Engraved Enfields and the Reenactor...

[Tim Prince]

Re: Engraved Enfields and the Reenactor...

Tim,

Taught by whom?

Look guys, I know Corky and Co. have had this book in the works for awhile now. And I'm sure that it will be a good addition to the knowledge base we now have.

However I really must object to "letting the cat out of the bag" by certain folks by revealing things in the book early. Let the book come out and we can all see what it contains. Let the authors retain their intellectual property until then.

You'll just have to be patient I guess.

Regards,

Mark,

I used the term "taught" to refer to the conventional wisdom that has been passed down by reenacntors for quite some time that No Enfields with British military marks were imported during the American Civil War. This stunning piece of absolutism has even been published in a number of books, including Firearms From Europe. The reality is that this is not true. At this point I have owned three British military marked P-1853 Enfields (2 Type III's and 1 Type I) that were all Sinclair-Hamilton marked. These guns were CS purchases and while they are not in the majority of extant specimens, the mere fact that one person has owned that many in a 2-3 year period (and seen several others) indicates that there are a lot more than none out there.

As to intellectual property, anything that I have shared on these forums (or elsewhere) is information that I have obtained on my own through my own research and experience. More than once I have shared information with Corky and Russ that they did not have. Anything that I share on these forums in no way violates their intellectual property rights.

[M.Latham]

Re: Engraved Enfields and the Reenactor...

Tim,

For the record I am not affiliated with Corky's book project in any way. I am just asking persons who may be representing what others have told them as their intellectual property to allow the ones who did spend money, time, sweat, blood and tears the chance to put a book in the hands of the collecting and authentic community.

And you're right, any statement by any "expert" without documentable evidence, is frankly suspect. And yes some books are very suspect.

We all stand upon the shoulders of Giants. I hope your hackles are down.

Regards,

[Illinois Rebel]

Re: Engraved Enfields and the Reenactor...

Mr. Collins,

OK, to play devil's advocate on the Colt barrel question.

Given the strict requirements of the British Gun trade in regards to proofing, please explain why the breech on these non-Colt "Spanish" made tubes are proofed by English inspectors. On Spanish made P53 and Spanish made M57 arms are English proofs ever present?

Regards,

Mr. Latham,

Great question; you are on the right track. But let's first address the "strict" requirements statement. There was a fantastic rush to procure arms when hostilities broke out. Agents from the North and South were engaged with English Arms dealers to procure Arms. There were requirements; however, the arms were divided into classes: 1st, 2nd and 3rd. The Tower mark is definitely associated with 1st class Arms. The Crown (England) required this standard for their standing Army. However, this requirement was a bit lax when it came to exports. Early Confederate imports show a wide range of variations when it came to P53's put into the field. VR Crowned lock-plates, First Models with screw-less Bands, and Second Models were observed. There were even some Pattern 39’s and 42’s known to have come in through the Blockade. The BSA, British Small Arms consortium, pressed all available part into service to meet the need. With this known…

There are two weapons to reference to build the point. The third Weapon pictured above is a Spanish Enfield Rifle. I used this photo to illustrate the common breach configuration; they are identical to the P53 Barrel except for the length. There is some debate over how many of the Rifles came in and were used by the Confederacy. I have observed three others and have owned one. One of the three was ID'd to a GA Soldier; the other three were in different levels of condition.

The 40" Barrels were originally intended for Madrid, Spain; not Spanish manufacture. There was a contract between the British and Spain for 2500* (This may be as high as 3000) Enfield’s. However, when the American Civil War broke out, these were "diverted" to meet the immediate inrush of orders. Below are some photos of the underside of the Barrel of one of my 40" Enfield to show the inspection marks.

The photos below show Henry Clive as the Barrel Maker with a Serial number of 2116; both the Barrel and Breach plug. There is a small “S” under the barrel below a large M.C. ( Note the Blueing) On the Flat of the Breach is the Diamond C with a Birmingham Inspection mark and 25* 24*.


Does this help? I will post photos of the Spanish Enfield Breach tomorrow.

Respectfully,

Michael Collins

[Illinois Rebel]

Re: Engraved Enfields and the Reenactor...

To All.

