My 1853 1862 Enfield

therifleman

Cadet
Joined
Jun 4, 2010
Hello,
I just purchased this rifle. I know little about 1853 Enfields except that it was the second most common firearm in the US Civil War. I have done a small bit of research. I was just looking for a little help on interpreting the markings on this gun. I was wondering if it might have been used in the Civil War and if so, which side?

Lockplate is standard, marked 1862/TOWER. Birmingham manufacture?
Expired Image Removed
Expired Image Removed


25 25 proofs


I found this pretty interesting. Right before the first band there is a smoothe indent in the stock. I noticed that when I aimed and one-hand carried the rifle my left index finger fit into it snuggly. It is my belief that this is a result of consistent usage by the owners(s).
http://s280.photobucket.com/albums/kk190/Winimperial/?action=view&current=DSC_0592.jpg&newest=1

Engraved rhombus figure? On the stock.
http://s280.photobucket.com/albums/kk190/Winimperial/?action=view&current=DSC_0595.jpg&newest=1

Buttplate engraved "H?"
http://s280.photobucket.com/albums/kk190/Winimperial/?action=view&current=DSC_0594.jpg&newest=1


Muzzle cap marked 427
http://s280.photobucket.com/albums/kk190/Winimperial/?action=view&current=DSC_0597.jpg&newest=1


The gun also came with a bayonet and scabbard which are not original to the gun as the bayonet does not fit on it. Any info on these would be appreciated as well.
http://s280.photobucket.com/albums/kk190/Winimperial/?action=view&current=DSC_0603.jpg&newest=1


Blade has a number of markings. "CS" below a funny looking indent. Marked "L6," a crown above a "5" and an "E." Also a bird(?) above an "R."
http://s280.photobucket.com/albums/kk190/Winimperial/?action=view&current=DSC_0601.jpg&newest=1


scabbard is marked with a "WD" with another funky looking symbol with a "39" below it.
http://s280.photobucket.com/albums/kk190/Winimperial/?action=view&current=DSC_0602.jpg&newest=1

Thanks for the help!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Oh, you are probably not going to like this, but at a glance what you have looks like a P53 that either did its tour of duty in India/Far East or is a put together. The notched "block type" rear sight is not representative of the commercial type III P53 made in both Birmingham and London (or Belgium, France even the US) during the US Civil War, which had a ladder type rear sight adjustable to 900 or 1000 yds. The ramrod is clearly a reproduction (you can see it is two piece) and not original to the weapon. The screw on the lower sling swivel is on backwards, suggesting it was removed and/or replaced at some point which provides a small clue. The British always put the screw heads to the back.

Another clue is that the lock plate is much "cleaner" looking than the barrel, suggesting the barrel may have been a disassociated part. Also the "snail" (bolster) of the barrel does not quite fit the stock. You can see a pretty clear gap there. The lock seems to fit the stock well, so those two parts may have been together (but not necessarily). At least we can say the wood to metal fit with the lock is representative of most English gunmaker commercial Enfields. The thing to remember is that Americans did not buy up the entire production capacity of the English gunmakers. There were wars going on elsewhere in the world and the British freely sold to anybody who could pay for the weapons. The markings are not distinct to either side in our Civil War, and distinct US or CS inspection marks seem to be missing. Parts were sometimes numbered to assist in assembling the weapon, or other times stamped into the metal as "rack numbers." Civil War Enfields did not have serial numbers per se. You might look behind the trigger guard for a maker's name such as "Swinburn" or "Cooper & Goodman", etc. It would be in very thin letters. The maker's name is often found on stocks marked Birmingham Small Arms Trade on the flat. London guns are not marked this way, but sometimes have the maker's name on the lockplate such as "POTTS & HUNT" or "BARNETT LONDON" or sometimes stamped in the wood on the opposite side. Some Barnetts are Tower marked.

The lock and barrel (at least) seem to be of Birmingham manufacture. The first "25" is a view mark and there is a second "25" which is a final gauge mark. These numbers on top of the barrel are characteristic of the Birmingham proof house. Many London proofed barrels have the gauge mark under the barrel. The other barrel proof marks are representative of the B'ham proof house. London proof marks are different. "25" corresponds to .577 cal. "24" is .58. Some US contracts were specified in .58. Most Birmingham stocks have an odd feature not found on London guns. The butt plate extends past the toe (bottom) of the stock, as if the wood shrinked up a quarter inch. And it is characteristic of virtually every Civil War-era Birmingham made P53 I have inspected--not just one or two. It is a quick "giveaway" of a Birmingham P53.

