The Monster Enfield Defarbing Thread

[1stMaine]

Re: Too Many Enfields?

John,

Let me ask a silly question, then.

Has anyone actually TALKED to any of the makers about retooling to produce the "correct" model Enfield, or whatever? I know we all believe that "someone" contacted them, but has anyone actually ever done that?

Back when the mini-series "North & South" was being filmed, I contacted Bernadelli about purchasing 150 M1841 rifles. They were astounded by that request, as they were seriously considering shutting down the production line for them because so few people had expressed an interest in them, and so few (to their stats) had sold. They were simply making what the sellers were asking for, not what the customers were asking for, and although they knew abour reenacting, they didn't quite realise then what size the hobby was, and how many people actually WERE interested in accurate reproductions.

Respects,

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: Too Many Enfields?

Hallo!

I am a proponant of rifle use, in general and especially for the unit impressions of units that HAD them!

I even once ran a thread on Civil War era forms of the U.S. M1841. ;) :)

And bringing up, or back, points from previous discussions on the the Italian Enfield industry...

IMHO, there will be no change or little change as the tail does not wag the dog.
Meaning, we teach the Italians (and their U.S. importers) how to teach us. As long as the Civil War Community buys what the Italians produce in large numbers, there is litte or no reason to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. Or as Buck Barrow in "Bonnie and Clyde" said; "Whatever you do, don't sell that cow!"
IMHO, there are just too many sales of Italian P1853 4th Model "Enfields."

However, there was a minor "concession" when Armi Sport went to "3rd Model" barrel bands on their "4th Models." (even if they pseudo color case harden them)

And in general, the Italian U.S. M1842 Springfield/Harpers Ferry, while still flawed, IS a notch or two above the "Enfield."

IMHO, it will be interesting to revisit this discussion as the rise of the Euro has led to a look toward cheaper labor costs in China and Pakistan when it comes to a predicted possible shift with the "new generation" of CW era reproduction arms???
(Not a knock on China, India, or Pakistan. They are capable of , and do, achieve REMARKABLE copies and even clones of uniforms, gear, or weaponry in any era. IMHO, the larger issue is what level American importers contract to buy of lesser quality or "authentic" items than from the high end of what these countries can produce. Meaning, they can sell a U.S. vendor a $15 fatigue blouse or a $200 fatigue blouse. The "market" takes the $15 one.)

Curt

[CJDaley]

Re: Too Many Enfields?

Too Many Enfields?

On reason you see so many in the ranks and accepted at every event is that there are just to many in the hobby to begin with.

I recently spoke with a vendor who told me in the last 15 years he has imported and sold 250,000 Enfields. Think about that. One vendor and one type of musket.

250,000! That's more than the Confederacy imported!

This vendor also serves the N-SSA as well as our hobby, but it's amazing to think how many repro muskets might be floating around out there.

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: Too Many Enfields?

Hallo!

Interesting!

Although I am guilty of 50 or so of those all by myself.
One unit that I once created, for its time and place, documented that it had "Enfield" rifle-muskets... and the P1853 3rd Model" at was the required longarm.

One vendor, 250,000...

While reliable numbers of Civil War "reenactors" (even when supplemented by N-SSA members), past and present, are hard to capture...

There must be closets, attics, garages, and spaces under beds across America with more Enfields than dust bunnies!

A thousand years from now, archeologists and anthropoligists will have them behind glass in museums.
"Parental Unit Number 3707, can we go to the Reenacotor Museum today. Pwease Parental Unit, pwease? Yes? Oh goody!! I weally like the animatronic reenactors exhibit!"
"Yes Test Tube Child Number 4. The Enfield Pipe Organ display is my favorite!"

Curt

[LibertyHallVols]

Re: Too Many Enfields?

Let me ask a silly question, then.

Has anyone actually TALKED to any of the makers about retooling to produce the "correct" model Enfield, or whatever? I know we all believe that "someone" contacted them, but has anyone actually ever done that?

According to Reenactor Folklore...
Geoff Walden discussed this with "the Italians" (Armi Sport or EoA, I know not which) back in the early 1990's, or whenever his article was first published. "They" were supposedly (sp?) planning to adopt his suggestions, but... and we're still waiting.

Is this true? Idunno. Geoff...?

Maybe its just an urban legend, like "there's no such thing as 100% wool." :sarcastic :wink_smil

[Charles Heath]

Re: Too Many Enfields?

I use my '41 a couple of times each year, and usually ask permission to drag it along well beforehand. Folks who read the fine print will find a number of EBUFU events each year where this is possible.

