Love of the P53 Enfield... a reenactorism?

[mike44thva]

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

Ah Mr. Wickett, I must disagree with you here. If you look at all of the photos, there are some blatent errors with this piece. A defarb of an off the shelf musket will have its issues, due mainly to the limitations of what you're already given. Even going with a totally custom build using a stock-blank and mostly original hardware, I think you'll get as close as possible. However, because of the tighter tolerances of the Springfields vs. imported Enfields (interchangeable parts vs. not so interchangeable parts because of lack of gauging for muskets not for the WD), I think it may be about even.

Once again, my .02¢, take it for what its worth.

[OleMissRebel]

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

Above the comfort of aiming it or the comfort of carrying it, perhaps we should look at what their primary concern would have been: staying alive and being able to fire your weapon when you need to.

Considering that, and maybe I'm way off here, perhaps one reason that the Springfield was preferred over the Enfield was that ammo was more easily interchangeable if armed with a Springfield. I've live fired both my Springfield and my Enfield a good bit and after about 3 or 4 shots, .58 caliber minie's were becoming pretty hard to put down the barrel of the Enfield. With the Springfield, I never had any issue with firing a .577. It was actually quite easy to put the bullet down the barrel for obvious reasons.

In the field, I'm guessing that they were likely to have been issued or to have found, at various times, both .58 minie's and .577 minie's. So, knowing what a pain in the ass loading a .58 round into an Enfield can be, I think I would prefer the Springfield since it can fire both calibers comfortably.

Perhaps that was one reason why they were preferred?

[LibertyHallVols]

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

Ah Mr. Wickett, I must disagree with you here. If you look at all of the photos, there are some blatent errors with this piece. A defarb of an off the shelf musket will have its issues, due mainly to the limitations of what you're already given. Even going with a totally custom build using a stock-blank and mostly original hardware, I think you'll get as close as possible. However, because of the tighter tolerances of the Springfields vs. imported Enfields (interchangeable parts vs. not so interchangeable parts because of lack of gauging for muskets not for the WD), I think it may be about even.

As one who gave it his best shot at a custom build back around 2000, I am here to tell you that an Enfield custom build is much more difficult than a US M1861, and the resulting Enfield will never be as good as a corresponding M'61. I've lived it!

Those tolerances and interchangeable parts you reference on the M'61 are precisely what make it a better candidate.

By comparison, Enfields leave you with three bad choices:
1) use Italian repro parts (because no one is making repro parts for originals like they do for M'61's).
2) use LACo original (interchangeable) parts... Very rare, which means $$$$
3) use Birmingham parts... more rare than '61 parts, but far more common than LACo. The trouble here is that there is no interchangeability. So, just because you have a full set of lock parts, doesn't mean they'll all fit together to make functioning lock.
...this was the exact problem I ran into. I had an collection of parts, but a good portion of the effort of the build went to mating those pieces together to make a functioning lock.

So... No way... you can't custom build an Enfield like you can a Springfield. The best you can do is rehab an existing original, perhaps going as far as to restock it. Once you start trying to marry together parts from different sources, you're in for a rough ride.

Believe me (!!!!)... I really, really wish I was wrong on this!!!
...But I have the scars to prove it.

[Curt Schmidt]

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

Hallo!

As early as June of 1861, concerns were sent up the chain about ammo issues between the .580's (nominally .575) and the .577's. A week after Bull Run, Ripley suggested that using the same dies for Enfield bullets would work if passed through a slightly smaller swaging (and particularly so if soldiers did not load with the cartridge paper around the ball). Then ordered Watervliet to make dies for .574 bullets for Enfields. In the meantime, initially at Allegheny Arsenal Enfield rounds were to have had their papers and boxes marked "Enfield Rifle" In January of 1862 the decision was made for Watervliet to make only reduced caliber balls.

The inconsistent responses almost arsenal by arsenal went on into the Fall of 1863 such as Watertown being .570 and Watervliet being .577 for example. It would not be until April 1864 that they went to a "universal" .58 and .577 round of .574 and a boost of powder charge from 60 to 65. (Of course, worn bullet dies were a problem as they threw larger bullets and made a range say of .580 down to .570.

(Italian bores, over the decades, have varied quite a bit, and .581's and .582's have been encountered making N-SSA competition shooters to shoot bullets other than CW issue size.)