The markings on the bayonet suggest it is British Army. WD is "War Department" and the broad arrow is a common government acceptance stamp. It would not be likely to fit the barrel on this Enfield. The rest of the weapon is not government marked and just from eyeballing it, is not up to the very particular standards of the government inspectors at the Tower. To clarify what "Tower" means--it was supposed to indicate a government inspection with gauges at either the Tower (London) or the branch in Birmingham on Bagot Street in the Gun Quarter. The "Tower" marks were often bogus on guns sold overseas. I would say this is the case here.
 
Thanks for the reply and the info.

The sight did leave me suspicious at first. Ramrod also, and now I know for sure its a repro. I had no idea about the screw but as you said, could be a result of someone fiddling with it.

I think its the lighting in the photo but I can assure you the lock plate has the same patina as the barrel. Perhaps I'll try to get a better photo.

Now giving the area near the trigger guard a closer inspection I have discovered a mark. Scribed into the wood right under the stock and behind the trigger guard in small letters is "COO(or U?)." There is some more writing to the right of this but some of it has faded out completely. I can make out also a "BO"

I'll try to get a pic up soon.

I guess I didn't get totally robbed as I bought the rifle for $485. I can still return it, anyhow. It's a very cool looking rifle it's just not exactly what I was looking for.
 
If it makes you feel better, you could easily part if out and net more than $485. You could
probably sell the lock for $150 to $250, sometimes a good hammer will cost that much at
Lodgewood Mfg. The bands $25 to $50 a piece (or more). The trigger guard/hardware for
$50 or so. The stock $150 if it is decent.

Or if you are not planning to re-sell it and just plan to hang it above the fireplace, have a ladder
sight brazed on and enjoy looking at it. You can say this about it, it is representative of the
kind of weapon used here in great numbers by both sides in the US Civil War. It would also be
a good candidate for a replacement (repro) or relined barrel and sold as a (re)enactor gun.

You did not get "robbed" but the price alone strongly suggests that the weapon had
no US Civil War provenance. I think it's heritage involved the aroma of lamb w/ curry powder
around the campfire, but not hardtack and coffee.
 
Most likely the Birmingham firm of COOK & SON. You can kind of see the O and the N from SON, too.
If you pull the lock out you may also find a maker's name stamped on the inside of the lock plate above the mainspring. It may or may not be Cook & Son as the named firm just "set up" or assembled components made by hand by a variety of different craftsmen throughout the Gun Quarter. That was the Birmingham system of manufacture in a nutshell.

I think it's a pretty cool Enfield for $485, a price for which you would be hard pressed to find a
decent second hand reproduction Enfield made in Italy. Thanks for posting the pics.
 
Which is why I just adore having access to someone who knows what he's talking about. Ask a question; any question. Somebody knows.

Ole
 
We are all students of the Civil War, and it is very valuable when our various interests overlap.
In this case, these are more or less educated guesses about an Enfield based on evidence not in hand
but from images. I could be off, but not far off. Things are where you would expect to find them on
this particular P53, and certain similarities begin to emerge from that. It is both what it has and
what it is missing that tells the tale here.

The Birmingham system of manufacture was in a last, final period of brilliance during our Civil War before
the icy hand of evolution snuffed it out in favor of "machine made" weapons. The trade guilds were a period of history which I find fascinating, being something of a Luddite myself.
 
Thanks again for all the info.

While the description did not list it as a Civil War used gun I spoke to the "expert" over the phone who gave a bit of a shady answer in saying that it was.

I think I'm just going to return it. I actually bought it at an auction. I do not have any interest in parting it up and I believe the ramrod could hurt the resale value. I'll be out the shipping cost but at least I will have most of my money back. It's a nice rifle for a nice price, no doubt, but its simply not what I'm looking for. As a (newbie) collector of general militaria I'm looking for an example of a Civil War used rifle.
 
Well, the rifleman, I'd just hang the puppy on the wall with the rest of my relics and say, "Isn't it purty." But that's what makes this board so much fun. What I find decorative, someone else might be shouting bogus. I don't care. I like purty. Others mileage may vary.

I have what is supposed to be an 1860 cavalry saber in a repop sheath. As soon as I get some ersatz leathers, it will land on my wall with the fake Troiani Chamberlain charge faithfully executed in 4 x 4 tiles. In decorative ****, I can't afford originals. So I'll bend some.

One day I'll convince dear one that I really, really net a wop repop of a Springfield to hang with it. People I show it to wouldn't know the difference anyway.

