The Monster Enfield Defarbing Thread

[SCTiger]

Re: What's holding us back?

If the Italian gun makers won't improve the autheticity, would an American based firearm producer be interested in marketing CW firearms? Could Remington, Colt, Springfield Armory or Ruger, make what we need?

I would pay a few extra dollars for better authenticity and to keep American dollars at home.

What would be the initial venture capital one would need to start a low-number gun shop that could produce the weapons? What tooling and machinery would be necessary? In other words: Could we make our own weapons through some sort of Co-op?

[1st Maine Trooper]

Re: What's holding us back?

If the Italian gun makers won't improve the autheticity, would an American based firearm producer be interested in marketing CW firearms? Could Remington, Colt, Springfield Armory or Ruger, make what we need?


I would pay a few extra dollars for better authenticity and to keep American dollars at home.

What would be the initial venture capital one would need to start a low-number gun shop that could produce the weapons? What tooling and machinery would be necessary? In other words: Could we make our own weapons through some sort of Co-op?

I beleive that Springfield Armory is a private venture firm and not accociated with the National Armory of the same name. Colt marketed the Signature Series of weapons a few years back that included nearly all of their old product lines. Even these were made in Italy and resold here. They dropped the product line since it was unprofitable. I doubt that any other American based firearms make would take on this venture for the same reasons.

Frank Garrett (of the Garrett Sharps fame) told me last spring that the reasons he got out of the firearm making business was that he was and still is too afraid that some nut would sue him. I know of a great number of machinists who refuse to do any work at all on anything closely related to a firearm or bullet mould for the same reasons.

Bottom line is that while it is within the realm of physical possibility for a small business to start up and make some of these items, I cannot fathom the cost of the liability insurance not to mention all of the other headaches that would be involved. Take that into account and its affect on the bottom line and I think the price tag per peice would be too high.

Dave Myrick

[SCTiger]

Re: Firearm Authenticity Views?

Dave:

All of the information you stated above should be communicated to our legislators for support of the "Protection of Lawful Commerce of Arms Act"

See NRA-ILA : http://www.nraila.org/issues/FactShe...ad.aspx?ID=141

Everyone should contact representatives about this and explain the problems legitimate gun owners, producers and historians are having, even with black powder weapons.

If we can reduce the liablility issues, then this should help reduce the price of the weapons and encourage others to once again produce rifles.

2,000 reenactors writing our Congress, could make a difference, especially in a election year. This is ridiculous!

[LibertyHallVols]

Re: Firearm Authenticity Views?

I've got lots of thoughts on this issue, but don't have 30 min to spend typing them all up. So here's a few observations/thoughts...

1) I think the term "Defarb" is an indicator of the problem. Who among us would rush to buy a "defarbed" jacket? What we need is something that is properly made from the git-go. Current repro Springfields & Enfields have too many issues to be overcome to be acceptable starting points.

2) $900 - $1200 is a fair price to pay (IMHO) for a gun that needs no additional work to make it historically correct.

3) I've noticed over the last few years that most EFUBU events list the Enfield as the primary weapon of choice. Are we standardizing on convenience? (e.g. "Everyone" has an Enfield, so we set standards to match). I can't recall many EFUBU's since the Y2K Pres March in VA that required something else (that event listed '16 conversions as primary requirement).

4) Considering that the best Italian repro is the '42, are we not rewarding poor service by the Italian makers by doing #3? Should we utilize the '42 in our impressions more if we hope to affect those that supply us? ("Hmm... Those '42's sell like hotcakes and the '61's aren't. Wunder what'd happen if we made a really good '61 contract that was also a good repro?")

...Just a thought... Like I said, I'm just thinking on this as I type.

Cheers,

[J the Black Sheep]

Re: Firearm Authenticity Views?

1) I think the term "Defarb" is an indicator of the problem. Who among us would rush to buy a "defarbed" jacket? What we need is something that is properly made from the git-go. Current repro Springfields & Enfields have too many issues to be overcome to be acceptable starting points.

Could part of the problem be (a) the myth that Zimmerman's magical touch makes the weapon as close to an original and (b) not viewing many originals to notice the difference between the Italian repro and an original 1861 Springfield?

