Muzzleldrs Enfield 2 band

[Jack7171]

I added a 2 band iron mount Enfield to my rack, and like many noobs, I don't know much, other than it's 2 band, iron mount, 33"barrel, .

577 non cs rifle. I tried searching the Enfield posts and the variants are dizzying to me. Kudos to all the folks that make sense of the many differences in these 2 bands. My biggest question is would this have been a British issue? India? Afghanistan etc etc? I certainly realize I have nothing exemplary here, I just want to be able to represent it properly and honestly.

 

[johan_steele]

You have what could easily be a CS or US issue P56 arm. Looking at it I don't think it's a Khyber Pass build and it lacks the broad arrow, the hallmark, of British Army service. It's certainly an arm I would welcome into my collection.

Ringing in the true experts: @Lanyard Puller & @Craig L Barry for their input.

 

[Jack7171]

You have what could easily be a CS or US issue arm. Looking at it I don't think it's a Khyber Pass build and it lacks the broad arrow, the hallmark, of British Army service. It's certainly an arm I would welcome into my collection.

Ringing in the true experts: @Lanyard Puller & @Craig L Barry for their input.

Thank you,, I have a read a few threads where you and Lanyard Puller and Craig assessed a few Enfields, and specifically a 2 bander, and I got overwhelmed really quick trying to follow along with all differences and specifics of all the models! Thx for summoning the "big guns"!

 

[Craig L Barry]

Funny I have an upcoming column for Civil War News on the Enfield two band rifles. The bayonet is German, A & A S is August and Albert Schnitzler, Solingen. The 24 proof markings correspond with .58 caliber. 1861 dated Tower lock. Looks like a garden variety P 56 Enfield short rifle. What was the distinction between the Enfield "short" and "long" rifle? The Enfield pattern of 1853 "long rifle" had a 39" barrel with three barrel bands and was sometimes called the P53 rifle-musket. It was by far the most common English military rifle imported by both sides. The Enfield "short rifle" had a 33" barrel, two barrel bands and could be either the Pattern of 1856, Pattern of 1858 or (less likely) Pattern of 1860.

How common were imported two band Enfield short rifles? It's hard to say because period records did not always distinguish between the Enfield "long rifle" (P53) and the various "short rifles" (P56/58/60), much less the exact model of short rifle. In the Official records of the War of the Rebellion Series IV, Vol III, p. 383 in December 1862, J. Gorgas provides a summary abstract to Secretary of War Seddon of purchases made by Caleb Huse as follows: "131,129 stands of arms consisting of 70,980 long Enfield rifles, 9,715 short Enfield rifles, 354 carbine Enfield rifles, 27,000 Austrian rifles, 21,040 British muskets, 20 small bore Enfield, 2,020 Brunswick rifles. There were also 23,000 Enfield rifles in London awaiting shipment..." The ratio of roughly 7:1 is probably about right as the "short rifle" was about 25% more expensive than the P53 "long rifle." Perhaps it was due to the increased cost of the saber bayonet? More likely is that for manufacturers of both short and long rifles--especially in the same factory-- the stock cutting machines had to be set up differently. For whatever reason(s) Enfield "short rifles" were much less common than the long rifles. If the short rifles had been cheaper v. more expensive, it probably would have been the other way around. Soldiers for their part referred to the Enfield short rifles as "lighter and handier." They were often assigned to the sharpshooters in the company as "...accuracy was considered slightly better than that of the (Enfield) long rifle."

The majorities of Enfield "short rifles" used in the US Civil War by both sides were a mix of two types of the Pattern 1856. The first type P-56 had the bayonet lug on the barrel and the later version had the bayonet lug on the top barrel band. A small number of P-58 Naval Rifles were purchased early in the war as well, at least by the Confederate States. The P-58 Naval Rifle was similar to the P-56, but with a few cosmetic changes and different rifling. The P-58 was a brass mounted rifle, instead of iron mounted and had the rear sling swivel attached to the front of the trigger guard like the Enfield P53 "long rifle" instead of being screwed into the stock behind the trigger guard like the P-56. The Naval Rifle typically retained the 1,100-yard rear sight of the P-1856, but the 33" barrel was heavier and rifled with five grooves instead of three. However, the P-58 rarely (if ever) appears in period images where an Enfield short rifle can clearly be made out. Why so few?

