Love of the P53 Enfield... a reenactorism?

[StonewallSharpeson]

Here's a question I've not had for some time, yet cannot find an answer to:
Most reenactors favorite reproduction musket is the P53 Enfield. It's light, it's pretty, it's blued, it works for both sides throughout the entire War, and the reproductions tend to have fewer problems than their Springfield-modeled brethren.
And yet it might appear that our ancestors had a different opinion of this weapon. I don't claim to be an expert, but I have read several accounts of soldiers on both sides discarding their Enfields for Springfields. Now, there are also accounts of soldiers, notably Grant's soldiers after Vicksburg, discarding their smoothbores for Enfields, but that is understandable (I'd rather have a rifle, too) and out side the scope of my question.

The question being, is there any truth to the theory that a Civil War soldier would prefer a Springfield rifle to an Enfield (or another imported rifle such as a Lorenz), and is our love of the Enfield over the Springfield a reenactorism?

If so, I have several theories as to why this might be:
One is that spare parts for Springfields would be more readily available. Additionally, the Springfield had universally interchangeable parts, whereas the Enfield might have had interchangeable parts across a particular contractor (assuming that's true, but I've heard Enfields were still hand made), but parts might not be interchangeable between different producers.
A Springfield could fire the standard, and copies of, the Burton ball as well as Enfield-style ammunition, whereas it is much more difficult to fire a Burton ball through and Enfield after a score of rounds (if you don't believe me, try it!; those extra couple hundredths of an inch make a big difference! (Granted, they're repro muskets not quite to original specs)). The practical extension of this is the ability to fire captured ammunition.

Thoughts?

[LibertyHallVols]

Re: Love of the P53 Enfield... a reenactorism?

The question being, is there any truth to the theory that a Civil War soldier would prefer a Springfield rifle to an Enfield (or another imported rifle such as a Lorenz), and is our love of the Enfield over the Springfield a reenactorism?

There is a bit of a misconception here: That our "love" of the Enfield is reflected by that of the "Old Fellows", or that we "love" it at all. For me, Enfields and reenacting are a bit of a pet peeve.

However, historically, reenactors have chosen them because...
1) They were common on both sides (>900,000 imported) so you can use one musket for both impressions.
2) They have historically been cheaper than repro '61's (I got my first Enfield for $250, at a time when the '61's were selling for $450 and up).
3) Historically, both could fire a US Standard minie ball.
4) I believe they were reproduced long before the US M1861. Parker Hale started in the mid-1970's, IIRC.

Personally, I feel the US M1842 is the most historically accurate reproduction musket for our time period. Bar none. Add to that, the fact that no one has successfully created an accurate reproduction of the right version of the pattern 1853 rifle musket and that they are over-represented in the hobby, and I'm just not a fan.

[Palmyra Possum]

Re: Love of the P53 Enfield... a reenactorism?

For the reenactor, at least those that visit this page, whether a weapon is light, pretty or blued has little to do with one's choice. Whether it is the correct weapon for the impression being done is of higher consideration. I've helped put together authenticity guidelines for a few units and, depending on the unit, time, place, etc., the most correct weapon has turned out to be 1861 Springfields (in one instance, with Sharps Rifles for the flank companies), 1853 Enfields, a mixture of Springfields and Enfields, 1816 muskets converted to percussion, or unconverted 1816 flintlocks. Research other units and get different answers.

Unfortunately, the average reenactor, especially one just starting out in the hobby, cannot afford to bring a golf bag of rifles and muskets to an event in order to have the right tool for the right job. Most start out with an 1861 Springfield or 1853 Enfield simply because it is usually an appropriate, if not the best, choice for most events.

Availability is also an issue. Many of us remember when 1853 Enfields and 1863 Springfields were pretty much the only readily available 3-banders for the reenactor. Even today, there are no good repro 1816 muskets, converted or unconverted, on the market. This puts the reenactor in a dilemma: risk damaging an original, use a less than historically accurate repro, or use an historically accurate, but incorrect, repro. None of these are an ideal choice.

As for the original soldiers, there were detractors. Much of this was based on a "buy American" bias as it was on fact. The book “The Pattern 1853 Enfield Rifle” by Peter Smithurst and Peter Dennis documents some of these.

https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Pattern_1853_Enfield_Rifle.html?id=2MJzYFvWFyEC

Look at pages 48-49.

[guad42]

Re: Love of the P53 Enfield... a reenactorism?

Greetings,

Eric and John both make excellent points. Many of us, regardless for our fondness or lack thereof for a particular arm will probably own the one that is best identified with the unit we portray and secondarily because the Enfield is a useful option for generally playing both sides. Personally though I prefer the 1842 for several of the reasons already stated here and in other threads. Its too bad that the 1816s available are so bad. I had one once and it was a big case of buyer's remorse. In the unit I was in for several years, the SoCal based 1st Texas, most of us carried either Enfields or 1842s. Frankly though, if you have any interest in expanding your impression to cover US Regulars I might suggest avoiding the Enfield. I am curious as to why there seems to be so few 1855s used in our hobby. Personally, I have no love of the Enfield.

