Engraved Enfields and the Reenactor...

[Illinois Rebel]

Re: Engraved Enfields and the Reenactor...

Mr. Latham,

So noted.

I have information; along with Firearms to show.

However...

In the spirit of fellowship and honor, I will wait to share. What more can I say without being perceived as belligerent.

Respectfully,

Michael Collins

[Todd Watts]

Re: Engraved Enfields and the Reenactor...

Michael,


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.

Ah, that 'splains it. Illustrated yet again that the Enfields were often a hodge-podge of pieces-parts.

Tim, I hoe to see you at the Easter TMCA show and hope you will bring another fine Enfield for me to fondle in case I want to add yet another version - as if I needed one.:tounge_sm

[Prodical Reb]

Re: Engraved Enfields and the Reenactor...

Gentlemen,
it wasn't until parts interchangability that handmade "Tower" marked weapons were deemed 2nd class arms. When the first model or Type I, P53 was produced all weapons were hand made. This is even true for the the 2nd model or Type II P53s. It wasn't until the 3rd model made by The Royal Small arms armory at Enfield marked "Enfield" and LA Company that the still hand made weapons of Birmingham marked on the lock as "Tower" became 2nd class weapons as defined by the crown. The stocks are easy to tell apart. The estucheons of the hand made weapons are square eared and machine made stocks are round eared types. Machine made, interchangable parts P53 is correct during the late war period of the ACW. These are incorrect for the early part because interchangable parts occured in _____ and were strictly for the Army of the Crown. By 1864 enough arms had been produced that they could start exporting these interchangable parts Type IV P53s. The type III "Tower" Birmingham guns were still handmade, thus 2nd class weapons and were widely available for export since the Crown would not buy these as first rate weapons.

[Enfield]

Re: Engraved Enfields and the Reenactor...

Mr. Phillips,

Thanks for posting that fine analysis. I concur - the "TOWER" marking had nothing to do with 1st, 2nd, 3rd Class upon manufacture. That association only came later, normally when the pre-"Third Model" P53s that had been accepted for government service were refurbished for issue to Volunteer and other units that were not in the "first" class (Colonial militias, etc.), in the early 1860s. At that time, the machine-made RSAF and L.A.Co. P53s were the only ones that met the criteria for 1st Class designation. *IF* the Birmingham Small Arms Co. had ever gotten its machinery going during the P53 era, those guns would also have been 1st Class, and would presumably have continued to be marked TOWER. (Or maybe not ... since they didn't make any P53s entirely by machinery, we'll never know.)

(I never considered this before ... Did the government mark the BSA machine-made Sniders and Martini-Henrys as 1st Class? I'll have to look at some photos and see.)

Back to the Diamond-C ... The Colt 40" barrels were not the same as the Spanish barrels. Colt had his agent in England order a number of barrels specifically made to the Springfield standard, and also some finished Enfields with these barrels. These contracts fell through (or Colt just decided not to buy them), but some of the Enfields were made, and the barrels presumably went into other Enfields. I have seen these Colt barrels on P53s by various Birmingham and London commercial makers. I have seen them on Enfields with Confederate markings, as well as some with US identifications.

But as I've said for years - there are no all-or-none absolute rules when it comes to period Enfields - just generalities that usually hold true. You can almost always find a period gun that appears legit, that will have some marking or characteristic that per the norm, would be "impossible."

Even period documentation can be misleading. There is a period listing (not in very good shape) that shows some lots of CS-bought Enfields, along with their engraved buttplate numbers. However, I have seen two or three of the actual surviving Enfields with engraved numbers from this listing, and the guns do NOT match what the listing says they should be! What does this mean??? I have no idea.

I really do look forward to any period documentation, other than the rather well-known Colt records, that bears on the Diamond-C marking.

Geoff Walden

[stri volunteer]

Re: Engraved Enfields and the Reenactor...

Mr Watts & Mr Prince.
Mssrs Barry Senior says "there is some very odd Enfield material in this thread." For example, one point on the 1st type pictured with the London barrel, referring to the book "The Rifle Story" by John Walter, it states on p. 35 (in support of what C.H. Roads and others documented from the same sources) that the first 20,000 P-53s produced were ordered by the Crown in October 1853 from the original four Birmingham (no London) commercial gunmakers, Swinburn, Tipping & Lawden, T. Turner and Hollis & Sheath who had the responsibility for "setting up" the weapons. Further, all the barrels were made by Birmingham Beasley & Farmer, John Clive, Henry Clive, W. Millward, E. Millward, Wm Deakin & Son, and Joseph Turner & Son. No others, and these were all Birmingham (not London) proofed. The barrel on this gun was with London proofs was probably added later and is not original to the weapon. My dear dad says "One should be careful of Enfields sold as original or having a Civil War history that are put together (later) from a collection of disassociated parts."

The locks on the first P53 contract types ones were all produced by W. Corbett, John Duce, J. Brazier & Son, J & E Partridge, Samuel Sanders, James Francis and R&W Aston.

The Enfield book should be considered carefully given the checkered past on the part of one of the authors, but that doesn't mean the information in it won't be good or worth reading.

[Todd Watts]

Re: Engraved Enfields and the Reenactor...

Thanks Hunter. That's why your Pa is on my "buddies" list, as short as it is.:D It's always nice having quick contact with a useful brain.

[stri volunteer]

Re: Engraved Enfields and the Reenactor...

Mr Watts
He says your Enfield de-farb is the best out there, and FYI, I am using that older Parker-Hale you just did for him as an LACo. I had to have it! He also says to read the foreward (by Bill Adams) to The Civil War Musket book about internet forums as it addresses some of the information provided here.