1853 Enfield Pattern Rifle

No appolgy needed. That is a fine enfield you have and I like character because it shows history. The wood is beautiful.

My Grandmother was a product of some Georgia pioneer families and I am sure my Grandparents kept this enfield and then passed it down to my father because of her Southern ties. It was the only gun they owned and even if it didn't come from her side of the family they knew what it was. I'll have to make my next thread on some family confederate history.
 
Okay, that mark under SHC is not the so-called "Broad Arrow" used by the War Department to indicate Government usage. And if it were a British government gun it would also have government proof marks on the barrel and "WD" for War Dept. Finally, yes the bore size (usually 25 for .577) was often underneath on a London proofed barrel. The "I" on the stock is a bit of a puzzle in that it does not look like it was crudely hand carved by the soldier, and I have never seen anybody hand carve initials in italics...and just one at that. Also, it has the look of being professionally stamped. The state of Georgia in the early days used to stamp a "G" on the stock flat but it was on the opposite side. So the italicized "I" is a mystery.

No worries. A little mystery can be a good thing.
 
Last edited:
Thank you Craig. There may be a little more information I can get from my Dad. He remembers this rifle on the back porch of my GGrandfather's house on 1st Street in Keokuk when he would go and visit circa late 1940s. I have to ask him more about what he can remember. The name Conklin was brought up and when I looked up the name I found that the guy lived nearby my GGF so that part of what he remembers is true. I have not been able to confirm the Riverboat Captain story yet and only can say that the former owner was in commerce up and down the Mississipi. I'm sure these rifles were making their way West and to all points on the compass. My French GGGrandfather and his relatives arrived in Kansas in 1878 and then moved to Keokuk to work at the Dupont Powder Mill in the 1880-90s. Since the original owner died in 1884 and his daughter had it for 20 more years before it came into my family the "I" could be a post CS mark. I have read on the CollegeHill site that there were some Enfield rifles that went down to Louisiana after the CW to put down a rebellion there and are marked "L.S.M.", so post war usage is possible and may be for an Iowa or Illinois militia unit. It certainly is a fun mystery.
Brad
 
If you want a bit more insight into the Enfield itself, do a bit of research on the gun-making firm of Parker, Field & Sons. They also made and sold cutlery (including swords) as well as handcuffs/leg irons for prisons. Like so many outfits in the gun trade, it was a family affair with ownership passing from father to son (sort of) from the 1780s until the 20th century.

William Parker started the firm in the late 1700s, and later hired his son-in-law, John Field whose sons were John William Parker Field and William Shakespeare Field. They were the ones running the firm when your Enfield was manufactured or "set up" by them. They had several premises but seem to have continuously conducted business uninterrupted from 233 High Holburn in London.
 
Last edited:
I asked my Dad if he knew anymore about this rifle. My Dad said the bolt holding the hammer was broken when he got it and in the 1960s he was able to order original parts and replaced it. He also said my Grandfather had told him the original owner was a "Riverboat Captain" and was at Shiloh and Chattanooga battles and had aquired the rifle during the war. I have no documentation on that and it is purely family lore at this point. I have tried doing some research on Oliver Spencer Conklin who originally owned the rifle. He went from Keokuk Iowa down to an Illinois county to the SE side of St. Louis Mo. My seaches of steamers turned up a lot of boats so nothing has been found to confirm the story yet.

Here is my new question. Based on the markings and condition could this be an early version of the Parker Field and Sons shipped to the Confederacy and then captured early before it was used and abused?
 
I asked my Dad if he knew anymore about this rifle. My Dad said the bolt holding the hammer was broken when he got it and in the 1960s he was able to order original parts and replaced it. He also said my Grandfather had told him the original owner was a "Riverboat Captain" and was at Shiloh and Chattanooga battles and had aquired the rifle during the war. I have no documentation on that and it is purely family lore at this point. I have tried doing some research on Oliver Spencer Conklin who originally owned the rifle. He went from Keokuk Iowa down to an Illinois county to the SE side of St. Louis Mo. My seaches of steamers turned up a lot of boats so nothing has been found to confirm the story yet.

