Another P53 Enfield Question

rob63

First Sergeant
Joined
Jul 13, 2012
Location
PA, but still a Hoosier
This is a P53 Enfield that I purchased roughly 30 years ago, '85-86 time frame. The many books that have come out lately, such as Craig Barry's work, have caused me to give it a closer look that has raised questions that I hope he or maybe Jobe can answer.

The proof marks at the breech are not the standard London or Birmingham proofs. They look more like 3 sets of crowns over crossed scepters with the date. The commercial gauge mark appears to be on the bottom of the barrel, and is 23 rather than 24 or 25, assuming that this is in fact a gauge mark. The bore measures .585 with strong rifling, so 23 gauge would actually be a pretty good match. The bottom of the barrel also appears to be marked 14.4 and with a crown over HP.

The inside of the lock, the barrel and the breech plug all have the matching assembly number 5D. The stock has no readable markings other than the letter T under one of the barrel bands, although it appears to have been lightly sanded. There is some sort of stamp in the barrel channel, but I have no idea what it might be.

The question is where was this gun actually made?

02.JPG
 

Attachments

  • 25.JPG
    25.JPG
    55.7 KB · Views: 945
  • 28.JPG
    28.JPG
    174.7 KB · Views: 897
  • 29.JPG
    29.JPG
    153.9 KB · Views: 832
  • 26.JPG
    26.JPG
    46.7 KB · Views: 790
  • 24.JPG
    24.JPG
    57.4 KB · Views: 784
  • 06.JPG
    06.JPG
    44.2 KB · Views: 831
  • 05.JPG
    05.JPG
    50.1 KB · Views: 787
  • 18.JPG
    18.JPG
    37.9 KB · Views: 725
  • 20.JPG
    20.JPG
    52.5 KB · Views: 804
  • 22.JPG
    22.JPG
    39.4 KB · Views: 751
This is a P53 Enfield that I purchased roughly 30 years ago, '85-86 time frame. The many books that have come out lately, such as Craig Barry's work, have caused me to give it a closer look that has raised questions that I hope he or maybe Jobe can answer.

The proof marks at the breech are not the standard London or Birmingham proofs. They look more like 3 sets of crowns over crossed scepters with the date. The commercial gauge mark appears to be on the bottom of the barrel, and is 23 rather than 24 or 25, assuming that this is in fact a gauge mark. The bore measures .585 with strong rifling, so 23 gauge would actually be a pretty good match. The bottom of the barrel also appears to be marked 14.4 and with a crown over HP.

The inside of the lock, the barrel and the breech plug all have the matching assembly number 5D. The stock has no readable markings other than the letter T under one of the barrel bands, although it appears to have been lightly sanded. There is some sort of stamp in the barrel channel, but I have no idea what it might be.

The question is where was this gun actually made?

View attachment 64871
Nice p-53! However I can't be much help to you with ID. I have never seen one with a date by the proof marks.
The makers name is usually on the underside of the stock. There is a forum, "British Militaria Forum" Under "Flint & Percussion Arms." Mr. Bill Curtis usually replies and I am pretty sure you will get an answer. I have several books on the P-53 but right now I don't think they would be of help.
 
The stock and the lock appear to be of Birmingham manufacture for the usual reasons so no mystery there, but the barrel proof marks with the date in the middle? That's a new one on me. Crossed scepters with the crown is the typical Bham proof, actually it should have a provisional view mark, the gauge before and after proof, and a final proof mark and the BP with crown for the Bham proof house, at least from 1855 to 1868...but not the year on the barrel like that. In Wirnsberger's Standard Dictionary of Proof Marks, I can't find anything remotely similar.
 
The stock and the lock appear to be of Birmingham manufacture for the usual reasons so no mystery there, but the barrel proof marks with the date in the middle? That's a new one on me. Crossed scepters with the crown is the typical Bham proof, actually it should have a provisional view mark, the gauge before and after proof, and a final proof mark and the BP with crown for the Bham proof house, at least from 1855 to 1868...but not the year on the barrel like that. In Wirnsberger's Standard Dictionary of Proof Marks, I can't find anything remotely similar.

