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 "got burned." (I did myself from the "Horse Soldier" in G-burg before they "reposted" them as two-pieced.)

Original ramrods were two piece, with the "tulip" being joined, pinned, and brazed in a joint with the shaft ABOVE the swell. (Well, there are other problems with the repro's material, production, finishing, and function- and adding to why originals did not bend or break their ends when used to load, or to stack arms....)

Years ago, a barrel maker friend of mine briefly dabbled in a more period correct one by lathe turning the shaft to form the M1855/1861's swell as part of the shaft; and brazing and pinning the tulip head to the upper end of the swell. What the Italians seem to do to save costs is to use straight steel rod, with a cast or turned swell and tulip made as a unit- and then insert the turned down end of the shaft into a hole in the bottom of the swell, and braze it over. Obviously the weakest part of the construction is at the brazed joint....

Curt-Heinrich Schmidt

[billmatt04]

Gentlemen,
Yet again I come to you in search of knowledge. I am curious as to what the weight of the stock of an Enfield rifle musket would be. My Euroarms seems to be very heavy and I wondered if the Armisport stock was more correct, weight-wise. Just something that has been nagging at me and I hoped that you all might be able to help.

Sincerely,
Matthew Cassady
104th Illinois Vol. Inf.

[LibertyHallVols]

The extra weight comes from the barrel, not the stock. Generally, reproduction barrels tend to be thicker and/or have a different taper than original barrels. This results in more metal --> more weight.

[Curt-Heinrich Schmidt]

Hallo Kamerad!

I will have to find my postal scale and get back to you. My bathroom scale says three pounds- but that could be anywhere between 2.6 and 3.0 as it measures in half pound increments.

The answer is really, IMHO, academic. BOTH the EA and AS "Enfields" run larger, more bulkier, and less "refined" that the range of originals due to a heavier barrel and to a lesser degree "more wood."
Since there is a limit to how much wood can be taken down or removed, and with an oversized, heavier barrel- one cannot short of "rebuilding" the thing match an original without having a correct "custom" one built.
And, due to the density of wood, there is also some variation in originals.
;-)

Curt-Heinrich Schmidt

[billmatt04]

Thank you for your help. I had always suspected that it was the "lawyer barrles" that gave it the extra weight, but I had also read of guys shaving down their stocks when defarbing them. thanks for the help.

Matt Cassady
104th Illinois Vol. Inf.

[Curt-Heinrich Schmidt]

Hallo Kamerad!

Although it is just a sample of one original and one EA (I happened to have two naked stocks lying here, but am too lazy to strip down more...) ;-)

Original stock = 2.6 pounds
EA stock = 3.0 pounds

Curt-Heinrich Schmidt

[Csayankee]

For what it is worth I have a EA and it is heavy. But I have picked up some AS that seemed just as heavy. And I seem EA that were light. I say it as something ot do with the manufactoring and location. But I got use to my EA and now it doens't seem too bad.

Thanks
Daniel MacInnis

[Curt-Heinrich Schmidt]

Hallo Kameraden!

According to "WEIGHT and DIMENSIONS, &c. of ARMS and AMMUNITON used in the BRITISH SERVICE in 1864 (excluding India):

The weight of the P1853 Enfield is listed at 9 pounds, 12 ounces with bayonet and 8 pounds, 14 1/2 ounces without bayonet.

The one original I pulled off the wall to weigh, for a Quickie Comparison to the "specs" was 9 pounds even, without the bayonet. (I would attribute the difference to wood density variation).

My personal radically "de-farbed," "reworked," "retroverted," "slimmed down," "semi-custom," "Swan Radical Makeovor," 1985 era Enfield weighs 9 pounds, 14 ounces without the bayonet.

Everyone may now be excused to go to the bathroom and weigh their EA or AS Enfields of the past 20 years manufactury, and compare and contrast them against the original specs.
I suspect, we will learn that Italian repros are heavier than originals.
;-)
And, the point would be? :-)

Curt-Heinrich Schmidt

[Curt-Heinrich Schmidt]

Hallo Kameraden!

On another post on "Two Banders," Herr Tim Kindred said:

" and maybe we in this hobby ought to look at transferring some of our interest away from the clothing and drill area, and onto the weapon area. We expend much time and energy over what trim is correct for what jacket, and what type of stitching is appropriate for what accouterments, yet very little discussing the overall area of authentic weapons."

IMHO, the Last Great Bastion against authenticy lies in the area of our weapons. We have weapons that would not pass ANY of the tests or requirements we hold for clothing and gear- and would be rejected or banned as "farb."

While I would not say "transfer interest away from the clothing and drill area," I would definitely say SUPPLEMENT and COMPLEMENT the impression, persona, clothing and drill areas!!

IMHO, part of the problem is hobby tradition or "a developed culture of "acceptance," which often defends with as well as argues:

1. Italian reproductions are not the best, but they are the only poker game in town- so we have to live with them as long as we "de-farb" (whatever that really means) them for P/H/A use.
2. Custom gun cost is "prohibitive."
3. Custom builders/makers, custom builts, and how to order or buy one are not generally even known to the CW Community.
4. "Custom makers" are not found on the Buy & Sell folders, or on site "resources" or "links."
5. Unit standards just say "Springfields" or "Enfields" are the standards, without speaking to their "level of de-farb" or quality.
6. When it comes to firearms, I don't know or can't tell what is right or wrong. Neither can my comrades. And neither can the Public. So what?

The H/A Community is, ruthlessly and at times unforgivingly, strict on the exacting points of raw-materials, patterns and form, and methods of construction/manufacture for clothing and accoutrements- it turns a pretty blind eye to what is acceptable in the area of firearms. (Read as: "Is close good enough" when it comes to caps/hats, blouses, trousers, cartridge boxes, shoes, etc., etc.?)

Would I do better to "add" to my "fatigue" clothing a $600-700 dress coat- or spend $600-700 to have a "full de-farb" done to my $450 musket? (Which could be done incrementally over months versus the one time "hit" for the coat...)

Or, not have four or five or more "impressions" with appropriate arms, and spend less money for an "authentic" custom-built gun ($1200-$1400 or so)?

At any rate, IMHO, it is personal choice driven by philosophy. WE as a F/M/C/P/H/A "hobby" have moved forward Light Years in the past 20 years on clothing and kit, but commonly, routinely, and without blinking do not put as much thought, effort, and practice into our weapons as our uniforms and gear.

Is it calling a spade a spade, or the kettle calling the pot black? Meaning, do we continue to accept the "current culture" regarding firearms, or do we acknowledge it, take ownership of it, and begin to move to put this Double Standard back to the level and era (20 years ago) where uniforms and gear once were??

In the interest of serious discussion, as well as improving our impressions, what say ye lads?

Curt-Heinrich Schmidt
Heretic Mess

[Andrew Jarvi]

Comrade Schmidt,
I do believe that we all could put forth more effort to seeing that our weapons equal up to the quality of our kit. I must say I do wish there was a good manufacturer of weapons here in the states. As for the unit I am with, the men should be carrying the 1863 Springfield but many opt for the less pricey Enfields so as to be able to participate. I am trying to find funds via grants and other sources to be able to purchase better equipment so new guys do not feel rushed to buy just anything so as to participate. Also I am trying to find these funds to get some of these youngsters off of the street and learn the history of their ancestors that the schools are unable to teach. I really would rather see people save up and invest in a weapon of higher authenticity. I myself, when going as a private carry a 61' Springfield which I am slowly getting defarbed as finances allow. I once was with a mainstream unit, which portrayed the regiment both of my ggg grandfathers had served with throughout the WBTS. So yes I agree we should put forth more energy into seeing weapons of a higher level of authenticity being used.

Andrew Jarvi
Capt. 5th USCT

[markj]

>The H/A Community is, ruthlessly and at times unforgivingly, strict on the >exacting points of raw-materials, patterns and form, and methods of >construction/manufacture for clothing and accoutrements- it turns a pretty >blind eye to what is acceptable in the area of firearms. (Read as: "Is close >good enough" when it comes to caps/hats, blouses, trousers, cartridge >boxes, shoes, etc., etc.?)

Indeed. The above comments by Curt remind me of the famous story about the famous actor Charlie Chaplin entering a "Charlie Chaplin Lookalike Contest" on a lark...and placing THIRD. Reality almost never compares to fantasy.....

Regards,

Mark Jaeger

[JimKindred]

From the other Kindred on the Forum.

Curt,

I could not agree more with what you have said, the lack of authenticity and caring for firearms authenticity has been a pet peeve of mine since the early 80's.

The level of firearms authenticity can be had but how bad do Civil War reenactors want it. The demand for authentic firearms in the single action shooting groups has pushed not only the Italian makers but also some US makers such as Marlin to make steps in that direction. Is it buying power in dollars or numbers that make the manufacturers pay attention? I don't know but they seem to be paying attention to the SASS crowd.

So what is the deal, how do they rate special attention and Civil War doesn't? Simple answer, they are organized on a level Civil War reenactors have never seen, they speak as a somewhat unified voice. In Civil War we are so splintered that our voice is lost. People have been talking about a national organization since I became involved in the hobby in 1975 and it hasn't happened yet. I am afraid the genie is to far out of the bottle to start putting it all together under one roof.

As long as reenactors continue to buy the Civil War firearms currently offered without question then those are the firearms they will make. Why change if you can sell what you already have?

When it comes to improving the authenticity of the currently available firearms I am all for it and very much support the discussion Curt has started here. It is high time the same standards applied to clothing and equipment be applied to the principal tool of the trade for a soldier, his firearm.

[James Brenner]

I agree completely. So, the question is, how do we collectively get the manufacturers to change? I know that one way is to speak with our wallets, but I'm not sure how effective that would be. After all, most of us have our musket(s).

Here's a thought: I used to belong to a high power club in North Carolina that sponsorsed DCM matches - events where people could meet the requirements to purchase Garands, etc., from the government. One of the methods the club used to counter local, state, and federal anti-gun proposals was the "One Minute Letter". Simply put, it was a USPS post card addressed to the appropriate legislator that stated the author (as a voter) disagreed with the proposed legislation. The note did not go into any lengthy discussion. It was simply a statement that would figure into the politicians' for-and-against tallies. This tactic had several benefits: it was cheap, it was fast, it could be done repeatedly at club functions, and it was oftentimes effective.

I'll freely admit that I know little about business practices, but it seems to me that the first step is to tell the suppliers that there's a demand for a certain type of item. If enough people chime in...

[Johan Steele]

I will agree w/ Mr Schmidt here, one thing that is lacking is any real standards for firearms and the problem isn't just w/ the re-enactor/living history community. Euro-Arms to name just one Italian company has had SERIOUS quality control issues of late (last year or two) and I can't imagine paying over $500 for junk, and that's all you can call some of what I've seen manufactured by Euro-Arms over the last couple years, Pedersoli... well what they sell of late is a poor imitation of an earlier replica. It seems a shame that in the 21st Century repops are of a quality that I firmly believe would be considered substandard at best by the arms inspectors of 1861-65. The Italians can do better, but as long as people are willing to buy junk... they'll keep selling it.

I for one would like to lay my hands on a quality Lorenz repop, but no one makes one. The Liege, Belgian or Dresden to name just a few of the fairly common weapons of the period are also notably absent. The question is one of supply and demand, there just aren't enough re-enactors willing to shell out $700+ for a quality replica; thus noone is willing to make one for a small production run. A superb Spencer Rifle Replica is available, but at roughly the cost of a good used car... If that is the example of cost for a quality replica... it is prohibitive for most young re-enactors.

