P53 Enfield without proof marks.. Presentation sample

[Cannonman1]

I just came into possession of a P53 marked 1861 from London Armory Co. This RM was presented to a soldier in a Militia Company in England as a shooting award in 1862.. It sports a great piece of walnut and is enhanced with checkering like the Whitworth/Volunteer rifles but is in .577 caliber. It does not have any proof marks however.
My assumption is that it was pulled from the production line for its aesthetics prior to proof because of its intended use as an award. Is that a reasonable assumption?
Note.. We know it was a presentation piece because there is a silver, engraved disc insetted into the butt stock on the cheek side of the stock naming the soldier, his unit and date of presentation

 

[bayonet]

I just came into possession of a P53 marked 1861 from London Armory Co. This RM was presented to a soldier in a Militia Company in England as a shooting award in 1862.. It sports a great piece of walnut and is enhanced with checkering like the Whitworth/Volunteer rifles but is in .577 caliber. It does not have any proof marks however.
My assumption is that it was pulled from the production line for its aesthetics prior to proof because of its intended use as an award. Is that a reasonable assumption?
Note.. We know it was a presentation piece because there is a silver, engraved disc insetted into the butt stock on the cheek side of the stock naming the soldier, his unit and date of presentation

So what does the inscription say in the disc?

 

[Cannonman1]

So what does the inscription say in the disc?

2nd Prize
1st Class
Won by Armstrong Crouch
of 33rd Middlesex Rifles
October 1862

 

[bayonet]

2nd Prize
1st Class
Won by Armstrong Crouch
of 33rd Middlesex Rifles
October 1862

OldSoldier should be able to answer that for you on who or what it is.

 

[Old Soldier]

The barrel was proofed before assembly. However, some LAC rifles headed for the Confederates are found to be 'unproofed' - ie not bearing proofmarks - too. The proofing was normally done by either London or Birmingham proof houses. SOME LAC ones do not bear these proofs, so we should assume that LAC did the proofing. Why? It was well known that LAC was supplying the Confederacy with Enfield-standard guns and these formed all of their production, as most in the trade knew. This meant that any official proofing would, may, suggest that this was with official approval. (Political Correctness is nothing new. GB was neutral) So why proof them at all? They had a reputation for quality. Quality guns do not blow up in your face. There will be some marks, but UNDER the barrel.

Having said all that, the LAC were not producing guns for the Rebs in 1862. This a a photo from an earlier thread about an LAC weapon (1862) showing the London proof marks (25 = 25-bore = .577)

As always in these threads - send some photos, particularly of the breech area. it sounds ridiculous, but the proofmarks may have been removed by polishing or rust removing!

 

[yulzari]

I am no historical legal expert but my understanding is that, then as now, any gun offered for sale in Britain is required by law to undergo proofing at one of the government proof houses and bear their marks as having passed proof. This applies to those for export as these are still deemed to be 'offered for sale'.

Now, like any law, there were naughty persons who did not comply to save the cost of proofing but it would surprise me if a company like the London Small Arms Company were to do so to evade that law.

I realise the above does nothing to explain why this barrel should be apparently free of proof marks. Grasping at straws, does the bolster have a passage to the barrel? If it were made of pretty wood and reject parts just as a display prize then it is not deemed to be a firearm and need not be proofed and a reject barrel with no passage would do the task adequately. Not a likely answer to the query I freely grant.

BTW was this unit not a Volunteer Regiment not a Militia one?

 

[Old Soldier]

From THE LONDON GAZETTE, APRIL 26, 1861.

So definitely Volunteers. They were involved in annual marksmanship competions, especially Wimbledon Common from 1860 - 89 when it moved to Bisley. The early date and rather spendid rifle suggest an NRA prizewinner and these were all shooters!
These were rather precious awards - hence the 'polished away'. Photos definitely needed.

 

[Cannonman1]

Yes, Volunteers for sure.. Here are some pics taken

 

[Cannonman1]

Snapped caps show passage clear through bolster into barrel. Inspection of rifling shows clean and sharp.

 

[Old Soldier]

It is a standard type 3 P1853 with the 'bun-nut' screws on the bands. That lock plate is well worn! See what I mean about polishing? Having said that, it still shows signs of case hardening in front of the hammer - which was probably protecting it! It also may be an issue weapon as it has the V.R below the crown, but I cannot see the acceptance mark. The nipple cushion was NOT applied to service weapons as it was protecting the nipple from hammer strike since the Volunteers were known for lots of 'dry firing'' before they hit the range. It is an 1861 gun and MAY be crown proofed, but that should be visible on top left behind the backsight.

The wood is first class, although shows a lot of oil staining to the front of the lock plate which probably means it was stored on it's side, hammer down. Many of these volunteer rifles ended up in the loft, under-stairs cupboard or, worst of all, a garden shed, when they were not 'popular' any more. The prize plate is probably silver of some sort (probably Sterling silver) and is, unusually, on the inside of the butt. Most seem to have been on the outside.

Another photo - top of the breech would give some idea of the wear on the barrel, but it really needs dismantling to read the stamps underneath.

 

[Cannonman1]

Here is a shot of breech area and just behind the rear sight.. No markings behind sight.

 

[Jeff in Ohio]

I just came into possession of a P53 marked 1861 from London Armory Co….. It does not have any proof marks however.
My assumption is that it was pulled from the production line for its aesthetics prior to proof because of its intended use as an award. Is that a reasonable assumption?

