Enfields by L.A. Co. 1862 (and defarbs)

[Blair]

Moderator Note: I split this from a "For Sale" thread so the discussion of 1862 L.A. Co. Enfields could continue without muddying up a sales post. Thanks! John Wickett, Moderator

An 1862 dated LA Co should come equiped with with the standard "Baddeley" type barrel bands, swivels and the round eared side lock washers.
Should this firearm have the Palmer Pattened barrel bands... the date on the lock should pre date 1861 to be an authintic LA Co. alteration/modification.

Good photos of these modification could go a long ways towards helping to show if this firearms modification do indeed reflect it's most correct year/date of production.
Just a suggestion on my part.

[GPM]

Re: Todd Watts defarb LACo 1862

http://www.antiquearmsinc.com/london-armoury-p53-musket-rifle-enfield-LAC-kerr-confederate-civil-war-caleb-huse-JS-Anchor.htm

[LibertyHallVols]

Re: Todd Watts defarb LACo 1862

Never say never and never say always... :wink_smil
Both of these are pics of original '62-dated LA Co Enfields:

[Blair]

Re: Todd Watts defarb LACo 1862

John,

This artical may best discribe what I am suggesting,

http://www.civilwarguns.com/enfld11.html

While the date/production of 1861 to 1862 could be considered somewhat subjective, this article may shead some more light on an other wise shadey area.

You may also note, "Good photos of these modification could go a long ways towards helping to show if this firearms modification do indeed reflect it's most correct year/date of production." is what my point was about.
At no point in my pervious statement do I use, say or imply the word "never"!

[LibertyHallVols]

Re: Todd Watts defarb LACo 1862

At no point in my pervious statement do I use, say or imply the word "never"!

Nope, you sure didn't. No offense intended or implied. I read your post as implying a general rule. When it comes to Enfields and all-things-Confederate, there doesn't seem to be any such thing as a general rule.

I'll check out the article.

Thanks!

[Blair]

Re: Todd Watts defarb LACo 1862

John,

You may find this article of help, also by Tone beck.

http://www.civilwarguns.com/enf2a1.html

Blair

[Craig L Barry]

Re: Todd Watts defarb LACo 1862

To clarify...good discussion point...this particular defarbed repro has
the Baddeley bands. However, I think the point that is being confused
here is the difference between grade one and class one weapons.

LACs were found with Palmer bands and round earred washers, which would
be grade one. All round earred washers mean is that the stock was machine
made. It does not mean "type IV." For example, WINDSOR marked
type II P53s produced by Robbins & Lawrence for the Crimean War had
the round earred washers. It is because the stocks were machine made.
Class one would be made to Ordnance department specs to match
the RSAF produced type IV model, Baddeley bands, oval rear swivel,
plain hammer, etc.

LAC actually began machine made P53s as early as 1860,
which would obviously have all had Palmer bands. Kind of
confusing, isn't it?

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: Enfields by L.A. Co. 1862 (and defarbs)

Hallo!

As the old addage goes...

When copying an original, copy the original.

I would just add the small and annoying caveat that every once in a while "things have been done" to original pieces between now and the ACW by
owners, antique dealers, museum staff, etc., and it can sometimes be hard to know whether what one sees is extant or a later change.
One commonly found variation is when museum staff take apart a weapon for cleaning and do not know how to put it back together (bands backwards, sight backwards, etc.) other gun parts in a parts box.

The finding of Palmer and Baddeley bands on LA Co's is not that one or the other is wrong (which they are not), just that it requires additional research and understanding as to the why.

Curt

(And sometimes we surprise ouselves. For example, I learned, was incorrectly taught, that the "backwards" long range and short range rear sights on some altered M1822's were the result of folks taking things apart and putting them back wrong. But research showed that some contractors actually did reverse the sights when altered.)

[Todd Watts]

Re: Enfields by L.A. Co. 1862 (and defarbs)

Yep, I am reproducing/duplicating an original JS marked LAC dated 1862 lock and roundel that has round-eared washered but Palmer bands on it. Ain't no such thing as "always" and "never" in the Enfields. This particular one has "LAC" marked 2x on top of the barrel behind the rear sight and slightly off to the left as well. Its roundel is only about 1" from the bottom of the stock and 2" from the buttplate. That position is wierd for the LAC roundel which is where I am placing this one because of proof it was done that way "at least once."

[Enfield]

Re: Enfields by L.A. Co. 1862 (and defarbs)

Todd,

Just curious - does this one have London commercial proofs, or Govt. proofs (or a mix)? I have seen all three on 1860-1862 dated L.A.Co. P53s, some with US or CS provenance. Have also seen Palmer bands on several 1861 and 1862-dated L.A.Co. guns - it appears they didn't adhere to the change to Baddeley bands as closely as the RSAF did (or were they just using up a supply of Palmer bands?).

Geoff Walden

[Blair]

Re: Enfields by L.A. Co. 1862 (and defarbs)

L A Co was involved in finishing up a British Government contract for "first class" arms. These would have been of the fully interchangeable pattern as established by RSAF.
I do not know the date of this contract, but at the time Caleb Hues contacted L A Co to make arms for the CS, this contract had not yet been completed.
The use of the Palmer type bands on 1862 dated L A Co arms would indicate a usage of pre existing non interchangeable parts indented for use on commercial type of firearms of earlier production. These would not fall into the category of "first class" arms this Company was capable of manufacturing by 1862.

[Todd Watts]

Re: Enfields by L.A. Co. 1862 (and defarbs)

http://www.antiquearmsinc.com/london-armoury-p53-musket-rifle-enfield-LAC-kerr-confederate-civil-war-caleb-huse-JS-Anchor.htm

I do not see any Gov't markings on it. It has the identical LAC lock and roundel markings that I use, and a faint anchor mark behind the trigger guard.

[Blair]

Re: Enfields by L.A. Co. 1862 (and defarbs)

Todd,

That is a great site and photographic study of an original firearm.
The question still remains, and is what brought this subject/topic up from its beginning. Do you have photos of the firearm you are producing?
It is just a thought on my part, but I got to think it would be a great help when offering an item like this up for sale.

[cpinkhaminsc]

Re: Enfields by L.A. Co. 1862 (and defarbs)

Blair, Todd works through The Blockade Runner sutlery, you can visit their web site to get a better idea of what he does, starting with an off-the-shelf Armisport or Euroarms repro, or he can rework your gun. The site has pictures and options for various makers.
I can give a plug for the fine quality of his work, my original Nepal Enfield was just finished by him several weeks ago. It was quite a "dawg" and he spruced it up nicely and repaired various items. I'm sure he spent more time on it than the cost warranted and I am extremely satisfied. :)

Charles Pinkham,
Company D
First Minnesota

[Blair]

Re: Enfields by L.A. Co. 1862 (and defarbs)

Thank you Charles,

I am quite familiar with what can should and needs to be done with various reproduction firearms to improve their CW authenticity.
I was actually thinking the photos would help those that are still trying to figure out what all the hubbub is about.
You got photos of the work done on your Nepal P-53? Post them, they would make for an interesting contrast variant in the typical 3rd/4th Patterns considering they are base off the 2nd Pattern