A problem w/ defarbs that I have run across is that several professional gunsmiths, true artisans of the trade, willl flatly refuse to "de-farb" a replica. Even though by the time you add the cost of the re-pop & the de-farb effort the cost to do so is typically more than the $1200-$1300 of a servicable original. They want nothing to do w/ counterfeits and don't wish a reputation as someone who knows how to counterfeit. Those that do, do a good job, but again there is an added cost that can easily double the cost of a repop to do it right.

An issue is also one of standards... or lack there of, for many of the mainstream crowd. While standards seem to be looser (putting it mildly) for many of the SASS crowd it's hard to recruit a young man into a C/P/H organization when they look over at the hard partying cowboys on the other side of the field. Many only wish to burn powder and play cowboys and Indians anyway. They fail to see the point of putting most of $1000 into a rifle when they can go to their local Gander Mountain and pick up a cheap Hawkins trade rifle kit for a fraction of that. Unfortunetly, the low end of the mainstream crowd seems to garner more attention than those who are putting real effort into their impression. I fear until more re-enactors see the light and decide to mature their impression and add their weight to a demand for higher standards of everything from behavior to equipment the problem will persist.

[dave81276]

As someone with no mechanical ability, I have to rely upon others. You can post all the "how too's" you want, but I can't do it. I would pay plenty for an accurate Lorenz or 1816 Belgian conversion repro. My pards buy originals for Living Histories, but I want one for campaign events. I hope someone would name a gunsmith who would make a gun to order; all I've met only make what they want to sell you. Maybe I'm crazy but I don't think it's unreasonable to pay $1,000 for a good, accurate weapon.

Dave Eggleston

[DougCooper]

This is obviously a big hole in our armor of authenticity, but it appears be changing a bit. I see a renewed emphasis on carrying the correct weapon at C/P/H events...and with that a demand that they be defarbed at a minimum. It's funny how the weapon is looked upon more as an adjunct piece of gear vice an integral part of the impression by so many folks.

Do we need an easy to read "Weapons Manual for Living Historians" similar to Les Jensen on CS Depot Uniforms or Dom and Silas on drill manuals? Does one already exist?

I held off for years on buying an Enfield, rationalizing that at least I had the 69 and 58 cal requirements covered with Springfields. Then I looked through my closet and realized I had a Curt Schmidt level Enfield defarb residing in some uniforms I had worn maybe once in 2 years (doh!). Anyway, am shopping to do it right.

Do we have enough quality gunsmiths in hand willing to defarb weapons? Maybe one of the problems is there appears to still be a difference of opinion on who does it right and what it should cost. My ignorance is likely showing here but it just feels like there is nowhere near the clarity of value one would assign a good repro jacket.

[JimKindred]

As I said, we don't speak with one voice. The first musket to concentrate on is not the neat like to haves but a common standard such as the 1861 Springfield or 1853 Enfield. Once that bridge is crossed then start working on the not so common.

Big difference in Civil War versus 18th century trekking, most fellows I ran with bought the rifle first then everything else. Commonly those rifles cost between $1200-$2400 each as they were custom made. If you wanted to play that was the price. Yep, pretty expensive when compared to Italian muskets but they were of the type required by the unwritten standards authentically mind groups operated with simply by the mindset the members had. So it all depends on the standards you are willing to set for yourself and how much you can afford to spend.

Most folks in Civil War I know could easily afford a $1500 musket just based on the wasted money spent on things they never used or bought and had to replace because of authenticity issues not addressed at the time of initial purchase.

[Curt-Heinrich Schmidt]

Hallo Kameraden!

Herr Jim:

"From the other Kindred on the Forum." There, I fixed that... ;-)

"As long as reenactors continue to buy the Civil War firearms currently offered without question then those are the firearms they will make. Why change if you can sell what you already have?"

Genau! (German for "Bingo!) Since today is Sunday and the 4th, and Dr. Phil is not on TV, I will post for him:

Life Law #8: We teach people how to treat us.

As long as the cycling and recycling ACW market consumes the Italian repro's "as is," there will be no change or only "token" change such as Armi Sport did by adding "3rd Model" bands (albeit incorrectly cyanide colored posing as color-case hardened when they should be heat-blued) to their 4th Model Enfield to "get one up" on the EuroArms competition.
Second, as mentioned, as long as the fraction of the ACW whole is so small, and so "unvocal" or "uninfluential" at the cash register- there will not
be change.

When the Italians came out with a Spencer carbine, it was marketed in popular SASS/CAS (Cowboy Action Shooting) calibres with the "promise" of a .56 CW version. But the Spencer is "slow" in a CAS hobby that prizes speed (manually cocked), and sales are too low to ever get to the questionable number of potential Civil War customers. And, the cost, compared to say a $350 or so Brazilian copy of the M1894 Winchester also means that not many will be sold either. (Even still, as with the M1860 Henry, it is "not authentic" as to calibre since no one makes .Henry 44 Rimfire ammmo for it so it was made in .44 and .45 Centerfire, and A Spencer will never be .56 Rimfire either.)

On the other side of the argument, about four or five years ago.. Smith & Wesson perked up their ears to the SASS/CAS folks crying for an authentic American made copy of the Smith & Wesson No. 3. And came out with one, but at $1800 and with a lottery system to get one. With the Italian ones at roughly 1/3 of that... ;-)

At any rate, I have lost count. There are something like 40,000 ACW folks, and 40,000 SASS/CAS folks. What is the difference? As already stated.... organization.

Sometimes, and maybe this time, it comes down to this:

One cannot changes others, only oneself.

While we likely, definitely will never be able to change the course of the Italian repro business, we can change ourselves one person at a time- at
whatever level of interest, knowledge, access to resources, and wallet we are at, or will progress to, by asking this:

What am "I" doing to improve the "authenticity" of my weapon?

Why do I see weapons at Mainstream events that are 85-90% "right out of the box?" That are only 10-15% stripped and reoiled, and Italian barrel markings removed? Why do I see only the 1% or less, or fraction of a percent, even a Zimmerman/Lodgewood/Company Quartermaster so-called "de-farb" or "self-effort?"
Why do I see weapons at EBUFU and H/A events that are 10-25% "right out of the box?" That are only 74-89% stripped and reoiled, and Italian barrel markings removed? Why do I see only 1-2%, or less, even a Zimmerman/Lodgewood/Company Quartermaster so-called "de-farb" or "self-effort?"

Not criticizing anyone's Mental Picture, reasoning, choices of how they spend their money, or finances- just furthering the discussion.

Hallo Colonel Jim!

I just wanted to tease you, that it was 30 years ago this month, that I first met you, with your Parker Hale Musketoon in hand- hoping the N-SSA would rule in favor of allowing them "on the line." ;-) Ah, the Good Old Daze, meiner Freund!

Curt-Heinrich Schmidt

[JimKindred]

Curt,

Here, here, well spoken.

By the way, I have an 1841 that has been in storage for 20 years that I am bringing out with a mind to alter as your articles recommend.

:wink_smil No correction was necessary on the name thing, I believe Tim and I are the only two with that last name on any of the forums.

Now, if I can just get those Leech and Rigdon markings on a pistol I have ....

[poncho]

Greetings!
I must say all are very good and well thought out points, and I agree with all of them wholeheartedly. Just wanted to share my own experience with this subject. My financial situation is pretty strict and even though I have been in this hobby for 10 years now I can't say that even my primary federal kit is complete, why I just got my first shelter half this year! That being said, it was this forum that got me to think about the authenticity of my firearm. I had already filed off all the repro markings on my 1861 Armisport Springfield when I first got it 10 years ago but that was the extant of it. I then read lots of good info and pointers from the gifted and knowledgeable people on this site that made me really examine my firearm. I looked into what it would cost to have my rifle defarbed appropriately and I really couldn't afford it. I did some searching and found out what the general process was. After doing this I tackled as much of this as I could myself, such as replacing the barrel bands with better one's from Zimmerman, and stripping and oiling the stock. It's not perfect, but I was suprised at the world of different it makes ! I'm not saying that close is good enough, but there are small things one can do towards making the effort to improve while in the process of saving for a proper defarb or a replacement altogether. I just wanted to thank everyone on this forum for the wealth of information to help me make this step that I would have not otherwise really thought of.

[1st Maine Trooper]

Here's more food for thought. Everyone is talking of Infantry weapons but what of those for the other branches? Of the cavalry weapons, the only carbine repoped that is worth while is the Garrett Sharps. The other makers range from laughable to barely acceptable in terms of authenticity. This says nothing of the host of other cavalry arms. They simply are not available. No one makes a Burnside, Maynard, a Cosmopolitan, Merrill etc... The quality of the Navy Arms Smith is highly suspect. The Spencer and Henry were previously discussed. There also is the glaring need for for correct and authentic ammunition for them.
Sabers are also impossible to find in anything other than something that is barely acceptable as well as revolvers and other than the Colt and Remington, what else is available? Then there are the more exotic but just as important items such as the Richmond carbine, '55 carbine to name a few.
I know of a few custom makers where one of the muzzle loader carbines can be had and the Romano Rifle Works does make superb repops of both the Spencer and the Maynard but these are priced and marketed to the competative shooters and not the reenactor and are at best available in only limited quantites.
As for artillery, there are few makers period and as far as I know none of them make the US 3 inch Ordinance Rifle from wrought iron as the originals were. What of the other rifles being made of cast iron with a steel liner or cylinder sleeve or entirely of steel?
I agree whole heartedly that this area of ones impression needs to be upgraded to something on par with the uniform and equipment standards but how can this be performed if the weapons are not available? Use originals? For the most part, these do not meet the standards since their appearance has been altered by time. Polishing bright a saber or reblueing a Maynard barrel would destroy the historical value of the items but would need to be done to meet authenticity standards. Do we stick to the PEC Standard regardless of the unit being portrayed? In these cases how do we move forward?

Dave Myrick

[Curt-Heinrich Schmidt]

Hallo Herr Jim:

I am in the process of having a Harper's Ferry M1841 rifle lockplate stamp made up...likely HARPERS FERRY/1850.... as well as a few stock inspectors cartouches... ;-)

Hallo Herr David:

"I agree whole heartedly that this area of ones impression needs to be upgraded to something on par with the uniform and equipment standards but how can this be performed if the weapons are not available? Use originals? For the most part, these do not meet the standards since their appearance has been altered by time. Polishing bright a saber or reblueing a Maynard barrel would destroy the historical value of the items but would need to be done to meet authenticity standards. Do we stick to the PEC Standard regardless of the unit being portrayed? In these cases how do we move forward?"

Regarding originals. That can be a personal and philosophic, as well as financial consideration. On the one hand we are charged as be caretakers, conservators, and preservers of "original" items- yet on the other hand we can be like the money-changers in the temple making money hand-over-fist in their sale and resale at every increasing and inflated prices.
The "historical value" of an original, IMHO, lies in its essence. However, on the one hand a "Springfield" that was carried my an ancestor and handed down has one set of value beginning with each bump, scratch, and bruise. On another, a "Springfield" kept in storage and never issued before being sold as surplus to Bannerman may have another value. In either instance, it is a magical thing.
Yet, how much of the wear and tear, fading of color and finish, physical apperance, etc. is the result of what happened to it AFTER 1865?

Now, the "collector's" or crudely the "resale" value, is another beast. Cleaning, polishing,or restoring an original to its 1861-1865 appearance is considered to be a Mortal Sin.

