But then again - as we have argued over and over again - few of the 'Enfields' were made in Enfield, and those that were were older Type1s and Type2s sold out of service. They were made by civilian gunmakers and many of the parts were not interchangable. Many were not as .. robust as the military ones, nor as accurate. These were the ones that the British volunteer forces equipped themselves with, as the British government would not, could not, supply the weapons or ammunition. This started in 1860 and so the gunmakers were tooled up enough to supply the two sides in the Civil War. (The government only supplied ammunition - eventually.)
I would say that if you have a weapon made by RSAF Enfield itself, it's definitely an Enfield, and if it's made to a British army Pattern (e.g. the Pattern 1853 Enfield is a weapon built on the 1853 Enfield pattern) then it's also an Enfield. It's been procured to the Enfield pattern.
There's a grey area for knock-offs based on the Enfield but not built strictly to the pattern.
The Lorenz is not an Enfield by any measure, as it's not built to the same pattern or even in the same calibre; "Enfield" used as a description for it can only be a nickname. That's about the most I could see a 3" rifle being a "Rodman" as.
As for the Volunteers, I call upon Hansard:
It has been stated by persons of great authority, both in this House and in the other House of Parliament, that the provision for our armaments, both of large and small guns, is this year in excess, and that upon this head of expense a considerable saving might have been made. I am not at all prepared to dispute that assertion with regard to future years, or to deny that it may be possible considerably to reduce the rate at which we are manufacturing iron ordnance and small-arms. I do not, however, perceive that any excessive provision has been made for the present year. Since the Enfield rifles were first introduced, the total number received in store from 1853 to March 31st, 1862, is 1,111,374 rifles of different sorts, of which 391,371 are now in store at home and abroad, actually available for issue. Of these 305,953 are at home, and 85,418 are abroad; and it is estimated that there will be received during the remainder of the current year 163,907 more rifles. We have had to find our Militia, our Volunteers, and our Navy with rifles, as well as the Army. It is not calculated that an Enfield rifle will last more than about eight years. The number in possession of all our forces, exclusive of India, is 508,953, and 54,729 are necessary to complete the number required, making a total of 563,682. The annual consumption is calculated at about 60,000. The Duke of Wellington in 1826 fixed the store proportion of small-arms at about 600,000. At that time, however, the army was not so large as at present, and, moreover, there were no Volunteers, who are now furnished with Enfield rifles. Taking the number in store at 391,371, and calculating that there are 163,907 to be delivered during the year, there would, deducting 60,000 for wear and tear, be a total of 495,278 in store, whereas the Duke of Wellington assumed in 1826 that 600,000 was the proper quantity of small-arms to be kept in store. On that assumption the number is certainly not excessive.
(HC Deb 23 June 1862 vol 167 cc870-964)
This covers only the weapons that actually passed through government hands.
Forum Host
Bringing the