That is not very encouraging as far as my chances of ever finding an answer!

I'm going to go with it is a one-of-a-kind, made especially for Abraham Lincoln. :dance:

I jest, but it is kind of funny, this was the only Civil War era gun in my collection for a very long time as I concentrated on WWII and it turns out to actually be something truly unusual, not just the oddball in my collection.
 
Last edited:
I posted my gun on the British Militaria Forum as suggested above and didn't learn anything else, nobody over there seems to have ever seen anything like it either. It was actually kind of sad, I mostly got a lot of speculation that a dealer must have added fake markings to pass it off as confederate. Considering that I have owned it for 30 years, and it wasn't advertised as a confederate arm at the time, this seems more than a little unlikely to me. Unfortunately, Mr. Curtis hasn't been among the people who have replied.

I have been looking at various dealer sites on the remote possibility that I might come across something similar to my gun and can see the reason for the jaded responses that I got. It seems to be near impossible these days to find a P53 Enfield that does not have confederate markings on it! I can't help but think that it bodes ill for the hobby.
 
This is what I was talking about in another thread . Faking markings , slightly enhancing condition , removing markings , outright new manufactured fakes - etc are really rampant right now in other circles . I totally agree that it is REALLY BAD for the hobby !!!!!!!!!!!!! Sadly I see it is here for sure also . BTW no clue on your Enfield as my ACW knowledge level is still in the embryo stage . Dave


I have been looking at various dealer sites on the remote possibility that I might come across something similar to my gun and can see the reason for the jaded responses that I got. It seems to be near impossible these days to find a P53 Enfield that does not have confederate markings on it! I can't help but think that it bodes ill for the hobby.
 
I posted my gun on the British Militaria Forum as suggested above and didn't learn anything else, nobody over there seems to have ever seen anything like it either. It was actually kind of sad, I mostly got a lot of speculation that a dealer must have added fake markings to pass it off as confederate. Considering that I have owned it for 30 years, and it wasn't advertised as a confederate arm at the time, this seems more than a little unlikely to me. Unfortunately, Mr. Curtis hasn't been among the people who have replied.

I have been looking at various dealer sites on the remote possibility that I might come across something similar to my gun and can see the reason for the jaded responses that I got. It seems to be near impossible these days to find a P53 Enfield that does not have confederate markings on it! I can't help but think that it bodes ill for the hobby.
Try Antiqueguns.com, "Ask The Experts." Under Pre-1899 Arms. Post your Photos and questions. Bill Curtis is up in age and has suffered a stroke, however he answered a question there just a day or so ago. Since you have had the gun for awhile, I can't see why someone who stamp it with a spurious stamp.
 
I went there and immediately found the answer to one of my questions about my gun. Here is what he (Bill Curtis) posted in answer to a question somebody else asked:

"Proofing was done in two steps. The first was 'Provisional' done to the rough tube unrifled and with a rough breech screw. It then gets the first mark nearest the breech and its number size by measuring . Rarely, after finishing and measuring after the second 'Definitive' proof, the measure may take it up a size from 26 to 25. Better to make the rough tube tighter as this can come up a size larger in finishing and rifling. The BGP and V and the new size is stamped. This is why there is always two sets of the size."

Now I can see what the "14.4" marking is on my gun, it is the size of the bore in millimeters after the first proof and before it was rifled. The "23" is the second proof. I had previously suspected that the 14.4 was the size in millimeters but could never understand why they were two different sizes. 14.4 = .567 and 23 gauge = .585. Now I know!
 