The Diamond C mark does not signify Spanish use; the 40" Barrel was intended for Spain. The Diamond C was an inspector mark much like the JS Anchor. The C denoted the place of inspection.

Respectfully,

Michael Collins

[Illinois Rebel]

Re: Engraved Enfields and the Reenactor...

I am having trouble uploading photos.

I will try to post them in my Album.

MC

[Illinois Rebel]

Re: Engraved Enfields and the Reenactor...

Try this...

[WpnsMan]

Re: Engraved Enfields and the Reenactor...

Michael,

Until you posted your pictures of the Diamond C as marked on the breech, I had assumed you may have been referring to stock markings. Typically when one encounters a DC within a diamond (usually on a Snider) it denotes the piece in question was owned by the Dominion of Canada, hence my post.

As the marking you posted appear in the middle of the normal proofing sequence, I would assume it to be an in-process inspectors marking of some sort rather than the marking applied after the fact to a contract arm such as the J S anchor, S H and S H G # markings. Though I guess I will have to wait like everyone else for the book to come out.


Todd,
“that SH&G linked above has a TOWER lock and LAC barrel.”

Were you referring to the pictures of the P53 I posted? While the barrel does indeed have London proofs it is not a LAC produced barrel. The barrel was produced by Thomas Turner and the “1862 Tower” lock by Siddons & Sons. As far as I can tell it was assembled by/for Yeoman’s and Sons either under contract to or later sold to Schuyler Hartley and Graham. This, according to my research is all pretty “typical” for contracted arms of the time.

If anyone has any insight into the J.D, Large G and Z markings on the P53 I posted, I would appreciate it.

[M.Latham]

Re: Engraved Enfields and the Reenactor...

Michael,

I think you're mistaken with some of your information.

First class arms are considered by the British to be machine made arms from Enfield or London Armory. Second class arms are those made by the London arms trade or the Birmingham arms trade (all hand made arms). Third and forth class arms were older obsolete arms P39 and P42 for instance.

Also both first and second pattern P53 arms had screwless hard bands, the first also having a swelled cup pattern rammer and smaller delicate hammer, while the second has the familiar jag headed rammer.

You and I differ on our information regarding the Colt / Spanish barrels.


Also respectfully,

[Illinois Rebel]

Re: Engraved Enfields and the Reenactor...

Michael,

I think you're mistaken with some of your information.

First class arms are considered by the British to be machine made arms from Enfield or London Armory. Second class arms are those made by the London arms trade or the Birmingham arms trade (all hand made arms). Third and forth class arms were older obsolete arms P39 and P42 for instance.

Also both first and second pattern P53 arms had screwless hard bands, the first also having a swelled cup pattern rammer and smaller delicate hammer, while the second has the familiar jag headed rammer.

You and I differ on our information regarding the Colt / Spanish barrels.


Also respectfully,

Your position is so noted. I can tell you that I have seen and handled such Weapons, with Confederate Hallmarks, which were not "First Class" weapons. I have observed P53's with Badley Bands, 1859 Lock-plates and even Iron mountings. I too must also defer to Tim's comment of hard-fast rules when it comes to Confederate Imports. If there was money to be made, they were shipping over what ever was available. Are you of the opinion this did not happen; that all arms imported were Class perfect?

As for the 40" Barrel, please provide us your counterpoint. I base my position on a shared opinion with strong credentials. Are you saying Colt was incapable of turning Barrels for their own use?

I look forward to your reply and thank you for your participation.

Respectfully,

Michael Collins

[M.Latham]

Re: Engraved Enfields and the Reenactor...

Michael,

It is not my contention that Confederate all used arms were first class arms, or for that matter all second class arms. My contention was that the "Tower" stamp is always used in second class handmade arms by British Law, so your statement: "The Tower mark is definitely associated with 1st class Arms." is wrong. I would agree that the Confederacy contracted for whatever was available, and did indeed get a mixture of First class arms from London Armory and a vast amount of second class arms from the Birmingham and London arms trade.

I also don't think I ever wrote that Colt made the barrels himself, I insinuated that since they were proofed in England, they were indeed made in England, in .58 caliber, 40" configuration, for Colt. I also have persons with strong credentials, and evidence to back that claim. However if you ask me prove this, alas I cannot, I respect his intellectual property and will not reveal his information without his permission.

