The Monster Enfield Defarbing Thread

[Curt Schmidt]

Firearm Authenticity Views?

Hallo Kameraden!

On another post on "Two Banders," Herr Tim Kindred said:

" and maybe we in this hobby ought to look at transferring some of our interest away from the clothing and drill area, and onto the weapon area. We expend much time and energy over what trim is correct for what jacket, and what type of stitching is appropriate for what accouterments, yet very little discussing the overall area of authentic weapons."

IMHO, the Last Great Bastion against authenticy lies in the area of our weapons. We have weapons that would not pass ANY of the tests or requirements we hold for clothing and gear- and would be rejected or banned as "farb."

While I would not say "transfer interest away from the clothing and drill area," I would definitely say SUPPLEMENT and COMPLEMENT the impression, persona, clothing and drill areas!!

IMHO, part of the problem is hobby tradition or "a developed culture of "acceptance," which often defends with as well as argues:

1. Italian reproductions are not the best, but they are the only poker game in town- so we have to live with them as long as we "de-farb" (whatever that really means) them for P/H/A use.
2. Custom gun cost is "prohibitive."
3. Custom builders/makers, custom builts, and how to order or buy one are not generally even known to the CW Community.
4. "Custom makers" are not found on the Buy & Sell folders, or on site "resources" or "links."
5. Unit standards just say "Springfields" or "Enfields" are the standards, without speaking to their "level of de-farb" or quality.
6. When it comes to firearms, I don't know or can't tell what is right or wrong. Neither can my comrades. And neither can the Public. So what?

The H/A Community is, ruthlessly and at times unforgivingly, strict on the exacting points of raw-materials, patterns and form, and methods of construction/manufacture for clothing and accoutrements- it turns a pretty blind eye to what is acceptable in the area of firearms. (Read as: "Is close good enough" when it comes to caps/hats, blouses, trousers, cartridge boxes, shoes, etc., etc.?)

Would I do better to "add" to my "fatigue" clothing a $600-700 dress coat- or spend $600-700 to have a "full de-farb" done to my $450 musket? (Which could be done incrementally over months versus the one time "hit" for the coat...)

Or, not have four or five or more "impressions" with appropriate arms, and spend less money for an "authentic" custom-built gun ($1200-$1400 or so)?

At any rate, IMHO, it is personal choice driven by philosophy. WE as a F/M/C/P/H/A "hobby" have moved forward Light Years in the past 20 years on clothing and kit, but commonly, routinely, and without blinking do not put as much thought, effort, and practice into our weapons as our uniforms and gear.

Is it calling a spade a spade, or the kettle calling the pot black? Meaning, do we continue to accept the "current culture" regarding firearms, or do we acknowledge it, take ownership of it, and begin to move to put this Double Standard back to the level and era (20 years ago) where uniforms and gear once were??

In the interest of serious discussion, as well as improving our impressions, what say ye lads?

Curt-Heinrich Schmidt
Heretic Mess

[Andrew Jarvi]

Re: Firearm Authenticity Views?

Comrade Schmidt,
I do believe that we all could put forth more effort to seeing that our weapons equal up to the quality of our kit. I must say I do wish there was a good manufacturer of weapons here in the states. As for the unit I am with, the men should be carrying the 1863 Springfield but many opt for the less pricey Enfields so as to be able to participate. I am trying to find funds via grants and other sources to be able to purchase better equipment so new guys do not feel rushed to buy just anything so as to participate. Also I am trying to find these funds to get some of these youngsters off of the street and learn the history of their ancestors that the schools are unable to teach. I really would rather see people save up and invest in a weapon of higher authenticity. I myself, when going as a private carry a 61' Springfield which I am slowly getting defarbed as finances allow. I once was with a mainstream unit, which portrayed the regiment both of my ggg grandfathers had served with throughout the WBTS. So yes I agree we should put forth more energy into seeing weapons of a higher level of authenticity being used.

