Information on Potts & Hunt Enfield, and Springfield 1862 B

[Johnschut]

I'm curious if any one has information on Potts & Hunt enfields, also a Springfield 1862 B, I'm curious what theatre of the war the enfield would of been in and how common they would of been versus the other manufacturers of the enfield.

I have the chance to get a original springfield for an outstanding price from where I work, how ever its missing the rear sight and the screw that goes into the cone vent. I'm curious as to any information on this as well.

[Craig L Barry]

Re: Information on Potts & Hunt Enfield, and Springfield 1862 B

There is some material you might find interesting on the history of Potts & Hunt in Suppliers to the Confederacy: British Imported Arms & Accoutrements pp 125-130. As far as where the output of Potts & Hunt or any other particular gunmaker ended up, there is very little in the way of surviving documentation to answer that except in general. Gunmakers sold on contract to both sides. For example, Potts & Hunt completed an order brokered by Colt for several thousand P53 Enfields with 40" barrels finished bright for the Union. They were also known suppliers to the Confederacy. One other interesting thing about Potts & Hunt is that they had both a Birmingham and a London factory. Thomas Henry Potts, who was a member of the Worshipful Company of Gunmakers (London) spent quite a bit of time in Birmingham as his wife Emma and her family was from the Midlands area.

As far as the US model (not sure what you mean by 1862 B?) needing a replacement rear sight and rear sight screw, that should not be any problem at all. Reproduction parts are also widely available.

[Johnschut]

Re: Information on Potts & Hunt Enfield, and Springfield 1862 B

Craig,

I'm curious as in to what the "B" would even mean, the place has it marked as a 1862 "B", so it could be something as a bayonet coming with it. I asked my coworker that works in the library and he didn't know so I'm going to ask the manager of it to see if he knows. I don't live to far from lodgewood, so I figured i could take it to them if anything and see what he has to say. In other words it looks like a normal springfield.

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: Information on Potts & Hunt Enfield, and Springfield 1862 B

Hallo!

At the beginning of the War, both US and CS purchasing agents were scrounging in Europe for "surplus" firearms. In brief, one of the largest sources would be the declining Birmingham Small Arms Trade firms producing the non-inter changeable parts P1853 3rd Model 'Enfields."

The "U.S. Percussion Rifle-Musket, Model 1861" is what is commonly called the "1861 Springfield. There is no (formal) designation as a "Springfield 1862 B."

Springfield Armory made 265,129 M1861 rifle-muskets in 1861 and 1862. But between 1861 and 1865 the model was also produced by some 25 contractors. The differences are minor, except for the different lock plate stampings, style of barrel proofs, and inspector stamps. These tend to be formally known by the contractor name, such as a Remington Model 1861 Contract Rifle-Musket, or a Manton Model 1861 Contract Rifle-Musket, or a Trenton Model 1861 Contract Rifle-Musket, etc. But by and large, they all tend to be called, informally, Springfield M1861's or M1861 Springfields no matter who made them.

The year of manufacture was typically stamped on the lock plate and the barrel. Some folks sometimes refer to that year as the model, meaning an 1847 or 1853 or 1862 or 1865 "Springfield' as well.

Curt

[Craig L Barry]

Re: Information on Potts & Hunt Enfield, and Springfield 1862 B

Yes the "model" vs year of manufacture is a common mistake, and "US Model" is preferred over "Springfield" while 'Springfield' is how they were often referred to at the time, ironically enough.

You know the first question posed has had me thinking about what the individual output of any individual gunmaker might actually be...I was reading over Geoff Walden's classic monograph "Authenticizing Your Enfield" and he mentions the most common London gunmakers being Barnett and LACo "... which comprised 72% of the total based the numbers surveyed" or something like that. My impression is that he is referring to the numbers he himself inspected in museums or private collections, which is not particularly relevant statistically as far as what it means about total numbers since the sample size would necessarily be in the hundreds vs the hundreds of thousands (that were made). On the other hand, the facts are from everything I've read and researched on British gunmakers, Barnett and LACo were very commonly encountered. In other words, I think Geoff Walden has it right, but we can't do better than guess at what the totals might have been. We can do a little better than a guess with LACo, but how many Barnetts, Potts & Hunt, Parker, Field & Sons? Who knows?

The answers to questions like these always seem to be just beyond reach.

[Johnschut]

Re: Information on Potts & Hunt Enfield, and Springfield 1862 B

Thanks for all the information, It would be interesting to find records with the information that we seek, guess this could fall into possibly the unanswerable questions. Anyone have any idea of where to look besides looking at how many originals exist and comparing to the records of how many came in.

