Collection Enfield Enigma

[Old Soldier]

I am interested in knowing about the 24 vs 25 bore sizes.
As this time in the world, was there any other country who used .58 caliber (24 bore) size barrels?

One point I've never considered before is that the South had some of the Model 1855s in both rifle-musket and rifle configuration that were made before the War, and were in .58. The southern made versions of these (the Richmond rifle-musket and the Fayetteville rifle) were made in 58. And as the War progressed, the South supplied its armies with all the .58 yankee made guns that could be captured or picked up off the battlefields.

So, .58 caliber (24 bore) WAS a standard caliber for both North and South.

Perhaps the manufacturers decided that even if not ordered in .58 on a southern contract, once made, a .58 caliber arm could find a buyer from either side of the War.

Good point. MY point was the cost in converting production lines verses the chance of profit in sales. However we cannot say how many 'standard' rifles were available to the South and how many were needed as they only had one Armory that I know of to manufacture them. Even the industrial North was pushed and bought in to equip their army's new regiments.
Ammunition - remember quality and specification. There may have been.58, but were they up to US specification? That goes for the barrels as well as the ammunition.

 

[John E.W. Morgan]

I have a BOND and you would think the lockplate would by stamped EP BOND as in mine not TOWER. Yes there is a B stamped on the barrel tang. Want more info on it go back to 3/13/21 were I posted pics and it was discussed under "enfield marks union or reb".

 

[John E.W. Morgan]

Bayonet, the thread which you began with your initial post mentioned above covers a lot of bases. I'd just like to give some random thoughts, in no particular order of importance, to comment on various aspects of same.

---> Your initial post encapsulates the cost/benefit ratio of one conscientiously attempting to do one's own due diligence regarding relevant research ... only to be buffetted by the later crosswinds of more recent research which may call into question the earlier information sincerely learned and offered by those on the matter previously studied. The individuals offering the fruits of their research are not to be blamed. They are doing their level best to discern the truth as they believe it to be for the benefit of all and for themselves, naturally. But the search for absolute truth is ever elusive, and may be destined to continually evolve until hopefully, at some point, the ultimate truth is at last discovered / revealed.

Sorry. ... Didn't intend to be so esoteric. ... Gotta go. ... Shorter post than I'd anticipated. ... More later perhaps. ... Main point I'd like to make for now at least is that this venue / forum of CivilWarTalk is excellent. So many dedicated and experienced individuals contributing to the greater good of so many many students, readers, researchers, scholars and collectors of artifacts of the American Civil War, and on both sides of the conflict and both sides of the pond. You are to be congratulated for your successful efforts to bring so much knowledge and beneficial interaction among devotees of this pivotal subject and time in American history that is clearly and justifiably so important to us all. Followed it for a year or more to study its content before posting. And was duly impressed.

 

[rob63]

May I suggest that the reason for all of the confusion regarding bore sizes comes from the fact that although it is true that a .580 sized bore would be marked 24 and a .577 sized bore would be marked 25, those aren't the actual sizes of those gauge numbers.

Here is an edited chart of bore sizes from the Gun Barrel Proof Act of 1855:

The actual sizes are 24 =.579 and 25 = .571.

I assume that any contracts issued by either US or CSA would have specified the rifled caliber rather than the markings, while the bore size markings were from actual measurements and were applied to satisfy the British commercial proofing laws and relied upon standard gauges of the sizes indicated in the chart.

The Proof Act specifies that a "Set of Standard Plugs" would be used to measure barrel sizes. Working from the numbers specified in the chart; a 24 gauge plug measurement would correspond to a bore from .579 - .586 and a 25 gauge plug measurement would correspond to a bore from .571 - .578.

Just because the British proof act specified gauges of 24 or 25, it doesn't necessarily follow that US or CSA contracts had any relationship to those numbers. I think that the idea that 24 = .58 and 25 = .577 is a modern construct that wouldn't have been recognized at the time. 24 and 25 meant the numbers in the British proof act, .579 - .586 and .571- .578 respectively. .58 falls at the very low end of the 24 range, and .577 falls at the very high end of the 25 range. Consequently, overlap of the two calibers in practice, when measured by the British gauges, seems obvious to me.

