The Monster Enfield Defarbing Thread

[FederalDrummerBoy]

Re: James River Armory - Defarbed Enfields

Can anyone post Pics of a few of these muskets on here for everyone?

_________
Alex Kuhn
CCFD

[Kace]

Re: James River Armory - Defarbed Enfields

I think everyone pretty much agrees that James River does a fantastic defarb. One thing folks have not been mentioning is the quality of their Customer Service which is FANTASTIC. They work with you to make sure you get the musket you want. They give you an accurate timeline for the project. Also, talk about an awesome shipping container: bubble wrap, popcorn all nice in save in a WOODEN box!! They will be getting my business again.

Kace

[jhodnett]

Re: James River Armory - Defarbed Enfields

I'll try and get some pics in the next few days.

Thanks,

[LibertyHallVols]

Too Many Enfields?

A brief survey of posts on the A-C reveals a plethora of posts on the various aspects of reproducing various versions of the P1853 Enfield, or looking at original examples of the same.

A brief review of authenticity regs of any quality event reveals that Enfields are either the first or second choice for most events and are accepted at virtually all other events, including pre-war militia-muster events.

While it may be "handy" to have one musket serve as "common currency" among us, are we not slanting the truth a bit by allowing them at every event and suggesting them at most events?

Those Lorenz posts from a few weeks ago were a breath of fresh air (although the repop being discussed was sorely lacking).

Just curious others' take on this.

Thanks!

[toptimlrd]

Re: Too Many Enfields?

John,

I concurr but this may be one of those unfortunate compromises that has to be made from time to time. First the musket is probably one of the most expensive parts of the Infantry kit so owning more than one or two different ones is rare and then asking for particular models for relatively few events may become cost prohibitive leading to the inability for many to attend said event. You mentioned the Lorenz and the shortcomings the current repo has, there have been so few repos of the Lorenz that if you had an event that requested them it would be difficult to produce enough people with them to make it worthwhile.

Me for example, I mainly do late war events in the Western Theater. My weapon of choice is the 61 Springfield. It was the most common musket during the war and found its way into both Federal and Confederate units.

[Ross L. Lamoreaux]

Re: Too Many Enfields?

I, on occasion , had thought the Enfield was overused in reenacting, but it always depends on the who, what, where, how, and why for each event. I've made due with the same tired-out model 42 for years without too much issue, and since the bulk of my Federal reenacting has been Ohio regiments, the Enfield is a better choice. In a perfect world, we could all afford several muskets to always have that right fit for each event, but I think is does indeed fall more on financial issues and some laziness to see that same old enfield being used at everything by the majority of troops.

[1stMaine]

Re: Too Many Enfields?

Comrade,

Well, if push comes to shove, I would rather see more M1841's or Springfield or Enfield rifles in the ranks than Lorenzs'.

Some of the most interesting and even well known units carried rifles instead of rifle-muskets, and they are usually even rarer than he's teeth at an event, and that's a shame. A darned shame indeed.

If everyone here is as cognizant of history as we like to think we are, then we ought, by rights, to be considering putting together a unit from time to time armed with rifles. Heaven's, Hardee's manual was designed for them.

But yeah, it's probably true that the tried & true Enfield & Springfield rifle-muskets will be the arms of the great body of troops for quite some time. There are compromises we have to make occasionally, regardless of how much we would rather not.

Respects,

[clconboy]

Re: Too Many Enfields?

It may just be me, but I have noticed a rise in the cost of rifles in the last year. (anyone else notice that)so its even more of a cost issue for me at least as a college student. I have also noticed that the enfield seems to be in the majority of the ranks at the events I've been to.

[Johnny Lloyd]

Re: Too Many Enfields?

Hello-

Maybe it's just me, but I seem to be the only one with an Enfield in my reenacting group. I've thought it to be just the opposite- too many Springfields of every make and model. But, then again, it maybe it's a South Carolina/local area reenactor thing at local events here...

Tchuss- Johnny Reb

[LibertyHallVols]

Re: Too Many Enfields?

To phrase it another way:
If one were to make a hobby of attending hardcore living histories as a spectator, would such a person walk away from a year or two or three of events with the proper perspective of how the Civil War soldier was armed?

The resulting impression would probably be that he (the CW soldier) was armed with the following, in order:
Enfield (70+%), '61, '42, Converted Muskets (teeny tiny %)... and they'd have no idea about the Lorenz or, to Tim's point, that 2-banders were used.

Don't get me wrong, I think we do a great job in many areas. Most guys I see at events today can put together a quality US, CS, and Civilian impression, in many cases representing multiple theatres of the conflict.

