London Armory Enfields

[John V]

There are a number of American Civil War Enfields for sale from various suppliers during the ACW at any given time. I have purchased and read the three most noted works on English imports to the ACW and specifically on Confederate Enfields.

Here is what I think I know/learned about the London Armory examples:

1. They are 1st rate in that the parts are interchangeable vs. 2nd rate commercial suppliers out of London or Birmingham

2. They were procured by the English military, US Federal, Confederate, individual states, plus some individual purchases in the thousands at a time.

3. That they had commercial and English Military proof marks on the barrels. Any English military procurements would have military proof marks only. Shipment for use in the ACW could have either military or commercial proofs on the barrels.

4. That at least some of the early Confederate London Armory Enfields (if not most?) were not inspected or proofed by the Confederate Government inspectors since they considered 1st rate. For these, all of the proof marks are from LAC directly. Therefore, any of these LAC Enfields procured by the Confederacy are totally indistinguishable from any other LAC Enfield. A certain number of LAC Enfield may have Confederate inspector stamps, at lease early on.

4. I have also read that Federal LAC Enfields were inspected and proofed before shipment to the US. Is this true? Did the US do this for all procurements from LAC? Is the absence of Federal proof marks indicative of Confederate procurements?

Therefore, almost any claim of Southern provenance for a LAC Enfield is highly circumspect unless compelling verifiable information is included. Is this a fair statement?

John

 

[yulzari]

The London Armoury Company made interchangeable rifles for the British government and for anyone else with money. To meet the interchangeable requirements the parts were inspected at all stages for compliance with the standard gauges provided. These are the same as were then later used in the late 20th century by Parker Hale for their Enfield Pattern rifle muskets and I had the privilege to se them in use in the 1970s. This made inspection by the buyer less of a necessity compared to the artisanal methods used by other private manufacturers who provided the majority of the Enfields to ACW buyers. LAC ones were in a minority and is one reason why the post ACW US Army standardised upon the interchangeable Springfield despite large stocks of Federal and Confederate Enfields.

LAC Enfields were the only ones outside the British government Enfield production to be considered for Snider conversions for British army service, although non-interchangeable ones (like mine) were widely converted by the trade for other buyers.

I have no knowledge of Confederate or Federal inspection but I do consider that they may have been content to rely upon the quality of LAC production (which had to be proofed in Britain before sale, by law) and save their inspection work for the variable quality non-interchangeable trade Enfields. As the owner of a non-interchangeable Pattern 1853 converted to a Snider breechloader I can testify to the variability in the parts when disparate pieces are put together.

No British Government Enfields were sold into the ACW. All Enfields made other than for government service had to be civilian proofed. Either in the Birmingham or London Proof Houses.

Any government inspection marks on an ACW Enfield only show that the particular parts were individually passed by a government inspector but could have been then used in the trade market (including ones that failed). It is only the presence of government proof markings that show that it was an arm for government service. However, after the ACW large numbers of non-interchangeable Enfields were released from service as unwanted for Snider conversions and some of these have migrated to the USA.

Assuming that it is of an ACW period pattern, one could only be sure that an LAC Enfield was used by the CSA if it had marking unique to the CSA process. Otherwise the provenance would have to be pretty certain and family stories of 'it was our Great Great Grandad's rifle he brought back form the war' have been shown often to have been mistaken however genuinely believed. It does not help that over the years dishonest people (and unwise honest ones) have added markings of varying viability to unmarked rifles to enhance either the price or the sentimental value of unmarked Enfields. Some antique gun dealers (and private sellers) vie with horse copers and second hand car dealers in their terminological inexactitudes.