Ditching rear sights

[David Fox]

I perused topics, but couldn't find this covered before in any thread in this forum. If I missed it, mea culpa. I've read about this in at least one recent sales description of a P.53 Enfield: the assertion Confederates were wont to intentionally remove the rear sights from their sighted, rifled infantry arms.
Going through my library for something to re-read, I seized upon William Watson's "Life in the Confederate Army", published in 1887 and reissued in paperback by Louisiana State Press in 1995. Watson, a British subject, enlisted in the 3rd Lousiana Infantry, CSA. I blundered directly onto this on pages 342-3, describing activity after Elkhorn Tavern:

"A good many of the men...had thrown down their smooth bore muskets, and taken up the superior arms of the enemy....They now began to try their new arms at marks 60, 80, and 100 yards, but could not hit the marks - the ball passing over it. (A)ll these rifles had raised movable sights which were set for 200 yards.... As we (had) pressed upon (the enemy who lost the superior arms)...to within 40 to 80 yards, they seemed to have omitted to alter their sights (and)...most of their shots passed over our heads. That led to raised sights being condemned by us, and they were taken off, the line of sight set to range with the line of fire at about 70 yards - it being...simpler and better when the distance was uncertain and constantly changing, for men...to learn how to aim, high or low...than...to alter the sight for every shot.
Raised sights...might do very well for sharpshooters...but in the hurry-skurry of the battle...movable sights were...quite useless and in the way."

Well. Enfields, otherwise in issue condition and still rifled, are not infrequently found with the rear sights knocked off. Here might well be direct evidence of the reason. And Watson does seem to be talking about P.53 Enfields, whose rear sights have a 200 yard setting and are affixed with mere solder, without benefit of dovetail or screw. Knocking one of these off would be a simple, if tedious, procedure.

[threepdr]

Re: Ditching rear sights

I'm not sure I get the same meaning from the passage. He seems to say the "raised" sights were removed, not the whole thing. That would mean simply removing the slide off the ladder of the sight, not the ladder or the sight base. If he indeed resighted his weapon at 70 yards ("line of sight set to range with the line of fire at about 70 yards ") he would have had to leave the ladder and the sight base intact. A fine file to deepen the notch of the rear sight, left in the down possition, would lower the point of aim.

[Jimmayo]

Re: Ditching rear sights

I have wondered about that story and how it relates to today's Enfields and glad you posted this thread.

That account has been used by some dealers to sell Enfields with a missing rear sight as Confederate. I am not sure that is correct. Little period information survives which would prove or disprove the sight removal by soldiers other than that account.

However hints do survive. I dug five -P53 Enfields in Petersburg along a CS trench line. All were still equipped with rear sights. Two others that came from the same area also had their rear sights intact. All the rear sights came off during the cleaning of the guns indicating that the solder joint was subject to corrosion.

I also have two originals where the sight is missing. Both areas of the barrel under where the sights would have been have different patina from the rest of the barrel indicating that portion of the barrel may not have been exposed the same length of time as the remainder .

However, I have dug numerous Enfield and Springfield rear sights in Federal as well as CS positions indicating that both occasionally came off (or were removed) by whatever means.

While it is probable that some soldiers may have intentionally removed the rear sights, I believe most of the surviving rifles with sights missing were more the result of war time accidents or post war removal. Someone needs to take an original Enfield and determine how difficult it is to knock off the rear sight. It won't be me since mine are already gone.

Of course that is just my .02.

[David Fox]

Re: Ditching rear sights

Mark may be correct; Watson may be referring to merely removing the slide on a P.53 rear sight. Inspecting mine, though, it is not apparent to me how that would be done by the boys in the field (unless they had tools, such as the file then used to deepen the sight notch), whilst the whole sight assembly could, one presumes, be popped off by application of heat or infliction of blows by a suitable hard object, though how much force would be needed to accomplish this feat is again speculative. The heat necessary to make the solder run isn't great and wouldn't necessarily harm the barrel...after all, the sight was soldered on in the first place and scads of them were removed from Enfields converted to Snyder breechloaders In England and resighted. I confess I can't recall seeing Enfields missing just the slides, but I haven't paid that much attention.

As an aside, Watson asserts all the companies save one of the 3rd Louisiana were armed "with smooth bore muskets of the newest pattern, that being the arm then generally in use". The odd company...his...was equipped with "Springfield rifles and sabre bayonets" (page 162). One can safely propose the former were M.1842s. The later poses more of a problem. Is he writing about M.1855 Harper's Ferry rifles? These rifles obviously weren't Springfield-made, so they could just as well have been altered M.1841 rifles, beloved subjects of a different but current thread.

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: Ditching rear sights

Hallo!

It may not have been that draconian...

The Enfield rear sight "ladder" is affixed to the soldered on base by a pin, the ladder set against the tension of a leaf spring screwed to the sight base.

All one needs is to unscrew the spring screw, and with a heavy pin or fine nail, just tap out the ladder pin.

While any brazed or soldered joint can fall, IMHO it is remarkable how well they are "stuck" on and have stayed on for all of these years.
But yes, I have owned a few where the rear sight was missing. Whether a War-time loss, a 1900 loss, or a 1980 unsoldering to get a rear sight unit to sell I can't say.

(It is an interesting thing. The Germans had a similar problem in WWI with their GEW 98's being designed for open field fighting and set for a minimum of 200 metres then later finding ranges of say 60 to 200 yards in No Man's Land. But, being modern, they shoot much more "flat" than CW small arms.)

Curt

[David Fox]

Re: Ditching rear sights

I'm not sure what advantage removing the sight ladder from a P.53 would be: the rear sight notch comes with it and one still must wrestle with the permanently affixed slide if one wants to reassemble the slideless ladder onto the sight base. Unlike M.1861 rifle-muskets which are often missing the delicate rear sight leaves today, I can recall seeing only one P.53 with the rear sight base intact but missing the ladder. It's a rather robust assemblage.

The problem the rifle-musket armed Yankees had at Elkhorn Tavern which Watson describes...setting ones rear sight for some longish range, forgetting to adjust it, then overshooting when the enemy drew closer...is nicely portrayed in the Aussie movie of Middle Eastern WW I combat, "The Lighthorsemen". Mis-set rear sights aside, I believe we all agree shooting high was chronic during the Civil War and saved many a soldier so he could participate in patriotic parades, north and south, well into the 20th Century.

The problem with ladder-sighted German G98 rifles in WW I which Curt accurately describes was common in almost all bolt action military rifles world-wide: minimum battle sight zero was set at a range hundreds of yards out, for some reason. Mullin's "Testing the War Weapons" points-out this shortcoming again and again. The initial British expeditionary force sent to Belgium in 1914 was particularly deadly because of their extraordinary expertise in musketry, extensive training few other contemporary infantrymen received. Civil War soldiers very, very rarely had even rudimentary training in range estimation and the precise use of their rainbow-trajectory rifled weapons, making them singularly ineffective at longer ranges. See: Hess's "The Rifle Musket in Civil War Combat", where the topic is flogged to death.