Well yes and no...no disrespect intended to Bill Curtis who is a giant, but in a way this raises more questions than it answers. For example, if the 14.4 is metric, why would the Birmingham proof house vary from their standard markings (which were always represented with gauge numbers, 24,25, 26, etc) and revert to a system of measure that was not in use at the time at all? When was the metric system in use by either of the English (London and Birmingham) proof houses during the 19th century? It wasn't. I know of no other English military arm similarly marked under the barrel in mm. Zero. The Austrians used the metric system, for example. Granted I have only seen a few hundred original P53s, but think about this for a minute. The metric system? London would sometimes put one of the two proof marks under the barrel, but always expressed with the gauge number. Even that doesn't fit because barrels did not get provisional proof from one proof house and definitive proof from the other. This was clearly not a London barrel.

Also, the variation between provisional proof diameter and the definitive proof is never this dramatic. You are hard pressed to find a barrel with the provisional proof different than the definitive proof at all, by that I mean look at however many original barrels you like...the pattern is the same number. If the provisional proof is 25, then the definitive proof is also 25. It is possible for there to be a slight variation, but I have not found that to be the rule. By that I mean provisional proof = 25, definitive proof = 24 or something else. I'm not saying it never happened, just that I have never seen it. And if that were indeed what it was, then what are the odds of a provisional proof being that far off from the definitive proof and on top of that, have it expressed in a system of measure not in use by the British and placed under the barrel?

I thought of one possibility, but it is statistically improbable. Here goes, we know many countries made a version of the p53 Enfield, for example Belgium made hundreds of thousands. One peculiarity unique to the time was that there was a reciprocal system in place where different countries of manufacture could submit the barrel for proof at one of the two English proof houses. This reciprocity also extended to any English gunmakers who might wish to submit their barrel for proof in another country. This never happened of course, and here is why. A weapon proof marked by an English proof house could be more easily disguised and sold as being of English manufacture, when in fact it was made somewhere else. The Birmingham and London gunmakers priced their arms about 20% higher than Belgian gunmakers. Unscrupulous gunmakers were known to fob off Belgian guns as English by having the barrel proofed in Birmingham or London, then faking the other marks and selling it as something it was not. The English gunmakers had no desire to go the other direction and have their barrels proofed at Liege then as a result sell the arm for 20% less... so the reciprocal arrangement only went in one direction. The proof houses were in on the scam from the standpoint that they collected a fee for conducting the barrel proof and money (after all) is money. It sounds unlikely, but this was actually a big problem. Both Greener and Hollis brought a lawsuit against another gun maker for selling Belgian guns with Birmingham proof marks as English made, and won damages. It's covered in one of my books and the period sources are documented there in detail. I apologize that I don't have this information at my fingertips at the moment. But allow me some grace here and trust me on this one...

So what might have happened here? Is it possible that the barrel was some kind of misfit mongrel that was put together with the stock and lock assembly (post bellum) of what was once a Birmingham made, Tower marked P53? I don't know and ruling out time travel, none of us can know for certain. Stranger things have happened.
 
I read you post on the British Militaria Forum. I read on part of that the name Jeff Anderson.
Jeff is a friend of mine. He is an Attorney in Columbus, OH. He is very knowledgeable of many areas of antique weapons.
He is a regular poster on Antiqueguns.com Ask our Experts , Pre 1899. I can give you his e-mail address of you can ask him on the forum. He buys and sells p-53's all the time as well as other antique guns. He is sharp!
 
I read you post on the British Militaria Forum. I read on part of that the name Jeff Anderson.
Jeff is a friend of mine. He is an Attorney in Columbus, OH. He is very knowledgeable of many areas of antique weapons.
He is a regular poster on Antiqueguns.com Ask our Experts , Pre 1899. I can give you his e-mail address of you can ask him on the forum. He buys and sells p-53's all the time as well as other antique guns. He is sharp!

Yes, I just read the reply that said he had an 1861 dated gun with the same proof marks as mine. I obviously want to get in touch with him. Thanks for all of your help! Thanks too to Craig for his detailed responses.
 
It goes to show that there is still much we can learn about the Civil War-era P53. We can admit this much, none of us knows as much as all of us...I would love to know what this is and what sorts of barrels were proof marked in England with the date on the breech section along with the proof. The fact that more than one of these exists today means something, but I don't quite know what. Let's call them Bigfoot sightings...we saw something but we don't know exactly what it was.