I have pards who use restored original weapons, fully, masterfully, and artfully, restored to their CW appearance.
One has a Starr carbine. He bought it in 1987 for $350. It was $350 because it was "bright." But it was "crisp." He paid $300 last year to have it professonally restored. It looks like it was just issued/handed to a trooper.
To the collector, he ruined its value (although at today's prices I somehow think his $350 investment is secure...) However, it has given him enjoyment and made it worth the while in his mind.
Prior to that, he bought a 1980's era Sile Sharps that I had added a beautiful original unissued Sharps lock to as clean and as colorful as the day the workman made it. Like being a little bit pregnant, another sin on me.

"Do we stick to the PEC Standard regardless of the unit being portrayed? In these cases how do we move forward?"

A very good question, and one I do not have an answer for.
However, I would say that the choice of one's unit should then follow from what research and documentation shows, but from what reproduction commercial or custom weapon is available.
Maybe I should not strive to be the Starr carbine armed 19th PA or the Burnside carbine armed 12 PA Cavalry, but the Sharps armed 8th PA instead?
Or carry the repro Sharps and be the 19th PA Cav anyways?
IMHO, the availability of a reproduction firearm (here defined as physically as well as financially "feasible") weighs heavily on the impression- and yes, the more universally "PEC" Sharps is the better choice.
While I might want to "do," or "be" the 7th Independent Company of Ohio Volunteer Sharpshooters who were Spencer rifle armed, and while I may might be a doctor or poitician, or had come into a rich inheritance- it might be hard to find 30 or 40 lads willing to keep Larry Romano busy for a spell at roughly $4,000 a copy.
Or, like another Berdan Sharpshooter pard who did come into an inheritance and was willing to restore a NM1859 Sharps Rifle just for Living History pursuits ($3,000 for the Sharps and $500 for an impressive restoration), he could never expect to find 30-40-100 men willing or able to be be "that authentic."

The same is true for infantry weapons, but I fully agree there are more "choices" than for the "mounted services!"
But, IMHO, I would not chose to be the 2nd OH Infantry with their Colt Revolving Rifles either...

However, in the "EBUFU and H/A" community different units are selected for portrayal at different functions. So, an authentic M1861 Springfield or P1853 Third Model Enfield or M1842 musket is more universal and PEC than a Romano Spencer or restored original Sharps.
But the Journey starts with the basic so-called de-farb and builds from there how far and how often one can!

Again, a very good point about the "l'arm blanc."
(IMHO, carry the most de-farbed, reworked, and "authenticized" NM1859 Sharps you can possibly afford now and approve upon over time.

A tough one? No doubt about it...

Curt-Heinrich Schmidt
Furthering the Discussion Mess

[Lone_Rebel87]

If we strive so fully to make our uniforms and equippage as authentic as possible and yet almost ignore the firearms isn't it all for notthin.
If we are so harsh and strict about the number of stitches and hand sewwing and what not and yet say that any "enfield" or "springfield" is "good enough" for an impression doesn't it throw the rest out the window as well for if we continue to set our standards for somethings low then who's to say that eventually we will slip back into the ignorance of saying "that jacket is fine, it'll work, the public won't know the difference anyways" :sarcastic
just my $.02 worth.

Jordan Davis

[SCTiger]

If the Italian gun makers won't improve the autheticity, would an American based firearm producer be interested in marketing CW firearms? Could Remington, Colt, Springfield Armory or Ruger, make what we need?

I would pay a few extra dollars for better authenticity and to keep American dollars at home.

What would be the initial venture capital one would need to start a low-number gun shop that could produce the weapons? What tooling and machinery would be necessary? In other words: Could we make our own weapons through some sort of Co-op?

[1st Maine Trooper]

If the Italian gun makers won't improve the autheticity, would an American based firearm producer be interested in marketing CW firearms? Could Remington, Colt, Springfield Armory or Ruger, make what we need?


I would pay a few extra dollars for better authenticity and to keep American dollars at home.

What would be the initial venture capital one would need to start a low-number gun shop that could produce the weapons? What tooling and machinery would be necessary? In other words: Could we make our own weapons through some sort of Co-op?

I beleive that Springfield Armory is a private venture firm and not accociated with the National Armory of the same name. Colt marketed the Signature Series of weapons a few years back that included nearly all of their old product lines. Even these were made in Italy and resold here. They dropped the product line since it was unprofitable. I doubt that any other American based firearms make would take on this venture for the same reasons.

Frank Garrett (of the Garrett Sharps fame) told me last spring that the reasons he got out of the firearm making business was that he was and still is too afraid that some nut would sue him. I know of a great number of machinists who refuse to do any work at all on anything closely related to a firearm or bullet mould for the same reasons.

Bottom line is that while it is within the realm of physical possibility for a small business to start up and make some of these items, I cannot fathom the cost of the liability insurance not to mention all of the other headaches that would be involved. Take that into account and its affect on the bottom line and I think the price tag per peice would be too high.

Dave Myrick

[SCTiger]

Dave:

All of the information you stated above should be communicated to our legislators for support of the "Protection of Lawful Commerce of Arms Act"

See NRA-ILA : http://www.nraila.org/issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=141

Everyone should contact representatives about this and explain the problems legitimate gun owners, producers and historians are having, even with black powder weapons.

If we can reduce the liablility issues, then this should help reduce the price of the weapons and encourage others to once again produce rifles.

2,000 reenactors writing our Congress, could make a difference, especially in a election year. This is ridiculous!

[LibertyHallVols]

I've got lots of thoughts on this issue, but don't have 30 min to spend typing them all up. So here's a few observations/thoughts...

1) I think the term "Defarb" is an indicator of the problem. Who among us would rush to buy a "defarbed" jacket? What we need is something that is properly made from the git-go. Current repro Springfields & Enfields have too many issues to be overcome to be acceptable starting points.

2) $900 - $1200 is a fair price to pay (IMHO) for a gun that needs no additional work to make it historically correct.

3) I've noticed over the last few years that most EFUBU events list the Enfield as the primary weapon of choice. Are we standardizing on convenience? (e.g. "Everyone" has an Enfield, so we set standards to match). I can't recall many EFUBU's since the Y2K Pres March in VA that required something else (that event listed '16 conversions as primary requirement).

4) Considering that the best Italian repro is the '42, are we not rewarding poor service by the Italian makers by doing #3? Should we utilize the '42 in our impressions more if we hope to affect those that supply us? ("Hmm... Those '42's sell like hotcakes and the '61's aren't. Wunder what'd happen if we made a really good '61 contract that was also a good repro?")

...Just a thought... Like I said, I'm just thinking on this as I type.

Cheers,

[J the Black Sheep]

1) I think the term "Defarb" is an indicator of the problem. Who among us would rush to buy a "defarbed" jacket? What we need is something that is properly made from the git-go. Current repro Springfields & Enfields have too many issues to be overcome to be acceptable starting points.

Could part of the problem be (a) the myth that Zimmerman's magical touch makes the weapon as close to an original and (b) not viewing many originals to notice the difference between the Italian repro and an original 1861 Springfield?

I know fellows (and at one time, in my ignorance, I was one) who thought spending the $30 for Zimmerman to put his stamps on my musket made it "authentic."

2) $900 - $1200 is a fair price to pay (IMHO) for a gun that needs no additional work to make it historically correct.

The biggest stumbling block for most guys, as friend Curt pointed out, is the cost involved. Here's one source for barrels.

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

I've not contacted them to verify what all is included, however, it looks like the standard 1861 Springfield barrel alone is $325. Sights and everything else are extra. With shipping, it can push the cost up to the $400 mark. Curt and I have had this conversation every so often, and as far as we can tell, for the parts alone, it'll be in the neighborhood of $900+. I'm not sure how much a builder would charge to put it all together.

Here's an example from Lodgewood's site (Custom built)

1855 SPRINGFIELD 3 BAND / Built on a Dunlap stock with original bands, it has a WHITACRE BARREL, Repro Springfield lock dated 1857 with original hammer, a long range rear sight and target front sight. $1195.00

Here's another example, and I beg the Moderators to allow me to stray from pure Civil War for the sake of the example. I'll use the "First Model Brown Bess" in both it's "raw" kit form and "finished" form.

Here's a "parts kit" for a Brown Bess. http://www.trackofthewolf.com/categories/gunKit.aspx?catID=13&subID=77&styleID=286&partNum=kit-1746-brown-bess&partList=True

For the finished model: http://www.narragansettarmes.com/brownBess.shtml

3) I've noticed over the last few years that most EFUBU events list the Enfield as the primary weapon of choice. Are we standardizing on convenience? (e.g. "Everyone" has an Enfield, so we set standards to match). I can't recall many EFUBU's since the Y2K Pres March in VA that required something else (that event listed '16 conversions as primary requirement).

I think you hhit the nail on the head. Everyone has one (or if they're deblued, they blend in better with Springfields.)

4) Considering that the best Italian repro is the '42, are we not rewarding poor service by the Italian makers by doing #3? Should we utilize the '42 in our impressions more if we hope to affect those that supply us? ("Hmm... Those '42's sell like hotcakes and the '61's aren't. Wunder what'd happen if we made a really good '61 contract that was also a good repro?")

If you get No. 4 to happen, you're working wonders! :wink_smil Seriously, you've got a great point. However, given the population of the hobby, I'm somewhat skeptical that a few thousand requests for a highly authentic model 1861 will cause the Italians to retool their dies to produce them when guys who want (a) close enough (this is fun, remember!) and (b) a low cost item to get into the fight ASAP are going to keep buying the "as is" product.

If a custom maker would come onto the scene and offer a quality M1861, how many of us would be interested?

Perhaps this is would make a good poll.

[LibertyHallVols]

Jay,

A better poll might be:
"How much would you pay for an {insert phrase here for authentic/correct/kewl/bichin' replica of an original} reproduction of a contract US M1861 Rifle Musket?"

The poll would consist of prices, perhaps $900 - $1500 in $100 increments.

Money Talks! ;)

[1stMaine]

Comrade John,

Well, I for one would be willing to save my pennies in order to be able to purchase an accurate reproduction of an original weapon. I'm going to have to spend a good hunk of money to buy a replica, then send it to someone else to redo the darned thing, and by the time the extra parts and labor is taken into account, it'll be right up there anyway.
I dunno. I've never understood the way the Italions make weapons anyway, copying copies of copies and calling them accurate. There has to be a way for the government to step in and allow accurate copies of historical weapons to be without the modern serial numbers, and an attendant risk of litigation.
The adding of modern serial numbers has always been something I failed to grasp the reasoning for anyway. The 1968 GCA exempts our weapons from it's purview, and with that exemption in writing there remains no Federal reason to add those serial numbers other than inventory control. Some state laws, of course, may require it, but the Federal ones would seem to not require it.
Anyway, decent copies of both the M1816 conversion, as well as the M1842 would be a GREAT step in the right direction, followed, of course, by the Enfield, and then the various Springfield models.
That's my 2-cents.
respects,

[JimKindred]

One thing about barrel cost is the difference between "standard" grade and "target" grade. I would venture these barrels are sold to the competition crowd and not those looking for a regular grade barrel. This situation pops up constantly within the M1 Garand circles I participate in where those who compete usually don't ask the barrel price and usually can't shoot any better by adding the competion barrel. :wink_smil

The answer to the serial numbers on GCA exempt firearms is simple, they are required for import. Once in the country these serial numbers are not required by Federal law, as stated some states do require them.