I know fellows (and at one time, in my ignorance, I was one) who thought spending the $30 for Zimmerman to put his stamps on my musket made it "authentic."

2) $900 - $1200 is a fair price to pay (IMHO) for a gun that needs no additional work to make it historically correct.

The biggest stumbling block for most guys, as friend Curt pointed out, is the cost involved. Here's one source for barrels.

http://www.edsmart.com/whitacre/

I've not contacted them to verify what all is included, however, it looks like the standard 1861 Springfield barrel alone is $325. Sights and everything else are extra. With shipping, it can push the cost up to the $400 mark. Curt and I have had this conversation every so often, and as far as we can tell, for the parts alone, it'll be in the neighborhood of $900+. I'm not sure how much a builder would charge to put it all together.

Here's an example from Lodgewood's site (Custom built)

1855 SPRINGFIELD 3 BAND / Built on a Dunlap stock with original bands, it has a WHITACRE BARREL, Repro Springfield lock dated 1857 with original hammer, a long range rear sight and target front sight. $1195.00

Here's another example, and I beg the Moderators to allow me to stray from pure Civil War for the sake of the example. I'll use the "First Model Brown Bess" in both it's "raw" kit form and "finished" form.

Here's a "parts kit" for a Brown Bess. http://www.trackofthewolf.com/catego...&partList=True

For the finished model: http://www.narragansettarmes.com/brownBess.shtml

3) I've noticed over the last few years that most EFUBU events list the Enfield as the primary weapon of choice. Are we standardizing on convenience? (e.g. "Everyone" has an Enfield, so we set standards to match). I can't recall many EFUBU's since the Y2K Pres March in VA that required something else (that event listed '16 conversions as primary requirement).

I think you hhit the nail on the head. Everyone has one (or if they're deblued, they blend in better with Springfields.)

4) Considering that the best Italian repro is the '42, are we not rewarding poor service by the Italian makers by doing #3? Should we utilize the '42 in our impressions more if we hope to affect those that supply us? ("Hmm... Those '42's sell like hotcakes and the '61's aren't. Wunder what'd happen if we made a really good '61 contract that was also a good repro?")

If you get No. 4 to happen, you're working wonders! :wink_smil Seriously, you've got a great point. However, given the population of the hobby, I'm somewhat skeptical that a few thousand requests for a highly authentic model 1861 will cause the Italians to retool their dies to produce them when guys who want (a) close enough (this is fun, remember!) and (b) a low cost item to get into the fight ASAP are going to keep buying the "as is" product.

If a custom maker would come onto the scene and offer a quality M1861, how many of us would be interested?

Perhaps this is would make a good poll.

[LibertyHallVols]

Re: Firearm Authenticity Views?

Jay,

A better poll might be:
"How much would you pay for an {insert phrase here for authentic/correct/kewl/bichin' replica of an original} reproduction of a contract US M1861 Rifle Musket?"

The poll would consist of prices, perhaps $900 - $1500 in $100 increments.

Money Talks! ;)

[1stMaine]

Re: Firearm Authenticity Views?

Comrade John,

Well, I for one would be willing to save my pennies in order to be able to purchase an accurate reproduction of an original weapon. I'm going to have to spend a good hunk of money to buy a replica, then send it to someone else to redo the darned thing, and by the time the extra parts and labor is taken into account, it'll be right up there anyway.
I dunno. I've never understood the way the Italions make weapons anyway, copying copies of copies and calling them accurate. There has to be a way for the government to step in and allow accurate copies of historical weapons to be without the modern serial numbers, and an attendant risk of litigation.
The adding of modern serial numbers has always been something I failed to grasp the reasoning for anyway. The 1968 GCA exempts our weapons from it's purview, and with that exemption in writing there remains no Federal reason to add those serial numbers other than inventory control. Some state laws, of course, may require it, but the Federal ones would seem to not require it.
Anyway, decent copies of both the M1816 conversion, as well as the M1842 would be a GREAT step in the right direction, followed, of course, by the Enfield, and then the various Springfield models.
That's my 2-cents.
respects,

[JimKindred]

Re: Firearm Authenticity Views?

