Love of the P53 Enfield... a reenactorism?

[Craig L Barry]

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

Hey, fair enough. My comment was somewhat vague and in thinking it over, it is true any soldier with a single shot muzzleloader would probably pick up a repeater, if given the chance and if ammunition could be found for it. I have never read any evidence where this sort of battlefield pick-up happened or if it did nobody made note of it but the point is the same. The era of single shot military muzzleloaders was quickly coming to an end. That isn't really germane to the discussion in this thread, though.

The point I was probably trying to make here was concerning rifle muskets and other single shot infantry muskets. US model rifle-muskets were greatly prized by those who had them and much sought after by those who did not. The P53 Enfield long rifle was a widely used and much respected infantry arm overall especially compared to other European imports, but being largely handmade arms the Enfield long rifle was never thought superior or preferred by soldiers on either side compared to the US models during the US Civil War. There is not much to argue with there. The evidence overwhelmingly supports this conclusion.

However, this same preference for the US model rifle-muskets does not exist in the modern era with most Civil War reenactors, who overwhelmingly opt for the Enfields, especially with those who mostly do mainstream events. Just saying, the 'streamers absolutely prefer the Enfield.

[David Fox]

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

Back in the late 1950s, when I started reenacting, much of what we wore and carried was original. Stokes Kirk and Bannerman were still shoveling scads of the stuff out their doors. For the 100th of 1st Bull Run, my leather, haversack, headgear (a McDowell pattern cap which cost me $8.50) and canteen were original. Most everybody who wasn't toting a shotgun or trapdoor Springfield carried original long arms, mine an 1862-date Bridesburg contract. CW gear was to us what WW I gear is to people now: war surplus just transitioning to being sacred relics.
By the early '90s, most of that had changed, yet the replica weaponry remained very constrained. No .69s were being offered. I wrote a series of "Pumpkin Slinger" articles for the "Camp Chase Gazette" to document the profound presence of .69s in, especially, the first half of the war, the ways to obtain one (I put together several from junker shotgunized relics and then-easily found parts from the likes of George Willhauck), and to muster enthusiasm for replica .69s to be manufactured. Soon after, the first 'Slingers came off the Eye-talian production lines and things have gotten better ever since. Not perfect, but better. If I were entering infantry reenacting today, I'd be a two gun man: a .69 for early war events and, if Union, a Springfield .58 for later war. If Confederate, my late war piece could still be that Springfield or an Enfield. Robert Lee himself, when referring generically to long arms, tended to call them "Enfields". If I could afford to, and had the disposition, I'd tote one of the myriad still-relatively-cheap originals proper to the war...Austrians, Belgians, etc. There is no question Union army troops tended to start with .69s, often transitioned to Enfields, and wound up with Springfields. The Rebs followed a more complex course, especially in the western armies. The thread on this site concerning Confederate Enfield cartridges documents the ongoing cluster fornication the South had supplying ammunition for small arms. I recently saw a packet of round ball.54 calibre rifle cartridges fabricated at, I believe, the Macon Arsenal...in 1864!
And, one presumes Comrade Berry, when stating there is no documentation anyU.S. troops armed with M.1861s turned them in for any (other muzzleloader), he's considering M.1863 and M.1864 Springfields as generic 1861s. Thousands of Sherman's troops were resupplied with M.1863 Springfields in Savannah at the end of the March to the Sea, for instance.

[David Fox]

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

With apologies for the personal quirk of finding categorical statements challenging, I'd like to revisit the assertion made earlier in this thread that "(t)here 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". This was qualified later to reflect the fact that numerous units exchanged M1861s for M1863 and M1864 rifle-muskets, Sharps, Spencer, and Henry rifles, but defended on the more limited assertion M.1861s were never exchanged for other muzzleloaders (to paraphrase). Frederick Todd, in his epic "American Military Equipage 1851 - 1872" uses "Springfield rifled muskets" as a term to describe M.1861s. I recognize this is imprecise at best, but when speaking of rifled M.1842 U.S. muskets or U.S. rifled conversions, he tends to delineate them. Anyway, Todd lists the following: 3rd Indiana Volunteer Infantry "1862: Springfield rifled muskets. 1863: Enfield rifle". 2nd Regiment of West Virginia Veteran Volunteer Infantry: "1862: Enfield rifle, Springfield rifled muskets, Austrian rifled musket, cal. .54 or .55. 1863-1864: Enfield rifle".
It's obvious these entries may be deceptive and, perhaps, inconclusive, but they are caveats to the underlying assertion.