Thus, a slightly undersize .58 bore or slightly oversize .577 could have either 24 or 25 marking and probably still fall within the specifications of the contract. I have no idea how strict those contracts were, but considering what we know of the general scramble for arms it is hard to imagine that they were being very picky about it.

I have never seen a Civil War era drawing or document that specified what kind of tolerances were acceptable back then, if anybody has something like that I would love to see it. I presume they didn't actually specify them on drawings the way we do now, but clearly they were using gauges so there was some sort of system of determining what was acceptable.

I used to be a mechanical engineer working for the US Navy. We typically considered +/-.010 to be a "loose" tolerance, and +/-.005 to be "tight." Obviously, we could go tighter if the application demanded it, but we tried to avoid it. I say this just to put in context that the difference between .577 and .58 is only .003, less than what we considered a tight manufacturing tolerance over 100 years later. I'm sure they wanted bores to be rifled as perfectly as possible, but there had to be some sort of tolerance allowed, which presumably would have included some degree of overlap between .577 and .580 bores.

Let me give an example. I have no idea what tolerances they actually allowed, but suppose it was -.002/+.005, which I think is a very reasonable guess. It also provides a tolerance range from low to high of .007, identical to the tolerance range indicated in the British gauges. That would translate to an acceptable .577 bore being from a low of .575 to a high of .582, and a .580 bore would be from a low of .578 to a high of .585. Thus, there would be a range of overlap between the two calibers from .578 to .582. What's more, that would also include a range of overlap with both 24 and 25 bore sizes in the British Proof Act, with .579 and up being 24, below that being 25. In other words, my hypothetical example would include potential markings of 24 and 25 on acceptable examples of both .577 and .580 barrels.


The full proof act can be found at: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/Vict/18-19/148/enacted

 

[BBurkett]

Calling Lanyard Puller…….

 

[John E.W. Morgan]

Two topics only:

When I mentioned not having my "references" at hand, I was thinking of photos I've taken over the years, not books or articles.
That's also where I might find mention of that three digit stamp I remember.

As for the WCCo / MGM stamped Model 1853, I found the page of the big auction sale catalog from 1970, identifying it by the MGM #___ stamped on it! It didn't state what films it was used in. Gone with the Wind likely used all the Enfields in stock, eh?

Here's a screen capture of the gun storage room at MGM before that auction - the actual auction included much more.

View attachment 555248

Love that pic and presume I can locate the YouTube video for the full effect.
(just replied to your earlier PM)

 

[John E.W. Morgan]

Hello again folks,

I very much appreciate all of the useful and informative replies received thus far in reply to my initial post in this thread.

Thus far, at least, no one else has mentioned seeing this style of numerals (or number of digits) stamped upon the barrel tang of an Enfield

Jeff in Ohio initially posted a week ago that "I know I've owned at least one Model 1853 with a three digit number in the same style stamped." However Jeff updated me last night via pm saying, "I've looked through photos I have of Enfields no longer owned" ... and ... "I don't think I've had a M1853 with a number stamped in the tang metal, as yours has. But it sure looks familiar to something I've seen."

As mentioned in my initial post, some years ago I shared photos of this weapon with Tim Prince, and he emailed me back that "I really think it is the missing link Enfield, that proves the SHG# mark is a CS mark."

I, like many of you, certainly respect Tim's knowledge and experience. But I'm not sure I'm ready to go that far yet. It may or it may not be "the missing link Enfield." I infer from Tim's statement that together with the other markings on this Enfield which are believed to be Confederate markings per "The English Connection", he seems to be indicating that these stamped numbers may be another variation of "lot numbers." If so, and it's a big "if", they could be analogous to other versions of Confederate "lot numbers" engraved on the butt plate tang of early brass-mounted CS Enfields; stamped on the butt plate toe of Barnett Confederate Enfields for the CS central govt., Georgia and South Carolina; and stamped on the stock belly of early iron-mounted CS Enfield short rifles.

