Tweet
Re: Too Many Enfields?
Tim:
Great point and as stated, an over-generalization by me. My thought there could have been made clearer as it wasn't only the specific usage of US 1841s by those Maine units. Though it is interesting to me that twenty years after their introduction, these fine rifles were still far from obsolete. Rather, what I was trying to get at there was that in the context of "other than three-band muskets/rifle-muskets", two-banders like the US 1841s were in fairly wide use even late in the war. IE: The Heavy Artillery units called to back up the infantry in 1864, though obviously not all of the units.
The broader point of the thread is most important. The lack of well made, correctly prorportioned and historically accurate reproduction firearms is a particularly grating aspect of the hobby, and lags behind the progress made in other areas like uniforms and accoutrements. And by association the repro Enfield is over-represented and it is not a panacea for every impression. It would be great if we could move past the "I can only afford one gun, so I got an Enfield" perspective. There are better ways to approach the purchasing decision of this major expense item, including the realization that one particular firearm may not meet the requirements of every scenario, and an Enfield may not be a good choice.
When other aspects of 1860s material culture are over-represented in the hobby, the reaction of the progressive segment is normally toward "balance" as in the recent discussions on canteen covers. I like what Justin Runyon recently posted on that thread "To expand, the argument that I generally hear is that blue covers are merely over represented among the mainstream of the hobby. Hence you see many on our side of things eschew blue covers to balance things out."
It would be great if "those on our side of things" took that same approach w/ respect to the over-represented P-53 Enfield.
Tim:
Great point and as stated, an over-generalization by me. My thought there could have been made clearer as it wasn't only the specific usage of US 1841s by those Maine units. Though it is interesting to me that twenty years after their introduction, these fine rifles were still far from obsolete. Rather, what I was trying to get at there was that in the context of "other than three-band muskets/rifle-muskets", two-banders like the US 1841s were in fairly wide use even late in the war. IE: The Heavy Artillery units called to back up the infantry in 1864, though obviously not all of the units.
The broader point of the thread is most important. The lack of well made, correctly prorportioned and historically accurate reproduction firearms is a particularly grating aspect of the hobby, and lags behind the progress made in other areas like uniforms and accoutrements. And by association the repro Enfield is over-represented and it is not a panacea for every impression. It would be great if we could move past the "I can only afford one gun, so I got an Enfield" perspective. There are better ways to approach the purchasing decision of this major expense item, including the realization that one particular firearm may not meet the requirements of every scenario, and an Enfield may not be a good choice.
When other aspects of 1860s material culture are over-represented in the hobby, the reaction of the progressive segment is normally toward "balance" as in the recent discussions on canteen covers. I like what Justin Runyon recently posted on that thread "To expand, the argument that I generally hear is that blue covers are merely over represented among the mainstream of the hobby. Hence you see many on our side of things eschew blue covers to balance things out."
It would be great if "those on our side of things" took that same approach w/ respect to the over-represented P-53 Enfield.
Comment