Tweet
Image Analysis: SOLDIER WITH ENFIELD TWO BAND RIFLE
By Craig L Barry
By Craig L Barry
Unidentified Confederate Soldier with Enfield Short Rifle, Snake buckle, etc. (Image Library of Congress)
What was the distinction between the Enfield “short” and “long” rifle? The Enfield pattern of 1853 “long rifle” had a 39” barrel with three barrel bands and was also known as the P53 rifle-musket. It was by far the most common English military rifle imported by both sides. The Enfield “short rifle” had a 33” barrel, two barrel bands and could be either the Pattern of 1856, Pattern of 1858 or (less likely) Pattern of 1860.
How common were imported two band Enfield short rifles? It's hard to say because period records did not always distinguish between the Enfield "long rifle" (P53) and the various "short rifles" (P56/58/60), much less the exact model of short rifle. In the Official records of the War of the Rebellion Series IV, Vol III, p. 383 in December 1862, J. Gorgas provides a summary abstract to Secretary of War Seddon of purchases made by Caleb Huse as follows: “131,129 stands of arms consisting of 70,980 long Enfield rifles, 9,715 short Enfield rifles, 354 carbine Enfield rifles, 27,000 Austrian rifles, 21,040 British muskets, 20 small bore Enfield, 2,020 Brunswick rifles. There were also 23,000 Enfield rifles in London awaiting shipment...” [2] The ratio of roughly 7:1 is probably about right as the “short rifle” was about 25% more expensive than the P53 rifle-musket. Perhaps it was due to the increased cost of the saber bayonet? More likely is that for manufacturers of both short and long rifles--especially in the same factory-- the stock cutting machines had to be set up differently. For whatever reason(s) Enfield “short rifles” were much less common than the long rifles. If the short rifles had been cheaper v. more expensive, it probably would have been the other way around. Soldiers for their part referred to the Enfield short rifles as “lighter and handier.” They were often assigned to the sharpshooters in the company as “accuracy was slightly better than that of the (Enfield) long rifle.” [3]
The majorities of Enfield “short rifles” used in the US Civil War by both sides were a mix of two types of the Pattern 1856. The first type P-56 had the bayonet lug on the barrel and the later version had the bayonet lug on the top barrel band. A small number of P-58 Naval Rifles were purchased early in the war as well, at least by the Confederate States. The P-58 Naval Rifle was similar to the P-56, but with a few cosmetic changes and different rifling. The P-58 was a brass mounted rifle, instead of iron mounted and had the rear sling swivel attached to the front of the trigger guard like the Enfield P53 “long rifle” instead of being screwed into the stock behind the trigger guard like the P-56. The Naval Rifle typically retained the 1,100-yard rear sight of the P-1856, but the 33” barrel was heavier and rifled with five grooves instead of three. However, the P-58 rarely (if ever) appears in period images where an Enfield short rifle can clearly be made out. Why so few?
One factor that may have limited its utility is that the P-1858 Naval Rifle was designed to accept a non-standard cutlass bayonet instead of the P56 saber bayonet. US and CS orders of the P58 Naval Rifle appear to be very limited, perhaps as few as 700. [4] Hence based upon the known documentation it appears that less than one percent of the Enfield short rifles imported by both sides during the Civil War were of the 1858 Naval Rifle pattern.
The later Enfield Pattern 1860 “short rifle” had a very limited production run. It was first adopted in November 1860 and soon afterwards replaced the following August 1861 with the Pattern 1861 “Army Rifle.” The production at Royal Small Arms Manufactory did not commence until 1861 and only a few thousand were produced. The majority of these were held at the Tower (in storage) until converted to Snider breechloaders in 1866-67.These would of course, not have been sold to either side in the US Civil War. An unknown number may have been commercially made in Birmingham or London and sold to either side, but the surviving documents do not indicate exactly which pattern of Enfield “short rifle” was made to fill any specific contract, except as previously noted. Therefore, given the limited numbers of both the P-58 and P-60, the greatest likelihood is that the majority of Enfield short rifles in use during the US Civil War were the Pattern of 1856. The images of US and CS soldiers with Enfield short rifles also bear this out.
Since two-band P-56 Enfield rifles with the thirty three inch barrels were issued to both sides during the US Civil War, why are they not allowed at many larger Civil War (re)enactments? There is quite a bit here to consider. The ban is not limited to Enfield short rifles, but rather all “two band” rifles. As far as the use of 33” rifle barrels being any safety issue, that nonsense has been debunked already. The key thing is that the distance from the hammer to the front rank soldier's ear of 14" be maintained. This is easily achieved with a two band rifle. Actually, there has long been a rumor that the whole ban due to a "safety issue" grew around a desire to prevent the two- band reproduction 'Zouave' rifle from being so widely used at (re)enactments. ‘Zouave’ was the Italian gun makers name for their version of the 1863 Remington contract rifles. The ‘Zouave’ rifles were some of the first black powder Civil War reproductions made, although the original on which it is based was never issued during the conflict. [5]
Three unidentified Union soldiers with Enfield P56 Short Rifle and saber bayonet (Image Library of Congress)
The final irony is that the only reproduction currently available of the two-band Enfield short rifle is the P-58 Naval Rifle. As noted above, this is the model that amounted to less than 1% of the total number of Enfield short rifles imported during the US Civil War. Hence, even if the use of a two-band Enfield short rifle is “right” for your unit and theater of war, you still can’t get a reproduction of the “right” two-band Enfield short rifle. [6]
NOTES
1. C. Barry & D. Burt, Suppliers to the Confederacy: Imported English Arms & Accoutrements, Schiffer Publishing (Atlen, PA) 2012, p. 15
2. Official records of the War of the Rebellion Series IV, Vol III, US Government Printing Office, (Washington, DC) p. 383
3. Charles Sawyer, Our Rifles: Firearms in American History Volume III, Pilgrim Press (Boston), 1920, p. 162.
4. McRae Papers, South Carolina Relic Room & Military Museum show two early CS contracts for Naval Rifles with saber (not cutlass) bayonets made in June 1861 by Caleb Huse. The two orders total about 700. There were no known US orders for P58 Naval Rifles.
5. The Civil War Musket: A Handbook for Historical Accuracy, by the author, Watchdog Publishing (Warren, MI), 2005, p. 151. The name “Remington” could not be used on the reproduction because the modern gun-making firm operating under that name has a trademark. The same is true of the reproduction Colt revolvers, except those made by Colt Mfg for a time.
6. It appears the reason for this is that the P58 Naval Rifle is cheaper to make as a reproduction because cosmetically it is essentially a cut down or 6 inch shorter version of the P53 rifle-musket, at least from a tooling standpoint.
Comment