Primary Source Material on 1853 vs 1861?

[temard]

Looking for some objective comparisons between these two. Was either one better, or were they more or less comparable?

Specifically, I've seen a lot of commentary without much evidence that the '61 was more robust and reliable, while the '53 was better at range and more advanced. I've heard tales of soldiers abandoning their terrible 1861's for P53's, and I've heard the exact opposite just as many times.


Mainly I'm curious why each nation chose to stick to that particular firearm, and if any ordnance boards did some field testing comparing the two. Clearly, both were excellent weapons and influential in their day, this question revolves less around "are these good firearms?" and more around minutia. Why did the USA refuse to blue their weapons? Why did the English insist on sights going out far beyond an average person's capacity to see a target? Why was brass chosen for the Enfield trigger guard? Finally, why was the Springfield .58, and the Enfield .577, and what, if any, differences lie in that tiny change to caliber?

I'm happy to buy books too, though I suspect a lot of the material is going to be free on Google or the National Archives.

 

[johan_steele]

No US unit opted to keep the P53 when issued the M1861. There are examples of units opting to keep their M1841, Lorenz or French arms instead of P53. The P53 is good, the majority in the US were hand made vs machine made interchangeable.

I have seen several P53 over the years where the ramrod channel was widened by a pocket knife due to improper curing of the wood creating slivers.

The 4th MN is an example of a unit that was offered P53 after the fall of Vicksburg. The unit opted to keep their M1841 as they felt them superior. When they returned from furlough in 64 they were issued M1861 series and there were no complaints.

There is a lot of literature out there, there is a difference between the repro and original. The first thing I ask is have you based your view on having handled an original or a repro? Because the Italian offing is a far cry from an original. Having live fired originals… I'll take an M1861 over a P53 any day of the week and twice on Sunday. The quality control was certainly better on the majority of M1861.

 

[Jeff in Ohio]

Stories about units refusing to give up aka exchange their model for another have in the background that old high school cheer given even by teams that had a terrible record:

"We are the Buckeyes
Mighty, mighty Buckeyes
We are the best
Better than the rest!!"

And this cheer is heard on playing fields where that team is the worst in the league!

In other words, praising our stuff and disrespecting your stuff can be a factor.

That said, the US Springfield was standardized and materials and workmanship inspected carefully and so quality of those models was a given. The M1853 Enfield rifle-musket, not so uniform.

Ever see a Springfield with a knot in the wood of the stock? I've never seen one.

Ever see a Model 1853 with a knot in the wood of the stock? I've seen them, and I've owned them!

 

[PrivateBrooke]

If I went through what they did, I imagine I'd develop a certain bond with the one object that got me through all of it, and would not be keen on replacing it. Regardless of the models involved. Much like someone refusing to trade in their old run down car in favor of a newer model.

 

[bayonet]

Owning 2 of the originals I noticed the M1861 weighs less that the Enfield. If your the poor lowly sod Private in the Infantry which would you want if you had to hump it all over Virginia in 1862-65 (you enlisted in a 3 year Regiment you Sap, what were you thinking. Should of enlisted in that 9 month Regiment!).

 

[PrivateBrooke]

Owning 2 of the originals I noticed the M1861 weighs less that the Enfield. If your the poor lowly sod Private in the Infantry which would you want if you had to hump it all over Virginia in 1862-65 (you enlisted in a 3 year Regiment you Sap, what were you thinking. Should of enlisted in that 9 month Regiment!).

Ironically, it's the exact opposite with repros. My 61 is heavy(not as much since I started weight training), while my pards Enfields are much lighter.

 

[yulzari]

US government machine made interchangeable M1861s and UK government (&LSAC) machine made interchangeable Pattern 1853 rifle muskets were comparable with each other, the Enfield having the better sights - if you had been trained properly to make use of them. The stock shapes were different and reflected merely the style preferred in each country. I prefer the Enfield.

Artisan made Enfield Pattern1853s, which were the vast majority of those sold by commercial contractors to both sides in the Difference of Opinion, varied greatly. The good were good, the less good were, well, less good. The impetus for pattern control was minimal other than looking the part and passing proof tests. If you were issued a M1861 then you knew it was properly made to standard. Were you issued Pattern 1853s then they might be excellent or terrible. Mostly quite adequate but you could not be sure.

Contractors selling poor rifles was not unique to the Difference of Opinion. I once had a Snider breechloader conversion from an artisanal Pattern 1853 quickly thrown together to drag in cash from the French National Government in the panic after Sedan in the 1870 war. Bore an oversize reject, sapwood stock, loose rear sight and a Snider breech slapped on the rear of the barrel. All rejects bits clearly dragged out from under the benches to added to an old barrel of Snider breeches. Sent across the Channel to Cherbourg for the French navy to defend the Cotentin Peninsula which used British imports for rifles and ammunition to keep the Prussians at bay. Actually shot adequately as it happens. Sold to me as a smooth bore but turned out to just be filthy but a vigorous cleaning revealed full rifling. However I digress.

 

[Jeff in Ohio]

I'd like to see the info on how many LAC (London Armoury Company) Model 1853s came over to American buyers. I used to read tens of thousands, as I remember about 70,000), but later research that this was very way too high a number. But I still read from our British fellow enthusiasts that the highest number is the correct range.

Is there a definitive answer?