Curt

[RSchuda]

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

As many have already said, the best way to settle the "Springfield or Enfield" debate, is to go off of what the unit you're representing had. In my opinion, the sheer number of enfields is due to the speculation that enfields don't misfire as often, don't rust as easy, and are easier to maintain all together. (Which I must say, except for the rust argument on blued enfields, has yet to be proven to me when both are cleaned thoroughly) In addition, the "Love" of the P53 is subjective, personally I like the M1861 better than the P53.

[Craig L Barry]

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.

I hesitate to weigh in on the debate beyond what I've already stated in both The Civil War Musket which has a chapter called the Springfield/Enfield debate and The Unfinished Fight that has a chapter about when the first English Enfields arrived in America. It is very easy to diverge from the main topic. But the question as posed above is an easy one to answer...

There are no documented instances during the US Civil War of any soldier on either side with a US model 1861 ever exchanging it for anything else. Period.

The rest of it I think we have covered in sufficient detail here. It is the opposite in the (re)enactment hobby. My "opinion" has always been that the hobby gravitates towards more Confederate participation at least initially and the P53 Enfield (while widely used on both sides) seems to have a more "CS" heritage in many people's minds. And, of course it never helped matters that the Italian made reproductions of the US 1861 got the reputation for being prone to misfires. And as pointed out historical feature accuracy aside, the Enfield was available first (mid-1970s) and proved more reliable in the field for firing blanks.

It has come out here also, obviously if you primarily represent one particular unit and it is documented as to what arm they were issued (and a reproduction of that model exists), use that. However, I will chime in on what reproduction is best...since being introduced almost twenty years ago, the US 1842 reproduction is still the best "out of the box" in terms of historical feature accuracy.

[maillemaker]

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

I was waiting to see if Mr. Barry would show up.

I've got a couple of his books on muskets etc. and highly recommend them.

Steve

[Dave Hull]

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

My two cents, I love the 42 Springfield, it is light, easy to load fast and never miss fires. You can use the thing for both sides for large swaths of the war. Being a Regular, our weapon of choice is the 55 but the weapon saw very limited issue outside the Regulars and a few captured Harpers Ferry rifles. Again, another fine weapon but mine weighs a ton. I have never had any good experiences with the 61 Springfield (too many miss fires) but the odd 53 Enfield I have used seems to be a fine weapon. As I venture over to the other side more, I have my sights set on a Richmond or a Mississippi rifle. I know on the Federal side, folks are decidedly against any 2 banders on either side of the battlefield, but I have noticed many Confederate units where fellows are armed with Mississippi rifles or Enfield musketoons.

As pointed out earlier, Enfield's still seem to be a more economical choice, both new and used, over Springfield.

[Palmyra Possum]

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

There are no documented instances during the US Civil War of any soldier on either side with a US model 1861 ever exchanging it for anything else. Period.

However there is at least one documented example of the soldiers exchanging Enfields for Springfields and not liking it. The 15th New Jersey was initially disappointed to receive Enfields instead of Springfields.

The State had received a supply of Springfield muskets for one regiment, which were promised to Colonel Fowler if his regiment was the first to reach the required number, and was ready for mustering. Another regiment was mustered in two days before ours, and received the Springfields; while our muskets only arrived the day of our mustering in, and when unpacked, to our disappointment, were Enfields. (page 11, August 25, 1861)

However, when the opportunity arose to exchange their Enfields, not all were happy with the opportunity.

Colonel Penrose took the regiment down, a company at a time, to the scene of the conflict of July 2d, and each man supplied himself with an excellent Springfield musket from among the great number of arms left upon the field. When we marched from Gettysburg, we stacked our old Enfields on the ground, and left them behind. We were now better supplied with fire-arms of the approved make, yet numbers of our soldiers had learned to love the old Enfields, to which they had grown accustomed, and with which they fancied they could shoot farther, and with more certainty of aim. (page 94, 1863)

Even following the exchange at Gettysburg, some soldiers managed to hold onto their Enfields (and even a few Lorenzes) for over a year.

