Recent Find Recent acquisition--would like some opinions

[cannonjockey]

After acquiring two Union-used firearms--an 1863 Springfield and a nice 5th model Burnside carbine, I decided to try for a longarm used by the South so the obvious choice seemed to be P1853. After some searching, I came across this Pritchett model listed with Lodgewood. It turned out that Lodgewood was selling it on consignment and the owner also had it listed on Guns International with a reference that Lodgewood had done some work on it. I discovered all of this when I tried to call Lodgewood about it but unfortunately, at the time, their offices were shut down since they had all gone to the N-SSA nationals. When I stumbled across the same listing on GI, I called the owner who filled me in on all of this so we were able to negotiate the price and he contacted Lodgewood to handle the payment and shipment when they returned from the N_SSA event.

So the gun comes with a story. Here is the actual copy from the listing. I should mention that when I decided on an Enfield, I had already obtained a copy of the English Connection book plus Suppliers to the Confederacy by Craig Barry and David Burt.

From the listing:

Here's a great, affordably priced R.T. Pritchett Confederate Enfield. Robert Taylor Pritchett was among the first of the British arms makers to be contracted by Archibald Hamilton, of the Sinclair, Hamilton & Co. Confederate arms purchasing agents to provide arms for the Confederacy. As the director of the London Armory Co., Archibald Hamilton was well connected with the key players of the London gun trade, and as a result he with contracted with the major London Arms manufacturers to provide arms to the Confederacy through S.H.&Co. As a result of Hamilton's influence, a majority of the London-based firms sold guns exclusively to the Confederacy through S.H.&Co and are considered to be exclusively Confederate arms by collectors.

Authors Russ A. Pritchard & C.A. Huey list R.T. Pritchett as an exclusive Confederate supplier in their book The English Connection.

This particular R.T. Pritchett P1853 is in very good condition. The lock, barrel, and furniture feature a light patina appropriate to age with no rust present. The lock features very crisp and legible markings and a reliable action featuring a crisp half and full cock. The London proof marks on the barrel are also crisp and legible; and are appropriate for an R.T. Pritchett-produced Enfield; indicating that this is a legitimate Pritchett gun, and not a parts gun made from a combination of BSAT and Pritchett parts.

The stock shows very crisp edges and the wood-to-metal fit is excellent - both excellent features that demonstrate the fact that the stock has never been refinished. The wrist of the stock, however, was broken by USPS during a previous shipment. The craftsmen at Lodgewood Mfgr. have professionally repaired the wrist and blended the work into the rest of the stock; making it absolutely invisible. However, in the interest of full disclosure,, it must be stated that while the stock is very sound, the extent of the repair work that was required to fix the stock damage is enough that this piece is marketed strictly as a collector's item with the disclaimer that it is no longer safe to fire.

The owner who used to compete at the N-SSA had purchased the musket and may have originally intended to compete with it. However, after retiring and moving to Colorado he figured his N-SSA competition days were done due to the travel distances. He decided to sell it as is, but supposedly priced it accordingly. However, the owner and I negotiated the price down just a bit more. While the gun presents well with its metal bright and wood dark I knew that was mostly backward. When new the metal would have been blued and the wood grain would have still been evident. Obviously, the metal had been cleaned and the wood grain obscured to hide the stock repair. Basically, I knew I still buying the gun and not the story.

I also guess at this point the only proof of Confederate use is the statement that Robert Prichett only sold to the Confederacy.

My thoughts were that if I want to shoot it badly enough I could order a new rough inletted stock from Dunlop Woodcrafts and finish fitting it out myself to create an additional stock suitable for live fire. I would also fit the new stock with its own buttplate, trigger guard, trigger assembly, and nose cap. That way I'd have the original stock for display and usable new stock if I want to shoot it by simply moving the lock, barrel, and barrel bands. If and when I finally sell it, I would include both stocks for the new owner--one for display and one for live fire.

Of course, I'm still new to the Enfields of this period so cut me some slack if I make any stupid statements or guesses in the following text.

As near as I can tell there are no marks anywhere on the rifle indicating Southern acceptance--just the standard London proof marks on the top of the barrel and assorted assembly marks and other stamps on the underside of the breach. The only marks I could find on the stock were two initials in the inlet channel for the trigger guard.

Here is the rifle along with a pristine almost unmarked bayonet with original scabbard and frog in excellent condition I found while waiting for the rifle to arrive. I'll post more about it after the rifle. The snake hook belt, kepi, and Enfield cartridge box are modern repops--also the snap cap nipple protector, Tompion, and sling. I eventually replaced the American-style cap pouch with one of the English style that fits at an angle on the cartridge box sling. The idea was to present the rifle with English-style accessories that might have made it through the Union blockade on occasion.

Here's a close-up of the lockplate. This is actually one of the listing photos. Obviously, as already mentioned, the metal has no finish so it must have been cleaned at some point. Notice the gap at the back of the rear sight caused by the fact that the curvature of the sight base is different than that of the barrel. The gap is filled in with solder at the front end but not at the back. Is this abnormal or did such things happen because components were farmed out to other makers?