Other than the oddball markings on the barrel, this just looks like a good old garden variety Civil War-era Birmingham P53 of the kind in wide use on both sides. It looks honest enough. As an apex infantry arm, P53s were also used elsewhere in the world, everywhere from Europe and Southeast Asia to South America. We have to understand that the US Civil War was only one of many armed conflicts going on at the time. The English gunmakers (of course) were happy to sell to whomever it was legal to sell to. Many surviving specimens are offered now as "US Civil War" arms, even with claims of likely CS heritage. On the point of how many Confederate Enfields seem to pop up...one is well advised to be wary. Confederate soldiers did not have the option of keeping their arms as Union soldiers did when they mustered out. On top of that, once confiscated upon surrender 150 years ago, the US Govt did not have any particular use for the Confederate arms. They destroyed most of them so they would not compete against the surplus US arms going into the gun trade for pennies on the dollar. So how are so many surviving specimens are of actual Confederate heritage? My thought is not too many...
 
Last edited:
This is a P53 Enfield that I purchased roughly 30 years ago, '85-86 time frame. The many books that have come out lately, such as Craig Barry's work, have caused me to give it a closer look that has raised questions that I hope he or maybe Jobe can answer.

The proof marks at the breech are not the standard London or Birmingham proofs. They look more like 3 sets of crowns over crossed scepters with the date. The commercial gauge mark appears to be on the bottom of the barrel, and is 23 rather than 24 or 25, assuming that this is in fact a gauge mark. The bore measures .585 with strong rifling, so 23 gauge would actually be a pretty good match. The bottom of the barrel also appears to be marked 14.4 and with a crown over HP.

The inside of the lock, the barrel and the breech plug all have the matching assembly number 5D. The stock has no readable markings other than the letter T under one of the barrel bands, although it appears to have been lightly sanded. There is some sort of stamp in the barrel channel, but I have no idea what it might be.

The question is where was this gun actually made?

View attachment 64871
 
Ok I know enough to be dangerous . But I do know anything in Millimeters is fairly new as the British used to use inches, feet, yards like us until the 1970's That being said it may be defarbed meaning all manufacturing marks were removed and more historically correct marks then added. This process is done by special gun smiths and costs allot of money. Enfield rifles are now made in Italy (sturdy the re-enactors mainstay standard , but not great copies of the originals), or cheap knock off ones are now made in India. The Parker Hale company up to the 80’s –90’s still making them still in England from the original specs. Also there were some made in Japan, but now that company only makes high end Shotguns.
Originals came in 4 modifications. Original model was smooth bore from the Crimean war in the 1850's and the Colony of India only a few of these were used in the Civil war. Model 2 which was also the 2nd most used P53 in the Civil war it was riffled but it had barrel springs allot like a Springfield rifle. The mainstay of P53’s Enfield's of the Civil were model 3's Only the Parker Hale company in England still made this version. The model made by the Euroarms and Armi Chiappa Italians companies and widely used by all re-enactors is made like the Model 4's which only saw limited use during the last years of the war. Most were later converted to Breach loaders with the Schneider conversion making them Schneider Enfield's. Main P53 Enfield weapons used in the civil war were model 2’s and 3’s. Captured southern rifles were destroyed or boxed up and shipped north many later were sold to Latin countries south of the border for use in their own rebellions.
 
I am remember reading the official report that all captured CSA weapons a the battle of Blakeley AL in 1865 were buried in a shallow ditch. Relic hounds with their metal detectors covered the battlefield of Blakeley, AL until it was made a state park
They are still out there.
 
Yes. That was my point about the metric system vis-a-vis the English gun trade. However, most of us can spot a reproduction, defarbed or not, even from pictures. There are several giveaways that this is not a modern defarbed or even a modern custom barrel. We can rule that out. What it is, well that we don't know yet...
 
