The Monster Enfield Defarbing Thread

[Clark Badgett]

Re: enfield defarb

John, of all the original Enfields I've seen, very few look as good as this one. Also very few have had the additional markings. And last I talked to Geoff Walden, those markings were not real common on the hundreds he's veiwed, but it has been a long time since I've talked with him. He once put together a small booklet on how to correct the wrongs of the Italian repros and this was information from many viewings, not only here, but at the Museum at Leeds as well. When it comes to the P53 and P58 I doubt there are many that get the info that he has been fortunate to get.

Major, most Enfields did have the double line edge engraving. There were some that had a single line, and some makers, ie. Barnett of London didn't use edge engraving on his versions. The 24 or 25 (guage) was used rather interchangably for the caliber, some had 24, some had 25, some used both. And personally I've never seen the diamond proof used before, and like you I don't find any mention to it in any of my English proofmark references.

[LibertyHallVols]

Re: enfield defarb

Curt,
I was not referring to any one particular rifle on the Shiloh Relics site, but merely stating that they have a number of Enfields for sale right now (look on the "Additional Longarms" page).

Clark,
Re: 2-banders - OK! I just wasn't sure where it came from.
Re: Authenticity Standards - I never questioned that. ;) I was merely stating that some people focus in on certain elements of their impression and require a little more of themselves or their gear in that one area. I know different people who focus on food/rations, first person, uniforms, personal gear, weapons, etc. People are all different and will focus their interests on different things. Its not a "right or wrong" thing.
Re: "Very few had the additional markings..." - Not sure which markings you're referring to. This gun has LOTS of markings on it. Anyway, the markings were really somewhat beside the point. My points were that (1) putting markings on a repro will only get you part way "there" because there are fundamental problems with the repros (2) even if repros didn't have these problems, there are still marks seen on many originals that are not typically used to "defarb" repros.

Terry,
Barrel: Yes, the "diamond" mark on the barrel made me wonder, as well. As I said in my earlier post, the barrel just looks a bit "funny" in general (re: "distinct transition from octagonal to round at the breech of the barrel"). Compare it to Hank Williams Jr's Enfield at Shiloh ( http://www.shilohrelics.com/Assets/P...5141234228.jpg )

Also, (on the "Old South Antiques" rifle) do you see some marks on the top flat of the barrel on the "muzzle" end of the octagonal section? Looks like it could be "BR" or "SR"??

Lockplate: Idunno!? The pic doesn't have sufficient resolution on my screen to discern one line from two.

Best Regards,

[Clark Badgett]

Re: enfield defarb

John,
I think we are actually agreeing more than we are disagreeing. I do think it's best to actually copy a certain Enfield if you are going to defarb one. I also agree that some types would be almost impossible to copy. If I remember correctly Geoff Walden copied a Joseph Wilson made original when he authenticized his, and I followed suit when I did mine, as this particular maker was easiest to copy, and was quite common in the original specimens. One particular thing that really erks me is how many of the people think they have to have the BSAT stock cartouch, which wasn't commonly used until 1863, very few muskets made before this time had the stamp, some but not many.

[Pritchett Ball]

Re: enfield defarb

"I have been looking at the pictures of the CS Musket you provided and I have some questions. Is it just a trick of the photography or is there only one line around the outside edge of the lock plate? I know that some later muskets had a single line but I thought that all 1860s era ones that had lines had a double line.

"Also on the proof marks on the barrel there is a large diamond in the middle of the proofs. I have looked in my book “the Standard Directory of Proof Marks” and can’t find any exactly like this one. The closest one I can find had a 12 and a C inside the diamond. But my book says that this mark was used on guns made from 1875 to 1887. Do you have any information on what this proof mark is? And do you have any idea why there is both a 24 and a 25 gauge mark on the breach? And speaking of the breach it doesn't have the shape of your typical P53 breach. Any ideas?"

