The Monster Enfield Defarbing Thread

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: Too Many Enfields?

Hallo!

I hate to use a worn out cliche, but will anyways... ;) :)

Apples and oranges.

I think "Apples and Oranges" because there is a difference between the concept and living-history practice of impressions and portrayals of actual units as to their arms being fixed by time and place, AND looking at totals of weapons between "1861 and 1865" and trying to come up with a statistical concept of what might have been the most "common" type of gun in use based upon weapon numbers that end in April 1865.

AND, being unable or unwilling, or not needing by Mental Picture, to have the arms of actual units/times/places due to financial issues and availability issues- coming up with what might could be presented as something of a "universally representative" Civil War longarm. And just ONE that can be inserted, Federal or Confederate, anywhere between April of 1861 and April of 1865 events without too much error.

Meaning that the '53 "Enfield" or '61 "Springfield" is the perceived choice as a "universally representative" concept CW longarm that traditionally "works" for the majority of the CW reenacting Community.
Especially for lads whose Mental Pictures, interests, desires, needs, and disposable incomes and finances allow but ONE weapon.

Or, perhaps more simply, is the choice of longarms driven by actual historical unit/time/place specifics, or representative or generic universals where specifics do not apply or matter?
(For example.... in some circles, it can be hard to portray a Manassas 1861 or Shiloh 1862 unit and be armed with say an M1863 "Type II" Springfield in a unit that was actually there armed with M1822 flintlocks. In other circles, not.

Curt

[DannyJoe]

Re: Too Many Enfields?

Over the past several years, I have been able to acquire Lodgewood defarbed Italian repros of what has been referred to as the Big Three: P1853, M1842, and M1861. When given the option, I prefer carrying the P1853. It is just a personal preference. I like the handling of the Enfield over the Springfields. I have had others in the hobby express the same opinion. Regardless, I agree that the M1842 is a better repro than the P1853.
Regards,

[LibertyHallVols]

Re: Too Many Enfields?

Good points, stated well... thanks, Curt.

For those who cite the portrayal of a home "unit", something to ponder:
- Events listed on the AC have scenario-specific regs.
- In all my time with the "LHV", I actually portrayed them at an event a grand-total of once (I WAS properly armed, though! ;)
- Throughout the war, one can find references to .54, 58, and .69 cal ammo being issued to this single company, as well as references to 1851 cadet muskets, converted 69 cal US muskets, and even a captured Belgian musket described as a "veritable cannon". ...that's ONE COMPANY!

So, if one's "personal impression" or "home unit" is the Xth VA, Company Z, who were armed with Enfields for 1862-1865... what do you do at an event when you're portraying the Xth TN, Company Y in 1861 when they were armed with 1842's?

Good discussion... Thanks!

[tmdreb]

Re: Too Many Enfields?

John,

There are not too many events that will kick you out if you don't have an 1842, because people who put on events recognize that just about everyone has an Enfield, but not everyone has an 1842.

I have built my impression around a specific unit, and I use that impression several times a year. Yes, part of that impression is an Enfield. Of course, most everyone, no matter how specific or generic their impression is, also uses primarily a .58 rifle musket. So, I'm not quite sure what your point is about specific impressions. Personally, I also own a smoothbore for other impressions, as do most of the rest of my company.

Tim,

I agree with your assessment of the math as well as the fact that there should be more .69 smoothbores represented. The latter could be better accomplished if there were a good reproduction of a converted flintlock in addition to the excellent AS 1842.

[LibertyHallVols]

Re: Too Many Enfields?

John,

There are not too many events that will kick you out if you don't have an 1842, because people who put on events recognize that just about everyone has an Enfield, but not everyone has an 1842.

Agreed. I wouldn't propose that folks be kicked out. Just offering up food for thought.

I have built my impression around a specific unit, and I use that impression several times a year. Yes, part of that impression is an Enfield. Of course, most everyone, no matter how specific or generic their impression is, also uses primarily a .58 rifle musket. So, I'm not quite sure what your point is about specific impressions. Personally, I also own a smoothbore for other impressions, as do most of the rest of my company.

Several folks mentioned the selection of an Enfield based on the portrayal of a specific unit. I merely wanted to offer up a counter-point... not that folks are wrong for building up an impression of a specific unit.

[plankholder]

Re: Too Many Enfields?

I am a Spriingfield man, I just prefer the feel of my 55/61 Springfield, and just love the "sewer pipe" barrel on my '42. But I sure am hoping that LA gets the snags worked out of their Lorenz, its already got my interest. So to answer the question, yes I feel that Enfields are over represented in the hobby. -ELI GEERY

[Bob 125th NYSVI]

Re: Too Many Enfields?

And with all due respect back Tim

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.

Agreed and I did use my historical unit as an example, they started with Enfields and moved to Springfields. For me to carry a 'rifle' or .69 at any time would be inappropriate for that portrayal. At this time I have neither the money nor desire to develop multiple portrayals. Some day I might, but then the problem (as far as reenacting is concerned) that I might bring the "right" weapon for a specific unit portrayal but then I could wind up being the only guy with the right weapon. At least in a mixed Enfield/Springfield unit you can use the rational that it happened but it makes real no difference because everybody can use the same ammo. Unlike say having one .69 weapon in the ranks.

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.

I can buy into this but if we do this aren't we asking reenactors to go for a very very generic impression? Don't portray a specific unit but be prepared to portray a "generic" AoP infantryman. And then isn't this is going to play the devil with the other equipment. For example what is the percentage of Forage Caps v other types of hats? Knapsacks v bedrolls? Etc.

If we could afford it this would be the way to go, maybe one unit specific kit and one very generic 'army' kit but now what about galvanizing? Another two kits?