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: Information on Potts & Hunt Enfield, and Springfield 1862 B

Hallo!

Not to be discouraging, but...

That level of detail is neither known nor has the means survived to do it.

One determination gives the number of P1853 "Enfields" of all types imported to the USA and CSA between 1861 and 1864 as 1,078,200. While some were the older P1853 2nd Models, most were the 3rd Models made by commercial makers in Birmingham and London. And with the British being in the process of evolving the form to the 4th Model spelling the doom of the 3rd Model makers, the two sides of the American market breathe new but temporary life into the businesses for a few more years for many of the companies. And ironically their new replacements in Britain came from the government's RSAF factory at "Enfield Locks."

There is correspondence, records, and even surviving originals that speak to numbers, counts, markings, and some times even what ships brought them here. But, typically, there is no great detail of "whose" Enfields were in the shipments, nor is there any great surviving recorded manifests or Ordnance department records of what maker's P1853(3) a soldier was issued other than the usual such and such unit got X number of "Enfields."

Some times an Enfield is ID's to a particular soldier, and if the gun is not too worn and beat, one can read the lock maker, or in the case of some of the say BSAT guns the maker's stamp under the butt stock.

Geoff Walden has done some seminal research, tally such things. His survey showed that Cooper & Goodman, Pryse & Redman, and Joseph Wilson, Birmingham firms, ran up about 35% of the guns he viewed. The next six makers together about 39%

Around the World, who knows how many "Enfields" have survived. One researcher, often used, the surviving rate of these and other Period guns is 5% or less.
And that is often complicated by loose terms such as "Enfields," "Enfield rifle-muskets," "Enfield muskets," "Enfield rifles," or "Enfield short rifles," etc.

Since these detailed aspects of Material Culture was just not important enough to record at the time, or if it were, not important enough to be preserved for future generations trying to recreate it.

Curt

[Enfield]

Re: Information on Potts & Hunt Enfield, and Springfield 1862 B

So true ... Indeed, as stated in my writings, those numbers were only considering the guns that I had examined myself. As this was written ca. 1985, that was probably only about 200-300 original Enfields at that time. Now it would be over 400, but I don't expect those percentages, or at least, the overall comparisons to other makers/suppliers, would change much. Still, that's just a drop in the bucket of the numbers of guns that were originally supplied by these makers. Even if all the Enfield researchers got together and compared notes on all the originals they had seen, it would still be a small number from which to draw conclusions. It's all we have to go by now, due to lack of period documentation. Potts & Hunt Enfields were sold to both sides, and there is documented use of these guns by soldiers of both sides, and Potts & Hunt guns are not particularly unusual or uncommon now, and that's about all one can say for sure.

Geoff Walden

[Craig L Barry]

Re: Information on Potts & Hunt Enfield, and Springfield 1862 B

Agree with Geoff Walden and Curt. And further, for our purposes that level of information should be sufficient. It was, after all, sufficient at the time. Potts & Hunt were fairly common and in use by both sides. It is important to note that the reason the London gunmakers marked the lock with the name of the firm is that it was required of them to do so by the Worshipful Company of Gunmakers. It was not required of Birmingham gunmakers, so some did and some did not put their name on the stock behind the trigger guard, but the locks were almost always genercially engraved with the date and "TOWER" not the name of the gunmaking firm.

Another thought on Potts & Hunt, while I found a great deal of relevant information especially compared to other gunmakers there are still mysteries. For example, because the lock plate markings were distinct for London vs Birmingham it is not clear what numbers of Potts & Hunt P53s were set up at the Shadwell Street factory in Birmingham vs the London factory. In other words, they almost certainly produced more than the numbers found marked Potts & Hunt/London. Military arms were produced by Potts & Hunt in Birmingham because there are surviving specimens of Chassepot rifles from 1866 made by the firm for the French Navy and marked Potts & Hunt/Birmingham on the stock.

A final mystery about Potts & Hunt is the degree of the firm's involvement with Birmingham Small Arms Trade. After leaving England for New Zealand, Thomas Potts returned to Birmingham just once apparently to liquidate his shares in BSAT during 1862-3. He was not involved in the formation of the new Birmingham Small Arms Company at Small Heath. This information was found in his private correspondence. It suggests a falling out of some sort, but the letters are quite matter of fact, and don't betray much insight into what might have happened between the parties.