lack of gums tends to prevent the formation of a truly protective film. Without the protective film, water can and will penetrate the wood.
Linseed oil was a penetrating finish, meaning it penetrated into the fibers of the wood
and dried or hardened within the wood. It does not generally build up a surface film like varnish or lacquer because its film dries too “soft.”
“Varnish” refers to a drying oil like linseed oil that has added resins such as alkyd, phenolic, or polyurethane. In the old days, varnish was made by hand by adding resins, lac (the cocoon secretions of an Asian insect made into a flakes) or gums to oil and alcohol. Today the resins such as alkyd, phenolic, or polyurethane are synthetic, and the percentage of oil present determines the type of varnish. Varnish builds up on the surface and dries to a hard protective shell.
There are about as many recipes for gunstock finishes as there are people using them. Most involve using oil/varnish blends, home-made or commercial, such as Lin-Speed Oil, Tru-Oil, Watco Danish Oil, Minwax Tung Oil Finish, and others. Some involve “wiping varnish” which often is nothing more than varnish thinned by as much as half with paint thinner and confused by it by called “tung oil finish.”
The look and effect of the “armory dip” can be achieved by adding some of the gums back into the modern so-called “boiled linseed oil.”
This can be done by using a 1/3 mixture of modern boiled linseed oil, 1/3 modern spar varnish (for the resins), and thinned with 1/3 turpentine (for penetration).
The mix is painted on heavily, allowing it to soak well into the wood for 5-10 minutes. The excess is wiped off, and the stock set aside to air dry. Drying time will depend upon temperature and humidity. Once dry, additional coats can be hand-rubbed a few drops at a time from the palm of the hand until the friction warms the hand. Again, the stock is set aside to dry. This is repeated several more times.
Another method, going back to colonial times, combines the look of the dipped linseed oil finish with the weather proof qualities of the polymer finishes. This recipe involves 1/3 linseed oil, 1/3 beeswax, and 1/3 turpentine.
The mixture is gently heated (NOT over an open flame!) until it well melted and mixed. As it cools, it congeals into a paste that is rubbed into the stock to make a great military style finish."

Curt Heinrich Schmidt

__________________
Curt Schmidt
I didn't like him anyway... he wasn't right...in the head.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Cpl. Ston-e on December 16th, 2002 04:27 PM:
Neat!

Thanks, very interesting...
I am nervous about taking on this project.
Anyone else with any advice is welcome...
Danke Herr Schmidt!

__________________
J.T. Clements
18th Va Inf. Co.G
Longstreets Corps
" Doc, I'm belevin I've got the glimpses."



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Curt Heinrich Schmidt on December 16th, 2002 06:23 PM:
Doesn't have to be complicated, ask around for help...

Hallo, Kamerad!

Don't fret, or have Angst.
You can easily do as most lads do, and simply hand-rub several coats of modern "boiled linseed oil" into the stock (and maintian it or refresh it once a year or so.)

Curt-Heinrich Schmidt

__________________
Curt Schmidt
I didn't like him anyway... he wasn't right...in the head.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Fod on December 16th, 2002 11:02 PM:

I do not recommend "sanding" the polyu finish off the stock...use a chemical stripper

Refinishing the stock

Materials needed:
Bix stripper or Parks sprayable stripper
Metal scraper (plastic melts)
Chemical gloves (cheap ones melt)
Metal coffee or paint can
Very fine steel wool
Mineral spirits
Clean soft cloths

Warning: You’ll be working with some very potent, TOXIC chemicals here. Read the directions and warning labels. Material such as rags impregnated with linseed oil may spontaneously combust after a long period due to gradual reaction with oxygen.

Remove all metal hardware from your rifle.
Suspend the stock over the can to catch the drips
Put on your gloves (if you skip this part, your skin will burn)
Spray or apply stripper and wait according to instructions on can.
Remove softened finish and stripper with metal scraper.
Apply a light coat of stripper and remove any remaining finish with steel wool pads soaked in mineral spirits.
(Warning: If you use Bix stripper, it says you can use water for the above step. Be advised that using water here instead of mineral spirits will remove the stain also).
Let the stock dry thoroughly. The stock may be noticeably lighter in color, don’t worry; it darkens naturally with the linseed oil finish.

Dispose of the removed finish properly. You don't want this stuff in your water supply.

Refinish with one of the mixtures given by Herr Schmidt.

__________________
Daniel Fodera
Pvt
14th Reg't, SC Vol Inf
PLHA
"They were the dirtiest men I ever saw, a most ragged, lean and hungry set of wolves. Yet there was a dash about them that the northern men lacked."




