The Monster Enfield Defarbing Thread

[Tarheel]

Re: Proper Size Enfield Hammer

Dear Jim,
I have two original Potts & Hunt P1853 Rifle Muskets in my collection. The most recent acqisition, purchased at the Nashville show last weekend, is currently on its way home across the Atlantic. Both have double line border engraved lockplates. Also, my recommendation in respect of Enfield hammers is Mark at James River Armory. I've spoke to him many times on this subject and he's your man!
Kind regards,
Patrick Reardon,
The Lazy Jack Mess, UK
(Founder of The Enfield Repatriation Society!!)

[Jimmayo]

Re: Proper Size Enfield Hammer

Dear Jim,
I have two original Potts & Hunt P1853 Rifle Muskets in my collection. The most recent acqisition, purchased at the Nashville show last weekend, is currently on its way home across the Atlantic. Both have double line border engraved lockplates. Also, my recommendation in respect of Enfield hammers is Mark at James River Armory. I've spoke to him many times on this subject and he's your man!
Kind regards,
Patrick Reardon,
The Lazy Jack Mess, UK
(Founder of The Enfield Repatriation Society!!)

Thanks for the info. I had only seen the unengraved type lock plates on the Potts & Hunt P-53 model. Are there any other markings on the stocks?

[Dreamer42]

A "Different" Enfield Stock Question

I did a search of Enfield Stock discussions but found only info regarding stripping/staining/refinishing/weight of Enfield stocks. Most questions deal with metal or wood finish. My question has more to do with the line of the stock. That is, on repros the wooden parts just look wrong to me, yet I haven't noticed any discussions on this.

Specifically I have attached two images.
In "A" originals have a pronounced point in the lock area, whereas repros have a gradual curve.

In "B" the heal of the stock curves in, whereas on repros actually curve out.

In "C" the forearm is flat, whereas repos curve up just before the barrel band.

If this is a repeated topic I appologize. Why isn't this addressed more? Also, when one sends his Enfield to be "defarbed" is this sort of thing taken care of, or is the owner usually responsible for this?

I have already finished the wood behind the lock using a dremel, then various grits of sandpaper, then steel wool and finally refinishing the stock with handrubbed oil. I will be working on the other two areas soon. Since the stock is a larger area, I'll be using a rasp to get started. Is there anyone else out there who has already done this and could give a few words of advice.

- Dreamer42
Jay Reid
9th Texas

[Jimmayo]

Re: A "Different" Enfield Stock Question

Enfield stocks were finished by hand and exhibit variances in their forming of different parts. In this view an 1862 Tower two band and a Euro arms 2 band are compared. To me both areas "A" are equally pointed. Also there is a 2nd picture of another Tower which also appears to be pointy. The bigest fault I can find in this area are the sharp edges on the repros. This is very noticable on the euro arms. That feature plus about a half pound of extra wood makes them on the "clunkey" side. There are more glaring differences which you will probably run across the more you compare.

[Jimmayo]

Re: A "Different" Enfield Stock Question

Same two muskets. I am not sure what you ment about the curving. I am currently refinishing a Parker Hale and I think it's stock is much closer to an original than either armi-sport or euro arms. Not to mention that it is made out of the same kind of wood.

[Jimmayo]

Re: A "Different" Enfield Stock Question

Here is a better lock view of another enfield which was used by a soldier in the 9th Va. Inf.

While you have your dremel tool out smooth out the wood by the tang as shown in the other picture.

[tmdreb]

Re: A "Different" Enfield Stock Question

Jay,

You've spotted some of the biggest problems with the repro Enfields.

Jim, the Euroarms pics you posted look much different than most of the repros I've seen. Most do not have the point on the lock mortise, and don't have enough wood to create one similar to the originals. Additionally, most repro lock mortises are blended into the stock surrounding them, rather than having a 90 degree edge to them. Click here: http://www.trackofthewolf.com/(S(riw...83&styleID=291 and scroll down to see some pics of Euroarms muskets with partially shaped lock mortises.