Not a reasonable assumption!
That would be like pulling a car off the production line before installing brakes or before hooking up the steering!
The barrel would have been proofed twice, once before it was rifled, and once after.

 

[Old Soldier]

The tang on the extension onto the barrel looks quite rough,yet the barrel isn't. Hmmmm. If you wanted a posh rifle, all you would need to do is fit a well-worked stock to a production barrel. As I said earlier, LACo was one of the best civilian makers of P53s - they would not risk that reputation by using an unproofed barrel. I suspect the proof marks may be UNDER the barrel.

BTW - there were three proofs: after first boring (preliminary proof BP/lion 'G'), final, (finished bore, definitive proof CP/BCP) and view (Inspector view V). For London the provisional proof was often UNDER the barrel. The number was the bore (25-bore for .577" and 24 for .58"(US only)

There was also the state proof (same three proofs, stamps: two 'crown over crossed sceptre' + inspector's stamp) applied to military barrel, but these would not be seen on Civil War exports or any civilian Volunteer rifles.

 

[Cannonman1]

What does the roughness of the tang indicate?? I will pull the barrel and see what lies underneath.. That will be interesting.

 

[Old Soldier]

The tang is finished as good as the barrel. Usually, the tang will corrode as the barrel does. Your tang does not compare to the barrel. Here is my Lancaster S&M Carbine barrel & tang:

The tang usually is in a better condition as it is protected from contact by the hammer.

 

[Cannonman1]

I wonder why the tang would have been replaced by one in more worn condition? You would think it would the just the opposite. If a part was replaced it should be in better condition. Fascinating..

 

[Old Soldier]

I wonder why the tang would have been replaced by one in more worn condition? You would think it would the just the opposite. If a part was replaced it should be in better condition. Fascinating..

It hasn't been replaced. It is VERY difficult to remove, even for a gunsmith with the proper tools. in any case, the tang is part of the breech plug screwed in after the barrel is bored out. It is part of the barrel. That long mark on the top - the witness mark - is across the join and is there to tell you that the breech plug/tang have NOT moved and are properly aligned. The flat area area on top of the barrel is part of the barrel, not the tang. That is why I find it rather strange that the round part of the barrel is pit-free and quite smooth and the flat top isn't.

 

[Mannyrock]

Possible reasons for unusual tang wear?

1. A child, maybe years after the original owner stopped shooting, found the rifle in grandpa's closet, and grandma let him run around with it for a year after, firing caps only. This was apparently common in the southern U.S., especially with 1851 Colts. Perhaps this is what gave rise to the common phrase "cap gun"?

2. After cleaning with water, the owner routinely sat the gun upright in a rack, without totally drying it, and the last bit of moisture or water film just rolled down the barrel to the tang area.

3. Owner was scrupulous about cleaning out the barrel after matches, but not so scrupulous about scrubbing off the primer crud that builds up on the tang from the caps.

4. Sweat eats metal very rapidly, even on modern guns. Perhaps the owner shot matches in hot weather, and routinely placed his thumb on the top of the tang when shooting. Unless he carefully cleaned this off and oiled it each time, it would only take 3 or 4 occasions for this type erosion to occur. (I have seen one small thumbprint of blood on a modern hunting rifle eat into the metal in just a few days. Very very common.)

Just some thoughts.

Mannyrock

 

[Old Soldier]

If you look at my Lancaster breech area, you will see that the 'crud' builds up in a circular pattern and spreads out from the nipple. You will also notice that the barrel gets covered as well. I also see the 'wear' on the lockplate as well - far in excess for most P53s without pitting. Someone has been 'restoring'. I would be interesting to see the underside of the barrel too. Just to illustrate the problem, here is another one of my collection, a Snider Mk III artillery carbine that has been 'restored':

Most of the original stamps have been obliterated or greatly erased - even the deep ones! (No. I did not pay a fortune (market price) for this one, the damage was too obvious and there were parts missing.)

 

[Old Soldier]

Just a note.

Further research reveals that some London Armoury Company often did not have proof stamps on the barrel, but often replaced them with their own LAC stamps.

From College Hill Arsenal:

A small number of examples of L.A.C. made guns with Confederate provenance, including Confederate inventory numbered examples exist that do not have London commercial proof marks, but are rather stamped L.A.C. three or four times. As failing to have a barrel proved at the proof house by a London maker was one of the most serious crimes of the period, it would be an exceptional situation in which any gunmaker would have risked their entire livelihood to evade the Draconian English proof laws. It is my belief that L.A.C. guns so marked were being rushed out the door for delivery to their Confederate buyers and for whatever reason the management was willing to risk their entire business by failing to have the guns proved. Similarly, it is my belief that this gun was assembled with a barrel previously inspected, proved and marked for British military service. However, the need to get the gun "out the door", possibly as part of the Massachusetts contract resulted in the with the military markings being partially obscured by being over stamped with the L.A.C. mark.

(from a past example at College Hill Arsenal)
Barrels made for Britain had to be proofed and most of the other contracter got their's from the barrel-makers who would have their barrels proofed before selling on. LACo was the only contractor who made these rifles on a production line - every component made by them and to the same standard as Enfield but marked LAC then proofed by either London proofs or government proofs..

Yours does not have any LAC barrel stamps which suggests either 'over-restoring' as I stated earlier, or that is not an LAC barrel IOW a replacement. Any photos of the underside of the barrel may help in tracing its origin.