One factor that may have limited its utility is that the P-1858 Naval Rifle was designed to accept a non-standard cutlass bayonet instead of the P56 saber bayonet. CS orders of the P58 Naval Rifle appear to be very limited, perhaps as few as 700. Hence based upon the known documentation it appears that less than one percent of the Enfield short rifles imported during the Civil War were of the 1858 Naval Rifle pattern. Ironically, the Italian made reproduction Enfield short rifles are based on the P58 Naval rifle.

The later Enfield Pattern 1860 "short rifle" had a very limited production run. It was first adopted in November 1860 and soon afterwards replaced in August 1861 with the Pattern 1861 "Army Rifle." The production at Royal Small Arms Manufactory did not commence until 1861 and only a few thousand were produced. The majority of these were held at the Tower (in storage) until converted to Snider breechloaders in 1866-67.These would of course, not have been sold to either side in the US Civil War. An unknown number may have been commercially made in Birmingham or London and sold to either side, but the surviving documents do not indicate exactly which pattern of Enfield "short rifle" was made to fill any specific contract, except as previously noted. Therefore, given the limited numbers of both the P-58 and P-60, the greatest likelihood is that the majority of Enfield short rifles in use during the US Civil War were the Pattern of 1856. The images of US and CS soldiers with Enfield short rifles also bear this out.

 

[Jack7171]

Funny I have an upcoming column on the Enfield two band rifles. The bayonet is German, A & A S is August and Albert Schnitzler, Solingen. The 24 proof markings correspond with .58 caliber. 1861 dated Tower lock. Looks like a garden variety P 56 Enfield short rifle. What was the distinction between the Enfield "short" and "long" rifle? The Enfield pattern of 1853 "long rifle" had a 39" barrel with three barrel bands and was sometimes called the P53 rifle-musket. It was by far the most common English military rifle imported by both sides. The Enfield "short rifle" had a 33" barrel, two barrel bands and could be either the Pattern of 1856, Pattern of 1858 or (less likely) Pattern of 1860.

How common were imported two band Enfield short rifles? It's hard to say because period records did not always distinguish between the Enfield "long rifle" (P53) and the various "short rifles" (P56/58/60), much less the exact model of short rifle. In the Official records of the War of the Rebellion Series IV, Vol III, p. 383 in December 1862, J. Gorgas provides a summary abstract to Secretary of War Seddon of purchases made by Caleb Huse as follows: "131,129 stands of arms consisting of 70,980 long Enfield rifles, 9,715 short Enfield rifles, 354 carbine Enfield rifles, 27,000 Austrian rifles, 21,040 British muskets, 20 small bore Enfield, 2,020 Brunswick rifles. There were also 23,000 Enfield rifles in London awaiting shipment..." The ratio of roughly 7:1 is probably about right as the "short rifle" was about 25% more expensive than the P53 rifle-musket. Perhaps it was due to the increased cost of the saber bayonet? More likely is that for manufacturers of both short and long rifles--especially in the same factory-- the stock cutting machines had to be set up differently. For whatever reason(s) Enfield "short rifles" were much less common than the long rifles. If the short rifles had been cheaper v. more expensive, it probably would have been the other way around. Soldiers for their part referred to the Enfield short rifles as "lighter and handier." They were often assigned to the sharpshooters in the company as "...accuracy was considered slightly better than that of the (Enfield) long rifle."

The majorities of Enfield "short rifles" used in the US Civil War by both sides were a mix of two types of the Pattern 1856. The first type P-56 had the bayonet lug on the barrel and the later version had the bayonet lug on the top barrel band. A small number of P-58 Naval Rifles were purchased early in the war as well, at least by the Confederate States. The P-58 Naval Rifle was similar to the P-56, but with a few cosmetic changes and different rifling. The P-58 was a brass mounted rifle, instead of iron mounted and had the rear sling swivel attached to the front of the trigger guard like the Enfield P53 "long rifle" instead of being screwed into the stock behind the trigger guard like the P-56. The Naval Rifle typically retained the 1,100-yard rear sight of the P-1856, but the 33" barrel was heavier and rifled with five grooves instead of three. However, the P-58 rarely (if ever) appears in period images where an Enfield short rifle can clearly be made out. Why so few?