Quite a few repro Enfields have a curve in the stock just behind that first barrel band. It did not show up in those pics, though. Click here: http://www.taylorsfirearms.com/produ...WarMuskets.tpl and scroll down to the rifle-length Enfield to see the curved portion of the stock.

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: A "Different" Enfield Stock Question

Hallo!

Yes, it can depend upon not only which repro Enfield one has, but also which "decade" or "era" of the repro and brand/maker one has.
And the "exact" details on original P1853 3rd Models vary by maker.
When working on various repro stocks, yes I personally "redefine" those features or elements as much as they can be reworked. However, I would say, IMHO, that when "copying an original" P1853 3rd Model, copy the features one has in front of you to the extent or degree that the version of the repro one is working on will allow. (Or one's Mental Image or Standards or Level of "Authenticity" in a repro the finished product requires..)
(I also like to thin down the forestock to give a more pronounced "step" to the barrel band locations... ;) )

To the best of my knowledge, such stock work is not part of the so-called "defarbing" work "package" the commercial services supply. However, I do know lads that do do the modifications for their own use and their pards', and some when they contract or agree to do the work for others..

Curt

[LibertyHallVols]

Re: A "Different" Enfield Stock Question

How ironic! I just exchanged e-mails with a friend last night on this very topic!

Jay,
I would say that you are dead-on with all three of your observations. I think that "A" and "B" are because the model of Enfield being reproduced is not the type used in the war. You will only find "C" on more recent Armi Sport arms. I'm not sure why they did it, but it looks more like the first or second (?) pattern stock for spring-retained barrel bands.

I was able to view a friend's defarbed Enfield recently. Whoever did the work, did a pretty good job on the stock.

Good post.

[Jimmayo]

Re: A "Different" Enfield Stock Question

Jay,



Quite a few repro Enfields have a curve in the stock just behind that first barrel band. It did not show up in those pics, though. Click here: http://www.taylorsfirearms.com/produ...WarMuskets.tpl and scroll down to the rifle-length Enfield to see the curved portion of the stock.

Yes, I see what you are talking about. I have never seen that feature. Something else to look out for and nearly impossible to fix.

The euro arms whose picture I posted above is a two band. Perhaps the stocks for these were made by a different machine. There are lots of problems with that stock but the band step and pointy lock mortice is not among them.

[Dreamer42]

Re: A "Different" Enfield Stock Question

I Appreciate the replies. Curt and Jim, like always your collective wisdom exceeds my feeble attampts. BTW, I have some very fine grit sand paper to use on reducing the edge on the wood around the lock - just haven't had the time lately. Thanks for pointing that out.
I have learned in collecting and researching WWII history and gear that there are two msyterious words..."never" and "generally".
Just like American WWII "Khaki" or OD #5 can be different depending on the contractor, the contract run dates, I realize there are variations in manufacturers in CW rifles. Heck, even Post WWII M1 rifles - International Harvesters - have a different shape on the rear of the receiver than the other manufacturers.
The "curve" in the stock I mentioned before seems to me, on the dozen originals I have examined anyway, that it is concave. My EA actually curves out - looking very fat I might add.
I have thought of removing some of the weight by boring out some wood under the buttplate and a few places under the barrel on the forearm. Short of removing too much, what are the chances of weakening the wood?
I'll post some pics in about a week to share my progress.
Thanks again.

- Jay Reid
Dreamer42

[Jimmayo]

Re: A "Different" Enfield Stock Question

Here are a couple of pictures comparing the euro to a PH I am refinishing and to an original. Notice the amount of wood under the mortise in the euro and the way the mortise extends all the way to the bottom of the stock in the PH and original.

I couldn't agree with you more about the two mysterious words. Although I usually say never say never when discussing a topic.

I am going to drag my friends armi-sport P-53 out and start checking that one.