[1stMaine]

Comrade Jim,

Ah...that explains it. Thanks for the clarification. I knew there was a reason behind it. We have a crew up where I live who shoot with .22 caliber special-built rifles. They have stocks made to fit the owner's grips and cheek and shoulder profile, special barrels, all sorts of gizzies built into the weapon, etc. These run $3,000 and up without the custom-built and fit case.
I've watched a couple of their matches, and to tell you the truth, they aren't that great a group of plinkers. I get the feeling that they are more interested in having the toys than using them, as they are most often seen discussing what they just got and how much it cost, etc. Not unlike, say, some sections of our own hobby:)
Trusting this finds you well and prospering, I remain, sir,
respects,

respects,

[Curt-Heinrich Schmidt]

Hallo Kameraden!

Indeed...
And for a number of N-SSA "type" barrelmakers, including a friend of mine who just turned me down in making a "three groove, period twist" M1863 barrel for me (although made a M1861 a couple of years ago for me).

Since it is not a requirement of N-SSA guns that they match bores, the "more competitive minded" shooters often go with a 6 or 7 multi-groove barrel in different rates of twists to match the "other than a standard size and weight and profile Minie" as well as being sized, lubed with "other than tallow/beeswax, and propelled with a reduced charge best suited for maximum accuracy with that barrel/bullet/lube/load set-up.

I do not consider myself a "good shot," but my custom-built late model M1855 Rifle-Musket would fire a 25 cent piece size group at 50 yards benched. But that was with a 7 groove faster twist barrel and shooting a 375 grain "semi-wad cutter" profile bullet pushed by only 36 grains of FFF. Nothing at all like a "true" CW weapon. (Apples and Oranges here, as the N-SSA is about competition first... IMHO).
(By the way, I sold it for $600 last year...)

And, yes, as in a nunmber of different shooting sports, often times lads buy
the expensive and exotic stuff because it is part of the hobby's culture. And sometimes, the $14,000 Krieghof trapshooter shoots no better than the $7,000 Beretta and no better than the $1,000 Winchester shooter... ;-)
Or the loose nut behind the trigger... :-)

Curt-Heinrich Schmidt

[Nighthawk]

Wie Gehts Herr Schmidt!

I have a self-built Fayetteville Rifle I put together in the 80's. Regular 3 groove rifling system, and everything else as close as possible to an original. I am an average shot, but using an unsized 575213 "Old Style" bullet, with 40 grains of FFF powder, it will shoot one hole goups all day off hand, (if I am steady). I have never been awed by the N-SSA "Shooting Gods". They shoot fantasy guns with fantasy sights, fantasy rifling systems, and fantasy bullet configurations. Actually some of the most consistantly accurate guns I've seen used in N-SSA competition were originals. I remember one totally original Richmond that was devestating in competition.
As regards historical reenacting, firearms have always been my pet peeve. We are doing much better than ever before with re creating uniforms and equipment. However much of this is coming from "cottage industries" run by fellow historians. Our firearms are coming from corporations with much more interest in business than in historical integrity. I posted on the "old" forum in response to defarbing firearms. Very little was being done to defarb the stock. This is often one of the most inaccurate pieces of a reproduction firearm, and one of the hardest parts to correct. For myself, I would rather use a custom built, or a restored or rebuilt original, but this can be cost prohibitive in the face of needing several guns to be correct at different events. Ideally we need cost effective historical accuracy in our firearms, but that isn't likelyto happen.

[David Lanier]

Gruess Gott!

This issue is huge and needs to be addressed. An erstwhile member of our unit is an armorer (i.e., he makes suits of armor for museums). He de-farbed my Richmond Springfield and wouldn't even let me pay him. He also taught us how to put a nineteenth-century finish on our stocks; published the recipe in our unit newsletter.

May his tribe increase.

[tmdreb]

I would agree that this is quite an important issue. The disparity between investment in weapons vs other equipment is quite apparent, even in the authentic crowd.

To me, the issue is threefold, all of which have already been mentioned: less-than-authentic arms in the ranks, companies composed of men carrying the same weapon, and not enough variety in most reenactors' weapon inventory.

For the variety issue, there isn't too much of an excuse. I would advise everyone to have both a .58 and .69 caliber musket, for doing early and late War events. There are too many early War events and scenarios not now being done, because not enough guys have something besides '61 Springfields and Enfields. While there isn't a commercially available repro of the common Belgian converted 1816, and Pedersoli has priced its 1816 conversion (as well as everything else it makes) out of sight, the 1842 repro is still reasonably priced.

As far as the reason goes for why this problem exists, I think that lack of availability and expense are the main ones. As stated earlier, why is there a need for a source for authentic reproduction weapons when most reenactors think they can buy a $400-500 out of the box musket and have it be completely authentic after paying $30 to someone to stamp it? Also, aside from custom makers, is there even a source for a ground up authentic weapon? I do mean no offense to any of the vendors who offer defarbed weapons, but there are limitations to all of them to keep the cost down, coming from the fact that they all come from the Italian repros. There are only two links for firearms on the AC vendors links page, Lodgewood and Zimmerman (whose work isn't trusted by at least a few on this forum) who both mostly do work in defarbing.

Expense is also an issue. Yes, weapons can be defarbed or built little by little, but while $250-300 will purchase a barrel or maybe a stock for a musket that will make it to the field someday, it will also buy a new jacket or coat for this year's hot event everyone's talking about. That event will also have guys with muskets that aren't even defarbed.

A kind of cross between availability and expense is that for those who can't afford a $400-500 uniform, they have the option of purchasing a little over $100 in cloth, buttons, thread and patterns, and make their own. Yes, it is possible to do some defarbing work by purchasing parts over time and doing it yourself, the total cost comparison of having someone else like Lodgewood do it isn't favorable, and very few people have the skills to build their own custom musket to save on buying one.

What is the solution to all this? It will likely take a few events of high and enforced standards on weapons to get everyone to at least defarb their weapons. I'm not sure where a source for weapons that come authentic out of the box will come from. No, reenactors will never be as organized as the SASS and NSSA. It's no mystery why, the other two are sports, and reenacting isn't. They have to have more organization, and reenacting doesn't need it, though it would be nice for situations like this. It would be good for at least a couple of the larger organizations would put together an early War event where the 1842 musket or the occasional flintlock conversion (how many reenactors have one of these?) would be the only acceptable arm, and give everyone enough time to buy one. Also, it would be nice to have something similar with rifle-length weapons.

Of course, then there is the quantity vs quality argument. What is better for a reenactor to have? More choices of weapons or one completely authentic one? But this was already a different thread.....

[NC5thCav]

There have been some great points so far! I don't understand why most units intentionally disallow one of the most apprpriate weapons for the war, especially for Southern troops: two-band rifles(sorry for the incorrect term! :) ). Every unit I have looked into joining in my area (western NC) doesn't allow the shorter barreled weapons. I understand the rear rank concernes, but this should be addresed with better training. Besides, this should be general firearms safety. Anyone who doesn't understand firearms safety shouldn't do an impression that requires weapons. Just a thought.

[JimKindred]

Derek,

The phobia over rifles has been around about as long as reenacting has been. You are correct to say that someone with little or no knowledge of firearms should not be involved in reenacting until they do have that knowledge and training. Unfortunately numbers drive the train and as long as it does you will see people who are incapable of understanding simple instructions and who probably should be involved in another past time in the field.

Unfortunately the discussion over rifles ended long ago before the argument ever gained ground. Now the banning of rifles has passed into reenacting folklore to be passed down to each succeeding generation of reenactors without ever being questioned or revisited.

Should rifles be allowed? Yes, but only if every one in the company or unit has one and has been trained in how to use it.

[LibertyHallVols]

Also, aside from custom makers, is there even a source for a ground up authentic weapon? I do mean no offense to any of the vendors who offer defarbed weapons, but there are limitations to all of them to keep the cost down, coming from the fact that they all come from the Italian repros.

Phil,

I asked a question about a possible vendor a little while back.
http://www.authentic-campaigner.com/forum/showthread.php?t=2226

No one has voiced their experience with the "Custom Built" line. If they are "as advertised", then they would appear to fit the bill. Cost (as always) is the limiting factor. At ~$1249, a few will think it is worth the cost to have an "ideal" weapon out-of-the-box, and most will think the cost is out-of-sight.

[JimKindred]

The problem with many of the custom builds for the Civil War period is that they are built with the competitive shooter in mind and not the individual looking for a historically accurate firearm. Historical accuracy of the firearm will take a distant backseat to competitive requirements. Both customers are interested in accuracy but of two different sorts.

$1250 for a custom build? Those in the 18th century trekking group I ran with would have jumped on that price. Most of us were hunting with $2000 plus flintlocks which fit the bill for historic accuracy. Even those lacked certain items such as hand forged barrels for historic accuracy but they were about the best you could do. Rev War guys are paying much more for their production firearms than Civil War. Guys in WWII run around carrying fully autos beginning at $5000. When I do WWII, I carry an MP44 which now a days runs between $8000 to $10000 each. Of course with those there is no problem with historical accuracy because they are originals. I'm glad I bought mine twenty years ago when no one wanted them. Why do I mention this? To show that in relative terms Civil War production guns are cheap when compared to other reenacting periods.

Before custom builds or historically accurate firearms take hold of a chunk of the market two things will have to happen. Reenactors will have to put as much emphasis on their firearms as they do their clothing and other equipment and the makers will have to realize a loss in their market of current productions before improvements are made.

Neither of these two factors do I anticipate happening in the foreseeable future.

[Yellowhammer]

"Reenactors will have to put as much emphasis on their firearms as they do their clothing and other equipment and the makers will have to realize a loss in their market of current productions before improvements are made."

Here here!

When we willingly buy a "base model" Enfield and then happily drop another fat chunk of change to buy aftermarket upgrades and "defarbing" services, why should the makers incur the cost of making changes to their production.

[Pvt. Burrows]

I just picked up my Euroarms Enfield musket. It is much more complicated and expensive to require a repro gun in Sweden than in the US. Originals are no problem. Anyhow, for several economical and safety reasons it is impossible for me to send it to Mr. Zimmerman for defarbing. What are the major things
required for defarbing it myself? I can´t get all of the markings made over here
but the overall and basic look I suppose I can fix. Mr. Zimmerman was polite to offer to send me some information, but the basic things I am sure the experienced campaigners can tell me for now.
All advice gladly taken!

Thanks!

Martin Midander, Sweden

[Curt-Heinrich Schmidt]

Hallo Herr Martin!

I have just e-mailed you 12-some pages of materials on "de-farbing" Enfields, plus I believe the topic is still able to be pulled up through the SEARCH feature on this as well as Szabo's Forum.

Curt-Heinrich Schmidt

[csa_by_choice]

When you find that image, could you post it here?
__________________
Robert Johnson


I found some images on a website purported to offer a reproduction of the 1st model enfield. Here's the link. Does anyone have an opinion on the acceptability of this firearm for reenacting? It looks like the stock needs defarbing. I emailed the company and they described the finish as follows.
"The early Enfield has the stock made of rosewood. It is much denser than walnut. It is finished with Laurel Mountain Forge walnut stain and waxed"
I'm still a fresh fish to authentic so I'd love to learn something new. Thanks!

http://www.loyalistarms.freeservers.com/enfield3band1853firstmodel.html

Nathan Welton

[tmdreb]

Without needing to go into anything else, it comes with a smoothbore barrel as a "cost saving" measure. Sorry, man.

