Help with Lock ID

[Murph58]

Hello All, I recently purchased two rifles with broken and shortened stocks at an auction held in a home in PA that was constructed in 1789. I did this thinking they may be civil war relics seeing the age of some of the other items from the home, (please excuse my typing since I have one finger bandaged up. My thinking is either to leave them as is or take them apart and repair the remaining stocks. I'd like to just address one of the rifles at this time. I have done quite a bit of research on what markings I have found but nothing conclusive. From postings on this site, I see there are some knowledgeable people on the subject and hopefully find out if these are truly relics from the Civil War. Here are photos of markings on the lock and barrel. I can find no other markings on the wood other than the initials CH carved in the wood. Many thanks, Jim

 

[JackADriscoll]

Original U.S. Civil War Era 3rd Model P-1853 Enfield Three Band Percussion Export Rifle marked Tower 1861

Original Item: Only One Available. Offered here is a nice example of the 3rd Model Pattern 1853 Enfield Rifle Musket, as produced in England with brass butt plate, trigger guard and nose cap. The three steel barrel bands are held on with screw pressure, as typical of the 3rd model. The lock is...

www.ima-usa.com

Here's a nice write up

 

[iron bender]

The 53 Enfield pic'd is heavily modified post-war. I'd have no doubt it's a veteran of the Civil War considering the lock and where it was found. More pics would be nice to determine what modifications have been made. I'm assuming it was rebored-turned into a shotgun post war. Thanks for posting

 

[Old Soldier]

The Enfield was a Birmingham-made civilian P1853 (long rifle) with a 25-bore (.577) caliber. Any confederate acceptance markings would be on the wood behind the trigger guard, but the condition of the stock is rather poor. Given the date, it would be one of the first imports, probably for the Confederates. Any markings on the top strap of the butt plate?

 

[JOHN42768]

Welcome, enjoy

 

[Murph58]

Thanks to all. Here are a few more rather poor pictures. The second gun is in the pictures but have not examined it closely yet. So far I can find no markings. Also is the ramrod. the unique thing to me is that the end does not have a screw hole. It appears to be a very hard wood. If someone can tell me the best way to remove the lock I'd appreciate it. If I can remove all the hardware I think I can fix what is left of the stock.

View attachment 499805

View attachment 499806

 

[Murph58]

pS: The lock does function. I can attest to that since it went off unexpectantly and took a small chunk off my index finger. If it hit the center of the finger it would have broken the bone. Lesson learned. Thanks to the forum for allowing all the space for the pix. The other guns size seems to indicate it was made for a youth etc.

 

[scooter748driver]

Welcome from the Fort Sumter and the Fredericksburg forums.

As others have said, one is a Model 1853 Enfield made by Tower in England in 1861. Likely imported early in the war. Check the wood on the bottom of the stock between the butt plate and the trigger guard tang to see if there are any initials or symbols showing.

 

[Old Soldier]

Nothing on the buttplate tang means it ISN'T Second Contract, nor are there any state contract indications. So if (still debateable) it is a Civil War import it is likely to be one of the first import landings in early 1862. As Scooter says - check underneath the butt from buttplate to triggerguard for any marks/stampings
.

 

[Murph58]

No I don't see anything for sure between the trigger guard and butt plate that is discernable!. I tried cleaning the wood some and about 1" from the end of the trigger guard there are some very faint scratchings but could be anything. This gun has had a lot of use by the looks of the stock. Not a Holland and Holland production thats for sure. I've never seen a stock so beat up and worn. There is so much wear from the end of the trigger guard to the butt that I don't think much could survive.