...but if you've got 4 impressions in the closet and plan on getting more, then it ain't money standing between you and a second musket.

Not trying to change the world here. Just food for thought. It would be neat to see (for example) a Federal company armed with '61's and '63's ...or an early war group of Hoosiers dressed in gray* with 2-band Enfields and sword bayonets (THAT would be cool!).



*all apologies, as I realize such an impression would be, like zoaves or jaguar-trousered westerners, not PEC. ;)

[Prodical Reb]

Re: Too Many Enfields?

Well, if push comes to shove, I would rather see more M1841's or Springfield or Enfield rifles in the ranks than Lorenzs'.

Some of the most interesting and even well known units carried rifles instead of rifle-muskets, and they are usually even rarer than he's teeth at an event, and that's a shame. A darned shame indeed.

I agree Whole heartedly with Tim! I believe that the rifle is way under represented in reenacting whether it is mainstrean, campaigner, hardcore, or progressive. This won't stop until event organizers allow 2 band rifles on the field. I'm not talking about carbines either. Most events specify "no 2 band rifles allowed!" I believe they do this for safety. A rifle is only approx 6 inches shorter than a rifle-musket. Still giving the user plenty of room to safely place the rifle over the front rank's should and safely fire the weapon from any position. Another safety reason was given to me that from the rear rank, the front rank is endangered of recieveing a negligent discharge in the back due to the shorter barrel. Both of these dangers can be managed by training with a rifle and muzzle awareness.

There are only a hadful of units that even allow a P56, P60, (P58 was a Navy rifle and P61 a carbine) M1841 Mississippi, Special M1861 or Fayetteville rifle(Copy of M1841) in as a usable weapon. I don't know if the Remington Zouave can be placed in this category due to I'm ignorant to actual numbers issued or used.

[prestontoprail]

Re: Too Many Enfields?

Now this is a really interesting question and has made me conjur a bit about the subject. Are enfields over-rated? As long as we are portraying units that were known to carry .58 cal rifled muskets and were specifically NOT issued any austrian or belgian rifles, then I think it would be extremely hard for us to figure out the percentage of fellas that had enfields and '61/'63 springfields in the same unit. We know that many to most units would try to keep their men with the same caliber of rifling to make ammunition distribution easier. I look through photos of western federals through 63-65 and I see enfields and springfields side by side in the columns with a majority of enfields (only through the limited photographic evidence available). What is not overrated are enfields with the proper modifications to them, and I have been guilty of this as well to a certain point of finally having the funds to go all out with the defarbing. But this bings me to my next point.

Any of the current reproduction rifles and rifled muskets are going to cost 500 to 600 dollars straight out of the box. And there is not a single reproduction that is perfectly acceptable straight out of the box (even the armisport '42 needs fixing here and there). Therefore, whenever any of us decides to add "another" weapon to the arsenal then we're looking at budgetting around 700-800 dollars. As John put it, alot of us spend so much time and funds on our uniforms and equipment that saving up for such a thing is very conceivable, but boy is it a giant chunk of time and money to get that specific arm in presentable conditin (for our standards). If I were to do this for a 2 band musket for a specific event, then I would have spent close to 800 dollars buying and defarbing a weapon that I would use only a handful of times. Not to mention 2 banded weapons are banned from most events, including many EBUFU events as well. If the friggin Italian manufactuers made these things correctly in the factory, then we'd only be talking about saving around 500 bucks to aquire the thing all said and done.

But are we deceiving the public by over-representing a certain musket? Hmmm, unless there is an antique weapons dealer in the crowd, then I can't see the general public noticing if are carrying austrian lorenz or enfields with the wrong barrel bands. This is where the uniform and headgear takes most of the spotlight, that is the "image" that I feel the public perceves over the detailing on the weapon. And honestly, not to offend anybody , but I think we decieve the public more so by portraying infantryman as 200+ Ibls and 45+ years of age at so many events. That is the hardest thing to get by in the hobby these days and I shudder when I see guys sell off their whole kit because they are getting fatter, I would like to recommended backing off the junk food as opposed to trying to get your whole wardrobe redone to compensate for an expanding size. That is slightly off topic, but the point is I don't think that public is being duped by there being to many enfields on the field.

However, I too wish we could portray a company with 2 band enfields and bayonets for everyone. However there is not a good starting repro for the lorenz and the 2 banders will need as much defarbing as all the rest (and with extreme limited usage at that). Personally I have been wanting to have a nice repro 1822 cone in barrel conversion musket for a long time, however even the loyalist arms repro is not a good place to start, so I'm left waiting for that day that may never come. Honestly, it's hard enough trying to have a '61 springfield, 42 springfield and 53 enfield of appropriate weight, dimension and detail. Those are the 3 i'm working on to have on hand for any occasion and it is taking plenty of time and money. Very interesting topic, thanks for bringing this up John!

