Discussion/Questions on 3 Enfield rifles and 1841 Mississippi rifle

Mr King

First Sergeant
Joined
Jun 21, 2008
Discussion/Questions on 2 Enfield rifles and 1841 Mississippi rifle

I would like to start a discussion along with some questions on these four rifles:

1. 1853 British Enfield rifle musket (3 band long rifle)
2. 1858 British Enfield rifle (2 band short rifle)
3. 1841 Mississippi rifle (2 band short rifle)

It has to do with their firing range and accuracy. I have assumed that both the 1858 and the 1841 model shares similar results because:
1. they both have heavy barrels
2. they both are two band rifles
3. they both fires the same caliber; .58 (.54 for the original Mississippi)

But from what I've read and searched online I do not know. Please help me out.

In the online sutler stores especially these two; Blockade Runner Sutler and Fall Creek Sutler both states this:

1. The 1853 British Enfield rifle (3 band long rifle) have sights graduated to 900 yards.
2. The 1858 British Enfield rifle (2 band short rifle) have sights graduated to 1,100 yards.
From my 3 bookset 'Echoes of Glory' states this:
3. The Mississippi rifle is known for its heavy barrel and long range deadly accuracy but doesn't state the accuracy and range distance.

I was reading this book, 'A Mississippi Rebel in the Army of Northern Virginia' by Thomas Cockrell and Michael Ballard. It's about a confederate private David Holt.

David Holt and his men were armed with the 1841 Mississippi rifles at the beginning of the war.

They came to realize that their 1841 rifles were no match to the Yankees' British Enfields. General Robert E. Lee stated that the Mississippi rifles were inferior to the Enfields and told them to replace their Mississippi rifles for the Enfields.

So my questions are:

1. If the Mississippi rifles are inferior to the British Enfields then how come the 1858 model have sights graduated with a longer range than the 1853 model?

2. What is the accuracy and range comparison between the:

1. 1841(.54) and the 1841(.58)?

2. 1841(.58) and the 1858 model?
 
The P56 short rifle more commonly known as the 2 band Enfield is quite a bit lighter than the M1841 and IMO handier. The recoils is also more substantial. BUt the accuracy compared to a P53 is superior. The fit n finish was superior and the group was much tighter than the standard P53.

The M1841's carried onto the field by Holt and his comrades were, IIRC, .54 M1841 and depending upon their vintage had only fixed rear sights. They were originally designed for a patched round ball w/ a realistic comat range of 250-300 yards. W/ the various arsenal rebuilds w/ the additions of rear sights and reboring to .58 that range dramaticly increased. I know my repop will hit a man sized target at 400 yards w/ little trouble and I shoot the regulation minnie & powder charge. I've spoken to many people who shoot original M1841's and they rave about them. I've been told a 5" group at 200 yards is pretty much the norm and I've watched shooters clear the boards w/ them at 100 yards. My last attempt to murder paper resulted in 4 holes on the paper out of ten shots (none missed) Two 4 round groups w/ the rounds touching and two fliers which ironically were seperated by only a half inch or so. In other words the weapon shoots far better than I do.

My suspicion about why Holt's men didn't care for the M1841 in relation to the P53 or P56 is complex. IMO the deep rifling of the .54 M1841 was a disadvantage when it came to cleaning, the weight was a detriment when compared to a P56 which IMO has about the same accuracy. And finally when you have only a kentucky style rear sight those that come on an Enfield look mighty good.

Having handled originals of all of the above mentioned weapons I prefer the M1841 in .58 w/ the Colt M1855 rear sight. They're simpler sights and IMO just as effective in combat conditions for the ill trained as those of the P53 or P56. The P53/56 rear sight is a better sight for a shooter though. The P56 is considerably lighter than the M1841 but w/ that weight comes a greater recoil. I'm not someone who usually notes recoil but the P56 gave quite a bit more wallop than either the P53 or M1841.

For the differences between the P56 & P58 the biggest difference is in weight and handiness. The P56 is lighter and handier than the P53 and I would expect it to have similar accuracy at normal combat ranges. Other than that I don't know.

The effectiveness of all three weapons cannot be denied; all were superb arms and all were used to goood effect by those that carried them.
 
Shane,
You have not seized to amaze me with your knowledge in firearms and their historical use and your skills as a crackshooter.

Thanks to you, now I know what caliber Holt and his men was from their Mississippi rifles. Thanks for providing a report on their range and accuracy.

I wonder why they make the 1858 model which was developed for the navy and not the 1856 army rifle as you mentioned. From the link below, one reason could be cost; the 1856 has case hardened iron furniture while the 1858 has brass.
Found this through wikipedia:
http://www.svartkrutt.net/articles/vis.php?id=2

Shane,
Have you ever taken a challenge firing at a long range target using the British Whitworth rifle?
 
Armisport & the Italians never fail to amaze me. Thay are capable of some superb firearms production (the Italian Garand is arguably the best) but what they make for the ACW community is ****. The exception being their M1842 & M1841 both of which are pretty close to the original.

The Euroarms M1841 is superb and compared to an original quite close as is the Armisport M1842. Out of the box they are pretty close to an original. I have a EuroArms M1841 that has been converted to the Colt standard by the addition of a Colt M1855 rear sight and bayonet spline band in .58 which I love. I'd like to make a Whitney "Good and Servicable" which is a .54 or .58 M1841 w/ a Colt carbine rear sight and that's all. It seems like it would be an interesting and simple to build mod. It would also be appropraite for either a US or Cs impression.
 
The real two band Enfield, AKA Sea Service Enfield gained its accuracy from the heavier barrel lt was equipped with. The thicker walls reduces the "whipping" motion of recoil and allow the bullet to leave the barrel on a more stable trajectory. As in most weapons the sights are marked to a range that maybe capable for the weapon, but not for the shooters of the weapon. No shooter is equal to the true capability of any weapon, the human factor creates the imperfection.
 
Back
Top