Ole
 
If you are in the market for a bona-fide US Civil War weapon, it is hard to get
taken on a US Model 1816 smoothbore musket converted to percussion. The
overwhelming majority of those have Civil War provenance, and saw beaucoups of
use early in the war on both sides.

The odds of getting jobbed on a "Civil War" Enfield are pretty good. I would insist
on some backing or get an expert opinion. Expect to pay $1500 to $2000.
 
I actually had my eye on a Belgian Liege musket that went unsold for $400. Marked ("C. BANDOY A LIEGE"). All parts are marked with a crown/"CD". Also marked "SS" with a crowned "D." Description claims it is a Civil War import but I'm not sure what to think after the last experience.
 
Im no a collecter, a purist, or even a huge fan of enfield rifle muskets, but if i had struck such a bargain, the unit was as slick as that one and paid for, im afraid the bad in me would conjure up a fantasy of a trip to cuba to trade cow hides for muskets, and i just happened to purchase that one and upon my return blasted my way through various engagements with yankee troops, local robbers, enraged wild cows and anything else my fetid imagination could come up with lol. That sure looks like a nice outfit for the price, i see far less quality at far higher prices on the internet every day. Thanks for showing it.
 
At less than $500 it is a steal and representative of what was carried. For another few hundred dollars you could probably have a pretty decent shooter. I'd say keep it and hang it on the wall. Or sink that few hundred into it and have something that would pretty nice on any NSSA or ACWSA line.
 
Are you sure it wasn't C. DANBOY instead of BANDOY? Crown over CD is the maker's mark for C. DANBOY/A LIEGE. No other special significance to that mark. The Belgian gunmakers produced hundreds of thousands of P53s on contract. They were cheaper than English guns and often fobbed off as Birmingham made.

You will sometimes find Belgian P53s with Birmingham proof marks because of a reciprocal agreement
between the proof houses. Both Isaac Hollis and W. Greener filed lawsuits against a Birmingham
gunmaker who was making Belgian P53s look like Birmingham guns, and won damages. They claimed
the practice was widespread and damaging to both their businesses and reputations since the
Belgian versions were such garbage. They can't have been too bad, as the British had some officers
in Belgium doing nothing but inspecting for their WD. I think the British bought something like 150,000
Liege P53s for their own needs.

When Caleb Huse arrived in London in 1861, before he hooked up with SIC & Co, he had hoped to procure a supply of Belgian P53s. He was told that the full production capacity at Liege for P53s was sold out for the next four months.
 
Ah, yes it is DANBOY- typo.

Just another question about my Enfield. How is it so that the sight is not Birmingham but the barrel and the rest of the gun seems to be Birmingham (furniture, stock markings, proofs lock markings, etc).

I was doing a bit more research on the link below trying to find info about block sights. Aparently they are distinct on Pakistani/Indian "repros" that were made following the India mutiny?

Also, just to reiterate, the "427" on the muzzle cap has no signifigance other than a rack number? I have seen a few CSA Enfields with "inventory marks-" usually 3-4 numbers.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...lock+type+rear+sight&cd=9&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
 
1. The number is probably a part number (to assist in assembly). Most rack numbers were stamped on the butt plate tang.

2. That is a B'ham gun, made by Cook & Son from all appearances. At least lock and stock. My opinion is that the barrel is not original to the gun, but a later addition from a B'ham produced post-Sepoy rebellion Enfield. Note the poor fit under the bolster where it fails to fit flush to the stock. The rest of the wood to metal fit is pretty good. I could be wrong. Is the barrel rifled? Those Enfields made for India troops post Sepoy rebellion were smoothbores, hence the block rear sight. It could be a British East India Company musket, too. The Birmingham gunmakers liked dealing with the EIC because "their standards were laxer and payments quicker" than the WD.

3. As far as the rear sight. The contract might also have specified a fixed block sight, it is impossible to say with any certainty. The gunmakers in the Birmingham Gun Quarter could (and would) make your order any way you specified. A block sight does not mean the barrel was not made in B'ham. The barrel has B'ham proof, so it appears it was (at least proofed at B'ham). The rear sight is just a part brazed on the barrel after it passed proof. It is just not representative of the commercial P53 type III which was widely used by both sides in the American Civil War. Enfields sold elsewhere in the world might be set up differently. That is what I think this one is.
 
I just want to say that in my case, some of what you've said might as well be Russian--but I've enjoyed every bit of it. True expertise is so much fun!!!! Thanks, guys!
 
Back
Top