[csa_by_choice]

I found this picture of a smoothbore 1853 enfield online. I don't know much, but did the enfield come in both rifled and smoothbore versions? It seems like it? Oddly, though, this picture show the musket having a later version of the jag rammer, not the button head rammer found on the 1853 crimean war muskets.

http://www.rememuseum.org.uk/arms/early/armpl.htm
2nd picture down

[DonSmithnotTMD]

Considering that I don't know what I'm talking about, the lockplate stamps look kinda crappy too.

BTW -- didn't somebody on here say that the rifle Shoppe was difficult to deal with?


When you find that image, could you post it here?
__________________
Robert Johnson


I found some images on a website purported to offer a reproduction of the 1st model enfield. Here's the link. Does anyone have an opinion on the acceptability of this firearm for reenacting? It looks like the stock needs defarbing. I emailed the company and they described the finish as follows.
"The early Enfield has the stock made of rosewood. It is much denser than walnut. It is finished with Laurel Mountain Forge walnut stain and waxed"
I'm still a fresh fish to authentic so I'd love to learn something new. Thanks!

http://www.loyalistarms.freeservers.com/enfield3band1853firstmodel.html

Nathan Welton

[rogue]

Only from my own experience, yes, the Rifle Shoppe is difficult to deal with. Their telephone is seldom answered, e-mails are lost in cyber-space (at least answers to questions), and service was VERY slow. I was told to only order parts that were in stock, tried, but it still took nearly six months to get what I needed. The parts arrive as cast from a mold which require a great deal of finishing. They are about the only source for many parts however.
Steve Sullivan
46th Illinois
Co. Mil. Hist.
I don't sew much either.

[LibertyHallVols]

Jim,

I found some on-line recently (within the last month or so... can't recall where at the moment). I am away from my PC for the next few days (using a friend's now while I'm on vacation!). Shoot me an e-mail at jwickett@prodigy.net and I'll e-mail you the pics I found.

[Enfield]

I found this picture of a smoothbore 1853 enfield online. I don't know much, but did the enfield come in both rifled and smoothbore versions? It seems like it? Oddly, though, this picture show the musket having a later version of the jag rammer, not the button head rammer found on the 1853 crimean war muskets.

http://www.rememuseum.org.uk/arms/early/armpl.htm
2nd picture down

Weapon No 24 on the REME page appears to be a normal P53 Third Model (1858-1866). There *were* smoothbore versions, for use by native infantry following the Indian Mutiny, but they didn't have the P53 long range rear sight - only a simple fixed notch rear sight (and the front sight was also slightly different).

Weapon No 25 is a First Model P53 (with the wrong rammer) - someone was looking for photos of this type. The characteristic 1st Model hammer can be seen well in this photo.

Weapon No 26 is a strange-looking Kerr rifle ... or the hammer is, anyway (must be a replacement). But this gun does have the Kerr rifle rammer. But the barrel doesn't have seven grooves - it is hexagonal ratchet rifling. And the front sight looks to be missing the blade and the hood. Of course, these are rare in any condition, as there were fewer than 1000 made.

Geoff Walden

[Makoski4141]

What kind of cloth would you use to wipe the excess linseed oil off the stock with out leaving lint behind?

Andrew Birnbaum

[buckandball]

Been away from the hobby for a while. For the past few years I have been planning to piece together a "proper" 1853 Enfield since I have never been happy with Euroarms or Armisport's stock profile (specifically the comb of the stock with is always curved on the repros, where every original I have seen is straight). Additionally, I like to live fire occasionally, and it seems unless you buy a Parker Hale, the point of aim is no where near the point of impact; i.e., the repro sites are there for show, not function.

I am skimming details here, but to the point. I see James River Armory has come a way in the past few years since I last saw their website. What is the general consensus on their Enfields as compared to originals? Are these just defarded Armisport and Euroarms pieces?

[Johan Steele]

I strongly suggest The Civil War Musket: A Handbook for Historical Accuracy-Lock, Stock and Barrel by Craig Barry.

If you want a shooter you will almost certainly have to go w/ Lodgewood. Mr Osborne starts w/ an Armi-Sport and corrects the deficiencies to a Birmingham maker and you can take it as far as you want w/ their good stock of original parts.

While the James Armory rebuild is quite good I have seen some work from them that might be considered questionable... That was several years ago & I was told it was James River Armory work I don't know that for certain. I have recently seen one of their M1861 Springfields and it is nothing short of a beautiful job of correcting ALL the Italian screw ups.

As a note I owned an Armi-Sport and got good results w/ live fire. Compensating for the front site is not that difficult and correcting it wouldn't be that difficult by simply replacing the front sight. I switched to an M1841 and am considerably happier w/ that.

[Minieball577]

Are these just defarded Armisport and Euroarms pieces?

Ben, Mark Hartman purchases parts in bulk from European suppliers, and then assembles the arms himself. This is how he is able to offer reasonably priced arms, and they still appear more or less as custom work. I know that each arm he builds conforms to a known original, as he uses N-SSA Small Arms Committee data, and all of the specs we use are derived from original specimens.

I know several arms builders in N-SSA circles who have commented on his quality, favorably, and are amazed at his prices.

[Richmond Depot]

Being a Marine,and extra attentive to details, Mark takes care to insure that each weapon is meticulousy defarbed and assembled by hand. The wood working alone is worth the cost of the weapon. Personally, I don't see how he can get details as good as he does at the prices he charges. And for the range, he offers a variety of options.

Regarding Enfields, I know for a fact that Mark has worked with some of the leading experts on these weapons and had access to one of the largest private Enfield collections in the world through a mutual friend of ours.He offers a wide variety of makers marks and is assembling some Enfields now using original Lock plates.

I will be taking him my previuosly defarbed ( by another highly regarded defarber) Enfield this Oct. for a better defarb.

[Curt-Heinrich Schmidt]

Hallo!

"I have recently seen one of their M1861 Springfields and it is nothing short of a beautiful job of correcting ALL the Italian screw ups."

Not to be a Party Pooper, but..

How did they deal with such issues as barrel weight, bolster shape, barrel breech dimensions, barrel thickness, barrel wall thickness, and barrel taper problems to name a few?

Seriously, I have heard good things but have not had the chance to examine, evaluate, or measure any against originals.. so I am initially cautious or conservative at this point on the "ALL" part of "correcting"...
(Not a negative)
Sorry...

Curt

[Johan Steele]

Mr Schmidt; the one I handled had a correctly shaped stock, the lock looked correct and upon reflection I don't believe it was an Italian barrel as it had about the same weight & balance as my Miroku.

My apologies for the ALL.

[buckandball]

It has been a few years since I talked to Mr. Hartman, but I am indeed aware of his military background, which he and I share and discussed once (hence my sometimes frustrating attention to detail on reproduction arms). I just have been away from things for a few years dealing with real time super-authentic immersion events, and so I am glad to hear his business is proceeding favorably.

Granted, my quest is geared not just for an accurate repro that is dimensionally and functionally correct as possible, but also shoots correctly... A couple years ago I gave up trying to glean info from other sources who primarily shoot these arms for competition since most simply recommended modern fixes for shitty repros or known distance line shooting (modify the sights). Fixing a problem with another fix, verses correcting the problem to begin with.... Call me odd, but I like shooting these arms at ranges of 100, 200, 300 yards...

Anyway, I will have to drop him a line about his Enfields. I wanted to get a feel from you fellas before hand.

[Poague41stVA]

http://www.regtqm.com/muskets_defarbed.htm

I sent these guys an e-mail 2 weeks ago for a digital photo of an Enfield Tower lockplate and haven’t heard as of yet. Has any one seen the quality of their work?

Thanks
Dave Bushmole

[VaTrooper]

You may want to give them a call. I had a question about their defarbed 2 band Enfields and the woman was very helpful. She didnt have the answer to my question but did call James River to get the answer for me.

[65thgainf]

I would like to see photo's of the 1842 defarb. Guess there is no need to email them though :D

[GrumpyDave]

I've seen all four they make, in person. You'll have to form your own opinions.

[teufelhund]

His lockplates are from James River. Here's the James River website:

http://jamesriverarmory.com/index.html

Marc Shaffer

[Busterbuttonboy]

During a quick trip up to Gettysburg last weekend, i stoped to see if Regimental still had their french/belgian 42's. they didnt but i started inspecting the defarbed guns. It looks to me (having owned a james river, an a few originals) that they are doing the lockplates well and the serial number defarbing, etc. However it appears Regimental are having james river, skip the stock remolding, (althought adding cartcouche) and are skipping some small detail steps, for example the brass sight on the 1842's. If i personally were to want a JRA gun i would order it direct from the factory.
Most Respectfully
Drew Gruber

[Terry Sorchy]

Drew,
I picked up an enfield from RQ earlier this year. The stock had been woderfully recontoured. Dont know about their 42's but I can definetley say that JR did a nice job on the enfields and the sprigfield I had looked at last year when I was there.
Cheers
Terry Sorchy

[Half Rations]

would you please E-Mail it to me if at all possible? Im working on mine to.
jrobertsga@bellsouth.net

Jordan Roberts
30th Georgia Company E

[PieBoy96]

Martin:

Here is an excellent article by Geoff Walden on how to Authenticize your Enfield:

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

[Johan Steele]

Craig Barry recently published The Civil War Musket: A Handbook for Historical Accuracy-Lock, Stock and Barrel. This has the watchdog project on improving the Enfield as well as many other excellent bits of info. It's well worth the $30 odd I spent on it.

[CPL_Conner]

I'd also recomend the Geoff Walden article Mr. Boccadoro mentioned. Defarbing is relatively easy. The correct square eared lock screw washers can be obtained from Lodgewood Mfg. (http://www.lodgewood.com/) as well as the correct lock plate with Tower 1862, though the only ones they have left in stock are the case hardened ones. Pretty much all that is left is filing the serial numbers off and any marks from Euroarms manufacture, and have correct ones put in their place on the left side of the barrel near the tang, and a stamp on the stock. Then there is the matter of triming down the stuck just below the lower band and reshaping the upper portion of the small of the stock to more of a point. I would recommend leaving this to someone who has done it before as well as removing and stamping the serial numbers. Hope this helps.

[Mutt]

Mr. Midander,

I ordered a copy of Mr. Walden's instructions a good while ago and have found them a very valuable resource for defarbing my Enfield. The most work I've had on mine has been the stock. I sanded the bulky butt end down a good bit but still think I need to take a tad more off for my liking. I have yet to order the correct escutcheons (spellings?) aka eared lock scew washers and other hardware due to my fund being short and life happening. I found filing off the serial number not too hard of a task. Patience is key to every step and the whole process.

Oh yeah, don't forget to strip the finish off the stock before going at it with sanding. Even if you take it to someone to get it trimmed down this step is an easy do-it-yourselfer.

Best of Luck!

[Sherry Key]

Gentlemen,

My husband (some may know him as 'Cornbread') highly recommends the new publication from The Watchdog, Lock, Stock and Barrel by Craig Barry.

Respectfully,
Sherry Key.