Andrew Jarvi
Capt. 5th USCT

[markj]

Re: Firearm Authenticity Views?

>The H/A Community is, ruthlessly and at times unforgivingly, strict on the >exacting points of raw-materials, patterns and form, and methods of >construction/manufacture for clothing and accoutrements- it turns a pretty >blind eye to what is acceptable in the area of firearms. (Read as: "Is close >good enough" when it comes to caps/hats, blouses, trousers, cartridge >boxes, shoes, etc., etc.?)

Indeed. The above comments by Curt remind me of the famous story about the famous actor Charlie Chaplin entering a "Charlie Chaplin Lookalike Contest" on a lark...and placing THIRD. Reality almost never compares to fantasy.....

Regards,

Mark Jaeger

[JimKindred]

Re: Firearm Authenticity Views?

From the other Kindred on the Forum.

Curt,

I could not agree more with what you have said, the lack of authenticity and caring for firearms authenticity has been a pet peeve of mine since the early 80's.

The level of firearms authenticity can be had but how bad do Civil War reenactors want it. The demand for authentic firearms in the single action shooting groups has pushed not only the Italian makers but also some US makers such as Marlin to make steps in that direction. Is it buying power in dollars or numbers that make the manufacturers pay attention? I don't know but they seem to be paying attention to the SASS crowd.

So what is the deal, how do they rate special attention and Civil War doesn't? Simple answer, they are organized on a level Civil War reenactors have never seen, they speak as a somewhat unified voice. In Civil War we are so splintered that our voice is lost. People have been talking about a national organization since I became involved in the hobby in 1975 and it hasn't happened yet. I am afraid the genie is to far out of the bottle to start putting it all together under one roof.

As long as reenactors continue to buy the Civil War firearms currently offered without question then those are the firearms they will make. Why change if you can sell what you already have?

When it comes to improving the authenticity of the currently available firearms I am all for it and very much support the discussion Curt has started here. It is high time the same standards applied to clothing and equipment be applied to the principal tool of the trade for a soldier, his firearm.

[James Brenner]

Re: Firearm Authenticity Views?

I agree completely. So, the question is, how do we collectively get the manufacturers to change? I know that one way is to speak with our wallets, but I'm not sure how effective that would be. After all, most of us have our musket(s).

Here's a thought: I used to belong to a high power club in North Carolina that sponsorsed DCM matches - events where people could meet the requirements to purchase Garands, etc., from the government. One of the methods the club used to counter local, state, and federal anti-gun proposals was the "One Minute Letter". Simply put, it was a USPS post card addressed to the appropriate legislator that stated the author (as a voter) disagreed with the proposed legislation. The note did not go into any lengthy discussion. It was simply a statement that would figure into the politicians' for-and-against tallies. This tactic had several benefits: it was cheap, it was fast, it could be done repeatedly at club functions, and it was oftentimes effective.

I'll freely admit that I know little about business practices, but it seems to me that the first step is to tell the suppliers that there's a demand for a certain type of item. If enough people chime in...

[Johan Steele]

Re: Firearm Authenticity Views?

I will agree w/ Mr Schmidt here, one thing that is lacking is any real standards for firearms and the problem isn't just w/ the re-enactor/living history community. Euro-Arms to name just one Italian company has had SERIOUS quality control issues of late (last year or two) and I can't imagine paying over $500 for junk, and that's all you can call some of what I've seen manufactured by Euro-Arms over the last couple years, Pedersoli... well what they sell of late is a poor imitation of an earlier replica. It seems a shame that in the 21st Century repops are of a quality that I firmly believe would be considered substandard at best by the arms inspectors of 1861-65. The Italians can do better, but as long as people are willing to buy junk... they'll keep selling it.