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Jack Enright on December 17th, 2002 01:08 AM:

Ref. finishing for gunstocks; this was passed on to me by Pat, an old friend who was a custom gunstock maker.
Only use raw linseed oil. The secret of a good, lasting finish is not the amount of oil used, but the effort put into driving the oil deep into the grain of the wood.
When Pat had finished a gunstock, or target pistol butt. he'd take it to the pub in the evening with a little bottle of raw linseed. Sit by the fire, he'd smear a tiny amount of oil on the wood and spend hours gently rubbing away at it - and the finish he achieved was glorious!
Another route you might try is the mixture I use on my yew longbow; a 50:50 mix of raw linseed oil and pure turpentine (NOT WHITE SPIRIT!!). The turpentine helps the oil soak deep into the grain of the wood, then appears to dry out. Though whether it actually evaporates, or just oxidises and thickens up , I don't know. But my bow is very happy with it!

Ref. tools for use on the barrel; I would not under ANY circumstances take an angle grinder to a barrel. And without boasting, I can say I'm an artist with an angle grinder, but even so - no chance! One reason is that an angle grinder will make a concave cut into the metal, whereas you want the surface of the barrel left convex. The other is, it's just too fast! Taking off metal with a file is hard work, but trying to put it BACK without it showing is near impossible without major engineering facilities.

Finally, I wholeheartedly agree with Curt's advice that the best tool for the job is a mill-file (or single-cut file). These are far less likely to put deep scratches into the metal than a cross-cut file. Slow and sure will get you there, mate!! Go for it!!



Jack Enright

24th MI Vol (UK)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Curt Heinrich Schmidt on December 17th, 2002 01:47 AM:


Hallo, Kameraden!

Jawohl!
"Raw" linseed is actually "more like" period boiled linseed oil in that it still has most of the gums and resins still it it that gives the "protective barrier" in the wood (and not just on it).
It lacks the drying agents, so dries much slower.
Modern boiled linseed oil is hydroscopic, and does not seal the wood. A drop of water left on it, will be "sucked" into the wood in a few minutes or so. (Although we have have "sealed" stocks with 20-40 hand-rubbed coats of heated boiled linseed oil and turpentine....)

Regarding sanding versus stripping of stocks...

Sanding adds work in that one is "scratching" the wood and those scratches need "sande out" with progressively finer grades/grits of sandpaper.
For newcomers/newbies, there is also the risk if "rounding edges" of mortises and crisp areas.

However, "stripping," if not done properly, often just removes the layer of polyurethane ABOVE the surface of the wood, leaving the "plastic" in the wood and acting as a barrier for subsequent oilings to work their way "into" and not just "on" the wood.
I strip as well as sand, to ensure I have opened the grain and surface of the wood for the oil to come. Just my way...

Curt-Heinrich Schmidt
Former 18th and 19th Century Gunmaker Mess

__________________
Curt Schmidt
I didn't like him anyway... he wasn't right...in the head.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by SCTiger on December 26th, 2002 06:55 AM:
alternative wood

Was there any type of wood stock that was common to the period, that did not need all the linseed oil maintenance?
In other words a stock that was water resistive and did not need finishing?

I was thinking along the lines of a cyprus wood or a heavy wood like mahogany??

Greg Deese

__________________
Gregory A. Deese (Deas)

Rowdy Pards- SC Section






--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by Curt Heinrich Schmidt on December 26th, 2002 04:13 PM:

Hallo!

For the most part, walnut was used for military gunstocks, as it was common and cheap.
To over-generalize, of course there are other woods in existence but pretty much military guns used walnut or black walnut while civilian guns tended to favor hard-rock maple.
It is not the wood, but rather the type of finish used that makes it resistant to the elements. In some countries, like the USA, "wood" fell from favor in the mid 1960's and since in favor of black "plastic." ;-)
"Period linseed oil" was a cheap and fairly quick method. For civilian guns where production was low, etc, etc. a gunmaker could take the time to use more "varnish" type finishes to hand-rub many, many coats to produce a durable if not water-resistant finish.
Part of the 20th century "barracks chores" of American solders up until WWII was using their little bottle of linseed oil to "renew" their gun finishes.

Curt-Heinrich Schmidt

__________________
Curt Schmidt
I didn't like him anyway... he wasn't right...in the head.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All times are GMT. The time now is 11:54 AM.
Show all 22 posts from this thread on one page

Powered by: vBulletin Version 2.2.4
Copyright © Jelsoft Enterprises Limited 2000, 2001.
Copyright 2002, Paul Calloway.