[Jay Spurr]

Would anyone have Mr. Hartman's contact information/website address (if he has one)?
Thanks,
Jay Spurr
Co. A', 4th VA. Inf, SWB

[fahtz]

http://www.jamesriverarmory.com/

contact info:
1512 Jabez Run
Millersville, Maryland 21108
410-923-7942

[Jay Spurr]

Thanks. Appreciate it.
Jay

[Fenianboy]

Our unit(13th NJ, Co.K Mess) has had two 61's and two Enfields done there with great results and excellent service.I've got a Trenton lockplate they've done thatI'm equally pleased with.My advice Terry is to call again,they are worth the effort. Bud Scully aka Fenianboy 13th NJ

[Western Blue Belly]

I got my de-farbed Enfield from RQ (Tower '62 lockplate). I love it and would recommend them to anyone in need of an Enfield. They are really beautiful pieces with great detail and craftmenship. They do draw some attention at events.

[csabugler]

I haven't worked a weapon in a few years, but have done 6-7 in the past.
There wasn't much info out there 15 years ago when I started. I am wondering if the current technique is still to 'Peen" the stampings befor you file them?
Patrick

[ephraim_zook]

If you peen the stampings you shouldn't really have to do much filing other than to smooth out the hammered area. Filing removes metal -- peening just rearranges it so you aren't taking any from the barrel.

Ron Myzie

[CPL_Conner]

When I did mine, I just took a six in inch single cut flat file and ran over the stamping turning the barrel while I did it. You can't tell anything was ever put on there unless you look REALLY close.

[Jimmayo]

If you peen the stampings you shouldn't really have to do much filing other than to smooth out the hammered area. Filing removes metal -- peening just rearranges it so you aren't taking any from the barrel.

Ron Myzie


Ron: This is the first time I have heard of this method. I have a 1st Gen Parker Hale with deep markings and decided not to file them off since so much metal would need to be removed. Could you elaborate on this peening method? Do you use the round end of a ball peen hammer just to peen the metal over into or covering the letters? Does it look like the barrel has been monkey stomped after peening and filing the high spots off or does it come out smooth?

[ephraim_zook]

Jim,

When I did it I just played for a while, using both sides of the hammer as the spirit moved me or appearance dictated. The flat head produced less "dimpling" than the round side. It didn't really require an excessive amount of sanding / steel wooling to smooth it out.

My Springfield is quite old -- it has a 3 digit serial number. I bought it used from a guy who never fired it (literally -- it was a virgin). Not sure if the steel used today is harder, softer or the same as it was then.

Just go gently and see what happens. Don't start whaling away at it with a 4 lb hammer!

regards
Ron Myzie

[csabugler]

we always used very small ball peen hammers. Start with the round end. Lightly tap the stampings at an angle to try to push the raised edges back into the groove. It is a slow process, with each blow being aimed. If you leave bents in the metal arouind the letters, ease off . After that use the flat end to work down the remaining rough spots.
You still have to file some, but it helps.
Patrick

[Jim Chochole]

I have contacted and talked to Craig Barry, who has done some excellent postings and flyers and books about defarbing the Enfield. Try and contact him if you have questions, he is a valuable and helpful resource.

Cheers,
Jim Chochole

[Charles W. Mood]

Gents
I have a reproduction Euroarms enfield which I am having defarbed. While defarbing will replace my incorrect barrel bands, give me period proof marks on the barrel, reshape my stock, etc... it will not include giving me a proper sized hammer. Is there a source out there for a properly sized and authentic reproduction of a Enfield hammer to upgrade my musket? I'm currently looking at either S & S Firearms or Paul Dyson, but I only have the photographs to go off of. I would appreciate the experience of those who have walked this trail ahead of me.

V/R
Charles W. Mood

[MuleyGil]

Check with Lodgewood.

[Jimmayo]

I don't think anyone is making a correct size repro hammer. It may be because it just isn't worth the money it would take to do it. A original hammer will not work. Too many fit problems. I tried it on my euro just to see if it would fit on the tumbler and the hole is too big. Take a look at the pictures below and compare the hammers.

(L to R). First picture is an euro arms P-56 and a original CS used Tower musket. Middle picture is a comparison between two original Towers. Both hammers have a slightly different look. The right most picture is a Parker Hale in front of an original Tower.

After looking at these pictures do you still want to spend a chunk of money on an original hammer. I don't think you will be getting much improvement for your buck.

[riptailedroarer]

Charles, I'm no expert, but from what read the best thing to do is get a copy of Geoff Walden's booklet on defarbing enfields. the problem with hammers is that each manufacturor finished them differantly, i.e. with engaving on them or without. so it depends on weather you have a gun from L.A.C. or a Birmingham gun maker.
And as a by, if hammers were hand made wouldn't the be differ in size from gun to gun?
hope this dosn't muddy the waters to much.

[Curt-Heinrich Schmidt]

Hallo!

Hammer sizes, exact configuration, style of checkering, type of line engraving (or absence) will vary somewhat on P1853 3rd Model "Enfields" as the Birmingham Small Arms Trade pieces were made by a variety of makers without precise or uniform "standardization."
And the London Armoury pieces have even a larger, more "robust" hammer.

Generally, though, the majority of BSAT "Enfields" one examines will have a "larger" hammer than MOST of the Italian reproductions.
The EuroArms from the 1980's tend to all have "undersized" or "thin" hammers when compared to the originals (but again, there is variation). Having have had, or have worked on nearly twenty of them, IMHO those do benefit from a hammer swap in making them look more like the mass of originals than the repro's.

I will have to dig around to see if he is still in business. A virus ate my references for a Canadian lad's website who was selling castings from a variety of originals. I had ordered a batch of five about five years ago, and received five different castings. His moulding picked up the detail REALLY well, including screwdriver dings in the backside of two as well as sub-inspector stamps. (The come finished black, so they have to be polished bright or color-case hardened depending upon one's needs).

I also tried one from The Rifle Shoppe, an excellent supply of rough castings of original parts (although order delays are quite common and often long) . I ordered one for a test, and was disapointed to receive a casting of an anemic or puny EuroArms repro EXACTLY he same as the ones on the several 1980's Euroarms I had wanted to replace.

Right now, I believe Peter Dyson & Son, Ltd, England still offer castings of Enfield parts.
But, I lasted ordered in 1987 so I canot vouch for what they may offer now. However, it is
'casting," and not "finished." Meaning it has somewhat of a "sand mould" texture and mould seam lines that need polished smooth (and color-case hardened if need be) as well as the tumbler "hole" drilled out and filed square to fit the tumbler!

http://www.peterdyson.co.uk/cgi-bin/sh000001.pl?REFPAGE=http%3a%2f%2fwww%2epeterdyson% 2eco%2euk%2fcgi%2dbin%2fss000001%2epl%3fTB%3dA%26G B%3dA%26SS%3dEnfield%26PR%3d%2d1%26PG%3d%26REFPAGE %3dhttp%253a%252f%252fwww%252epeterdyson%252eco%25 2euk%252facatalog%252fsearch%252ehtml%26PN%3d1&WD=enfield&PN=ENFIELD_RIFLE_parts%2ehtml%23aH148_2b#aH148_2b
Curt

[Watchdog]

Mr. Mood,

Get a copy of Craig Barry's The Civil War Musket published buy The Watchdog Quarterly. It goes way beyond Walden's pamphlet in addressing historical feature accuracy modifications of Enfield P-53 rifle muskets (as well as US Model muskets and rifle-muskets).

The Watchdog is an appoved AC vendor. E-mail me at thedog@watchdog review.com for details.

[Third Mainer]

Try Peter Dyson, he is your best bet. He sells a hammer that is as cast from an original. Unfortunately it needs to have the hole for the tumbler drilled and filed, as well as needing to be finished. However Mr. Dyson is top notch to deal with. I ordered one and since he was out of them he sent me an original heavy hammer for the same price. The hammer was in unused, excelllent shape. I'll definately order from him again.
Mike Pearson
Shapely Hammer Enthusiast

[Jimmayo]

I ordered one and since he was out of them he sent me an original heavy hammer for the same price. The hammer was in unused, excelllent shape. I'll definately order from him again.
Mike Pearson
Shapely Hammer Enthusiast

Did the hammer have the hole for the tumbler? If so, did it fit? I tried an original on a euroarms and it was not even close to fitting on the tumbler.

[Bill Shea]

Lovely pictures Jim. Good lock plate details as well as hammers

Thank you,
Bill Shea
5NHV

[MuleyGil]

Was the tumbler hole in the original hammer too big or too small for the repro tumbler?

[Craig L Barry]

Curt-Heinrich Schmidt's experiences mirror my own with the Rifle Shoppe. It was not a quality part and the castings were very rough. He is correct in his other comments as well.

James River Armory (www.jamesriverarmory.com) has had castings made of the so-called "fat" hammer or large hammer that was common to the 1860s Birmingham commercial P-53, and it is made to fit the arbor shaft of the Italian reproductions. They are finished as well. The JRA website has additional contact info. I know they sell lockplates separately so presumably the hammers would be available ala carte as well.

[Curt-Heinrich Schmidt]

Hallo!

In their "defense.." well just a little.

IMHO The Rifle Shoppe illustrates their excellent catalog with photos or original guns and original parts even though what one typically receives is are "out-of-the-mold: castings (that require cleaning and finishing, and in the case of lock parts and springs usually always hardening or hardening and tempering..)

And, IMHO, they usually do not maintain an inventory. Meaning, if one happens to order a part or parts that is "in the bin," they arrive within days. Since, IMHO, they do not stock much of an inventory one has to wait until their is sufficient orders to warrant a foundry production run or batch- and that can takes months or years.

And somethings seem to just be annoying from a customer service POV. In all my experience, they never once answered their phone or replied to a left message. And the part(s) arrive when they arrive without explanation as to delay or possibility of delivery dates.

But they DO OFFER some great and "unusual" gun stuff not available elsewhere if one does not mind the real risk of delay.

Curt

[Third Mainer]

Sorry for not responding sooner. The original hammer was of the unengraved heavy type and fit perfectly on my Armi-Sport with only a shim on the underside of the tumbler shaft. The angle of the hammer striking the cone is slightly off but still worked fine. I'm planning to turn the rifle into a Potts and Hunt.
Mike Pearson

[FlaYankee]

Fellas;

I agree with Craig. Last I chatted with Marc @ James River, he did have some castings for hammers, however they were unfinished, and he hadn't been able to get to them as of yet. I plan on ordering one here in about a week if they're ready. He did ask me which type of musket mine was; (Euroarms) so he could make it to fit the tumbler. Man, I've had so much defarbing work done to my Enfield, I don't recognize it anymore:D
I have also taken the time to send off my barrel to Lodgewood, to have a more authentic rear site attatched. The hammer and rear site should be the finishing touches, until something else comes along:rolleyes:
Good luck with your defarbing... and hammer search!;)
Mike (Third Mainer); Here is a picture of a Potts and Hunt Enfield thats for sale on the Shiloh relics website; http://www.shilohrelics.com/cgi-bin/Display_Item.asp?92054
Kindest Regards;

[Jimmayo]

Here is the other style P&H lock with engraving. As a general rule the engraved version was used primary on the short rifles and the non engraved example referenced in the post above was used on the P-53. If anyone has seen them used the other way I would appreciate knowing about it. A little word of caution, if you are going to have a firearm defarbed, do your research. There are mistakes being made.

[Tarheel]

Dear Jim,
I have two original Potts & Hunt P1853 Rifle Muskets in my collection. The most recent acqisition, purchased at the Nashville show last weekend, is currently on its way home across the Atlantic. Both have double line border engraved lockplates. Also, my recommendation in respect of Enfield hammers is Mark at James River Armory. I've spoke to him many times on this subject and he's your man!
Kind regards,
Patrick Reardon,
The Lazy Jack Mess, UK
(Founder of The Enfield Repatriation Society!!)