Unfortunately, the last time we built a battalion where a company of '41s was a possibility, that worldwide number of folks interested enough to register was the same as what the owl said about licks and the Tootsie-Pop. Not too encouraging.

I am curious if folks had an 8 to 10 month lead time to acquire and modify a '41, if they'd join the 3 of us who currently use our trusty Mississippi Rifles at a living history. Curt's lengthy how-to thread on upgrading a stock '41 was excellent, and I hope it didn't get zapped in the Summer of 2006 forum crash.

Let's throw out a number. That number is 30. Any takers?

[LibertyHallVols]

Re: Too Many Enfields?

C'mon, Dude! Ever hear of the SEARCH FEATURE!?!? ;)

http://authentic-campaigner.com/forum/showthread.php?t=5767

http://authentic-campaigner.com/forum/showthread.php?t=5721

http://authentic-campaigner.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4801

http://authentic-campaigner.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4709

http://authentic-campaigner.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4705

http://authentic-campaigner.com/forum/showthread.php?t=4584

[Charles Heath]

Re: Too Many Enfields?

Cracks knuckles...Tom Sawyer would be proud. :-)

Hehehehe.

[Old Reb]

Re: Too Many Enfields?

As soon as I scrape togehter the need $125,000, I plan to purchase an Arkadelphia Arsenal Rifle. Nice two bander it is!

[Bob 125th NYSVI]

Re: Too Many Enfields?

Well the figures I have are approximate (and I'm sure Curt can correct them) but

1,300,000 Manufactured Springfields (all models/manufacturers/derviatives)
830,000 Imported Enfields (At least)
225,000 Imported Lorenz's (About)

And about 500,000 .69 muskets were available in 1861

But only around 30,000 1841's were ever built. So even if they were all available in 1860 only about 1% of soldiers would ever be equipped with them. How can we seriously justify fielding more? Pumpkin slingers, yes there were a lot more of them around, but rifles?

Generically would it be:

a Yankee in order of likelyhood of being armed with it would be Springfield, Enfield, Pumpkinslinger, Lorenz?

a Reb Enfield, Pumkinslinger?

Unless you're doing something very historically specific I just don't see how there can be too many Enfields in the rebel ranks and very many rifles at all on either side.

And shouldn't Yanks be about 50/50 Springfields/everything else.

Just as an example, historically my unit was equipped with Enfields (which the rebs kindly relieved us of when we got captured at Harper's Ferry) and then re-equipped with Springfields once we were allowed back in the war. So for me (base impression) either a Springfield or Enfield, a second weapon (or third) would just be a luxury I can't yet afford.

[Charles Heath]

Re: Too Many Enfields?

Bob,

That's precisely why event guidelines list the specific weapons desired in priority order, and typically have a note as to what the unit or organization being portrayed actually carried at that point in the war -- if known.

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: Too Many Enfields?

Hallo!

I am having trouble with my monitor.
Is that number "3" with a dirt smudge after it, or "30?"

Curt
Once user of the M1855 Rifle, 1862 and 1863 Fayetteville Rifle, and Cook Brother Rifle Mess
Proud Member of the where did I put those two Mississippi short nosecaps Rifles

"That's a nice Enfield."
"Thanks. But actually it's a Walter Watson "M" Rifle."
"Elitist! @#*#)(@(#)$&^*@!!!"

[Todd Watts]

Re: Too Many Enfields?

I am still trying to get the Liege / Belgian repro project of mine off the ground. Seeing this project first-hand, I can see why the repro makers only want to offer 1-3 vraiants. Once my project is up and running, the Lorenz, done correctly (no need to do it wrongly since that has been done) is next on the "to do" list followed by the Pottsdam and perhaps a c.1840 London or some other lesser knowns. My own unit was historically issued 3-bander Enfields so my own Enfield-use is correct. But it is really sad to know of all the many gun variations that are all but lost to us because the repro market is set on selling what they know sells and not spending the capital to offer others.

[1stMaine]

Re: Too Many Enfields?

Well the figures I have are approximate (and I'm sure Curt can correct them) but

1,300,000 Manufactured Springfields (all models/manufacturers/derviatives)
830,000 Imported Enfields (At least)
225,000 Imported Lorenz's (About)

And about 500,000 .69 muskets were available in 1861

But only around 30,000 1841's were ever built. So even if they were all available in 1860 only about 1% of soldiers would ever be equipped with them. How can we seriously justify fielding more? Pumpkin slingers, yes there were a lot more of them around, but rifles?

Generically would it be:

a Yankee in order of likelyhood of being armed with it would be Springfield, Enfield, Pumpkinslinger, Lorenz?

a Reb Enfield, Pumkinslinger?