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: Too Many Enfields?

Hallo!

IMHO, the problem IS one of "finance" across the CW Community.
And without putting on my fossilized Broken Record Mantra of why we do so well with clothing and carry such poorly "authenitc" weapons... ;-) :-)

IMHO, it is still cheaper, more affordable, etc., etc., to do "unit, time, and place specific" clothing and gear than it is "unit, time, and place specific" weapons- as a combination of what mass produced commercial reproductions are available AND as a combination of how much money a lad has or is willing to spend to acquire a "golf bag" full of different longarms for different impressions on commercial repro's or custom-built repro's of arms not commercially available.

IF by choice or financial circumstance, a lad is limited to just one gun, IMHO, he often chooses the one that gives him the greatest range and versatility of multiple impressions with it (discounting the lad with interest in just one impression or a "generic" CW impression where say an Model 1863 "Type II" Springfield is what he likes because he likes it.)
IMHO, right now, that choice is first the "Enfield" as "proto-typical" if not "archtypical" for Confederate, followed by the M1861 Springfield.

And yes, IMHO, in this order the ubiquitous "Enfield," the M1861 Springfield," and the
"M1842" are the recommended "Big Three" to strive to acquire.

And as an aside...

The cost of Italian commercial reproductions is largely determined by the exchange rate of U.S. Dollars to the "European Euro." As the USD continues to slide, its purchasing power slides with it.
Meaning we did better when the Euro was worth .50 or half of a dollar. Now that the dollar is worth .72 to .75 of a Euro, the cost to us goes up...
(But CW is doing "better" than say Rev War, where Italian "Besses" and "Chareville's have no passed the $1,000 mark.)

Curt
Former U.S. M1855 Rifle, and Cook & Brother Rifle, etc., user Mess

[1stMaine]

Re: Too Many Enfields?

Comrades,

Too add a bit to the debate. Safety should NOT be an excuse for banning the rifles from events IF the drill is followed correctly. That means that the soldiers need to be profficient in their drill and the NCO's need to be right up on them watching and ensuring the intervals are kept correctly, that the men assume the proper stance for firing. After all, hardee's, as I said earlier, was written for the M1855 rifle and the M1841 rifle.

As to impressions, the 7th Maine carried M1841's throughout it's enlistment. They used them up until mustered out in June of 1864, including the Wilderness, Spotsylvania CH, etc.

An impression of the 7th would require a properly remade Windsor contract M1841 w/sword bayonet, a M1855 rifleman's belt, and the cap box designed for that set (large loops & shield front/full-face style). Everything else, including the cartrudge box (which, despite the M1855 rifleman's belt, was worn with a sling) is stock issue. Extant images show them with forage caps and fatigue blouses, and little to no cap brass.

So, yeah, probably $800-$1000 to add the impression to your list of doables. Yet, this little regiment was present at some significant moments, including the 7-day's and Antietam, and again at Chancellorsville, where they used those sword bayonets.

Back to the thread, however, the Enfield shows up all through the federal army, in almost every regiment armed with .58 calibre weapons. There is usually one or the other, Springfield of Enfield in the prponderance, but the other is almost always there as well.

Respects,

[LibertyHallVols]

Re: Too Many Enfields?

I think the discussion of rifles is definitely applicable. They were used in sufficient numbers that they could be considered "PEC", depending on your definition of that term.

Back to the 3-banders for a sec...
A good chunk of the reason why we all focus on Enfields so doggone much is because (1) they were the first 3-bander to be reproduced and (2) they are broadly applicable to both US and CS impressions, except for the very early days of the war. Therefore, (3) many, many reenactors own one...

Hence my "common currency" comment in an earlier post.

However, at their core, every foreign-made repro is a reproduction of the wrong darned musket. This forces us to spend a lot of dough marking up and reshaping the repro to make it "closer" to being correct. Does that save any $$ in the long run? Would it be "more authentic" to use an arm intended to look like the arm we want it to look like?

I don't even want to get into the, "...reduce demand to coerce the Italians to improve their product..." stuff. That'll only work under ideal circumstances (you know like in physics class... assume a perfect vacuum and zero friction) ;) The hobby *could* have some traction to generate interest interest in general improvement in the Enfield repros... but that won't happy because "everybody has an Enfield"... and so it goes. ;)

Thoughts?