Here is my new question. Based on the markings and condition could this be an early version of the Parker Field and Sons shipped to the Confederacy and then captured early before it was used and abused?
Seems like a reasonable hypothesis... I think I've read somewhere that quite a few Enfields, fairly new, were left on the field by the Confederates at Shiloh. I think both sides used and salvaged whatever they could from what was left on the battlefield if they were the ones still there when it was over, especially early in the war. Maybe someone else has more specifics...
 
Another possibility is that the rifle is in fact an issued Union Enfield belonging to a unit mustered in Iowa which could explain the stamped "I" on the stock. The following letter I just found here: http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/IA-CIVIL-WAR/2004-05/1083518977

The Cedar Valley Times
Cedar Rapids, Linn Co., Iowa
Thurs., February 6, 1862
Army Correspondence.
4th Street Hospital, St. Louis,
January 24, 1862.
Dear Times:--I have been remiss in writing lately, but I have been sick.
On January 12th, our brigade was ordered to place itself in readiness to
march at a moment's warning, with a strong probability of leaving St. Louis on the 15th inst. On the same day our old muskets were exchanged for new rifles called "Enfield guns;" they are perfect beauties, blue steel barrel, with a
perfect finish on all the other parts. Maximum range, 900 yards, with moveable sights.

This is a good account of the troubles associated with issuing arms to the Iowa regiments:
http://iagenweb.org/history/IJHP/IJHPIA2.htm
 
Last edited:
If it was originally a Federally issued Enfield it would not have the Sinclair Hamilton markings. SH were exclusive suppliers to the Confederacy. It is possible the gun may have been approriated or captured by the Federals and then re-issued and used by them.

In addition to "The English Connection" (an excellent book) there is also another book "The Confederate Enfield" by Capt. Steven Knott. Not as comprehensive as The English Connection but still worthwhile (and only 20% of the price!). Also highly recommended is Mr. Barry's (and David Burt's) book "Suppliers to the Confederacy: British Imported Arms and Accoutrements"
 
An interesting point which we did not explore further was the issue of which side may have used the weapon, as distinct from the agent who purchased it and exported it to America. Remember that when General Grant took Vicksburg in July 1863, he turned in his obsolete Belgian smoothbores and reissued his troops captured CS Enfields in storage there. The point being that one can't assume because a particular gun maker supplied the CS, or there are CS type inspection marks that it was carried throughout the war by a Confederate soldier. Maybe, maybe not.

Some were contraband captured while still in the crate, having never run the blockade and were subsequently issued to Union troops. On the other hand, it was estimated that the Army of Northern Virginia captured as many as 147,000 US Model rifle-muskets from battlefield pick-ups up through Chancellorsville in May 1863.
 
I can see that happening to a gun changing sides would be possiable. If it was captured then reissued
 
Interesting information on the Enfield. Pvt Watkins my Enfield looks about like yours. Pretty well used.
 
Private Watkins can you post more photo's of your gun sometime it looks very interesting. Mine does not have a rear sight either, the lock markings on mine are the crown behind the hammer and a 1861 date in front of the hammer. The markings on the left side of the breech are no longer visable on mine due to pitting. The hammer on mine is a bit loose due to tumbler wear, but it still works ok. Mine has pitting on the breech area, the bore is worn smooth, but is not pitted. No visable markings on the stock on mine.
 
Last edited:
Private Watkins can you post more photo's of your gun sometime it looks very interesting. Mine does not have a rear sight either, the lock markings on mine are the crown behind the hammer and a 1861 date in front of the hammer. The markings on the left side of the breech are no longer visable on mine due to pitting. The hammer on mine is a bit loose due to tumbler wear, but it still works ok. Mine has pitting on the breech area, the bore is worn smooth, but is not pitted. No visable markings on the stock on mine.
Yes, will do... although it may be this weekend before I can do so.... thanks!
 
Back
Top