[MassVOL]

Armisport is now using oil on the stocks of it weapons how does this change the procedure? Would just rubbing in a 50/50 of linseed oil and turpintine do the trick?

[JustRob]

What should the end result of the oil finish look like. I put ten or so layers of Lin-Speed on the stock of my '42 until it looked liked it was varnished. I had enough people comment on the "modern" finish that I used steel wool to take off the shine. The wood now has a dull appearance.

In light on the fact that stocks were dipped, which finish would be more proper, the thick shiny one or the thin dull one?

Sorry if my descriptions are unclear.

[Southern Cal]

You will be lucky if you can get 100% of the finish out of the wood from a polyurethane treated stock. That's another reason to sand the stock as well as strip it: opens up more wood fibers. Using a historically correct pure linseed oil concoction over a stock containing polyurethane residue may feel good but unless you dump the old stock and replace it with a new, unfinished one you will still not have an "authentic" finish.

In other words, it doesn't really matter if you use pure, boiled, or otherwise augmented, or turpentine thinned linseed oil on a previously finished stock. Whatever works and looks best. I'm guessing the desired result is to make the stock look as close to an "authentic" oil finish as it can considering it has already absorbed some plastic. Don't know about you, but I'm not throwing away any of my wood to buy a new stock so I can be 100% "authentic". Before I'll do that I'll buy a "kit" or an original weapon in good condition and clean it up (but that's another process altogether). Already had to buy a real Civil War bayonet because the repro's wouldn't fit the authentic bayonet scabbard I bought that really was made exactly to pattern.

I have used Linspeed and tru-oil with good results. Apply one coat to the stock with a finger to keep it warm and when the whole stock is covered evenly, I let it sit overnight and repeat the process. After two coats dried well, I buff the stock lightly with 000 steel wool, just enough to take any shine off. One must be careful not to buff off any stain on sharp surfaces or you will need to fix it with a little stain and a Q-tip rolled into a sharp tip. Remove the steel wool residue with a tack cloth. Then start the whole process over again. Two coats, one at a time, then buff the shine off with steel wool. Four coats of Linspeed followed by four of tru oil gives plenty of finish on raw wood. One has to judge the results after buffing off the shine whether or not to proceed any further. Wood previously finished can be refinished just as easily using tru-oil only. The steel wool buffing removes just a tiny bit of the stain and brings out the natural grain of the wood. Can look very nice when finished. If it is desired to seal the stock and make the grain of the wood level with the surface finish, many more applications will be needed. But that's not the question.

50/50 Linseed oil and trupentine works well too, if a dull finish and open grain look is desired. This mixture also works good with pumice stone on a cotton patch rubbed with the grain of the wood to remove the built up dirt and crud from original or well used repro stocks without harming the "patina".

L.J. Bach

[Curt-Heinrich Schmidt]

Hallo Kamerad!

"What should the end result of the oil finish look like"

Long answer:

It should look like the finishes on originals (that have not blackened with age, absorbed 140 years of dirt from the environment, or were not varnished in 1941, or 1961, or 2001 by some owner trying to "preserve" it).

Short answer:

Not like it was sealed, and/or seaked and coated in high gloss spar or polyurethane "varnish" like some modern sporting arms do.

Curt-Heinrich Schmidt

[SCTiger]

John,

Thanks for recovering that thread! I am sure Curt liked saving the keystokes!
I want my weapon to look as the issued weapon would in the 1860's. You can often meet folks who don't know every detail of the war, but they do know firearms. I am going to try the diluted linseed oil after I refinish the stock. I will have all summer to dry it.

[Rhinevalleylad]

:confused_
Well the topic is about your experience with
www.therifleshoppe.com

For defarbing my enfield I ordered two barrelbands
from Jane & Jess.
No I should say, I just paid for. They charged my card via Paypal and I am waiting and waiting.
I tried to get in touch with them but there was no reply.

So what are your exp. with them
Or
does one of you lads in the “New World” know them personally and can remind them to answer my calls via e-mail or to fullfill the prepaid order.

Regards

Ingo Rolletter
5th Va
Germany

[Oldewalnut]

I'm only going on what I know from other's dealings. A couple of people I've known have found them to be difficult. I know of a gunsmith from Texas that refuses to even bother with them.

Best advise is to keep at them. They are a legitimate business, so you should recieve your parts eventually.

Good luck.

