Modern reenacting arms vs original arms

[Secesh]

I had a thought last night as I was cleaning my Euroarms Enfield....I wonder if modern Euroarms, Armisport and Pederoselli Enfields, Springfields, etc. would pass muster if they had been issued during the War...Would they have stood up to the rigors of campaign and combat? Obviously there is some inferiority in the fabrication and manufacture...Any thoughts?

[nwwinslow]

Re: Modern reenacting arms vs original arms

Actually, I think that modern reproductions might actually fare pretty well. Usually they have thicker barrels, stocks etc. and that would probably last longer than their original counterparts. Either way, just my two cents..

Noah Werner Winslow

[David Fox]

Re: Modern reenacting arms vs original arms

Interesting post! In the 19th Century, the government was looking for the thinnest barrels and lightest weight possible in their muskets, consistent with proof and the rigours of handling. U.S. muskets were regularly compared unfavoraby with French muskets in this regard. Troops in the field would have noted the greater weight of a replica if they had a chance to compare. This "clunkiness factor" is especially noticable in replica Enfields. From at least M.1842s and through the last rifle-muskets, all replicas of U.S. pieces, including rifles, would have failed to pass guage inspection, too...even screw threads are wrong and not consistent from modern maker to maker. Same for U.S. contract handguns. Then there's the wood. Most Enfields imported during the 1860s were not interchangable-parts weapons, of course, a main reason the U.S. withdrew them from service as soon as it was able. But lock innards of replicas, including Enfield replicas, are not nearly as well made, finished, nor hardened as even non-interchangable originals. I suspect even C.S. inspectors would have condemned Richmond replicas. Replicas of the Richmond Sharps and the other Romano-quality carbines are very good, but probably wouldn't pass guage, either, although troops in the field likely wouldn't notice a difference. Can't speculate on how rigorous C.S. inspectors were with Cook & Bro. or C.S. revolvers, the later being pretty shoddy in the 1860s. Replica bayonets are not made to stand up to field use and most replica rammers (especially those of two-piece construction) often fail even reenactment usage.

[Secesh]

Re: Modern reenacting arms vs original arms

Thanks for the excellent responses Gents!

[Pritchett Ball]

Re: Modern reenacting arms vs original arms

As they are made now...NO!

The parts in the locks (springs, tumblers, screws...) would not stand up to the rigors that the originals were designed for. The 2-piece ramrods would fail in a heartbeat, (having had to weld more than several back together) and too many parts made by (what looks to me) casting. The metal in the case of the screws seems too soft, and strip too easily.

A friend's hammer on his repro Enfield snapped in two, and thanks to Dixie Gun Works sending him the wrong manufacturers hammer, I welded his broken one back together AND centered it better on the percussion nipple. Luckily it has held together for several years now, betting the weld material I put in it is a lot better than the original material.

I will say the percussion cones/nipples we get are good quality.

Weight would be an attention getter back then! The repro's are too heavy due to the European Walnut used today. You compare an ArmiSport 61 to an original, you would know the difference. I'm not convinced the repro barrels are all that thicker compared to originals. My repro 61 is not hardly thicker that my original.

The rifling is not the progressive depth as the originals have, so getting the same accuracy is a challenge for the repro's.

We are lucky to have the reproductions, but I wouldn't want my life to depend on them as they are made now!

Kevin Dally

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: Modern reenacting arms vs original arms

Hallo!

IMHO, a mixed bag...

Meaning yes and no..

Italian Quality Control issues of randomness would have plagued field use- as already shared with issues such as the ramrods, and the lack or proper hardening or tempering of lock parts and springs.

On a plus, when weighed against some of the obsolete and "antique" arms and European cast-off's acquired by US and CS agents in the first years of the War- an Italian repro would be a plus.

And last but not least.... Civil War soldiers were keen observers. And they knew the difference between the lastest "state-of-the-art"
arms to the point of griping and complaining such as the account of what likely was Belgium Enfield copies whose stocks were so "rough" that they cut the lads' hands.
But the big difference lies in the ability to compare and contrst originals with reproductions. To a CW soldiers, everything was "authentic." They were concerned with quality and "serviceability" of their kit and arms- or the lack of it. And not so much with whether Maker X was "more authentic" than Maker Y.

IMHO still.. our World is different than their World. We have reproductions when they had "originals" and the quality and authenticity of our reproductions
give some of us more grounds to fuss about in ways CW soldiers did not know about or have to deal with.
In a kind of odd way, if a CW regiment were to have received 1,000 Italian M1861 "Springfields" I suspect no one would have noticed the difference between them and originals unless they had previous experience or exposure to "original" M1861's to have a basis for contrast or comparison as we are do now.

And last....

By and large, "accuracy" in terms of a weapon' shooting was more of an Ordnance Department concern more times than not as many if not most CW soldiers were not "target trained" to any degree or extent. As a result the finer academic points of marksmanship was not a key factor in their training or experience.

Others' mileage will vary...

Curt

[CompanyWag]

Re: Modern reenacting arms vs original arms

This is an interesting question, much like the common speculation of if "authentic" reenactors could time travel, whether the original cast would somehow find us strange-looking and not fitting in. Or would they even notice?