One factor that may have limited its utility is that the P-1858 Naval Rifle was designed to accept a non-standard cutlass bayonet instead of the P56 saber bayonet. CS orders of the P58 Naval Rifle appear to be very limited, perhaps as few as 700. Hence based upon the known documentation it appears that less than one percent of the Enfield short rifles imported during the Civil War were of the 1858 Naval Rifle pattern. Ironically, the Italian made reproduction Enfield short rifles are based on the P58 Naval rifle.

The later Enfield Pattern 1860 "short rifle" had a very limited production run. It was first adopted in November 1860 and soon afterwards replaced in August 1861 with the Pattern 1861 "Army Rifle." The production at Royal Small Arms Manufactory did not commence until 1861 and only a few thousand were produced. The majority of these were held at the Tower (in storage) until converted to Snider breechloaders in 1866-67.These would of course, not have been sold to either side in the US Civil War. An unknown number may have been commercially made in Birmingham or London and sold to either side, but the surviving documents do not indicate exactly which pattern of Enfield "short rifle" was made to fill any specific contract, except as previously noted. Therefore, given the limited numbers of both the P-58 and P-60, the greatest likelihood is that the majority of Enfield short rifles in use during the US Civil War were the Pattern of 1856. The images of US and CS soldiers with Enfield short rifles also bear this out.

That was amazing Craig,,thank you! This is reference I'm going to be keeping!

 

[NH Civil War Gal]

Well, here is a real noobie question I've been wanting to ask for about a week, and this thread is timely.

What is a "two band Enfield?" Is there a "one band Enfield or three band Enfield?" And why are these bands so important?

 

[Jack7171]

Well, here is a real noobie question I've been wanting to ask for about a week, and this thread is timely.

What is a "two band Enfield?" Is there a "one band Enfield or three band Enfield?" And why are these bands so important?

I'm gonna act like an expert here,, the bands refer to the steel or brass barrel bands,, that hold the barrel in the stock. Shorter rifles use 2 bands because of the shorter barrel. 3 bands is a longer barreled rifle that need 3 bands holding the barrel in the stock

 

[Jim in Wisconsin]

I don't know much about your rifle, but I sure like your room! Lots of neat stuff, a great place to relax and read.

 

[Jack7171]

I don't know much about your rifle, but I sure like your room! Lots of neat stuff, a great place to relax and read.

Thank you, It definitely is!

 

[Old Soldier]

It is a British contract 2-band, made in Birmingham (proof marks & 'Tower') and built and bored as a .58 (x 24 x 24 x = 24-Bore) so most likely to be a Union issue rifle. There may well be makers' name stamps under the barrel, in the barrel or ramrod recess and on the inside of the lockplate. The bayonet is the standard issue yataghan (saber) bayonet made by A & A.S: August & Albert Schnitzler, Solingen, made in Germany as most were, but it will not bare British WD acceptance marks.

The 'bands' refers to the barrel bands, the three-band being the Pattern 1853 rifle musket (39" barrel) and the two-band the 'short rifle', Pattern 1956 (for sergeants - 32" barrel). There was no 'one-band' rifle as the shortest barrel rifles were half-stocked and refered to as 'carbines'. There is an even shorter 2-band (24" barrel Pattern 1853) which was designated the 'Artillery Carbine' This is often called the 'Muskatoon' but this referred to a Royal Navy carbine. Parker-Hale used this term to describe their repro Artillery Carbine, but it was never known by that name in the Army!

 

[yulzari]

One might note that the Royal Navy were most specific that sailors using their short Enfields must kneel if in the front row and cautioned to keep the rear rank close up to the front rank due to the shortness of the barrels as 'accidents have frequently occurred'.

 

[Papabyrd]

Very interesting discussion Thanks for posting

 

[HalBaker_17M]