I for one would like to lay my hands on a quality Lorenz repop, but no one makes one. The Liege, Belgian or Dresden to name just a few of the fairly common weapons of the period are also notably absent. The question is one of supply and demand, there just aren't enough re-enactors willing to shell out $700+ for a quality replica; thus noone is willing to make one for a small production run. A superb Spencer Rifle Replica is available, but at roughly the cost of a good used car... If that is the example of cost for a quality replica... it is prohibitive for most young re-enactors.

A problem w/ defarbs that I have run across is that several professional gunsmiths, true artisans of the trade, willl flatly refuse to "de-farb" a replica. Even though by the time you add the cost of the re-pop & the de-farb effort the cost to do so is typically more than the $1200-$1300 of a servicable original. They want nothing to do w/ counterfeits and don't wish a reputation as someone who knows how to counterfeit. Those that do, do a good job, but again there is an added cost that can easily double the cost of a repop to do it right.

An issue is also one of standards... or lack there of, for many of the mainstream crowd. While standards seem to be looser (putting it mildly) for many of the SASS crowd it's hard to recruit a young man into a C/P/H organization when they look over at the hard partying cowboys on the other side of the field. Many only wish to burn powder and play cowboys and Indians anyway. They fail to see the point of putting most of $1000 into a rifle when they can go to their local Gander Mountain and pick up a cheap Hawkins trade rifle kit for a fraction of that. Unfortunetly, the low end of the mainstream crowd seems to garner more attention than those who are putting real effort into their impression. I fear until more re-enactors see the light and decide to mature their impression and add their weight to a demand for higher standards of everything from behavior to equipment the problem will persist.

[dave81276]

Re: Firearm Authenticity Views?

As someone with no mechanical ability, I have to rely upon others. You can post all the "how too's" you want, but I can't do it. I would pay plenty for an accurate Lorenz or 1816 Belgian conversion repro. My pards buy originals for Living Histories, but I want one for campaign events. I hope someone would name a gunsmith who would make a gun to order; all I've met only make what they want to sell you. Maybe I'm crazy but I don't think it's unreasonable to pay $1,000 for a good, accurate weapon.

Dave Eggleston

[DougCooper]

Re: Firearm Authenticity Views?

This is obviously a big hole in our armor of authenticity, but it appears be changing a bit. I see a renewed emphasis on carrying the correct weapon at C/P/H events...and with that a demand that they be defarbed at a minimum. It's funny how the weapon is looked upon more as an adjunct piece of gear vice an integral part of the impression by so many folks.

Do we need an easy to read "Weapons Manual for Living Historians" similar to Les Jensen on CS Depot Uniforms or Dom and Silas on drill manuals? Does one already exist?

I held off for years on buying an Enfield, rationalizing that at least I had the 69 and 58 cal requirements covered with Springfields. Then I looked through my closet and realized I had a Curt Schmidt level Enfield defarb residing in some uniforms I had worn maybe once in 2 years (doh!). Anyway, am shopping to do it right.

Do we have enough quality gunsmiths in hand willing to defarb weapons? Maybe one of the problems is there appears to still be a difference of opinion on who does it right and what it should cost. My ignorance is likely showing here but it just feels like there is nowhere near the clarity of value one would assign a good repro jacket.

[JimKindred]

Re: Firearm Authenticity Views?

As I said, we don't speak with one voice. The first musket to concentrate on is not the neat like to haves but a common standard such as the 1861 Springfield or 1853 Enfield. Once that bridge is crossed then start working on the not so common.

Big difference in Civil War versus 18th century trekking, most fellows I ran with bought the rifle first then everything else. Commonly those rifles cost between $1200-$2400 each as they were custom made. If you wanted to play that was the price. Yep, pretty expensive when compared to Italian muskets but they were of the type required by the unwritten standards authentically mind groups operated with simply by the mindset the members had. So it all depends on the standards you are willing to set for yourself and how much you can afford to spend.