Unless you're doing something very historically specific I just don't see how there can be too many Enfields in the rebel ranks and very many rifles at all on either side.

And shouldn't Yanks be about 50/50 Springfields/everything else.

Just as an example, historically my unit was equipped with Enfields (which the rebs kindly relieved us of when we got captured at Harper's Ferry) and then re-equipped with Springfields once we were allowed back in the war. So for me (base impression) either a Springfield or Enfield, a second weapon (or third) would just be a luxury I can't yet afford.

Bob,

With all due respect, that sort of math just doesn't add up.

You are also leaving our many thousands of M1855 rifles and Enfield rifles.

As to the 1% of soldiers, that's not correct either. You are looking at overall numbers, although no where near that served at any one time. The figure that some 2.5 million men served under arms is a misnomer, because it also includes a significant number who served more than one enlistment.

The real numbers to look at are the ordnance returns of the various units within the armies. However, this would only give us a statistical review of the various types of arms OVERALL. The important thing is to understand what type of weapon was being carried by the units we are represnting at whatver particular event we are attending.

For example, what good is creating a reenactment of the Irish brigade at Gettysburg if the weapons are not correct? 4 of the 5 regiments in that storied brigade used .69 caliber weapons. Only 1, the 28th Mass, had .58 rifle-muskets.

To carry it further, up until the beginning of 1864, a full 40% of the AOP carried .69 calibre weapons of one type or another. The remaining 60% consists of 2/3rd Springfield and Enfield weapons, and 1/3rd of .54 calibre weapons.

Thus, up through Gettysburg, the single largest percentage of weapons in the AOP is, statistically, the .69 calibre in it's various formats. Of the balance remaining, 20% are .54, both US and Austrian and other models, and 40% are various .58 calibre, to include the Enfield, Springfield and other .58 calibre RIFLES.

Seems to me that, until 1864, the most common weapon OUGHT to be a .69, if we are just talking statistics, and army-wide representation. However, we are interested in scenario-driven arms, so those percentages can change dramatically.

For example, if we are to recreate the Peach Orchard on 2 July, we'll need at least one regiment with Sharps rifles, another (7th NJ) with equal numbers of .58, .577, .69, and 10 or so Austrian .54's. and so forth.

Anyway, the numbers produced, purchased, etc, are not accurate as far as what was actually used. examples abound of regiments drawing 1 type of weapon, and then returning it for something else, exchanging for better arms off the field, etc.

Example: 3rd Maine Infantry left the state with .69 smoothbores (converted M1816, with cone-in-breech conversion). After 1st Bull Run, the 4 flank companies were issued with Austrain .54 rifles. In December 1861, the M1816 conversions were turned in and M1861 rifle-muskets were issued, except for the flank companies who retained their Austrian rifles. Sometime in the spring of 62, the rifles were turned in and M1861 rifle-muskets issued to replace them.

The 4th Maine left the state with .69 smoothbores, like the 3rd Maine's, but in December of that year (1861) they turned those in expecting to recieve M1861 rifle-muskets. Instead, they were issued with Austrian .54 rifles. Go figure.

The 20th Maine were armed with Enfields, but greatly disliked them. After Gettysburg, the survivors tossed their Enfields and scavenged .58 Springfield rifle-muskets from the field, and used these until the end of the war.

Anyway, that's some examples of the time/place.unit specific arms. Percentages of the weapon types are best viewed at the brigade level, as that is where we most often act out our shows.

Respects,

[Jimmayo]

Re: Too Many Enfields?

IMO the following should be considered when discussing in general terms the number of Enfields that should be in the ranks .

1) US or CS
It is a well known fact that the South used more Enfields than the North. Nobody in this thread has made a distinction between North or South.

2) Year of the war that you are portraying. That would make a big difference in numbers say between 1861/ 62 and 1864/65.

3) Eastern or western theater may also make a difference.

I do have a very small shapshot of the contents of one CS trench about 30 feet long near the Petersburg lines. This trench was taken by the Feds and then covered over to prevent it's reuse. What it also did was to preserve very deep, the contents of the trench. I don't think anyone else had hunted this section of trench due to the depth and what was being found. Out of this trench came 9 muskets ( 5 Enfields and 4 Springfields). There was also a quantity of dropped bullets, all of which were CS or English. Another indication that the trench was CS (besides location) was the presence of a pewter cartridge box liner. The picture below was one days dig.

I know this does not indicate that all CS units were equipped with these type arms in these numbers but it is a small piece of the pie which I have always found interesting.