One thing about barrel cost is the difference between "standard" grade and "target" grade. I would venture these barrels are sold to the competition crowd and not those looking for a regular grade barrel. This situation pops up constantly within the M1 Garand circles I participate in where those who compete usually don't ask the barrel price and usually can't shoot any better by adding the competion barrel. :wink_smil

The answer to the serial numbers on GCA exempt firearms is simple, they are required for import. Once in the country these serial numbers are not required by Federal law, as stated some states do require them.

[1stMaine]

Re: Firearm Authenticity Views?

Comrade Jim,

Ah...that explains it. Thanks for the clarification. I knew there was a reason behind it. We have a crew up where I live who shoot with .22 caliber special-built rifles. They have stocks made to fit the owner's grips and cheek and shoulder profile, special barrels, all sorts of gizzies built into the weapon, etc. These run $3,000 and up without the custom-built and fit case.
I've watched a couple of their matches, and to tell you the truth, they aren't that great a group of plinkers. I get the feeling that they are more interested in having the toys than using them, as they are most often seen discussing what they just got and how much it cost, etc. Not unlike, say, some sections of our own hobby:)
Trusting this finds you well and prospering, I remain, sir,
respects,

respects,

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: Firearm Authenticity Views?

Hallo Kameraden!

Indeed...
And for a number of N-SSA "type" barrelmakers, including a friend of mine who just turned me down in making a "three groove, period twist" M1863 barrel for me (although made a M1861 a couple of years ago for me).

Since it is not a requirement of N-SSA guns that they match bores, the "more competitive minded" shooters often go with a 6 or 7 multi-groove barrel in different rates of twists to match the "other than a standard size and weight and profile Minie" as well as being sized, lubed with "other than tallow/beeswax, and propelled with a reduced charge best suited for maximum accuracy with that barrel/bullet/lube/load set-up.

I do not consider myself a "good shot," but my custom-built late model M1855 Rifle-Musket would fire a 25 cent piece size group at 50 yards benched. But that was with a 7 groove faster twist barrel and shooting a 375 grain "semi-wad cutter" profile bullet pushed by only 36 grains of FFF. Nothing at all like a "true" CW weapon. (Apples and Oranges here, as the N-SSA is about competition first... IMHO).
(By the way, I sold it for $600 last year...)

And, yes, as in a nunmber of different shooting sports, often times lads buy
the expensive and exotic stuff because it is part of the hobby's culture. And sometimes, the $14,000 Krieghof trapshooter shoots no better than the $7,000 Beretta and no better than the $1,000 Winchester shooter... ;-)
Or the loose nut behind the trigger... :-)

Curt-Heinrich Schmidt

[Nighthawk]

Re: Firearm Authenticity Views?

Wie Gehts Herr Schmidt!

I have a self-built Fayetteville Rifle I put together in the 80's. Regular 3 groove rifling system, and everything else as close as possible to an original. I am an average shot, but using an unsized 575213 "Old Style" bullet, with 40 grains of FFF powder, it will shoot one hole goups all day off hand, (if I am steady). I have never been awed by the N-SSA "Shooting Gods". They shoot fantasy guns with fantasy sights, fantasy rifling systems, and fantasy bullet configurations. Actually some of the most consistantly accurate guns I've seen used in N-SSA competition were originals. I remember one totally original Richmond that was devestating in competition.
As regards historical reenacting, firearms have always been my pet peeve. We are doing much better than ever before with re creating uniforms and equipment. However much of this is coming from "cottage industries" run by fellow historians. Our firearms are coming from corporations with much more interest in business than in historical integrity. I posted on the "old" forum in response to defarbing firearms. Very little was being done to defarb the stock. This is often one of the most inaccurate pieces of a reproduction firearm, and one of the hardest parts to correct. For myself, I would rather use a custom built, or a restored or rebuilt original, but this can be cost prohibitive in the face of needing several guns to be correct at different events. Ideally we need cost effective historical accuracy in our firearms, but that isn't likelyto happen.

[David Lanier]

Re: Firearm Authenticity Views?

Gruess Gott!

This issue is huge and needs to be addressed. An erstwhile member of our unit is an armorer (i.e., he makes suits of armor for museums). He de-farbed my Richmond Springfield and wouldn't even let me pay him. He also taught us how to put a nineteenth-century finish on our stocks; published the recipe in our unit newsletter.

