Muzzleldrs 1853 Enfield Locks, subtle but significant differences...

Garandguy

Private
Joined
Jun 23, 2019
Anyone that can see, enumerate, and educate me on why these locks are different would be appreciated- manufacturer, design changes, or?..looking at these, I can can see why an armorer's task was so difficult to try and repair/retrofit arms...

locks1a.jpg


locks2a.jpg
 
There will be others along that can expand on this, but the British arms industry was still very much a cottage industry at the time. Consequently, even though these locks have similar markings they are almost certainly made by different makers. These were not made with interchangeable parts either, so even two guns made by the same maker wouldn't necessarily be identical.
 
There will be others along that can expand on this, but the British arms industry was still very much a cottage industry at the time. Consequently, even though these locks have similar markings they are almost certainly made by different makers. These were not made with interchangeable parts either, so even two guns made by the same maker wouldn't necessarily be identical.
The P/53s made for the british army where machine made with interchangeable parts. (made by the state run armoury at enfield, using american machinery)
And so was some of the enfields imported by the CSA. (made by a private company, using machines)

But the rest of the csa imports and all the US imports where, as you say handmade.
 
The P/53s made for the british army where machine made with interchangeable parts. (made by the state run armoury at enfield, using american machinery)
And so was some of the enfields imported by the CSA. (made by a private company, using machines)

But the rest of the csa imports and all the US imports where, as you say handmade.
Whenever I see this statement, I shake my head and think: Well that certainly explains a lot of things.
 
The Birmingham trade still made parts by handicraft methods, and stoutly defended it, too.
Skilled labour was cheap and abundant, and could be taken on or discharged at will, so they had no incentive to adopt repetition machinery.
 
Back
Top