Here are the standard London proofs on the top of the rear barrel with the exception of that large dot (dimple) that is over the London provisional Proof at the left. I haven't noticed a mark like that on the few others I've seen in the books or online.

here are the marks on the bottom. Starting with some illegible numerals and hash marks over a 25 gauge stamp, then another illegible mark (maybe a hash mark through a remnant of the number 5) followed by the numbers 1 and 5, a large RP (Robert Pritchett?) followed by what looks like a chess piece to me but then maybe it's the letters GM (I don't have a clue), then some assembly hash marks over a barely legible Pritchett name stamp, and finally the name of J.R. Cooper (inverted) I could not find the name of J.R. Cooper in the "English Connection" book by Ross Prichard but did find an inventor and gun maker John Rock Cooper active until 1863 mentioned in the first "Suppliers to the Confederacy" book by Craig Berry and David Burt. He was mentioned as also being involved in the Birmingham barrel-making business so could this mean that this is a Birmingham-made barrel proofed in London?

Here's a shot of the trigger guard inlet with the initials that I think are G.H. Those letters don't match any of the stock makers listed or the war department or non-war department viewers listed in the "English Connection" book and the only G.H. I could find in the index was one of a pair of Birmingham gun maker brothers by the name of George Hackett.

The Palmer-style barrel bands have peened or crimped donuts on the screws to keep them from screwing all the way out. I can find no other marks on any of the metal or wood of the gun.

However, I did find one very tiny stamp on the ramrod--almost what one would call a micro stamp. It looks like a crown over E over the numeral 1. In looking at various proof mark sheets I came across a Belgium barrel proof with a Crown over an E but no numeral. Once again I'm clueless here.

There are no dates on the gun, but since Pritchett is reported to have left the gun-making business around 1863, the gun would have to predate that time--correct?

That's about all I have on the gun and now on to the bayonet, scabbard, and frog. Once again, please excuse any amateur mistakes I might have made so far in my guesses, and feel free to correct me.

I found the bayonet on eBay and it was listed as all original and authentic. The seller had a perfect rating and had mentioned that this set had sold previously through two noted sellers. (see below) The blade is nice and clean with no real signs of staining or pitting. The ricasso has no marks. The iron socket still retains most of its finish with some areas still showing bright bluing in the light. It has the letter C stamped on it along with the numerals 139. (maybe former home guard markings) The tool in the picture is an India made repro found on eBay.

Here's the socket with markings. It's hard to use my camera's close up setting on a curved surface so the letter C at top is out of focus

The scabbard is in quite good condition if original as claimed. There was a bit of verdigris on the scabbard's upper brass throat around the frog buckle area that I cleaned off while attempting to leave the overall patina alone. The frog stitching is strong while the upper surfaces of the leather had started to crackle a bit. I put a light coat of Lexol leather conditioner on it. There is some loss of color on the leather strap around the buckle but it's still pliable. It is stamped B.H.& C 20 on the back and some previous owner (period owner I would guess) had scratched the name of "Gill" twice.

As previously mentioned, the seller indicated that this set had been previously sold through two sources--- the Horse Soldier and Heritage Auctions. I came up with nothing from the former but struck gold with the latter. Here it is from an auction back in 2015. I paid substantially less than what it went for back then but then I'm assuming the eBay seller was not the person who won it in that auction from 8 years ago. You can see the verdigris I cleaned off. Maybe I should not have done that but to me, it just looks as nasty as toe jam. They thought the name scratched on the back was Gilly, but I cannot discern a letter "y" so I'm going with Gill. All the other stampings to metal and leather are identical. Auction description at very bottom of screen shot

Well, if I haven't bored everybody to death with pictures and my amateur opinions & comments, I have one final shot. I laid everything out on a 2nd national Confederate flag to put a little color & shades of Dixie in it whether I have a real Confederate used rifle or not.

Comments and corrections are welcome


Cheers

 

[Jeff in Ohio]

A very nice grouping.

I've imagined lots of projects over the years, such as your idea of fitting the metal parts to a new reproduction stock, but I think you should leave this as Lodgewood sent it to you, and find a badly broken musket or one with the wood greatly damaged for such a project! If your replacement project was completely successful, it would look unchanged from it's current condition. If I tried this project, the result would look CHANGED FOR THE WORSE ! You could have a nice LONDON Pritchett Model 1853 to display and own, and another to shoot!

I don't think ANY maker sold exclusively to the South. I think the reference in the listing you quote meant to say that Sinclair Hamilton & Co supplied only to the Confederacy, but there are no Sinclair Hamilton marks on your nice Model 1853.

 

[cannonjockey]

Thanks, Jeff

I think you are right about the provenance. After reading through the long arms trade section of the "English connection" book, I don't really remember the authors ever really coming out and saying that all Pritchett rifles were sold to the South. The reference quoted from the seller's listing may just be his take on it since he's trying to sell the rifle after all. However, it is a large book and it describes tons of intertwined business, manufacturing, and sales/shipping connections with the Birmingham and London gun trade and agents from the South during the ACW. It was confusing but maybe a second read-through will help.