Curt-Heinrich Schmidt

Curt:

http://www.oldsouthantiques.com/os565p1.htm

Diamond C mark & Breech Flats means COLT!
I'd bet that barrel is 40" long also...Colt contracted em that way. That rifle is one of about 2500 that Colt contracted, but was rejected by the Gov, and this one found it's way into Confederate hands! (The story this rifle could tell!)
The 25/24 means true .58 cal, the 24 designates that.
These contract guns were ordered armory bright, I'd like to see under the stock line on this one, is it bright?
Geoff Walden & I had run across this type of Enfield model before, and he gave me the above info I posted. Geoff gets the credit!

Kevin Dally

[major]

Re: enfield defarb

Kevin
Thanks for the information it's nice to have this mystery solved.
Terry

[LibertyHallVols]

Re: enfield defarb

The attached picture is of an Enfield that was sold on-line sometime ago. The seller claimed it was a Colt Enfield and you can see the "Diamond-C" mark in the same location.

[Skeet]

Re: enfield defarb

Gentlemen, I just got an enfield de-farbed from Zimmerman's 2 weeks ago. He does an excellent job! As far as bright vs. blue, I asked John that question. He said that when enfields were originally shipped the were in blue finish. then I raised the question that I have basically only seen ones without. He said exactly it was taken off. I have handled originals when I worked in a museum and have only seen bright ones. The main reenactor communitys enfields need to be de-farbed. I have even offered advice on how to take off the blueing and have been shrugged off. It proves the point that a lot of them could care less. It's quite sad. Pvt.Dan Morgan 10th Va Inf.

[Clark Badgett]

Re: enfield defarb

Well Skeet I don't mean to bust Mr Zimmerman's chops, but he is wrong on this particular issue. How does he explain away the many original images of both US and CS troops holding obviously blued Enfields. I've seen at least 6 Kentucky Federal troops holding blued Enfields alone. How does he account for the great research of Geoff Walden on this subject that has come to the opposite conclusion of his. Yes some were struck bright in this country, some lost their bluing due to field cleaning, and some to this day remain blued. This all or nothing attitude of some, is about as wrong as blanket weight sack coats.

[LibertyHallVols]

Re: enfield defarb

Mr. Badgett,

Re: "All or nothing attitude..."
Amen, Brother!!
This is not an exact science, yet some folks act like it is. I just don't get it! If one wants a blued Enfield, who cares!? Documentation supports a given individual's choice to opt for either a blued or burnished finished. This "Blued vs. Bright" debate has been done to DEATH and has been shown to be of (nearly) no value. How tiresome!!!

There's bigger fish to fry, can't we let this one go?

[HOG.EYE.MAN]

Re: enfield defarb

This "Blue vs. Bright" debate has been done to DEATH and has been shown to be (nearly) no value. How tiresome!!!

Wick, Tiresome indeed my friend........ Indeed!

[markj]

Re: enfield defarb

Greetings,

Before you make up your mind, I would cordially suggest you take a look at Geoff Walden's article on this subject:

http://www.geocities.com/pentagon/Quarters/1864/enf/enfblue.htm

Regards,

Mark Jaeger

[1stMaine]

Re: enfield defarb

Comrades,
Here's the problem with the bright vs blue debate. It's important to make a decision on the finish based upon the umbrella group you belong to. If we are going to be picky about the correct type of clothing and equipment, then that needs to extend to the Enfield finish as well.
Weapons were issued to an entire unit, and they usually got the same type. In the CS service, you can certainly find instances of mixed weapons, but by and large, or rather PEC, those weapons were found in the same company. Weapons were not mixed within a company. The same needs to hold true for us. If you want a blued finish, then great, but you ought to consider whether or not your entire unit, and it's umbrella unit has blued weapons. A review of Dean Thomas' list in "Ready... Aim... Fire" shows many Federal units with mixed weapons, but in almost every case, those extra weapons are in amounts of 12 or fewer, and most likely represent injured arms or spares kept in the regimental baggage.
Officers like uniformity. They will strive for it in every area possible, and their men will also make the same attempt. If there are to be both blued and bright Enfields in a unit, then they, by rights, OUGHT to be in seperate companies, and not mixed willy-nilly across the board.
Period images of Enfields that I have seen do NOT show a mix of bright and blued. They are either one or the other, and we ought to take that into consideration when considering using one.
respects,

[markj]

Re: enfield defarb

Greetings,

Well I guess, as Tim inferred, the answer to this question depends on time, place, etc. I don't think, however, Dean Thomas has ever seen the Indiana State Armorer's Books maintained in the Indiana State Archives. These detail arms/accoutrement issues/turn-ins for at least the first half of the war right down to the company level. These books are quite interesting and may, in a number of cases, challenge some of the conventional wisdom.