-Sam Dolan

[calconfederate]

Re: Love of the P53 Enfield... a reenactorism?

The 1853 Enfield is not a reenactorism, it was the most commonly used imported musket on both sides. That being said, I have read about soldiers gladly exchanging their Enfields for Springfields, never seen anything describing it the other way around.

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: Love of the P53 Enfield... a reenactorism?

Hallo!

As shared, much to do with the actual history, but also merged with a combination of what was available during the growth of reenacting in the mid to late 1970's through the 1990's... and "reenactorisms" dealing with such elements as having a "three band musket' good (real or imagined) for 1861 through 1965 events or US and CS impressions in a time where researching teh actual arms of the unit being portrayed at a specific time and place was not en vogue.

IMHO, I believe that had makers come out with an M1861 Springfield in 1974 instead of mixed model M1864, our hobby history might have been different.

The Enfield" also gets a bad "rap" in history as some Period accounts talk about the men hating them as say being so rough they cut the hands to use them. I suspect a number of lower end Liege stuff made the British stuff sometimes bet a bad reputation even among lads who were "trading up" a 50 year old smoothbore tube lock, etc., for something more "modern."

IMHO still, 'unit specific' weapon requirements or standards tend to be somewhat rare in general reenacting outside of the "AC Community" who sometimes do unit-specific impressions for different events. And it is still common to find units listing standards that speak to '61 Springfield OR '53 Enfield.

Curt

[LeftCoastYank]

Re: Love of the P53 Enfield... a reenactorism?

Mr. Schmidt makes a good point about Enfiled reproductions gaining lots of early adopters by virtue of being first-to-market. They do seem to have a reputation for being over-represented in the hobby.

However, weren't the various Enfield iterations the second most common long arm of the war?
(Please correct me if I'm wrong; something between 900,000 and 1,000,000 were imported).

No other foreign gun was imported in anywhere near those numbers. Only 227,000 Lorenz rifles were imported, and that was the second most numerous foreign rifle after the Enfield.

[RW0369]

Re: Love of the P53 Enfield... a reenactorism?

Not for nothin, but "imported" and "issued" aren't necessarily the same thing. There's the accounts of Enfields being so rough they cut the soldiers hands, etc. Those were the ones that passed intake inspections by the ordnance department, how many of those 900,000 or 227,000 didn't even pass that? I'm not saying that they weren't issued in huge numbers, but ordnance inspectors didn't let everything get pushed out to the troops either.

In reenacting, especially in mainstream the $50.00 difference in price seems to be a huge factor. Not to mention, I remember a time in the late 90's where Enfields were "cool" because they were foreign, basically the opposite of the belief during the war.(that may have just been a regional thing)

Enfields are not good for the "entire war" I think Mr Berry covered it in one of his books, the first Enfields didn't arrive until the fall of '61 if I remember correctly.(I'm in Korea right now so I can't pull the reference)

More 1855's would be great, I know it's on my "to get" list, but I think many of us opted for 1842's, they were more readily available, didn't require much defarb work, and can be used for either army, and most time periods.

[mike44thva]

Re: Love of the P53 Enfield... a reenactorism?

"The question being, is there any truth to the theory that a Civil War soldier would prefer a Springfield rifle to an Enfield (or another imported rifle such as a Lorenz), and is our love of the Enfield over the Springfield a reenactorism?"

I've read posts on the AC Forums, including on the Enfield Bluing article, about soldiers being disappointed about being issued Enfields when they were promised Springfields . For me personally I don't like them. I own 5 muskets, and the Enfield is my least favorite, even though it was nicely defarbed. Its just not comfortable for me to carry and use, and that has nothing to do with the weight. I own one because there are times & circumstances when they are "what was used". If it were up to me, I'd sell it and get my M1861 back.

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: Love of the P53 Enfield... a reenactorism?

Hallo!

Up to a point, the topic can get 'academic.'

We are talking about a reproduction of the 4th Model P1853 "Enfield" RM by and large a version/form not used in the ACW. Then we put that on a scale with of the say roughly 900,000 plus being some form of 3rd Model such as the common BSAT made, London commercial firms, or LA Company. (4th Models "retroverted" to 3rd Models being done to some degree or level in unknown small numbers.)
On the other side of the scale is the "Springfield:"

-M1842's at two production lines at roughly 250,000 between 1845 and 1855, but surviving numbers after 1861 hard to quantify.

-M1855 RM in basically two versions, and two production lines... 47,115 at Springfield, 12,158 at Harpers Ferry for a total of 59,273. Survival rates past 1861 is more complicated.