It will be interesting to see if any other examples of Enfields marked in the same location and with similar style numbers as this "273" specimen come to be known in the future. And if so, what kind of other believed-to-be Confederate markings may also be on those specimens, if any at all. Thus the primary reason for my initial post.

 

[13 IL Cav & 64 GA Inf]

I am interested in knowing about the 24 vs 25 bore sizes.
As this time in the world, was there any other country who used .58 caliber (24 bore) size barrels?

One point I've never considered before is that the South had some of the Model 1855s in both rifle-musket and rifle configuration that were made before the War, and were in .58. The southern made versions of these (the Richmond rifle-musket and the Fayetteville rifle) were made in 58. And as the War progressed, the South supplied its armies with all the .58 yankee made guns that could be captured or picked up off the battlefields.

So, .58 caliber (24 bore) WAS a standard caliber for both North and South.

Perhaps the manufacturers decided that even if not ordered in .58 on a southern contract, onceI made, a .58 caliber arm could find a buyer from either side of the War.

My knowledge of arms is limited, but I thought the South used .577 Enfields. If you are sure about the .58 caliber being the predominant one for the Confederacy, I will have learned something.

 

[Old Soldier]

Hello again folks,

I very much appreciate all of the useful and informative replies received thus far in reply to my initial post in this thread.

I, like many of you, certainly respect Tim's knowledge and experience. But I'm not sure I'm ready to go that far yet. It may or it may not be "the missing link Enfield." I infer from Tim's statement that together with the other markings on this Enfield which are believed to be Confederate markings per "The English Connection", he seems to be indicating that these stamped numbers may be another variation of "lot numbers." If so, and it's a big "if", they could be analogous to other versions of Confederate "lot numbers" engraved on the butt plate tang of early brass-mounted CS Enfields; stamped on the butt plate toe of Barnett Confederate Enfields for the CS central govt., Georgia and South Carolina; and stamped on the stock belly of early iron-mounted CS Enfield short rifles.

In Britain, the production of Enfields by gunsmiths was mainly for PRIVATE purchase as Enfield RSAF had grown enough to be the sole supplier to government forces. The only sub-contractor was London Armoury Limited as they were the only private firm with the same production line and machinery as Enfield. By 1860, Enfield had also started supplying the Rifle Volunteers so the private gumakers were seeing a downturn in orders. THAT is the reason they jumped at this opportunity. Enfield was the government factory which was banned from supplying America which meant that there was no other supplier available. The problem we have is in the marking of these weapons for export. The Confederate Second Contract from the London Consortiums is the only one that we have a record for. These were all ENGRAVED on the butt tang IN ENGLAND.

Caliber: The caliber of all the early weapons was the one they had been producing for the Rifle Volunteers .577" - the designated standard since 1859 - the same caliber designated for the British Army. The caliber would be decided in the order as all support equipment would be to that caliber. The 25-Bore designation had already been decided on for .577, and had been used since at least 1859, despite what the figures tell us. The 24-bore ( for .58) only occured AFTER the first orders and in my research seems to have been only on Birmingham-proofed barrels since these production lines were set up later than the London ones as caliber would have been already installed on ones already set up. I suspect this was designated by Federal agents so that their guns would not be sent to the South. However, Federal orders slowed and ceased after 1863 as US production of M1861s (& M1863s) was now up to max and imported guns were no longer required. (Note: REQUIRED, not needed. I am sure that some units woud have been supplied with the older imported weapons if 'needed'.) Private gunmakers would have no qualms about supplying 24-Bore weapons if there was still a need, which would explain the 24-bore Confederate weapons.