Most folks in Civil War I know could easily afford a $1500 musket just based on the wasted money spent on things they never used or bought and had to replace because of authenticity issues not addressed at the time of initial purchase.

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: Firearm Authenticity Views?

Hallo Kameraden!

Herr Jim:

"From the other Kindred on the Forum." There, I fixed that... ;-)

"As long as reenactors continue to buy the Civil War firearms currently offered without question then those are the firearms they will make. Why change if you can sell what you already have?"

Genau! (German for "Bingo!) Since today is Sunday and the 4th, and Dr. Phil is not on TV, I will post for him:

Life Law #8: We teach people how to treat us.

As long as the cycling and recycling ACW market consumes the Italian repro's "as is," there will be no change or only "token" change such as Armi Sport did by adding "3rd Model" bands (albeit incorrectly cyanide colored posing as color-case hardened when they should be heat-blued) to their 4th Model Enfield to "get one up" on the EuroArms competition.
Second, as mentioned, as long as the fraction of the ACW whole is so small, and so "unvocal" or "uninfluential" at the cash register- there will not
be change.

When the Italians came out with a Spencer carbine, it was marketed in popular SASS/CAS (Cowboy Action Shooting) calibres with the "promise" of a .56 CW version. But the Spencer is "slow" in a CAS hobby that prizes speed (manually cocked), and sales are too low to ever get to the questionable number of potential Civil War customers. And, the cost, compared to say a $350 or so Brazilian copy of the M1894 Winchester also means that not many will be sold either. (Even still, as with the M1860 Henry, it is "not authentic" as to calibre since no one makes .Henry 44 Rimfire ammmo for it so it was made in .44 and .45 Centerfire, and A Spencer will never be .56 Rimfire either.)

On the other side of the argument, about four or five years ago.. Smith & Wesson perked up their ears to the SASS/CAS folks crying for an authentic American made copy of the Smith & Wesson No. 3. And came out with one, but at $1800 and with a lottery system to get one. With the Italian ones at roughly 1/3 of that... ;-)

At any rate, I have lost count. There are something like 40,000 ACW folks, and 40,000 SASS/CAS folks. What is the difference? As already stated.... organization.

Sometimes, and maybe this time, it comes down to this:

One cannot changes others, only oneself.

While we likely, definitely will never be able to change the course of the Italian repro business, we can change ourselves one person at a time- at
whatever level of interest, knowledge, access to resources, and wallet we are at, or will progress to, by asking this:

What am "I" doing to improve the "authenticity" of my weapon?

Why do I see weapons at Mainstream events that are 85-90% "right out of the box?" That are only 10-15% stripped and reoiled, and Italian barrel markings removed? Why do I see only the 1% or less, or fraction of a percent, even a Zimmerman/Lodgewood/Company Quartermaster so-called "de-farb" or "self-effort?"
Why do I see weapons at EBUFU and H/A events that are 10-25% "right out of the box?" That are only 74-89% stripped and reoiled, and Italian barrel markings removed? Why do I see only 1-2%, or less, even a Zimmerman/Lodgewood/Company Quartermaster so-called "de-farb" or "self-effort?"

Not criticizing anyone's Mental Picture, reasoning, choices of how they spend their money, or finances- just furthering the discussion.

Hallo Colonel Jim!

I just wanted to tease you, that it was 30 years ago this month, that I first met you, with your Parker Hale Musketoon in hand- hoping the N-SSA would rule in favor of allowing them "on the line." ;-) Ah, the Good Old Daze, meiner Freund!

Curt-Heinrich Schmidt

[JimKindred]

Re: Firearm Authenticity Views?

Curt,

Here, here, well spoken.

By the way, I have an 1841 that has been in storage for 20 years that I am bringing out with a mind to alter as your articles recommend.

:wink_smil No correction was necessary on the name thing, I believe Tim and I are the only two with that last name on any of the forums.

Now, if I can just get those Leech and Rigdon markings on a pistol I have ....