[trippcor]

I know a lot of folks involved in Rev War that have used them. They all said good things about the products but did say service and delivery was very very very, did I say very, slow.

[Johan Steele]

Call them live, demand a refund, then go to Lodgewood. That might get you your parts... and eventually your money back.

[JimKindred]

The Rifle Shoppe is one of those businesses that surprises everyone by remaining in business. I have dealt with them for over ten years and when you order, it is hit or miss if you will ever receive what you order. They have an extremely bad reputation with 18th century reenacting and commercial musket builders. Several years ago they announced a complete change in the way they would do business but nothing changed. Extremely long delays, missing items in an order and unending excuses remain the norm.

[rebyank]

Lodgewoods no bloody better,
I ordered parts for a trapdoor in January, 1st shipment took 1 month, included some wrong parts, I sent them back, next shipment took another month, the parts were again wrong, sent them back again to get the correct ones. That was in early march, I just called monday to demand a refund, I wonder if I'll ever get it. Not only did it take forever, they also gave some very sorry excuses when I called, usually once a week. "It hasn't gotten there yet?", "It's in the mail, should be there in a couple days", "It will go out in tomorrows mail", and yes, those responces were in that order. when I finally called for my refund, I was told they didn't have the parts and wouldn't for some time.

Needless to say, I will never deal with Lodgewood again.

[Curt-Heinrich Schmidt]

Hallo Kameraden!

I believe when one places an order with the Rifle Shoppe, how fast or slow the item is received depends upon whether it is "in stock." (and they do not maintain an inventory either)
If it is, it arrives.
If it is not, one must wait until sufficeint orders have come in to warrant a production batch from the foundry. I have waited 1-2 years on some items.

In the wait, they do not answer their phone, return messages, or answer
s-mail/SASE inquiries.

Also, while their catalog illustrates original guns and parts, what one receives are sand castings with mold seams and sprue. Although clean-up is no big deal, if one orders lock parts, or knive blades or bayonets, they must be hardened and tempered, etc.

My last order consisted of a P1853 Enfield hammer to see whether it was a casting/copy of an original (as implied) in the proper size. What I received was a casting of an incorrect, small, Italian repro hammer.

I like them best for what their catalog illustrates in picture form, and for the unique and rare "parts" they can offer. Otherwise, expect long waits and no communication, it appears to be their SOP.

Curt-Heinrich Schmidt

[Johan Steele]

RebYank, I'm suprised at your luck w/ Lodgewood. I know at least three people who have had excellent luck w/ them. One defarb that they said would take 6-8 weeks arrived back at the buyers doorstep in ten days... that was from the date he shipped it off. Thanks for the warning though.

[Yellowhammer]

I have to agree with Shane.

I've done defarbs for several friends using Lodgewood parts (lockplates, bands, sling swivels, and lock washers) and always had quick and reliable service.

Of course, I was always ordering extremely common readily available parts.

[hireddutchcutthroat]

I have had nothing but good results from Lodgewood.

[Oldewalnut]

Sorry to say here also, I have to side with Ian regarding Lodgewood. I recently ordered a couple of the washers and the sling swivels. It took a couple of followup calls but finally got the order.

I view it this way with a vendor, if it's an in-stock item, there shouldn't (in a perfect world, anyway) be an excuse for something to not be shipped in more than a few days. On the other hand, if it's a custom item or something they have to make and they inform me of such. I can understand delays.

Maybe something else to ponder. We're dealing with items that, to us are important. In the grand scheme of things, there are a very limited number of people reproducing this stuff, perhaps we are a little unrealistic in our expectations, sometimes!

[BarryDusel]

I have to chime in here as well. In the past I've used Lodgewood and have nothing but great results . 10 days wait at the most.
On the other hand. In regards to the RifleShoppe. I think they have all the info , ie, undetermined waits if the part isn't in stock. They have those statements or something like it on their website. A very good friend of mine built a true Mdl 1742 Potsdam musket for me. Absolutely beautiful piece I might add. He still builds different 18th century weapons and gets many of his parts from the Rifle Shoppe . He always warns about the potential waiting times because of the RifleShoppe and it's practices. Yet when one needs really rare parts there aren't many options.

[hireddutchcutthroat]

Im glad this thread has been started, as I was contemplating getting some parts for my FrankenLorenz from the rifle shoppe. I may reconsider now.

[Rhinevalleylad]

Vielen Dank

Thanks a lot for all your posts, lads.

Well as a result:
there is still hope
to get the parts
or
to get a refund.

Time will show.