We can argue the the proper ratios all we want but unlike say hollywood very few of us have unlimited funds to throw at our impression.

And that leaves the event organizers with an additional headache. They don't know how individual reenactors are armed. So let's say they want to portray the Irish at GB. What do they do, say .69 only? It's going to be a very small brigade. Especially if they want to enforce other "equipment" requirements to actual make the whole unit look like the IB.

However, we are interested in scenario-driven arms, so those percentages can change dramatically.

Agreed the ideal would be if we could morph into what ever is needed but I think that is a unrealistic goal.

And I think there is a very strong case for more .69s in reenacting.

Still I'm not seeing numbers that would convince me that we need a lot more 'rifles' in the ranks. Unless of course you want to portray a very specific scenario that would call for it.

And then we just wind up back 'who can afford it' connundrum.

[Secesh]

Re: Too Many Enfields?

When one has a mortgage, property taxes, car payments, kids in college, etc., multiple rifles has a really low priority....

[BrettKIllinois]

Re: Too Many Enfields?

The weapon should fit the impression, plain and simple. I really wish there was an accurate lorenz. (correct calibre, correct size of the stock etc)

For many folks their weapon is the most expensive thing they have. But compared to most accurate jacket reproductions, its close in price. So, just as we have different jackets for different impressions, we should have different arms aswell. I have an enfield and only an enfield, I have often barrowed weapons from pards who have an arsenal in their house in order to accurately portray the impression as needed. When I couldn't find correct arms for a portrayal I have simply opted not to attend just as I would if I didn't have the correct jacket etc..

[BrettKIllinois]

Re: Too Many Enfields?

As for the money question... This is an expensive hobby, It requires constantly loads of cash to participate. The initial uniform purchase is just a portion of the expenses, as I am constantly finding myself adding to the closet of uniforms and gear. In theory weapons should be no different.
If we spend nearly 1000 dollars per event to attend (for those of us living far from an actual battlefield) I see no harm in skipping one event a year to add another weapon to your arsenal.
I don't want to be hypocritical because i have yet to purchase more, but it is a goal of mine in which I will take as seriously as having the rest of my impression as accurate as I can make it.
also as a foot note:
I think it should be a goal for all of us to constantly add new kits to our stockpile of uniforms and gear. There are so few of us in order to interpret the lives of so many, versatility is a must in order to have decent numbers at great events in all theatres, in all years in all seasons.

Focus on setting your personal goals high, and not focus on excuses.

[LibertyHallVols]

Re: Too Many Enfields?

Focus on setting your personal goals high, and not focus on excuses.

Good point...

Back in High School, my buddy Paul Herring told me that he spent almost a hundred bucks on a jacket that wasn't even sewn together yet just because it was made of "jeans", or some other such nonsense. I thought he was crazy as hell. ... I could of bought two top quality jackets from Jarnagin for that price!

You hardcores are ruining this hobby! :tounge_sm

[Secesh]

Re: Too Many Enfields?

Brett,
With all due respect, in regards to your statement about making excuses, I have to ask if you still live at home???....

[BrettKIllinois]

Re: Too Many Enfields?

I just don't like a defeatist mentality when it comes to your impression. When I first started becoming one of the "the hated" authentics, I realized I couldn't afford to purchase some of the uniform parts, hell I was 16 and worked part time minimum wage... So I talked to my mom, my mom knew of a her great great aunts sewing machine that was in storage, vintage 1870s-1890s range, I'm not sure the exact date but surely more authentic than a modern electrical sewing machine. She taught me how to use it, my pards taught me how to hand sew, running, locking, button hole, whip, flat felling etc... so bought the correct material and patterns and made the uniforms myself.
Sure I had some help teaching me, but with a little help all of us can get better at our impression. My enfield I bought from a good pard who had an original and a de-farbed enfield and felt that it was time to part with the repop, sold the defarbed one to me at a discount due to the fact that there was scuffs etc... on it so I didn't pay full price.
There are ways around high initial costs, IE: barrow, DIY, Installment purchasing, small loans.... The fact that so many great vendors sell kits for their uniforms is an amazing contribution for all of us and we should thank them for it.

[BrettKIllinois]

Re: Too Many Enfields?

Brett,
With all due respect, in regards to your statement about making excuses, I have to ask if you still live at home???....

I've been on my own since 18, a renter, I do not own my own home. But nice try. For the past 3 months between leases I have been renting an apartment from my mother, but I pay the same as I payed renting at my previous home. In 2 weeks I am relocating again and not longer renting from a family member.
That being said, my family has never had a high enough economic status to assist me in any way, thats why I went in the military after high school etc...

I'd like to own my first home once I complete college. I have worked in business for the past two years, and now I am a bouncer and work odd jobs.

My point in response to your inference... is that I am entirely self suffient, and self supporting, I wish it wasn't the case, it'd be nice if I could get some help... but it is not. My mother is a retired school teacher and I often have to help her with her bills, and not the other way around.

Cheers

[Secesh]

Re: Too Many Enfields?

Brett,
The point I was trying to make is that, unless one has all the aforementioned responsibilities I stated, it's a lot easier to find the "extra cash" to dedicate to this hobby. The rest of us, though, do find that we often have to go "lean and hungry", cutting the fat in our impressions and making purchases that are absolutely necessary to one's impression, as opposed to impulsive and / or unnecessary ones. This is especially true if one lives in a State, for instance here in California, where economically the cost of living is higher than the rest of the Country. 2 to 3 bedroom homes typically run about $400,000 to $600,000, and that's just an average family home of about 1500 square feet! My hats off to you for it seems like you are on the right track to life. Best regards, Tom