[poncho]

Re: Firearm Authenticity Views?

Greetings!
I must say all are very good and well thought out points, and I agree with all of them wholeheartedly. Just wanted to share my own experience with this subject. My financial situation is pretty strict and even though I have been in this hobby for 10 years now I can't say that even my primary federal kit is complete, why I just got my first shelter half this year! That being said, it was this forum that got me to think about the authenticity of my firearm. I had already filed off all the repro markings on my 1861 Armisport Springfield when I first got it 10 years ago but that was the extant of it. I then read lots of good info and pointers from the gifted and knowledgeable people on this site that made me really examine my firearm. I looked into what it would cost to have my rifle defarbed appropriately and I really couldn't afford it. I did some searching and found out what the general process was. After doing this I tackled as much of this as I could myself, such as replacing the barrel bands with better one's from Zimmerman, and stripping and oiling the stock. It's not perfect, but I was suprised at the world of different it makes ! I'm not saying that close is good enough, but there are small things one can do towards making the effort to improve while in the process of saving for a proper defarb or a replacement altogether. I just wanted to thank everyone on this forum for the wealth of information to help me make this step that I would have not otherwise really thought of.

[1st Maine Trooper]

Re: Firearm Authenticity Views?

Here's more food for thought. Everyone is talking of Infantry weapons but what of those for the other branches? Of the cavalry weapons, the only carbine repoped that is worth while is the Garrett Sharps. The other makers range from laughable to barely acceptable in terms of authenticity. This says nothing of the host of other cavalry arms. They simply are not available. No one makes a Burnside, Maynard, a Cosmopolitan, Merrill etc... The quality of the Navy Arms Smith is highly suspect. The Spencer and Henry were previously discussed. There also is the glaring need for for correct and authentic ammunition for them.
Sabers are also impossible to find in anything other than something that is barely acceptable as well as revolvers and other than the Colt and Remington, what else is available? Then there are the more exotic but just as important items such as the Richmond carbine, '55 carbine to name a few.
I know of a few custom makers where one of the muzzle loader carbines can be had and the Romano Rifle Works does make superb repops of both the Spencer and the Maynard but these are priced and marketed to the competative shooters and not the reenactor and are at best available in only limited quantites.
As for artillery, there are few makers period and as far as I know none of them make the US 3 inch Ordinance Rifle from wrought iron as the originals were. What of the other rifles being made of cast iron with a steel liner or cylinder sleeve or entirely of steel?
I agree whole heartedly that this area of ones impression needs to be upgraded to something on par with the uniform and equipment standards but how can this be performed if the weapons are not available? Use originals? For the most part, these do not meet the standards since their appearance has been altered by time. Polishing bright a saber or reblueing a Maynard barrel would destroy the historical value of the items but would need to be done to meet authenticity standards. Do we stick to the PEC Standard regardless of the unit being portrayed? In these cases how do we move forward?

Dave Myrick

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: Firearm Authenticity Views?

Hallo Herr Jim:

I am in the process of having a Harper's Ferry M1841 rifle lockplate stamp made up...likely HARPERS FERRY/1850.... as well as a few stock inspectors cartouches... ;-)

Hallo Herr David:

"I agree whole heartedly that this area of ones impression needs to be upgraded to something on par with the uniform and equipment standards but how can this be performed if the weapons are not available? Use originals? For the most part, these do not meet the standards since their appearance has been altered by time. Polishing bright a saber or reblueing a Maynard barrel would destroy the historical value of the items but would need to be done to meet authenticity standards. Do we stick to the PEC Standard regardless of the unit being portrayed? In these cases how do we move forward?"

