The Monster Enfield Defarbing Thread

[1stMaine]

Re: Too Many Enfields?

Craig,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Respects,

[Craig L Barry]

Re: Too Many Enfields?

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

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

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: Too Many Enfields?

Hallo!

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

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

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

Curt
Ripe de Bois Mess

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

[Craig L Barry]

Re: Too Many Enfields?

Herr Kammeraden:

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

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

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


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

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: Too Many Enfields?

Hallo!

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

I almost said:

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

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

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

Curt

[Craig L Barry]

Re: Too Many Enfields?

Tim:

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

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

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

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

[1stMaine]

Re: Too Many Enfields?

Comrade Barry,

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

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

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

Respects,

[Craig L Barry]

Re: Too Many Enfields?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Or I could be missing the boat again.

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: James River Armory - Defarbed Enfields

Hallo!

Indeed!

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

Curt

[Craig L Barry]

Re: James River Armory - Defarbed Enfields

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

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: James River Armory - Defarbed Enfields

Hallo!

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

Curt
Mr. Peabody Mess

[rogue]

Re: James River Armory - Defarbed Enfields

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

[jhodnett]

Re: James River Armory - Defarbed Enfields

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

[Joe Walker]

Re: James River Armory - Defarbed Enfields

Jeff-

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

Joe Walker

[Craig L Barry]

Re: James River Armory - Defarbed Enfields

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