[sauguszouave]

Re: A "Different" Enfield Stock Question

"That feature plus about a half pound of extra wood makes them on the "clunkey" side. "

It is amazing how all the little mistakes in repros add up to make the guns feel "clunkey." I teach bayonet fencing and one of the things I do when I give a class is to bring my original 1861 Springfield and original BSA P-53 along. After I've been running the troops through the drill for a while, I pass the originals around. It always amazes everyone how much better balanced the originals are. A half hour of fencing with a repro makes you very sensitive to the weight and balance. After that you can feel differences that your eye can't see.

BTW, the best repro out there for bayonet fencing, IMHO, is the Armi Sport 1842. It is light and quick despite its size. The worst ones by far are the P-53 repros. You can always tell a repro P-53 with your eyes closed.

Regards,

Paul Kenworthy

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: A "Different" Enfield Stock Question

Hallo!

Jay lad...

A goodly portion of the added weight on the repro's is the "beefed up" barrels.
IMHO, most all of the benefit of wood removal (where possible) is visual or cosmetic.

However, yes, I know a few lads that have judiciously bored a series of half inch or so large holes several inches into the buttstock from the buttplate area, as well as smaller holes under the trigger guard.
Some leave the holes empty, some fill them with expanding foam insulation.
As long as the holes are not thinning the "walls" of the buttstock enough to be crushed on a minor impact, I do not see the harm. (Of course that does not mean "swiss cheezing" or "coal mining" the thing...)

I have never tried lightening the stock believing that the barrel is the main culprit.
Even if the butt is lightened slightly the increased bulk and weight of the barrel at the breech in particular and the rest of the way down the barel is still going to cause a gun that is heavier and does not balance, swing, shoulder, aim, carry, and feel as the originals.

Curt

[Craig L Barry]

Re: A "Different" Enfield Stock Question

To address the necessity of stock re-contouring:
This is probably not a new topic among students of the Civil War Enfield on this forum, but more and more serious enthusiasts are taking an active interest in "getting it right" down to the final details. "Close enough" has long been the battle cry of the Italian manufacturers of reproduction Civil War-era firearms. Some, of course, are better than others but none of the reproductions are particularly good in the sense of historical feature accuracy. The reasons for this have been outlined elsewhere. Anyone who has held an original P-53 commercial Enfield notices an overall thinness to the stock particularly through the wrist (reproductions are about 5.5" in diameter and while originals vary slightly they are usually not more than 5" around the wrist), originals have a less curved stock flat, a more "football" shape to the lock mortise and a different transition to the comb which the reproductions lack, and so on. James River Armory (www.jamesriverarmory.com) does stock re-contouring as part of their basic "de-farb" package, beginning the process with walnut stock blanks and working off an original. It is nicely done, based off the dimensions of a commercial Birmingham Enfield made by WL Sargant and marked Tower 1862. They can also recontour your reproduction along the same lines. A new outfit called Liberty Tree guns (libertytree@peoplepc.com) of Christiana, TN also re-contours the stock as part of their de-farb, which is based on a Swinburn & Son Tower 1863 with a likely Confederate heritage. The work I have seen from them is also very nicely done, but they use modern stains and you would want to re-finish your stock with a more period correct finish (boiled linseed oil). Lodgewood Mfg (www.lodgewood.com/defarbing) offers a similar stock re-contouring service for an upcharge of $150, which includes refinishing with boiled linseed oil. Lastly, you can do it yourself if you have access to an original, woodworking tools and some aptitude. Lacking two of the three criteria myself, I recommend go "the professional route" for the best results.
To address the weight issue:
The excess weight of Civil War reproduction muskets is split between the stock and the barrel. It is reasonable to surmise that the "beefier" stock became necessary to support the "beefier barrel". Whatever the case, the balance is not the same as original firearms and they do apppear noticeably "clunky".
To address the comments on the 1842
It is considered the best reproduction "out of the box", but still needs some work. The shape of the ramrod (on the smoothbore) is awful, the trigger guard is somewhat misshapen, the front sight needs to be ground off and replaced with a brass sight, the band springs are slightly mis-located (hard to fix), there is too much trigger play and so on.This is probably a discussion for an entirely different thread. Sorry this rambles a bit.