 

[Murph58]

Okay, many thanks for all the help. I'll move on to the second rifle. In closing I see we do not have any proof remaining that it was used in the Civil War. Is this an accurate description? 1861 Tower Rifle or 1853 Enfield pattern musket

 

[Story]

Okay, many thanks for all the help. I'll move on to the second rifle. In closing I see we do not have any proof remaining that it was used in the Civil War. Is this an accurate description? 1861 Tower Rifle or 1853 Enfield pattern musket

One of the first things you might want to do is see if either of them still have a charge in the barrel

Making Sure the Muzzleloader Is Empty

www.hunter-ed.com

 

[Story]

1861 Tower Rifle or 1853 Enfield pattern musket

An 1853 Enfield pattern musket, made in 1861 at the Tower Armory. I believe English government produced Enfields did not make it over here, but put those labels in the search bar (upper right corner) and you'll be pleasantly surprised at the number of threads.

 

[Old Soldier]

An 1853 Enfield pattern musket, made in 1861 at the Tower Armory. I believe English government produced Enfields did not make it over here, but put those labels in the search bar (upper right corner) and you'll be pleasantly surprised at the number of threads.

NO. 'Tower' describes a series of consortiums of civilian gunmakers in Birmingham or London. At this time, it had nothing to do with the Tower Armoury (basically just a store of weapons). The date is its production date. Some bear gunmakers company names in place of 'Tower', some have no date, some have neither. Some were also supplied from Liege, Belgium and generally have no name or date and bear Liege/Belgian proof marks and inspectors stamps (* over (letter) externally.

It was not an official government product and, although it is an Enfield Pattern 1853 rifle musket, they are of variable quality and are rarely made with interchangable components. The only 'quality' mark on them are the civilian barrel proofs from the Birmingham or London Proof Houses. This tests the strength of the barrel. It does not mean they shoot straight.

Proof marks at this time - the Birmingham proofs also had the bore; 25 = .577", 24 = .58"

The government weapons were mostly produced at Enfield and are so marked. They carry government barrel proofs and acceptance marks. None were supplied to either side by the War Office or government.

 

[Murph58]

Since this rifle has the bore markings on the bbl. I assume it is a Birmingham creation?

 

[Story]

Since this rifle has the bore markings on the bbl. I assume it is a Birmingham creation?

If they're birmingham proofs. Post pics of same. Pro-tip / white chalk will make them more legible.

 

[Murph58]

Proof marks are there but pretty much unreadable for me. I tried chalk but no luck.

 

[Old Soldier]

Proof marks are there but pretty much unreadable for me. I tried chalk but no luck.

View attachment 499933

The results of long-term corrosion. This is what happens to these old guns when not looked after. It is JUST readable as a 1813-68 Birmingham proof.

The first proof - (crown over BP), provisional Black Powder proof - is usually the lower (nearest breech) with no bore size (but may well be underneath the barrel). After the first boring it is proofed again with bore size followed by - lower (left) (crossed sceptres and V - Viewer) and then, after finishing, the bore size followed by the Final Proof (crossed sceptres and BPC - Birmingham Company Proof). The letters are often unreadable and pistols rarely have the bore size.

25 is the usual bore size for .577" (British military standard) for rifles, but you may see some with 25 and 24, IOW - started as a .577" but was rebored to .58" (Union standard). Here is a more readable one:

 

[Murph58]

Thank you for taking the time to look. Just wanted to be sure I am understanding correctly. When you say "The results of long-term corrosion. This is what happens to these old guns when not looked after. It is JUST readable as a 1813-68 Birmingham proof." are you referring to my gun or your? If you did manage to read the proof from your attachment what would your final description of my firearm? Thanks

 

[Old Soldier]

Thank you for taking the time to look. Just wanted to be sure I am understanding correctly. When you say "The results of long-term corrosion. This is what happens to these old guns when not looked after. It is JUST readable as a 1813-68 Birmingham proof." are you referring to my gun or your? If you did manage to read the proof from your attachment what would your final description of my firearm? Thanks

The long term corrosion was describing yours.

Description - just what I said before - a British Enfield Pattern 1853 rifle musket of originally .577" caliber from civilian manufacture and dated 1861. We cannot say for certain that was a civil war piece as it has no US or CS acceptance marks visible but it is possible.