I have done three stock projects over the years with pre-inletted but still oversized stocks that came out pretty well--especially by the third time. However, I'm a bit intimidated by a 3 bander. I wouldn't attempt it until I'm sure I can find all the metal furniture which is not that plentiful these days. I'm backed up now with other gun projects that I keep putting off so who knows---not to mention that I just got hit with home AC problems. They are going to have to replace both the outside compressor unit and the attic evaporation coils for a tidy sum of $6500. I think my hobby spending is going on hold indefinitely.

Cheers

 

[Jeff in Ohio]

I've got a Pritchett 3 band rifle-musket stashed away which, as I recall, has the stock broken.
Maybe the Pritchett stock selector made some bad purchases, eh?

 

[johan_steele]

I wouldn't worry about the stock as is. I've seen quite a few original stocks of similar coloration. As the metal in the white it would have most likely have been by a soldier in the field with a bit of brick dust and elbow grease and is an indication of having come across the pond.

The gap under the rear sight is likely original to the weapon. Quality control was problematic with some being absolutely atrocious. Having the soldered on rear sight knocked off in service was not unknown.

 

[Papabyrd]

Nice Rifle Congratulations

 

[Old Soldier]

The only maker that sold excusively to the South was the London Armoury Company (LAC or LACo) and some of their barrels were NOT proofed officially by the London Proof House. The backsight fit may be down to a 'standard' sight fitted onto a civilian barrel which was not completely 'to spec' and of slightly greater diameter. The strange mark underneath the usual proofs is the 'preliminary Black Powder check' although the dot is rather unusual. It is rather immaterial as to which side got the piece as many captured Confederate P53s were re-used by Union forces - and vice versa. The mark on the ramrod is an inspectors mark, which is NOT an acceptance mark for British service use. Many of the internal components on civilian P53s were marked like that as they were made in quantity and used when needed.

The //\|/ mark on the barrel is the assemblers mark and may also be found in the inside of the barrel channel on the stock and the SIDE/edge of the lockplate. This was used in place of a serial number at the time and also identified the individual for payment purposes. GH was the stockmaker. As with all these weapons, Pritchett was the gunmaker who sold the guns, and arranged the buying-in and collection of parts and their assembly This was often done in different small workshops, hence the need for the assemblers mark. The only company not to do this was the LACo who made all the parts and assembled them on site a la Enfield.

The bayonet is a bit more difficult. The number on the bayonet and the lack of any markings suggests that, at best, this is a civilian export bayonet that was numbered by the regiment. However, the condition of the surface of the blade is just a bit too perfect which means it is possibly repro or has been ground down and polished, hence the lack of makers marks on the flat. Most export bayonets had the makers mark on them. If genuine, it has never been issued which means that the numbers are a bit superfluous! The scabbard looks very much like a repro as the leather is pretty much perfect which suggests it is NOT 160 years old.

 

[cannonjockey]

@Old Soldier

Thanks for the review and comments. Do you have any additional thoughts on the J.R. Cooper stamp on the barrel?


I agree that the scabbard does not look old but I do think the frog is period due to the light crackling and rubbed areas with loss of color. I also have one reproduction Enfield bayonet, scabbard, and frog---and although similar to an original there are still dissimilarities too--especially in the quality of the blade. The repro bayonet I have and the others I've seen are crude in comparison to this blade but like you indicated--the lack of any other mark on the ricasso makes it questionable.

Since reproductions for Enfields and their accessories have been around at least since the early 1970s, it's getting harder to sometimes tell an old reenactment used repop from an original. While I was looking for an original private's or sergeant's combo tool, I came across one that the seller had originally sold as an original and after the buyer gave it a thorough cleaning he found a Parker Hale stamp on it so he returned it for a refund. The seller who was evidently honest relisted the piece at a reduced price and included the story of the previous buyer's discovery. I also didn't mention it when I included the screenshot from Heritage Auctions but I also take descriptions provided by any auction company with a grain of salt. They make egregious errors describing items all the time.

Cheers

 

[Drumfish420]

Beautiful rifle!

 

[Old Soldier]

@Old Soldier

Thanks for the review and comments. Do you have any additional thoughts on the J.R. Cooper stamp on the barrel?

Cheers

JR Cooper was the barrelmaker and the reason why Pritchett's name is also on there is that he may well have been the guy who got it proofed. It may be that the barrel was supplied as a blank from Cooper (cheap!) and the other marks are the various machinists, assemblers and inspectors who completed the boring and rifling and fitted the breech plug. London gunmakers liked their guns to bear the London proof! It does show how ... complicated the process could be here in Britain at the time. This was how sporting arms had been made for centuries. All the the industrial revolution and the advance in arms design did was to make the process rather more complicated. BTW - Belgian guns were made in the same way too - and for far longer.

 

[Joe Whitworth]

Nice display. The "Parker Hale made in England" stamping on Enfield tool can be hard to see. Mine is lightly struck on the screwdriver blade, unless the light hits the surface just right you never notice it.