If interested, I will give you the final info asop
Well it depends on TheRiffleshoppe if that is probably
in a week, a month or in a year.
:sarcastic
regards

Ingo Rolletter
5th Va Inf
www.hdgm.de
Germany

[bluebellybugleboy]

HeyCurt :
kinda a dumb question but how exactly should I know when stock is dry completly through when using the raw oil? i'm still saving my money to get that springfield but I kinda want to know this rifle in advance.

[Stonewall_Greyfox]

I have been able to find Boiled Linseed Oil at most hardware stores...however I am having a devil of a time finding Raw Linseed Oil at Lowes, Home Depot...apparantly these are no longer regularly stocked items.

Where else may I look to find R.L.O.?

Thanks,

Paul B. Boulden Jr.

[Curt-Heinrich Schmidt]

Hallo Herr Rob!

As corny as this may sound...

It does not dry by evaporation like some oils, it dries by oxidzation (and polymerization).

When it is dry, hard, and smooth to the touch, and not gummy or sticky or tacky- it is "dry."

Herr Paul!

IF you do not have a local store that carries it, I suggest going "on-line," such as:

http://doitbest.com/shop/find2.asp?find_spec=linseed+oil&mbrid=4724&mscssid=RKM9QPDM7WDC8KSCH4C7723S5N973XBA&SAFE=1&redir=

Curt-Heinrich Schmidt

[JohnTaylorCW]

I have been able to find Boiled Linseed Oil at most hardware stores...however I am having a devil of a time finding Raw Linseed Oil at Lowes, Home Depot...apparantly these are no longer regularly stocked items.

Where else may I look to find R.L.O.?

Thanks,

Paul B. Boulden Jr.

You might also try an art supply store.

John T

[Jim Chochole]

I have been looking for an image of the correct markings that were placed on the first P53s that came out between 1855-56. Most were used in Crimea. Can anyone help me with a direction? They seem to be hard to locate.

Thanks,
James Chochole

[Curt-Heinrich Schmidt]

Hallo Kamerad!

Covered... ;-)

I am looking for a "scanable" image to send to you.

In brief, and in general...

They typically do not vary that much from later ones, carrying the crown over VR behind the hammer, in front of the hammer the year date an dplace of manufacture such as ENFIELD for the R.S.A. Factory, LAC for London Armoury, and TOWER for other contract arms. (Those made in America were WINDSOR, and those made in Liege just the year date in italic lettering.)

At times, the "VR" varies- on American made guns it is absent, on Liege made a small star between the V and R, on English a dot, dash, or even a small cross appears.

And, at times, the year date is above, and at times below the place of manufacture.

Curt-Heinrich Schmidt

[Enfield]

I have only seen photos of a tiny handful of bona-fide 1st Model P53s (and only one in person). I would venture to say that all the 23,000 or so 1st Models were marked similarly, all being made under contract by the trade in Birmingham (and perhaps a few in London). The RSAF-Enfield did not exist as a volume manufacturing facility until 1858, so no 1st Model would be marked ENFIELD (unless some early unique experimental gun). Same with the London Armoury Co. (LAC). The Robbins & Lawrence (US) contract was for the 2nd Model, so none would be marked WINDSOR. (Note that I hate to say "all" or "none" when talking Enfields, as there always seems to be the exception to some "rule," but theoretically, none would be marked ENFIELD, WINDSOR, or L.A.Co.). I don't believe any of the 1st Model contracts went outside England, so none should have Liege (Belgium) markings - these would be 2nd Models.

I *think* all the 1st Models were made in Birmingham. If any were made in London, they would most likely have the same lockplate markings (1854 or 1855, or *maybe* 1853, with TOWER; Crown / V.R), but the London proofmarks. Although come to think of it, the proofs for both places would probably be the Government TP proofs - not the commercial proofmarks. Inspector marks would be B or L. The lockplate date should be only 1853-1855 - the 2nd Model came out in 1855. I don't think volume production of the 1st Model was but from 1854-55, and these are the lockplate dates that would normally be seen.

The characteristics that really distinguish the 1st Model from later P53s are:
1. Rear sight with convex sides,
2. Smaller, lighter hammer, with a curl to the spur,
3. Nosecap with no lip for the rammer,
4. Plain thin-shank button-head rammer (although these were also used on the early 2nd Models),
5. The clamping barrel bands were slightly different from those used on the 3rd Model P53. It's hard to describe - they just look a little different.

Hope this helps,

Geoff Walden

[Curt-Heinrich Schmidt]

Hallo Herr Geoff!

