A question about brightening a musket

Thanks for the info guys, boy, somebody could write quite a book just on the 1853 Enfield and the origins of all the companies that made them and where they went if there isn't one out there already. I've learned a lot on here and doing my Enfield homework but I still can't make up my darn mind if I should have mine bright or blue.
 
I didn't realize they were made in the US, I thought they were just imported by colt. Was there another company in the US that made an Enfield style rifle? In Vermont maybe? Or was that one in the same as the colt?

JP Moore and Orison Blunt both of New York entered into contracts during the Civil War to supply Enfields to the Union. Moore was an import agent for Colt and delivered a little over a thousand finished arms at a price of $15 each. They were thought to be assembled from surplus parts manufactured in Europe and elsewhere. Blunt was a radical Republican political crony of Lincoln. He was awarded a contract for Enfields in 1862, but the barrels did not pass inspection. There is a chapter on Enfields made in America in The Civil War Musket: A Handbook for Historical Accuracy. The book is out of print but if you can find a copy there is quite a bit on the Enfield.

The images in the earlier post look like a JP Moore, this is not the same Enfield contract with the Union as the one with Potts & Hunt.

On the bright vs blue question, here is what I have recommended in the past, which I think is sensible. Keep the barrel blue until the finish starts to wear off from use and repeated field cleanings. Then polish it.
 
Last edited:
Eli Whitney produced about 3,500 Enfield type muskets from the machinery and parts of the defunct Robbins & Lawrence factory in Vermont. Robbins & Lawrence had a contract to provide arms to the British government during the Crimean War, but failed to fulfill the contract and declared bankruptcy. Whitney purchased the parts and produced his version of an Enfield at his armory in CT.

Both the Moore and the Whitney came in white metal, I believe; most of the Whitney's went South, 2,000 to Maryland and 1,225 to Georgia.
That I didn't know.
 
JP Moore and Orison Blunt both of New York entered into contracts during the Civil War to supply Enfields to the Union. Moore was an import agent for Colt and delivered a little over a thousand finished arms at a price of $15 each. They were thought to be assembled from surplus parts manufactured in Europe and elsewhere. Blunt was a radical Republican political crony of Lincoln. He was awarded a contract for Enfields in 1862, but the barrels did not pass inspection. There is a chapter on Enfields made in America in The Civil War Musket: A Handbook for Historical Accuracy. The book is out of print but if you can find a copy there is quite a bit on the Enfield.

The images in the earlier post look like a JP Moore, this is not the same Enfield contract with the Union as the one with Potts & Hunt.

On the bright vs blue question, here is what I have recommended in the past, which I think is sensible. Keep the barrel blue until the finish starts to wear off from use and repeated field cleanings. Then polish it.
I don't know if it is true or not, but I have read there where the finish became so worn on some soldiers muskets that they actually wore the markings off from repeated cleaning and polishing. I can see where that might be possiable using brick dust or emery cloth and some of the things they might have used when they didn't have proper cleaning supplies. My dad was in the Infantry in WW.2 and he said there was a few times they used water and sand to polish rust off weapons, when they didn't have proper cleaning supplies.
 
Regarding the Moore "Eagle/M" Enfields, I have seen quite a few of them over the years including one that was in nearly new condition, they all had blued barrels.
J.

Right, there is no serious debate about how the overwhelming majority of P53 Enfields were shipped from the factory, which was with a blued barrel finish. What happened to the barrel finish after they were issued and in the field for a while is another subject. The point is there is not any appreciable improvement in historical feature accuracy achieved by removing the bluing from the barrel, rear ladder sight and barrel bands. Since the blued finish is more resistant to rusting which is widely associated with all black powder firearms, it just seems sensible to maintain that finish as long as you can reasonably do so. It is not a fragile finish, but it did wear off (in time) especially after repeated cleaning with abrasives.

Just my .02 worth.

I *think* the main reason for burnishing the barrel is basically personal preference (on someone's part). The apex domestically produced infantry arm of the Civil War-era was the US 1861, which were coveted. Most US Armory produced models historically featured an "Armory bright" finish. There were exceptions like the US 1816/22 "National Armory brown" and the US 1841 percussion rifle, but most US military arms produced during the Civil War-era (and all rifle-muskets) were "Armory bright." This appearance became associated with the US models, and perhaps created a "halo effect."
 
Back
Top