Enfield 1862 Conundrum

[Bultaco]

Hi there friends. I found your forum by way of my interest in the Crimean War and it's role in the roots of the Civil War. And seeing as how there's very little opportunity for us Brits to talk about some of the hardware of this period in history I thought I'd consult the experts! I've run across what seems to be a variation on the Enfield 1853. Just acquired it at auction for a very reasonable sum. It's a LAC London Armoury Co. 1853 pattern 3 band long gun dated 1862. The gun is in really quite nice condition very tight and undamaged but like looks to have been well used in its time. Almost like it's been very well loved and cared for over the last 150 years.
So far so Confederate import export debate, but I'm pretty sure it has spent all its life in the U.K.
My issue is this. The gun is visually identical to a lot of the LAC guns of the time but it has no bore markings stamped No "25" or the like. Only proof markings. And it's Smoothbore! Approx .656 cal.
Could the rifling have been shot out? Or could it have been built this way? Was it common to have a worn bore reamed out eventually? Why? It's effectively a 4ft shotgun.
I'm pretty sure it's not a native issue weapon from India as its got the ladder sight and end sight from the rifled type. Could it have been some sort of close range anti personnel device? Any ideas.
I'm pretty happy as it looks the part cost very little and is in great order but what's going on here.. ?..
cheers all for any thoughts.
Oh here's some pics for you...there's a lot of oil on there and the X on the stock must have been pretty deeply cut once upon a time.

 

[redbob]

There are folks here that just chomp at the bit for the opportunity to talk Enfields and one (or more) should be along shortly, also welcome to the group from middle Alabama.

 

[captaindrew]

Welcome from South Florida and the Reenactors forum and congrats on your new acquisition. Help will be along before long.

 

[Drew]

I don't have an answer to this, but acquired a nice P-53 Enfield over the past winter. Lots of them were sold to the Confederate Army and they were rifled, as is mine.

Someone will no doubt be along shortly who can straighten this out for you. Congratulations on the find.

@ucvrelics
@johan_steele

 

[UCVRelics]

Welcome From THE Heart Of Dixie. Nice Enfield. The VR under the crown tells me its was not imported to the US by either side, as for all the other info, paging @Craig L Barry and @johan_steele

 

[Bultaco]

Thanks for the welcome! By the way it's got a Baddeley band at the closest position but seems to be quite original to the gun and aged identically with the others. Here's the bore:
Also the lock and under the barrel is absolutely full of waxy graphite grease.

 

[JOHN42768]

Welcome, enjoy. Enfield wizards will be along shortly

 

[Cpl. Smith]

Probably bored out to a musket or shotgun when the military got rid of it. Just my two cents

 

[johan_steele]

I'm looking at this with my phone so forgive me for more of a guess than anything else.

What I can see looks like a respectable LA & Co put together from disassociated parts. The barrel does not appear to be original to that P53. This is far from uncommon. While collectors can get tetchy about that but I don't. A good shooter replacement barrel is not difficult to acquire, in the US anyway. As far as I can see you have the start of a real shooter.

@Lanyard Puller can certainly provide more insight.

 

[Craig L Barry]

Look under the barrel for the bore (probably "25"). It may also have worn off. The VR under the crown was characteristic of LACs whether used by the Volunteer movement, War Dept or exported to the US or CS. They were all marked VR under the crown. It's an exception to the rule about VR under the crown being exclusive to War Dept issued Enfields. Those look like Palmer bands pictured, are you saying the lower barrel band is the Baddeley patent design? The oval rear swivel is representative of a LAC that would have Baddeley bands.

Since LACs were parts interchangeable, they are easily pieced together from disassociated parts. This could well be a put together. From the thinness of the barrel walls it looks like it was bored out smooth to .656 for some purpose. LACs will also exchange parts with RSAF produced P53s because they were made on the same machinery.

 

[Larryh86GT]

Welcome from WNY

 

[lelliott19]

Welcome to CivilWarTalk @Bultaco . I'm certainly not educated enough to make any comment, but wonder if others can see the barrel markings in photo #7 of the OP? Not the proofs but the faint marking in front of the proofs? Ive enlarged and rotated that section, decreased brightness, and increased contrast, so the letters are more visible. I still cant make them out clearly, but perhaps others with knowledge of barrel makers can figure them out?

 

[WJC]

Welcome! Nice piece: thanks for sharing!

 

[Bultaco]

Hi thanks for all the useful info. I think (hope) the tiny faint stamps are LAC inspection marks. They appear on the sights and the working parts of the lock too. Interestingly (although I forgot to photograph this) under the barrel at the lock end the only marks I can see so far are clear stamps 3 6 and possibly the numeral V or V There is no makers name hence only the LAC marks.
Anywhere else I should look for marks? It's like a treasure hunt at the moment!
I'm interested in the wear to the stock around the lock ends. It looks like the gun was regularly handled with hands wrapped round this area. Like a sentry on duty might hold the gun at waist height. Or presenting with bayonet fixed rather than regular rifle shooters stance?
Here's shots of the Baddeley band and the middle band. The fore end band holds the sling loop and is not Baddeley style.
Thanks
Will

 

[Seduzal]

Welcome to CWT from the Smoky Mountain side of North Carolina.

 

[Bultaco]

Now Ive got myself wondering about the marks under the barrel... could this have been a 36 gauge rifle originally? same as a LAC Kerr revolver maybe or Colt Navy. I just measured the ram rod and its a shade under 9mm diameter. would that be consistent with a .36 cal gun (9.1mm) or likely too tight a fit down the barrel?

 

[yulzari]

.656" bore in the Enfield series immediately makes me think of the Indian Army versions in .656" smooth bore. They would have the British proof marks that this one lacks, so it is not one of those. But copies were extensively made in India for general sale and by princely States for their own militaries and police and I have one of those barrels by my desk as I write.

Just perhaps, this is an LAC made weapon which has been later fitted with a locally made barrel in India to fit into some local police or similar inventory which was standardised on the .656" smooth bore? For a .632" ball in a paper musket cartridge using 4 drams of F.G. (fine grain) powder.

 

[tbuckley]

Welcome from eastern Ohio.

 

[Bultaco]

Thanks for the Welcomes from Gloucestershire England.

 

[kel1985]

Welcome from Pittsburgh!