 

[Jeff in Ohio]

US government machine made interchangeable M1861s and UK government (&LSAC) machine made interchangeable Pattern 1853 rifle muskets were comparable with each other, the Enfield having the better sights - if you had been trained properly to make use of them. The stock shapes were different and reflected merely the style preferred in each country. I prefer the Enfield.

Artisan made Enfield Pattern1853s, which were the vast majority of those sold by commercial contractors to both sides in the Difference of Opinion, varied greatly. The good were good, the less good were, well, less good. The impetus for pattern control was minimal other than looking the part and passing proof tests. If you were issued a M1861 then you knew it was properly made to standard. Were you issued Pattern 1853s then they might be excellent or terrible. Mostly quite adequate but you could not be sure.

Contractors selling poor rifles was not unique to the Difference of Opinion. I once had a Snider breechloader conversion from an artisanal Pattern 1853 quickly thrown together to drag in cash from the French National Government in the panic after Sedan in the 1870 war. Bore an oversize reject, sapwood stock, loose rear sight and a Snider breech slapped on the rear of the barrel. All rejects bits clearly dragged out from under the benches to added to an old barrel of Snider breeches. Sent across the Channel to Cherbourg for the French navy to defend the Cotentin Peninsula which used British imports for rifles and ammunition to keep the Prussians at bay. Actually shot adequately as it happens. Sold to me as a smooth bore but turned out to just be filthy but a vigorous cleaning revealed full rifling. However I digress.

I really think your term "artisan made" when applied to the Enfield pattern arms is exactly on the mark. Artisan bread is made by hand and if you buy an ARTISAN loaf, you hope it will be better than the mass produced product, but you don't know until you try that particular loaf. I suspect an "artisan" rifle-musket would seldom be better than the standardized and inspected interchangeable arm, but a user would hope that it was at least as good or only a little lower quality.

 

[yulzari]

I really think your term "artisan made" when applied to the Enfield pattern arms is exactly on the mark. Artisan bread is made by hand and if you buy an ARTISAN loaf, you hope it will be better than the mass produced product, but you don't know until you try that particular loaf. I suspect an "artisan" rifle-musket would seldom be better than the standardized and inspected interchangeable arm, but a user would hope that it was at least as good or only a little lower quality.

Indeed so, but it would be wrong to equate rifle muskets of the 1853 Pattern with simply variable, but often quite serviceable, artisan quality. The British army were more rigorous in their acceptance procedures, examining each part by inspectors as they were made even for the civilian contractor made ones. Certainly they quickly got them out of first line use as soon as possible once the Enfield factory came fully on line and the Crimean War panic ordering including from Belgium, France and USA ceased. The better artisan ones going to Militia, Colonies and Volunteers with the poorer ones sold off. Once they went on to later convert their Pattern 1853s to breech loading Sniders they would only convert the interchangeable ones and went on to make them from new rather than turn to artisan made ones. The commercial market, of course, was not so fussy.

I merely want to emphasise that one must differentiate between artisan made Pattern 1853s and machine made 1853s. To simply refer to generic Pattern 1853s gives a wrong impression of the inherent quality of the design of the arm. Other than the better long range sights of the Enfield a machine made Pattern 1853 is just as good a rifle musket as an M1861.

The post Difference of Opinion decision by the USA to standardise on the M1861 and dispose of the rest of the wartime rifle muskets was driven by sensible logistics as they had the factory to make spares and new as needed and, much as I prefer the machine made Enfield Pattern 1853, I would have made the same decision to standardise the US army on the M1861.

 

[thomas aagaard]

I'll take an M1861 over a P53 any day of the week and twice on Sunday. The quality control was certainly better on the majority of M1861.

And I would take a machinemade P1853 with the correct English made cartridges over a M1861 with US made "Burton" cartridge's
I prefer having a gun that I can shoot for more than 15 rounds before cleaning it... and where the bullet is the correct size and the sights are correct.

But I admit that the cartridges is a critical part of the reason.

As a federal soldier I agree, I would take the M1861.

 

[PrivateBrooke]

I use an M1861 as a Confederate. If you look at the Petersburg dead photos, the predominance of some variant of M1861 in the guns visible points to them being more common than many assume.

 

[SOMTOM]

Here's a letter from my GGG uncle 53rd PVI Co. G:
(Leavitt Wilson Cushing)
April 15th 1863

It commenced raining early this morning before light & rained hard nearly all day. we had orders to be ready to march at day light, but was not called out to march. There was none in our tent on duty to day, Those that had Enfield rifles had to exchange for Springfield, Jay & I had them, we got new Spring-d, I had to go a half mile & got some wet before I got back.

And a note from my GGG Grandfather 53rd PVI Co. G:
(Benjamin Jay Cushing)
August 9, 1864

(to his youngest brother brother Frank)
Do you think of soldiering occasionally, or that you would like to try it? If you think you could stand it, just take a bushel of corn on your back and carry it up to Chanceys, without stopping, if you can do that I think you would make a Soldier. We have one boy about your size, though, 21 years old and he has thrown away about half a dozen guns on this campaign, But has picked up another generally when we stopped, so as to have one after he gets into camp.




- I'm sure there were units (or soldiers) that favored one or the other, it's also neat to see this note about someone tossing them during the march because of the weight!

 

[Jeff in Ohio]

I bet there was a plethora of rifle-muskets in 1864 but in, say, 1862 that soldier would not have let go of a good Springfield