I truly hope one day his book is written.

Respectfully,

[Tim Prince]

Re: Engraved Enfields and the Reenactor...

Gentlemen,

One small correction, Type I Enfields did have clamping bands. The Type II was the only Enfield manufactured with solid bands retained by springs. Here are a couple of pictures of the Sinclair-Hamitlon Type I that I obtained at the end of last year. Note the classic Type I features:
Thinner hammer with pronounced curve on spur (like a P-1842 or P-1839)
Rear site with slightly convex sides
Early 1854 (first year of production) date - I believe Type I's were only produced in 1854 & 55

The stock is cut for the swelled rammer, but the Type I rammer has no jag head and has more of a small tulip head. This gun had a later, maker marked Type III rammer in it.

The Sinclair-Hamilton mark is behind the triggerguard.

It is interesting to note that none of the British military P-1853's with CS marks that I have seen have had the "double broad arrow" out of service mark.....

[Illinois Rebel]

Re: Engraved Enfields and the Reenactor...

Michael,

It is not my contention that Confederate all used arms were first class arms, or for that matter all second class arms. My contention was that the "Tower" stamp is always used in second class handmade arms by British Law, so your statement: "The Tower mark is definitely associated with 1st class Arms." is wrong.

Mr. Latham,

Please reread my paragraph again. I said that the Tower stamp is always associated with 1st Class Arms for the Crown and their standing Army in England. As for exports; this is where variations in quality shall occur.

As for Colt; we'll have to wait and see. Remember, they had the capacity to produce Muskets in the Enfield configuration here in the States. Why would they require Enfield Barrels? Colt's Nephew dropped the ball with Enfield and nearly cost him his job...

Remember, this discussion is about the Diamond C and it's significance and purpose.

Alas, we'll agree to disagree.

Respectfully,

Michael Collins

[M.Latham]

Re: Engraved Enfields and the Reenactor...

Tim,

Touche'. I am corrected on this point, the very first arms were indeed equipped with clamping bands, made before 1856. I must learn to write more slowly.

Michael,

Again, I am not at liberty to reveal information I was given by someone who will hopefully publish his own findings. This is theft as far as I am concerned.

Furthermore, the conversation was initially about the spreading of information, that you considered your intellectual property. From friends of yours who are planning on writing said book, and who told you in confidence what you are willing to give away here.

I will wait for the book.

Regards,

[Illinois Rebel]

Re: Engraved Enfields and the Reenactor...

Michael,

Again, I am not at liberty to reveal information I was given by someone who will hopefully publish his own findings. This is theft as far as I am concerned.

Furthermore, the conversation was initially about the spreading of information, that you considered your intellectual property. From friends of yours who are planning on writing said book, and who told you in confidence what you are willing to give away here.

I will wait for the book.

Regards,

Mr. Latham,

This post was originally about engraved Enfields and the Reenactor. It has evolved as most Threads do. As for intellectual property; how do you define it? How is it obtained? Does attending numerous Shows, travelling thousands of miles, pouring over hundreds of documents and letters, purchasing and reading numerous Books and related articles, engaging with other students of the hobby as well as spending thousands of dollars entitle me to my intellectual property? This I have done.

I can choose to share my knowledge as I see fit. Are you concerned that my posting something here will keep you from duping an individual out of a Musket? As they say, knowledge is power. Besides, since there is no Tome available on the subject, my rhetoric may all be Bull. As they say, opinions are like your backside; we all have them and they all stink...

However, let us refrain from hostilities and agree to disagree. Most of this information is out there if you are willing to look for it.

Respectfully,

Michael Collins

[M.Latham]

Re: Engraved Enfields and the Reenactor...

Michael,

If you have done your own research, and have uncovered your own documentation, by all means share as you see fit. We can "try conclusions" as you wish. If you wish to post original documents for us all to partake in, post your own firearms with the attending documentation to back your claims and can site original sources. I for one am all ears.

However, we know some of the same people and I know they have spent years doing their own research. All in preparation for a book to be published. Which will I hope financially reward their time, effort and energy. I respect that effort enough not to reveal their research on an open forum before they get the chance.

Respectfully,