May his tribe increase.

[tmdreb]

Re: Firearm Authenticity Views?

I would agree that this is quite an important issue. The disparity between investment in weapons vs other equipment is quite apparent, even in the authentic crowd.

To me, the issue is threefold, all of which have already been mentioned: less-than-authentic arms in the ranks, companies composed of men carrying the same weapon, and not enough variety in most reenactors' weapon inventory.

For the variety issue, there isn't too much of an excuse. I would advise everyone to have both a .58 and .69 caliber musket, for doing early and late War events. There are too many early War events and scenarios not now being done, because not enough guys have something besides '61 Springfields and Enfields. While there isn't a commercially available repro of the common Belgian converted 1816, and Pedersoli has priced its 1816 conversion (as well as everything else it makes) out of sight, the 1842 repro is still reasonably priced.

As far as the reason goes for why this problem exists, I think that lack of availability and expense are the main ones. As stated earlier, why is there a need for a source for authentic reproduction weapons when most reenactors think they can buy a $400-500 out of the box musket and have it be completely authentic after paying $30 to someone to stamp it? Also, aside from custom makers, is there even a source for a ground up authentic weapon? I do mean no offense to any of the vendors who offer defarbed weapons, but there are limitations to all of them to keep the cost down, coming from the fact that they all come from the Italian repros. There are only two links for firearms on the AC vendors links page, Lodgewood and Zimmerman (whose work isn't trusted by at least a few on this forum) who both mostly do work in defarbing.

Expense is also an issue. Yes, weapons can be defarbed or built little by little, but while $250-300 will purchase a barrel or maybe a stock for a musket that will make it to the field someday, it will also buy a new jacket or coat for this year's hot event everyone's talking about. That event will also have guys with muskets that aren't even defarbed.

A kind of cross between availability and expense is that for those who can't afford a $400-500 uniform, they have the option of purchasing a little over $100 in cloth, buttons, thread and patterns, and make their own. Yes, it is possible to do some defarbing work by purchasing parts over time and doing it yourself, the total cost comparison of having someone else like Lodgewood do it isn't favorable, and very few people have the skills to build their own custom musket to save on buying one.

What is the solution to all this? It will likely take a few events of high and enforced standards on weapons to get everyone to at least defarb their weapons. I'm not sure where a source for weapons that come authentic out of the box will come from. No, reenactors will never be as organized as the SASS and NSSA. It's no mystery why, the other two are sports, and reenacting isn't. They have to have more organization, and reenacting doesn't need it, though it would be nice for situations like this. It would be good for at least a couple of the larger organizations would put together an early War event where the 1842 musket or the occasional flintlock conversion (how many reenactors have one of these?) would be the only acceptable arm, and give everyone enough time to buy one. Also, it would be nice to have something similar with rifle-length weapons.

Of course, then there is the quantity vs quality argument. What is better for a reenactor to have? More choices of weapons or one completely authentic one? But this was already a different thread.....

[NC5thCav]

Re: Firearm Authenticity Views?

There have been some great points so far! I don't understand why most units intentionally disallow one of the most apprpriate weapons for the war, especially for Southern troops: two-band rifles(sorry for the incorrect term! :) ). Every unit I have looked into joining in my area (western NC) doesn't allow the shorter barreled weapons. I understand the rear rank concernes, but this should be addresed with better training. Besides, this should be general firearms safety. Anyone who doesn't understand firearms safety shouldn't do an impression that requires weapons. Just a thought.

[JimKindred]

Re: Firearm Authenticity Views?

Derek,

The phobia over rifles has been around about as long as reenacting has been. You are correct to say that someone with little or no knowledge of firearms should not be involved in reenacting until they do have that knowledge and training. Unfortunately numbers drive the train and as long as it does you will see people who are incapable of understanding simple instructions and who probably should be involved in another past time in the field.

Unfortunately the discussion over rifles ended long ago before the argument ever gained ground. Now the banning of rifles has passed into reenacting folklore to be passed down to each succeeding generation of reenactors without ever being questioned or revisited.

Should rifles be allowed? Yes, but only if every one in the company or unit has one and has been trained in how to use it.