[Craig L Barry]

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

With all due respect David, I think you are a little bit off point. Is there any evidence where Civil War soldiers on either side expressed a preference for the P53 Enfield over the US 1861? There isn't to my knowledge. If I understand the question posed here is about whether the modern preference for the P53 Enfield is a reenactorism. I do know there are plenty of examples of Civil War soldiers who that state a preference for the US 1861 over the Enfield, such as the following:

“Some of our boys got Austrian rifles, some Enfield, and others Springfield. I got the Enfield, and Bob got the finest arm of the whole lot, a fine United States Springfield rifle." Orrin W. Cook 22nd Mass Co. B

Or is there even a single instance of any Civil War soldier voluntarily dropping his undamaged US 1861 and picking up an Enfield (or anything else) and then making note of it? If that is the case and if you could provide that citation, that would be enlightening. I have never found anything to that effect. To sum up the main point here it is that during the US Civil War soldiers expressed a decided preference for the original US 1861 that does not exist with the reproduction US 1861 today and conversely in the modern US Civil War reenactment that hobby there appears to be a decided preference for the reproduction P53 Enfield that did not exist for the original P53 during the US Civil War. Nit pick or argue semantics all you want, but those are just the simple facts. And I think that is the best answer to question asked in this thread. Feel free to disagree if you like.

[Palmyra Possum]

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

Craig,

I agree with what you're saying about the documented preference for the Springfield by the soldiers. As I indicated in an earlier post on this thread, I looked and the best I could find was a reference to some soldiers waxing nostalgic about their old Enfields (although in the same reference, the writer seemed to indicate a preference for the Springfield).

Of course, in practical terms what the original soldiers preferred should be of little consequence to us, except for living history purposes. The last quote you provided is a good example. If I was portraying a soldier of the 22nd Mass, Co. B, in the time frame of this quote, I could carry a Lorenz, Enfield or Springfield and be perfectly historically accurate. I may pick an Enfield simply because I like it better than the repro Springfields (that modern preference). The question is, when in character, am I bragging about what a great weapon my Enfield is, or am I bitching because Bob got a Springfield?

I can have all the modern preferences I want as long as it doesn't damage the accuracy of my individual impression or the overall impression of the unit I am with. The problem is when our modern preferences result in a distorted impression of the war: Enfields carried in unrealistically high numbers; Enfields carried in units that never carried them; the display of attitudes not consistent with the typical actual soldier; etc.

The same argument can be made with just about any piece of equipment. Do I prefer a kepi, forage cap or slouch? Do I prefer a frock, sack or shell? Do I prefer a knapsack or bedroll? Who cares what I prefer as long as my impression is good. The real question for us is, "Are we willing to go against our preferences when accuracy demands it?"

[guad42]

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

Greetings Folks,

I have to believe that the overwhelming love of those little Enfields is a reenactorism to an extent. Having begun my time in living history in Arizona, the Enfield never appealed to me personally as it seemed to be a weapon of limited use in a region where LH was dominated by the arms used by US Regulars before, during and immediately after the war. But to the larger discussion, its obvious that the gun is well liked today because so many reenactors see it as a way of being key to doing both Federal and CS impressions. That said, I think the idea that you can always depend on an Enfield for everything is flawed, particularly for rebels and I don't think there are enough smoothbores represented in the hobby. Italian 1842s have been available for about 20 years and yet they still seem rare in the ranks compared to Enfields. I think reenactors too often regard smoothbores as an early war thing and that's it, despite ample evidence to the contrary; Jackson's men in the Valley in 1862, the 55th North Carolina in the Spring and Summer of 1863, etc etc.

-Sam Dolan

[Secesh]

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

Sgt. Marion Hill Fitzpatrick, in "Letters to Amanda", speaks very highly of his Enfield, and mentions it several times in letters to his wife.