What I do remember from them is that, for at least the first year of the war, a pattern emerges regarding issues of Enfields (both 2 and 3-band). These were generally issued to four designated companies in a regiment (normally A, B, C, H or K depending on the circumstances) with the remainder getting whatever else was available. Altered .69's were common as dirt with European imports (e.g., "Prussian," "Vincennes," "Belgian," and "French" arms) becoming increasingly available from roughly November 1861 onward. Indiana actually received a sizeable shipment of Enfields (probably 2-banders) in late June 1861 with them being doled out to companies A and B of selected regiments (the 13th IVI was first to get them). "Dribs and drabs" of Enfields arrived throughout the summer with large shipments finally arriving after August 1861. The 10th Indiana appears to have been the first regiment fully-armed with Enfields but it didn't get them until 8 October 1861--several weeks after deploying to Kentucky. Individual Indiana regiments, as a rule, continued to be armed with mixes of arms well into 1862, acquiring uniformity after the fact through such mechanisms as intra-brigade swaps out in the field (the 32nd Indiana did this in January 1862).

In the cases of mixed arms within companies, I've found documentation indicating this did apparently happen even late in the war. For example, the 32nd Indiana (Three Years) mustered out in September 1864 with the reenlisted vets and recruits being folded into a reorganized 32nd IVI "Residual Battalion." From what documentation I've seen, these men were allowed to keep their trusty and well-worn Enfields but the new recruits were issued out-of-the-box Springfields! Given that most, if not all, of the vets were sprinkled throughout the four remaining companies it appears there was a mix of Springfields/Enfields in them until the battalion finally mustered out in December 1865. Maybe the "Annual Summary of Quarterly Ordnance Returns" will shed further light on this.....

Regards,

Mark Jaeger

[1stMaine]

Re: enfield defarb

Comrade Mark,
I agree completely. My remarks should not be construed as to mean that mixing of arms wasn't done. I'm simply looking at the majority of cases. It was certainly the case that the early regiments tended to have smoothbores from the state arsenals, with any rifles being assigned to the "flank" companies. Up here, the 3rd Maine left the sate with altered M1816's, and sometime after 1st Bull Run received enough .54 Austrian rifles to equip the 2 "flank" companies. This stayed the norm until shortly after january of 1862, when the entire regiment was rearmed with either M1855 or M1861 rifle-muskets, and the Auistrians transferred over to the 4th Maine, which then ditched it's .69's and drew enough of the .54 Austrians to equip the entire regiment.
The gist of my comments would be that entire units OUGHT to be like-armed unless specific portrayals deem otherwise. That also should tend to indicate that ALL of the Enfields in any unit that utilizes them OUGHT to be either blued or bright, but not a mix.
I know it's a lot to ask of folks, but some standardization needs to take place here. True, it might seem to be a petty detail, but so are many of the other details we focus on. We spend so much time trying to get all the gear right, and then we go ahead and allow most any type of weapon so long as it's period.
It's true that the rifle will probably be one of, if not THE most expensive single purchase of your kit, and so some serious thought needs to go into that decision. I don't have a ready answer. It's a sticky wicket that needs some serious discussion on the board, at least in my view.
Anyway, that's enough for one night's typing. Thanks for reading this rant.
Respects to all, and I remain,

[LibertyHallVols]

Re: enfield defarb

It's a sticky wicket that needs some serious discussion on the board, at least in my view.

Tim,

Is that supposed to be some kinda crack about me!? :D