[Jimmayo]

Dear Jim,
I have two original Potts & Hunt P1853 Rifle Muskets in my collection. The most recent acqisition, purchased at the Nashville show last weekend, is currently on its way home across the Atlantic. Both have double line border engraved lockplates. Also, my recommendation in respect of Enfield hammers is Mark at James River Armory. I've spoke to him many times on this subject and he's your man!
Kind regards,
Patrick Reardon,
The Lazy Jack Mess, UK
(Founder of The Enfield Repatriation Society!!)



Thanks for the info. I had only seen the unengraved type lock plates on the Potts & Hunt P-53 model. Are there any other markings on the stocks?

[Dreamer42]

I did a search of Enfield Stock discussions but found only info regarding stripping/staining/refinishing/weight of Enfield stocks. Most questions deal with metal or wood finish. My question has more to do with the line of the stock. That is, on repros the wooden parts just look wrong to me, yet I haven't noticed any discussions on this.

Specifically I have attached two images.
In "A" originals have a pronounced point in the lock area, whereas repros have a gradual curve.

In "B" the heal of the stock curves in, whereas on repros actually curve out.

In "C" the forearm is flat, whereas repos curve up just before the barrel band.

If this is a repeated topic I appologize. Why isn't this addressed more? Also, when one sends his Enfield to be "defarbed" is this sort of thing taken care of, or is the owner usually responsible for this?

I have already finished the wood behind the lock using a dremel, then various grits of sandpaper, then steel wool and finally refinishing the stock with handrubbed oil. I will be working on the other two areas soon. Since the stock is a larger area, I'll be using a rasp to get started. Is there anyone else out there who has already done this and could give a few words of advice.

- Dreamer42
Jay Reid
9th Texas

[Jimmayo]

Enfield stocks were finished by hand and exhibit variances in their forming of different parts. In this view an 1862 Tower two band and a Euro arms 2 band are compared. To me both areas "A" are equally pointed. Also there is a 2nd picture of another Tower which also appears to be pointy. The bigest fault I can find in this area are the sharp edges on the repros. This is very noticable on the euro arms. That feature plus about a half pound of extra wood makes them on the "clunkey" side. There are more glaring differences which you will probably run across the more you compare.

[Jimmayo]

Same two muskets. I am not sure what you ment about the curving. I am currently refinishing a Parker Hale and I think it's stock is much closer to an original than either armi-sport or euro arms. Not to mention that it is made out of the same kind of wood.

[Jimmayo]

Here is a better lock view of another enfield which was used by a soldier in the 9th Va. Inf.

While you have your dremel tool out smooth out the wood by the tang as shown in the other picture.

[tmdreb]

Jay,

You've spotted some of the biggest problems with the repro Enfields.

Jim, the Euroarms pics you posted look much different than most of the repros I've seen. Most do not have the point on the lock mortise, and don't have enough wood to create one similar to the originals. Additionally, most repro lock mortises are blended into the stock surrounding them, rather than having a 90 degree edge to them. Click here: http://www.trackofthewolf.com/(S(riwooc55w0mggr45fsb5ul45))/categories/partList.aspx?catID=12&subID=83&styleID=291 and scroll down to see some pics of Euroarms muskets with partially shaped lock mortises.

Quite a few repro Enfields have a curve in the stock just behind that first barrel band. It did not show up in those pics, though. Click here: http://www.taylorsfirearms.com/products/bpCivilWarMuskets.tpl and scroll down to the rifle-length Enfield to see the curved portion of the stock.

[Curt-Heinrich Schmidt]

Hallo!

Yes, it can depend upon not only which repro Enfield one has, but also which "decade" or "era" of the repro and brand/maker one has.
And the "exact" details on original P1853 3rd Models vary by maker.
When working on various repro stocks, yes I personally "redefine" those features or elements as much as they can be reworked. However, I would say, IMHO, that when "copying an original" P1853 3rd Model, copy the features one has in front of you to the extent or degree that the version of the repro one is working on will allow. (Or one's Mental Image or Standards or Level of "Authenticity" in a repro the finished product requires..)
(I also like to thin down the forestock to give a more pronounced "step" to the barrel band locations... ;) )

To the best of my knowledge, such stock work is not part of the so-called "defarbing" work "package" the commercial services supply. However, I do know lads that do do the modifications for their own use and their pards', and some when they contract or agree to do the work for others..

Curt

[LibertyHallVols]

How ironic! I just exchanged e-mails with a friend last night on this very topic!

Jay,
I would say that you are dead-on with all three of your observations. I think that "A" and "B" are because the model of Enfield being reproduced is not the type used in the war. You will only find "C" on more recent Armi Sport arms. I'm not sure why they did it, but it looks more like the first or second (?) pattern stock for spring-retained barrel bands.

I was able to view a friend's defarbed Enfield recently. Whoever did the work, did a pretty good job on the stock.

Good post.

[Jimmayo]

Jay,



Quite a few repro Enfields have a curve in the stock just behind that first barrel band. It did not show up in those pics, though. Click here: http://www.taylorsfirearms.com/products/bpCivilWarMuskets.tpl and scroll down to the rifle-length Enfield to see the curved portion of the stock.

Yes, I see what you are talking about. I have never seen that feature. Something else to look out for and nearly impossible to fix.

The euro arms whose picture I posted above is a two band. Perhaps the stocks for these were made by a different machine. There are lots of problems with that stock but the band step and pointy lock mortice is not among them.

[Dreamer42]

I Appreciate the replies. Curt and Jim, like always your collective wisdom exceeds my feeble attampts. BTW, I have some very fine grit sand paper to use on reducing the edge on the wood around the lock - just haven't had the time lately. Thanks for pointing that out.
I have learned in collecting and researching WWII history and gear that there are two msyterious words..."never" and "generally".
Just like American WWII "Khaki" or OD #5 can be different depending on the contractor, the contract run dates, I realize there are variations in manufacturers in CW rifles. Heck, even Post WWII M1 rifles - International Harvesters - have a different shape on the rear of the receiver than the other manufacturers.
The "curve" in the stock I mentioned before seems to me, on the dozen originals I have examined anyway, that it is concave. My EA actually curves out - looking very fat I might add.
I have thought of removing some of the weight by boring out some wood under the buttplate and a few places under the barrel on the forearm. Short of removing too much, what are the chances of weakening the wood?
I'll post some pics in about a week to share my progress.
Thanks again.

- Jay Reid
Dreamer42

[Jimmayo]

Here are a couple of pictures comparing the euro to a PH I am refinishing and to an original. Notice the amount of wood under the mortise in the euro and the way the mortise extends all the way to the bottom of the stock in the PH and original.

I couldn't agree with you more about the two mysterious words. Although I usually say never say never when discussing a topic.

I am going to drag my friends armi-sport P-53 out and start checking that one.

[sauguszouave]

"That feature plus about a half pound of extra wood makes them on the "clunkey" side. "

It is amazing how all the little mistakes in repros add up to make the guns feel "clunkey." I teach bayonet fencing and one of the things I do when I give a class is to bring my original 1861 Springfield and original BSA P-53 along. After I've been running the troops through the drill for a while, I pass the originals around. It always amazes everyone how much better balanced the originals are. A half hour of fencing with a repro makes you very sensitive to the weight and balance. After that you can feel differences that your eye can't see.

BTW, the best repro out there for bayonet fencing, IMHO, is the Armi Sport 1842. It is light and quick despite its size. The worst ones by far are the P-53 repros. You can always tell a repro P-53 with your eyes closed.

Regards,

Paul Kenworthy

[Curt-Heinrich Schmidt]

Hallo!

Jay lad...

A goodly portion of the added weight on the repro's is the "beefed up" barrels.
IMHO, most all of the benefit of wood removal (where possible) is visual or cosmetic.

However, yes, I know a few lads that have judiciously bored a series of half inch or so large holes several inches into the buttstock from the buttplate area, as well as smaller holes under the trigger guard.
Some leave the holes empty, some fill them with expanding foam insulation.
As long as the holes are not thinning the "walls" of the buttstock enough to be crushed on a minor impact, I do not see the harm. (Of course that does not mean "swiss cheezing" or "coal mining" the thing...)

I have never tried lightening the stock believing that the barrel is the main culprit.
Even if the butt is lightened slightly the increased bulk and weight of the barrel at the breech in particular and the rest of the way down the barel is still going to cause a gun that is heavier and does not balance, swing, shoulder, aim, carry, and feel as the originals.

Curt

[Craig L Barry]

To address the necessity of stock re-contouring:
This is probably not a new topic among students of the Civil War Enfield on this forum, but more and more serious enthusiasts are taking an active interest in "getting it right" down to the final details. "Close enough" has long been the battle cry of the Italian manufacturers of reproduction Civil War-era firearms. Some, of course, are better than others but none of the reproductions are particularly good in the sense of historical feature accuracy. The reasons for this have been outlined elsewhere. Anyone who has held an original P-53 commercial Enfield notices an overall thinness to the stock particularly through the wrist (reproductions are about 5.5" in diameter and while originals vary slightly they are usually not more than 5" around the wrist), originals have a less curved stock flat, a more "football" shape to the lock mortise and a different transition to the comb which the reproductions lack, and so on. James River Armory (www.jamesriverarmory.com) does stock re-contouring as part of their basic "de-farb" package, beginning the process with walnut stock blanks and working off an original. It is nicely done, based off the dimensions of a commercial Birmingham Enfield made by WL Sargant and marked Tower 1862. They can also recontour your reproduction along the same lines. A new outfit called Liberty Tree guns (libertytree@peoplepc.com) of Christiana, TN also re-contours the stock as part of their de-farb, which is based on a Swinburn & Son Tower 1863 with a likely Confederate heritage. The work I have seen from them is also very nicely done, but they use modern stains and you would want to re-finish your stock with a more period correct finish (boiled linseed oil). Lodgewood Mfg (www.lodgewood.com/defarbing) offers a similar stock re-contouring service for an upcharge of $150, which includes refinishing with boiled linseed oil. Lastly, you can do it yourself if you have access to an original, woodworking tools and some aptitude. Lacking two of the three criteria myself, I recommend go "the professional route" for the best results.
To address the weight issue:
The excess weight of Civil War reproduction muskets is split between the stock and the barrel. It is reasonable to surmise that the "beefier" stock became necessary to support the "beefier barrel". Whatever the case, the balance is not the same as original firearms and they do apppear noticeably "clunky".
To address the comments on the 1842
It is considered the best reproduction "out of the box", but still needs some work. The shape of the ramrod (on the smoothbore) is awful, the trigger guard is somewhat misshapen, the front sight needs to be ground off and replaced with a brass sight, the band springs are slightly mis-located (hard to fix), there is too much trigger play and so on.This is probably a discussion for an entirely different thread. Sorry this rambles a bit.

[Devildog0311]

I was wondering if anyone knows first hand about the quality of the Blockade Runner Enfield defarb? I don't know if the Tower stamp is the right size or not. Take a look .



Justin Connor

[BrianHicks]

If I remember correctly, the stamps where all copied directly from an original Enflield provided by Tim Prince. I had talked to him about the results of this endeavor about a year ago. From what I recall, he was very pleased with the quality of the stamps used to mark their defarbed enfields.

I have been to their shop, and personally looked at one of their rifles, and to my uneducated eye, the stamps and markings all looked crisp, and well done, but remember... unlike Mr. Prince, I am not intimate with such things as he is.