Here is a related question - a buddy of mine through the VFW is originally from Windsor, VT (also grad of Norwich early '80s who did 20 in USA armor branch - hey, it's a cavalry school) and told us a a sea story (Ehat's the difference between a fairy tale and a sea story? A fairy tale begins, "Once upon a time ...." and a sea story begins with "This is no sh-- ...") over beers at the VFW Hall about six months ago about how people forget how interconnected the world economy was even in 19th century. Among his points were 1) the boom in Indian, Egyptian, and Turkish cotton production to fill the absence of southern cotton on the world market, 2) the obliteration of the U.S. merchant marine by Confederate privateers causing several businesses to move corporate headquarters from New York and New England to UK and thereby reflag ships under British flag, and 3) how the unexpected early end of the Crimean War led to the collapse of the economy in Windsor, VT.
(DISCLAIMER-I have already checked some of this story against Wikipedia articles - seems to be some truth behind it. Don't know how much)
To wit, Robbins and Lawrence set up shop in 1846. Windsor had been one of the major mill towns in Vermont, but had seen an exodus of farmers to the midwest and west beginning in 1830. R&L were planning on taking advantage of farms entering the real estate market to develop precision manufacturing mills. Among their first contracts was for 10K Model 1841 rifles. More government contracts came in. Business (and ergo, the local economy) boomed. As well as manufacturing arms, they designed and manufactured equipment to manufacture arms that allowed gunsmiths to make arms precise enough to allow interchangeability of parts. According to Jack, they sold their manufacturing machines to many: Springfield Armory, Harpers Ferry, Colt, Sharps, Remington, Whitney (reaping the harvest of his ideas), and most notably the British government.
As the story goes, they became known for quality, precision products. They continued getting US contracts (upgrading M1841s made elsewhere as well as there in an 1850s contract). They subcontracted for Sharps and Remington. The quality of their machines led the UK to solicit them to manufacture Enfields for the Crimean War (replacing the percussion smoothbores and first British Minie rifle-muskets). Due to the pressing need, there were delivery milestones that had to be met to avoid financial penalties. The contract was for both P1853 and P1856 Enfields.
As local lore has it, R&L were docked for missing initial delivery deadlines, but expanded significantly to ramp up production. They beat their next goals such that they were looking at wiping out the penalties in a few months. Times were good for them.
The war ended sooner than the Brits expected and using the missed deadlines canceled the contract. R&L couldn't make payroll. R&L went out of business. All the machinery and large stocks of completed 1853 and 1856 Enfields were stuck in Windsor. The story is that some creditors decided to try to make a go of it, but also eventually went bust. The town's economy was ruined. It had been one of the major industrial centers of Vermont, but it never recovered from that crash (despite population booms after the Civl War, WWI, and WWII, 2020 census showed town just over twice the size it had been in 1830).
New York, Vermont, and Connecticut supposedly got well-made precision-manufactured Enfields that could fire standard US .58 cartridges very cheap. This apparently happened sometime in 1860. With the start of the secessions in 1861, Whitney, ever the shrewd businessman, snapped up the thousands of existing parts and machinery, moved them to one of his down river in CT and quickly cranked out well-made Enfields and sold them to many states. If the parts were already stamped with "Windsor" he put them with other parts stamped the same. When they were unstamped, he had them stamped "Whitney." When his people manufactured new parts, they were, of course, stamped "Whitney."
The R&L machinery he bought also, per the story, let him sub-contract to Sharps, Remington, and Springfield to rapidly produce arms to fill their contracts.
Okay, so, this is a great sea story over beers at the V. Some of it fits the historical timeline. Some of it seems to fit the historic personas (Whitney being a smart businessman, R&L being civic-minded). Mt question is, does anybody have anything from primary sources or well-researched secondary sources, that can support or refute portions of this sea story? I've just started trying to research it on the web and got this thread on my search results.
Any feedback would help.
Thanks in advance.

 

[Craig L Barry]

Robbins and Lawrence also had a separate bad investment in building railroad cars at about the same time and due to the combined business setbacks, the firm was forced into liquidation.

 

[HalBaker_17M]

Robbins and Lawrence also had a separate bad investment in building railroad cars at about the same time and due to the combined business setbacks, the firm was forced into liquidation.

Thanks. Do you know if the stuff about Whitney buying product and machines is true?

 

[Craig L Barry]

An auction of the Robbins and Lawrence equipment was held in 1859 and the machinery was purchased by EG Lamson of L,G &Y. Later they used some of the machinery to make Colt Special Model rifle muskets on contract for the US Govt.

 

[HalBaker_17M]

An auction of the Robbins and Lawrence equipment was held in 1859 and the machinery was purchased by EG Lamson of L,G &Y. Later they used some of the machinery to make Colt Special Model rifle muskets on contract for the US Govt.

Ta, mate.