- US Springfield made M1861's at 265,129. (A side issue of 1861 dated repro's being a small percentage [13,809] of production between April and December 1861.)

-20 or so contractor M1861's roughly 475,000

-SM1861's roughly 152,000

-M1863's at 273,265

-M1864's at 255.040

And then throw a curve by not always knowing what (exact) long arm was issued to the unit being portrayed in time,, and such side issues as is it NOT being available commercially or maybe it was a rifle and not a rifle-musket.
(Although Ordnance folks were more "obsessed' with' with calibre than arm details, there are exceptions such as someone in Company H, 11th Illinois Infantry recording that in 1863 they had:

13 Amoskeag's
17 Muirs'
9 Norwich's
4 Mason's
4 Parker Snow & Co.'s
4 Providence Tool Co.'s
5 Springfields

Total 56)

:) :)

[calconfederate]

Re: Love of the P53 Enfield... a reenactorism?

I think most skirmishers would agree that the Springfield is more comfortable to shoot, it seems to have better natural pointing characteristics. I've shot both at various times, I think the Enfield sights are harder to pick up.

[LeftCoastYank]

Re: Love of the P53 Enfield... a reenactorism?

Not for nothin, but "imported" and "issued" aren't necessarily the same thing. There's the accounts of Enfields being so rough they cut the soldiers hands, etc. Those were the ones that passed intake inspections by the ordnance department, how many of those 900,000 or 227,000 didn't even pass that? I'm not saying that they weren't issued in huge numbers, but ordnance inspectors didn't let everything get pushed out to the troops either.

In reenacting, especially in mainstream the $50.00 difference in price seems to be a huge factor. Not to mention, I remember a time in the late 90's where Enfields were "cool" because they were foreign, basically the opposite of the belief during the war.(that may have just been a regional thing)

Enfields are not good for the "entire war" I think Mr Berry covered it in one of his books, the first Enfields didn't arrive until the fall of '61 if I remember correctly.(I'm in Korea right now so I can't pull the reference)

More 1855's would be great, I know it's on my "to get" list, but I think many of us opted for 1842's, they were more readily available, didn't require much defarb work, and can be used for either army, and most time periods.

That is a good point about importation and issuance being distinct. The U.S. government did buy guns from Europe expressly for the purpose of denying Confederate purchasing agents access to surplus stock. For example, the Federal buyers purchased about 125,000 Lorenz rifles from the Austrians (which the Ordinance Department wasn't particularly interested in, mainly because the Lorenz is designed to fire a non-standard .54 caliber conical ball) to keep them out of Confederate hands. Although, a large portion of those guns were eventually re-bored to .58 and issued.

However, I've not read about the Confederates making similar "spoiling" purchases. After all, the South was so stained for war materiel that it could hardly afford to do so. Also, trying to buy up Enfield inventories (even with the deep pockets of the National government) wouldn't have really worked, as it was in current production throughout the war. With regards to Lorenz rifles, approximately 100,000 were purchased by the Confederate government and were widely issued to the Army of Tennessee. For example, when the 29,000 troops captured and disarmed at Vicksburg were paroled, the Confederate government reequipped them en masse with Lorenz rifles.

For some context, the entire wartime production of Richmond rifles was less than 37,000 - for all variants!

[thomas aagaard]

Re: Love of the P53 Enfield... a reenactorism?

The 1853 Enfield is not a reenactorism, it was the most commonly used imported musket on both sides.

Actually according to "an introduction to civil war small arms" by E.J.Coats and D.S.Thomas by 1864 the enfield was (still) the type of weapon used by most unions regiments., (something like 50% more regiments had them then the number of regiments that had US.models "springfields".)

So to me it looks like it would be more correct to remove "import" from your line.

(more about it in this topic: http://www.authentic-campaigner.com/...ght=small+arms)

So no the widespread use of the enfield is not an reenactorism.

[Pennvolunteer]

Re: Love of the P53 Enfield... a reenactorism?

I personally prefer the 1861 over the Enfield. I think, as someone pointed out, as a reproduction, it is less expensive and easier to maintain for many reenactors. The key is, what did the unit you are portraying have as weapons? We always try to list on our event standards preferred weapon for the unit being portrayed, realizing of course, many guys only have one musket. But, ultimately, that is the guiding principle if an option to the re-enactor. I count myself extremely fortunate, as very few of us are lucky enough to be able to have multiple muskets and therefore able to come armed based on the impression. I have a very understanding wife, but still have had the question asked, "Just how many muskets do you need?" and "Just how many muskets do we have?" :D

[LibertyHallVols]

Re: Love of the P53 Enfield... a reenactorism?

Here's why I like the US M1861:



US M1861 Link

You just cannot build an Enfield to this level of historical accuracy, even if you have deep pockets and the patience of a monk.