It might be worth your time if you e-mailed him, and asked if he had an opinion on the results of the Blockade Runners efforts to reproduce the dies needed to produce the stamps on their defarbed rifles.

Tim's e-mail is: equaliser@earthlink.net

[pineyboy]

I have one of their defarbed Enfields and I am very happy with it. It looks very good and is at a good price.

[HighPrvt]

Just got an E-mail from BR, I'll let y'all know tomorrow what I think. Well it'll also be my untrained opinion, but I can compare it to other defarbs so......

[LibertyHallVols]

Photos would be great, if someone could post a few... :D

Do they do any reshaping of the stock?

Thanks!

[huntdaw]

They have photos on their website. You might take a look there. Not sure about the stock since I'm not looking at their site but I want to say it does not include any work on it. I did a basic defarb on my Enfield myself and have contacted them to see how about having a cartouche put on the stock. The photo of theirs looks nice and clean. If that is usual standard it should be pretty nice.

[RFox]

My first post, but have been looking at purchasing an enfield for a bit now, and have been looking into several vendors. To answer the last question about the stock, the site says "Stock is re-contoured to match the original".

[LibertyHallVols]

Please forgive me, but I am a skeptic when it comes to these things. This causes me to dismiss vendor claims of quality or historical accuracy until I can see the widget for myself to verify the claims. That is why I was interested in seeing a pic of a musket to see the shape of the stock, etc.

I took a look at the website to see if there was a pic. The only pictures available are close-up shots of various details of parts and markings.

So, again... Does anybody own one of these suckers? Would you be willing to post a couple of shots of the stock, especially the buttstock, lock, and forend areas?

Also, their website raised some questions for me:
re-stained using a deep penetrating stain sealant giving the wood a deep brown color. Then wax is applied to seal and protect the surface.

What is a "deep penetrating stain sealant"? I kept looking for "linseed oil", but never saw it... :confused:

Thanks, folks!

[Devildog0311]

Thank you to all of you. You have been very helpful.


Justin Connor

[HighPrvt]

EDIT:
Due to the weight, and the box/paperwork in the box. I thought they had sent me a Euroarms by mistake.
After speaking with Jerry, and him stating that they do not change the barrel bands on the Euroarms defarbs, I am now convinced that I do in fact have an Armisport.
Just to be 100% can anybody tell me any difference between the two that wouldn't be affected by the defarbing process, assuming that maybe Mr. Watts did change the bands?
Here's a few pics of the details.

http://www.gunsnet.net/album/data//500/medium/En-1.jpg
http://www.gunsnet.net/album/data//500/medium/En-3.jpg
http://www.gunsnet.net/album/data//500/medium/En-2.jpg

[C.R. Henderson]

Look at your mainspring on the inside of the lock. If memory serves me correctly, the Armi Sport has either a silver/metallic mainspring whereas the Euroarms have a black mainspring. Anyone feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

Chris

[HighPrvt]

Thanks,
Someone told me that the nipples arn't exchangeable between the two manufacturers. So I tried the nipple from my Armi-'61 Springfield, and it worked...
It just seems heavy for an Armisport.


BTW,
The stock is re-contoured at the cheek rest.
Now to hunt up some Minies, and step out to the back yard!!!

[toptimlrd]

[QUOTE=HighPrvt;45728]Thanks,
Someone told me that the nipples arn't exchangeable between the two manufacturers. So I tried the nipple from my Armi-'61 Springfield, and it worked...
It just seems heavy for an Armisport.


UOTE]

If the Enfields are like the Springfields, then the cones are not interchangeable.

[Craig L Barry]

Most of the current service providers of "accuracy modified" Enfields were reviewed in The Civil War Musket: A Handbook for Historical Accuracy (Watchdog Publishing Co 2006). Todd Watts work was reviewed.

To summarize, he does very good work and the barrel proof marks are particularly outstanding. I have probably seen them all (a few times) and I had Watts stamp proof marks on the barrel of my Enfield. He also does an expert barrel re-bluing, which is a real plus. The stock is very nicely re-contoured. The stock finish is not boiled linseed oil. As the website indicates it is some sort of modern stain with a coat of beeswax.

The Watchdog Civil War Quarterly provides advice and feedback, but the various service providers decide whether or not to follow it. The recommendation here would be to refinish the stock with boiled linseed oil on your own, it is not difficult to do.

Let me hasten to add that none of the current Enfield "de-farb" service providers actually refinish the gun stock in a period correct manner. If they do anything at all it is a modern stain with a top coat of "Tru-Oil", tung oil or some other modern linseed oil product. A boiled linseed oil finish is hand-rubbed and it is a process that takes some time to do properly.

Todd also did some work on my Armi-Sport US Model 1842 which came "out of the box" from BRI with the hammer not quite reaching the cone (quality control not exactly being the forte of the repro Italian gun-makers), and he de-farbed it expertly while he had it in his shop to fix the hammer problem. It looks as good as any work I have seen. However I still refinished it with boiled linseed oil when I got it back. You can see the difference a linseed oil finish makes in an upcoming Civil War Historian article on Tung Oil vs Boiled Linseed Oil.
The 1842 stock referenced previously here is pictured in that upcoming article.

Lastly, Todd Watts used several P-53 Enfields in producing his "de-farb", including an original from Tim Prince and a Birmingham commercial P-53 made by "Swinburn & Son" which he borrowed from me and copied the JS anchor mark and other stamps. The workmanship on all the stamps is very good. Most of the Enfields done by Watts for BRI are Armi-Sport. You can tell by the correct "Palmer type" barrel bands, or by weighing your Enfield. An Armi-Sport is usually just under 9 lbs or so, and the EOA is a bit heavier, about 10 lbs 9 oz. Watts is planning to start re-shaping EOA bands, as of the last time I spoke to him at the Nashville Gun Show.

This is at best a compromise solution to reshape the RSAF(Baddeley) type bands and this is done mostly for fellows who already have the Euroarms.
Craig L. Barry

[Tom Ezell]

EDIT:

Here's a few pics of the details.



Out of idle curiousness, most of the references I've seen indicate that the "JS over anchor" stamp was placed on the bottom side of the stock -- in the wood -- and not on the lockplate...

[Jimmayo]

Out of idle curiousness, most of the references I've seen indicate that the "JS over anchor" stamp was placed on the bottom side of the stock -- in the wood -- and not on the lockplate...

I wondered about that also. I have also seen a few with that stamp and all were on the bottom side of the stock behind the trigger guard.

That being said, you can never tell what will show up on original enfields and they did say they copied an original. One of the lockplates in Geoff Walden's article on enfields does have a Birmington Small Arms Trade stamp on the lock plate.

If I had to make a generalization I would say the fewer stock markings the better.

IMO, the best way to do it is to find an original with markings and copy that one.

[HighPrvt]

The stamp is also on the stock.
They said that they copied an original, I dunno. Maybe Tim Prince will chime in on this?


Not using this as any kind of proof, or anything but here's what is said about the stamps on their site.

Just in and ready to go. We now have the stamps for the Confederate contract Enfield. You can now order your enfield with the Charles Swinburn stamp rather than the Joseph Wilson stamp and the JS over the anchor stamp signifying that your Enfield was a Confederate Contract Enfield that ran the blockade! No one else offers these stamps.

The JS over the anchor is thought to be the initials of London Armory Co. employee, James Smiles. Smiles would have been given a leave of absence to be an inspector of arms for the CSA and would then have stamped the guns he approved for purchase.

On the original rifles you will see his stamp on lock plates, just behind the trigger guards and on the butt plates. But not always stamped on all three places.
We will also stamp the last 3 digits of your weapons serial number on the tang of the butt plate as the majority of the surviving weapons which have the JS over anchor and the C. Swinburn stamp also have a rack number stamped on the butt plate.

[HighPrvt]

Look at your mainspring on the inside of the lock. If memory serves me correctly, the Armi Sport has either a silver/metallic mainspring whereas the Euroarms have a black mainspring. Anyone feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

Chris

Mainspring is silver, so everything is consistent with the Armisport, except the weight. Apparently from a search I did the weight of the Armisports can fluctuate while all the Euroarms are heavy. Oh well, I'm used to toting around a '61 Springfield, so I'm used to the weight, I was looking forward to a lighter musket........

[C.R. Henderson]

I've started to do a defarb on my Euro Enfield and after recontouring the stock (using several pics from 5 different originals) I can definately tell a difference. I weighed it against my father's Enfield (Euro) and it is considerably lighter. Next, the stamps and new lockplate....:D

[Jimmayo]

Here is the JS anchor stamp on my P58 euro. Doesn't look like the one in the other picture. It looks big in this picture but it is the right size.

[LibertyHallVols]

Ah yes, good point. Perhaps even a general treatrise on "if they'd a had it they'd a used it".

That should be an easy piece to write:
"If they used it, they had it" :tounge_sm ;)

More Peeves:
"Should I buy an Armi Sport or a Euroarms?"
Fundamental questions asked in the Research forum: "Can anyone tell me about the XXth (Insert State) Regiment in 186X?"

[HOG.EYE.MAN]

How about this one?

"I've got a Jarnigan (Or other sutler row crook) coat that I've torn up to look like I've been on campaign, how is that any different from a correctly made coat? I can look just as hardcore with my cheap S&#@ as the rest of you fellows."

About time to eliminate that mentality...Good point, Jim.

Should I defarb, or re-buy? Unless it's a weapon issue, the defarbing questions drive me nuts.

[Tim Prince]

Since my name has been brought up.....A few notes.

Yes, I provided the first P-1853 that thye copied the stamps from, a Joseph Wilson made Enfield with a nice BSAT stock cartouche and great makers mark. The gun had NO Confederate markings at all. They did a good job with the stamps, and Todd uses an arbor press to stamp the guns, which is why the stamps are nice and deep and clean, unlike the hand struck stamps that most other de-frabers (is that a word???) use.

I have never seen the JS/Anchor on a lock plate (that does not mean it did not happen) and it does not seem PEC to me. Also, the number on the buttplate (which should also be on the rammer) should be 4 digits (not 3) and individually engraved, not stamped.

Just my 2 cents. I still have not seen one of the guns in person, so it is difficult to pass a final judgement.

[Curt-Heinrich Schmidt]

Hallo!

I have never encountered a "JS anchor" stamp on a lock plate myself, but my "pool" of Enfields I have owned or seen is not much more than a hundred or so...
Throw in some pictures in reference books, and..

PEC/NUG, IMHO it seems the stamp exists in two forms, a long front stroke "U" and a short front stroke "U" that looks more like a "J." And they seem to be stamped at the trigger guard end.

Love those arbor presses. I have a 2 ton and wished we had gone 3... ;-) :-)
(and it also can help to soften the hard modern steel and reharden it after striking...)

Curt

[SCTiger]

We used to call this spoon feeding, any topic could become irksome if the questions aren't completely answered and made in to a good article. I guess Paul wants more serious articles that address these issues squarely and relate them to the type of issues we most commonly encounter, most stem from reenactorisms that are practiced at mainstream events. We need articles that treat the subject in a realistic manner, i.e. take a topic like "women in the ranks", instead of preconceived and biased articles that want to "justify" female soldiers, we need a fair and scientific article, that should demonstrate exactly how rare that was (hypothesis). Another would be soldiers without shoes or tent usage, Personal opinions are to be aruged with, good research teaches.

You can argue with beliefs and opinions but, facts stand on their own. Good specific articles with specific references, unbiased facts and solid empirical will kill the myths.

Provided that someone ever read the "primary resource" or article sections of this forums.