BTW - Both Georgia and South Carolina also ordered from British gunmakers fairly quickly and had their guns marked with a 'G' and 'SC' on the butt respectively. Most reached their destinations, but Georgia, in particular, complained that the Central Armory was giving THEIR marked guns to anyone BUT them by priority. (Mixed cargoes?) Central Armory then made up the difference with Second Contract marked rifles (butt tang) so that some of those marked rifles can be found with a 'G' on the butt as well!

 

[John E.W. Morgan]

In Britain, the production of Enfields by gunsmiths was mainly for PRIVATE purchase as Enfield RSAF had grown enough to be the sole supplier to government forces. The only sub-contractor was London Armoury Limited as they were the only private firm with the same production line and machinery as Enfield. By 1860, Enfield had also started supplying the Rifle Volunteers so the private gumakers were seeing a downturn in orders. THAT is the reason they jumped at this opportunity. Enfield was the government factory which was banned from supplying America which meant that there was no other supplier available. The problem we have is in the marking of these weapons for export. The Confederate Second Contract from the London Consortiums is the only one that we have a record for. These were all ENGRAVED on the butt tang IN ENGLAND.

As I mentioned in my response to your earlier reply in this thread, I am well aware of the second-contract particulars of Confederate markings on those Enfields, as I own a fair number of these weapons, many with matching butt plate tang and ramrod engraved numbers. Incidentally, they were NOT all ENGRAVED on the butt plate tang. ... Confederate "lot numbers" were engraved on the butt plate tang of brass-mounted CS Enfields. Confederate "lot numbers" were stamped on the butt plate toe of Barnett Enfields for the CS central govt., Georgia and South Carolina. And Confederate "lot numbers" were stamped on the stock belly of iron-mounted CS Enfield short rifles.

BTW - Both Georgia and South Carolina also ordered from British gunmakers fairly quickly and had their guns marked with a 'G' and 'SC' on the butt respectively. Most reached their destinations, but Georgia, in particular, complained that the Central Armory was giving THEIR marked guns to anyone BUT them by priority. (Mixed cargoes?) Central Armory then made up the difference with Second Contract marked rifles (butt tang) so that some of those marked rifles can be found with a 'G' on the butt as well!

I am also well aware of the South Carolina-marked and Georgia-marked Enfields, as i own four of those, two marked for each state. One of the Georgia-marked Enfields was issued to a Confederate soldier with the 5th Texas Infantry who was mortally wounded at Second Manassas. ... Thanks for your reply, Old Soldier.

 

[Old Soldier]

Thanks for broadening my knowledge of what happened to these arms AFTER they were landed, however, most of the sources only quote the Second Contract - some 30,000 - as being marked IN BRITAIN. Since over 500,000 were shipped out, it is only a small percentage. Many were lost 'in transit'. Of those recovered most are apparently from the first batch of 10,000 and the least, the third batch, never mind the other 270,000.

I have a digital collection of many of those serials and the other markings of the P53s sent over and that is what they seem to indicate too. What happened after they were landed is still quite vague.

 

[John E.W. Morgan]

Thanks for broadening my knowledge of what happened to these arms AFTER they were landed, however, most of the sources only quote the Second Contract - some 30,000 - as being marked IN BRITAIN. Since over 500,000 were shipped out, it is only a small percentage. Many were lost 'in transit'. Of those recovered most are apparently from the first batch of 10,000 and the least, the third batch, never mind the other 270,000.

I have a digital collection of many of those serials and the other markings of the P53s sent over and that is what they seem to indicate too. What happened after they were landed is still quite vague.

You are most welcome. I've learned much from you posts regarding your research on the far side of the pond.

By the way, we are in agreement that the relatively small universe of Confederate-purchased Enfields (both CS Central Government-purchased and various CS state-purchased) that do have "lot numbers" on them had them placed on them in Britain.

My primary purpose in responding to your second-most-recent reply post in this thread was merely to point out that those "lot numbers" were not always engraved on the butt plate tang, but were also at times stamped on the toe of the butt plate or stamped on the belly of the stock ... depending on the specific type of the Enfield so numbered. That's all.