Regarding originals. That can be a personal and philosophic, as well as financial consideration. On the one hand we are charged as be caretakers, conservators, and preservers of "original" items- yet on the other hand we can be like the money-changers in the temple making money hand-over-fist in their sale and resale at every increasing and inflated prices.
The "historical value" of an original, IMHO, lies in its essence. However, on the one hand a "Springfield" that was carried my an ancestor and handed down has one set of value beginning with each bump, scratch, and bruise. On another, a "Springfield" kept in storage and never issued before being sold as surplus to Bannerman may have another value. In either instance, it is a magical thing.
Yet, how much of the wear and tear, fading of color and finish, physical apperance, etc. is the result of what happened to it AFTER 1865?

Now, the "collector's" or crudely the "resale" value, is another beast. Cleaning, polishing,or restoring an original to its 1861-1865 appearance is considered to be a Mortal Sin.

I have pards who use restored original weapons, fully, masterfully, and artfully, restored to their CW appearance.
One has a Starr carbine. He bought it in 1987 for $350. It was $350 because it was "bright." But it was "crisp." He paid $300 last year to have it professonally restored. It looks like it was just issued/handed to a trooper.
To the collector, he ruined its value (although at today's prices I somehow think his $350 investment is secure...) However, it has given him enjoyment and made it worth the while in his mind.
Prior to that, he bought a 1980's era Sile Sharps that I had added a beautiful original unissued Sharps lock to as clean and as colorful as the day the workman made it. Like being a little bit pregnant, another sin on me.

"Do we stick to the PEC Standard regardless of the unit being portrayed? In these cases how do we move forward?"

A very good question, and one I do not have an answer for.
However, I would say that the choice of one's unit should then follow from what research and documentation shows, but from what reproduction commercial or custom weapon is available.
Maybe I should not strive to be the Starr carbine armed 19th PA or the Burnside carbine armed 12 PA Cavalry, but the Sharps armed 8th PA instead?
Or carry the repro Sharps and be the 19th PA Cav anyways?
IMHO, the availability of a reproduction firearm (here defined as physically as well as financially "feasible") weighs heavily on the impression- and yes, the more universally "PEC" Sharps is the better choice.
While I might want to "do," or "be" the 7th Independent Company of Ohio Volunteer Sharpshooters who were Spencer rifle armed, and while I may might be a doctor or poitician, or had come into a rich inheritance- it might be hard to find 30 or 40 lads willing to keep Larry Romano busy for a spell at roughly $4,000 a copy.
Or, like another Berdan Sharpshooter pard who did come into an inheritance and was willing to restore a NM1859 Sharps Rifle just for Living History pursuits ($3,000 for the Sharps and $500 for an impressive restoration), he could never expect to find 30-40-100 men willing or able to be be "that authentic."

The same is true for infantry weapons, but I fully agree there are more "choices" than for the "mounted services!"
But, IMHO, I would not chose to be the 2nd OH Infantry with their Colt Revolving Rifles either...

However, in the "EBUFU and H/A" community different units are selected for portrayal at different functions. So, an authentic M1861 Springfield or P1853 Third Model Enfield or M1842 musket is more universal and PEC than a Romano Spencer or restored original Sharps.
But the Journey starts with the basic so-called de-farb and builds from there how far and how often one can!

Again, a very good point about the "l'arm blanc."
(IMHO, carry the most de-farbed, reworked, and "authenticized" NM1859 Sharps you can possibly afford now and approve upon over time.

A tough one? No doubt about it...

Curt-Heinrich Schmidt
Furthering the Discussion Mess

[Lone_Rebel87]

Re: Firearm Authenticity Views?

If we strive so fully to make our uniforms and equippage as authentic as possible and yet almost ignore the firearms isn't it all for notthin.
If we are so harsh and strict about the number of stitches and hand sewwing and what not and yet say that any "enfield" or "springfield" is "good enough" for an impression doesn't it throw the rest out the window as well for if we continue to set our standards for somethings low then who's to say that eventually we will slip back into the ignorance of saying "that jacket is fine, it'll work, the public won't know the difference anyways" :sarcastic
just my $.02 worth.

Jordan Davis