I realize that the original question was whether the repros would compare favorably in regards to servicability. However, if a crate of Pedersoli Springfield 1861's somehow time-warped into a shipment of contract arms waiting to be inspected, they would all fail to pass the inspector's gauges and would not have even made it to the field unless purchased in some secondary market. Even if they did make it into the field, should they require repair any lack of interchangeability would also likely result in condemning the piece.

[MuleyGil]

Re: Modern reenacting arms vs original arms

"The rifling is not the progressive depth as the originals have, so getting the same accuracy is a challenge for the repro's."

Having shot with North-South Skirmish teams, off and on, for 40 years, I have gotten, and seen others, get amazing accuracy out of the "guinea gaspipes", as some have referred to the Italian replicas.

[Pritchett Ball]

Re: Modern reenacting arms vs original arms

"The rifling is not the progressive depth as the originals have, so getting the same accuracy is a challenge for the repro's."

Having shot with North-South Skirmish teams, off and on, for 40 years, I have gotten, and seen others, get amazing accuracy out of the "guinea gaspipes", as some have referred to the Italian replicas.

TRUE!
I have gotten some great accuracy out of my ArmiSport 61, but to do it, I have had to use a bullet design (and powder load tailored to it) that was not quite like something you got issued from the St. Louis Arsenal.
In my opinion, that progressive depth rifling was a lot better way to go for the ammo issued. If I'm not mistaken that's why folk today go to Whitacre and Hoyt to make them custom barrels you don't get with the Italian stuff.
I know I wish I could get one of those guys to make me a barrel!:cry_smile

Kevin Dally

[3DistinctKnocks]

Re: Modern reenacting arms vs original arms

I have only used Armisport repros, so my offering is limited in this field.
That said, I think my Armisport Enfield would likely pass muster. I've had good service out of it, and it is pretty accurate to boot. Several deer have filled my freezer with this rifle. As far as "would the rank and file be able to use repro's if they were time-warped to them" question...I would have to say "YOU BET!!". Think about it...at the start of the war, men were dragging out gran-pappy's old fowling gun to go to war with. They would just be tickled to have a bang-stick to shoot at the enemy with. Towards the middle to end, ordinance depts. would just be happy to get a load of guns in to supply troops in the field, regardless of quality concerns. While repro's may not be up to snuff as far as quality or weight is concerned, the practicality of having something that threw lead down range might have won out.

[42va.reb]

Re: Modern reenacting arms vs original arms

I wonder as well(and Curt may be able to add to this) what the effects of lead slug designs in the 19th century would have on the use of muskets. I know I have had a few cases and know of others that have had cases of "lead fouling" in repo muskets. Im sure somewhere someone has did research on what the chemical element of period lead was made of. Or how common lead fouling may have been during the war.

[3DistinctKnocks]

Re: Modern reenacting arms vs original arms

I'm sure the tin content in ACW period lead isn't what is typically used in today's shooting. I personally like very soft lead for hunting rounds for expansion purposes, so I don't put in but a small bit of tin...very small bit. It would be interesting to see the chemical comparisons between modern poured rounds and authentic rounds of the period.

[24thVOL]

Re: Modern reenacting arms vs original arms

As far as reproductions go, compared to the originals, the Miroku Springfield is the closest I've seen in weight and material. I still don't think it would pass a inspection of the time though.

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: Modern reenacting arms vs original arms

Hallo!

In brief.... and to over simplify...

"Minie" ball lead was pure lead (say 99.9% plus impurities not removed by smelting and fluxing).

Not only did lead have to be soft for the expandig base of a Minie to work, they had to have soft rod or "Wire" in order to run the common swaging presses that mechanical compressed a plug bit of lead to the shape of a bullet.

"Leading" in a barrel pops up with ther advent of higher velocity breechloader rounds after the War, calling for a alloy to harden the bullet a bit such as tin. "Breechloaders" NUG compress a bullet rather than expand it.
Today, we have all manner and formulae of exotic metals added to make high velocity ("breechloading") bullet alloys.

I think the other discussion has drifted into two facets... one whether a repro arm of today could have been used in the CW if available, versus whether they would have passed government inspection criteria for field service use or not.

Curt

[maillemaker]

Re: Modern reenacting arms vs original arms

I have owned three Italian-made reproductions. A Euroarms P1853 Enfield, a JRA Richmond Carbine (I do not know what this is based off of), and a Pietta revolver.

Everyone one of them had internal lock failures within a year of N-SSA competition shooting and practice due to soft hands, sears, and tumblers.

When you look at original lock components and look at the reproductions, there is just no comparison in quality, even when the original parts are 150 years old they are in far better shape than the new ones right out of the box.

The reason for this is, I believe, because the reproduction manufacturers know that most people who shoot BP arms won't shoot them very much, or at least as much as a cartridge arm, because they are dirty and slow to load. They assume, probably correctly, that most of these arms will be fired less than 50 times a year, and then live on a mantle or in a closet.

They are absolutely not manufactured for high use. I know I only have a sample size of 3 guns but I've got a 100% failure rate.

I don't know if this deficiency would be caught during inspection upon receiving the arms, but they would expect that it would be noted within a short period of military use.

Steve