In this camp we lay in quiet until Saturday, September 3d. The regiment was entirely equipped with Springfield muskets, and the few remaining Austrian and Enfields were turned in. (page 252, 1864)

Source: Haines, Alanson A., History of the Fifteenth Regiment New Jersey Volunteers (1883)

[Craig L Barry]

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

Oh, no doubt a soldier giving up an arm upon which his life depended for something less familiar? It is not surprising some soldiers waxed sentimentally about their old Enfield long rifles. The P53 was the apex European military arm of the mid-19th century. And you also can't rule latent provincialism where the US Models are concerned. I think a fair amount of enthusiasm for the US Model rifle muskets during the time period is tied to the widely held belief that machine made American military arms were best in the world.

There is a quote in To Blue or Not to Blue by Geoff Walden where some Maine troops who reenlisted after being promised US 1861s were growling about receiving Enfields:

"Oct. 21st [1861], muskets were delivered to the men, and this furnished another excuse for a hearty growl from the 1st Mainers. "Had we not been promised a new blue uniform and Springfield muskets?" To be sure we had the blue uniform and a good outfit in every way, "but look at these Enfield muskets," said they, "with their blued barrels and wood that no man can name!" They were not a bad weapon, however, differing little from the Springfield, in actual efficiency, weight, length, and caliber, but far behind in point of workmanship." David Fournier, from "History of the First-Tenth-Twenty-ninth Maine Regiment," by Maj. John M. Gould; Portland, Stephen Berry, 1871, page 89.

Walden notes that the 1st Maine had originally been issued US model 1855 rifle muskets and this reissue of Enfields occurred when it was later reorganized into the 10th Maine.

[Palmyra Possum]

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

It is not surprising some soldiers waxed sentimentally about their old Enfield long rifles.

Kind of like how I view my first car, a '72 Pinto, despite knowing it was a piece of junk.

I would agree that the preference for Springfield over the Enfield definitely seems to be the norm.

[Curt Schmidt]

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

Hallo!

"Buy American." :) :)

Seriously though...

In a number of CW Period writings there seems to be a thread or trend one can trace to other eras and periods as well at times... that when one's life depends upon the weapon or weapons issued to you one's that were inferior or thought to be inferior to your enemy's could be a real concern. Maybe combined with a notion that one's King or Country is going to take care of you in doing the right thing for its soldiers :). And mix in an element that your goods are superior to the "foreigners'."
All made worse when one receives say some European flintlock converted to tube-lock decades earlier. :)

I do not have it handy to post, but there are some Period comments about the low quality of "Enfields." It can be hard to know whether the gripes and complaints are factual, or just "amplified" for effect. But I recall one where the writer complains that their Enfield stocks were so "rough" that they could not be used without cutting their hands (I wonder whether possibly some Liege made stuff?)

Curt

[David Fox]

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

I hesitate to posit a query regarding Comrade Berry's assertion that there is no record of any CW soldiers exchanging M.1861 rifle-muskets for any other arm. The 2nd, 4th, 5th and 6th U.S. Veteran Volunteer Infantry were formed shortly before the end of hostilities from combat soldiers who reenlisted. They turned-in whatever they carried theretofore and were issued M.1863 Sharps rifles (and a promise to keep them) as inducement. I own one issued to a member of the 2nd regiment. Would not many, perhaps most, of these men have stacked M.1861s early in 1865 in return for their Sharps? Did none of the individuals or units who bought or were issued Spencer or Henry rifles not have M.1861s prior to rearming?
A quick check of Todd's "American Military Equipage 1851-1872" shows the 17th and 72nd Indiana Infantry in 1862 armed with "Springfield rifled muskets". I'm aware of the distinction between "rifle-muskets" and "rifled muskets", but they were terms used interchangeably in reports.These regiments rearmed with Spencer rifles in 1863 (the "Scouts" of the 17th regiment acquired Henrys), becoming part of Wilder's Lightning Brigade of mounted infantry. I lack the resources to determine if these Springfields were .58s and thus M.1861s, but as their arms were mixed with Enfields, logistically there seems a good chance of it.
Todd also states the 7th Illinois Volunteer Infantry was armed with "the U.S. M1861 rifle musket" from 1863 to '65. And yet the regiment's colour guard was famously photographed with Henry repeaters (and one dog) after the Atlanta Campaign, surely photographic evidence that soldiers indeed exchanged M.1861s for other arms.

[thomas aagaard]

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

I understood his commend as not exchanging a US model 61 to any other rifle musket..

Not exactly what he wrote, but that was how I understood it.

[maillemaker]

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

Yeah it's hard to imagine anyone who would not give up a muzzle loader for a Henry, assuming they could get ammo for it.

Steve