Thanks to hrobalabama, I was able to send the photos to Jeff Anderson and he did confirm that he remembers seeing a date in the proof marks (he remembers it as 1862 rather than 1861 as was stated by the poster on the other forum), but likewise has no idea what they mean.

Obviously, as Craig said before, absent a time machine we will never really know. I'm guessing that the answer to the strange markings involves a small Birmingham maker subcontracting the barrel out to a continental maker in the rush to sell guns to the US and not wanting markings on the top of it that would tip off a US inspector that the barrel wasn't made in England. I'm sure that idea still leaves questions unanswered, but then there doesn't seem to be an answer that makes total sense given what we know about gun making in the period and the markings that are undeniably on the gun.

I think the basic problem we have is that when we consider all of the P53 Enfields that all of us collectively have seen over the years it is still an incredibly small sample size of the total number that was produced. Things that seem odd now may have been more common than we realize. The makers themselves were too busy producing the guns to document everything that went on, so we are left with a snapshot.

I really do appreciate all of the responses and although I guess I will never get a definitive answer about my gun I have certainly learned a lot and that is a part of the hobby that I think we all enjoy. In any case, I have enjoyed this gun for many years now and hope I will be able to continue to do so for a long time to come.
 
Originals came in 4 modifications. Original model was smooth bore from the Crimean war in the 1850's and the Colony of India only a few of these were used in the Civil war.

I do question this.
First of all 3 out of 4 Britisn infantry divisions send to the Crimea was armed with the pattern 1851 Minie rifle-musket, the last one carried the 1842 pattern smoothbore musket.

The first P53 send there was rifled muskets. not smoothbores.

The only smooth-bore enfield "P53s" I know of was issued Indian troops after the mutiny, to make sure they did not have arms that was as modern as what the Crown troops used. Some made like it others simply got the rifling removed and in that way changed to .65 Really don't see any of them ending up in the US during the civil war.
Admittedly this is just what I have read around the net...
 
Last edited:
I knew I had seen those exact markings somewhere else before, I just had to figure out where! I finally remembered whose collection it was in and made arrangements to look at it again. I finally got to see the arm last night. It has been altered to a half stock shotgun, but everything is there from the rear barrel band back to the butt plate. The markings are identical, although in much better condition and very clear. The "Crown & Scepter" marks are easily seen to be poor representations of authentic British Birmingham proof marks. All iron parts, hammer, lock plate, and barrel band are marked with a hardness test punch mark. The entire assemblage exhibits the absolute worst workmanship I have ever seen on an arm that proports to be of English manufacture! The tang screw is off center and angles so far forward that the shank is notched to allow the rear lock screw to pass through to the lock plate. This means you have to remove the rear lock screw first because the tang screw is locked in place by the notch! The front and rear lock screws won't interchange and the square eared lock screw washers are two entirely different sizes! There is an assembly number on both the bottom of the barrel and in the rear of the stock barrel channel of 153. Oddly, the lock has no markings on the interior whatsoever, not even the assembly number! But, the quality of the lock parts is very high! The exterior is marked in the same manner as the example shown above, with the "Tower" stamp very bold, and the "Crown" very weak. The only other part that looks to be up to British standards is the rear sight. Although, the leg of the ladder is properly marked "5,6,7,8," the "9" was omitted from the upper sight notch location, so even that isn't correct! The worst part is, I think I've seen something written on this in the not too distant past, but can I remember where......heck no! As I recall, and my memory could be entirely flawed here, I believe it was identified as being a product from continental Europe, quickly thrown together and sold to American buyers very early in the rush to arms who were looking for British P-53 rifle muskets, hence the 1862 date on these examples. We have to remember that there were a multitude of private party buyers in Europe purchasing for agents in America who would then resell arms to States, Militia units, etc. I wouldn't be afraid to bet that some of these private buyers could have been easily fooled early on.

Anyway, there's some more "food for thought". I'm sure the whole story is out there somewhere, and it is the things like this that keep us interested 150 years later!
J.
 
Back
Top