Thanks for the update and corrections.
Your services are always appreciated.

Curt-Heinrich Schmidt

[hireddutchcutthroat]

Hallo Kamerad!

Covered... ;-)

I am looking for a "scanable" image to send to you.

Curt-Heinrich Schmidt


Curt,

When you find that image, could you post it here?

[Curt-Heinrich Schmidt]

Hallo Herr Robert!

Actually, being a Luddite, I do not know how to post images. Sniff, sniff. :-(
But I will look into it.

Curt-Heinrich Schmidt

[hireddutchcutthroat]

Grrrrrrr!

Its one of those things, if you were here I could show you in 2 seconds, and I cannot find the thread explaining how to do it.

Is there any in depth books on Enfields and their development? I am probably going to get one at some point and I would like to know as much about them before doing so.

[Curt-Heinrich Schmidt]

Hallo Kamerad!

I am fond of Christopher Roads' THE BRITISH SOLDIER'S FIREARM 1850-1864, (although his focus was largely British government made Enfields), IMHO, the "best" available reference...

The 1964 book has been reprinted by R & R Books in 1994, I still see it around, but I don't know if further editions or R & R's first.

For a "quickie pocket guide," I like De Witt Bailey's 1971/1972 BRITISH MILITARY FIREARMS 1815-1865. It is harder to find. I picked up my copy in England in 1996.

Curt-Heinrich Schmidt

[Johan Steele]

IIRC the P53 in the Crimea were mostly in the hands of the Highlanders weren't they? I seem to recall a book on the Highlanders wich had some good info on the 1st Generation 1853's... This sucks... I no longer have the title as it was on my old computer that died of virus overload...

There is a book out there on the Highlanders, IIRC it had a good selection of photos of weapons carried in the period from the Napoleonic Wars thru the Boer War. Maybe someone here can recall the title and author.

[Charles W. Mood]

FYI...The Rifle Shoppe (www.therifleshoppe.com) makes castings off of original rifle parts. They carry the lock plate for the 1st Model Enfield dated either 1854 or 1855.

I don't know it would fit an Armi or Euroarms Enfield, but at $14.95 it might be worth it to try as it would already be properly marked. I've ordered a 3rd Model lock plate, as well as the correct 3rd Model Rifle Bands to try on my Euroarms Enfield, but I have not received ithem yet. They warn you up front that shipping may take up to 30-90 days.

Has anyone else ever tried this?
V/R
Charles W. Mood
115th New York Vols

[Curt-Heinrich Schmidt]

Hallo Herr Charles!

Welcome to the AC Forum!

"Has anyone else ever tried this?" :-)

That may be why there is a SEARCH button? :-(

http://www.authentic-campaigner.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3511&highlight=Rifle+Shoppe

Curt-Heinrich Schmidt, Moderator

[Bill Cross]

My experience with Lodgewood has been disappointing overall.

I ordered one of their defarbed Enfields (complete with lockplate, correct sling swivels, etc.), and the bayonet lug/from sight broke off TWICE the first time I stacked arms with it. Each time they were nice enough to re-solder it, but I had to ship it back (not inexpensive). The second repair took months, they admitted they forgot about it, and the barrel came back rusty and the stock broke in shipping. Fortunately I was going to reblue it, so I was only annoyed, and they sent me a new stock (again, I had to ship it back). They may have compensated me for shipping some of the times, I just don't recall.

But the "one piece" Springfield rammer I purchased from them a year or two ago broke in two pieces at "Into the Wilderness" last month. Turns out it was not one piece as promised, but braised together from two pieces the fit inside the other. The only difference between it and the Italian repro that came with the gun was it was braised and not screwed together.

The Lodgewood folks are very nice, and pleasant to deal with. But their products are flawed in my estimation, and so one should at least be aware of the problems when ordering. They get busy going to events, and things can take quite awhile to happen. I was hesitant to say anything in public because they get such high marks, I assumed it was me. But the broken rammer was the proverbial last straw (which cost me $20 to have welded and doesn't look entirely right because of the extra metal which does not match in color).

[Curt-Heinrich Schmidt]

Hallo Kameraden!

The myth of the "one piece ramrod," and the number of vendors and customers buying them make for a story all their own.
The fault was not so much Lodgewood's, except for their seeming (?) to be selling the "so-called" one-piece ramrods so recently.
I have never been able to track down the maker or makers of the "two piece, one piece ramrods that foisted them upon unsuspecting vendors and unsuspecting customers- but many quality and reputable vendors and customers &