Small Bore Enfield?

[Old Soldier]

There were .451 Enfields being made, and these were the "small bore"weapons. Colonel Hay had ordered a pattern be made to compare with the Whitworth. It shot as well as the Whitworth, but was rejected for fouling too easily, and the Whitworth formally adopted in 1862. These weapons did make it into rebel hands and were used as sharpshooter weapons.

Research
"The men were armed with the Pattern 1860 Enfield, a "two-band" short version of the longer and widely distributed Pattern 1853 Enfield. Despite its shorter length, the arm was more accurate due to tighter rifling, and the shorter barrel made it handier and thus desirable for sharpshooters. The 1853 Enfield was sure to fill some ranks as well when P60s could not be had."

"Laughton states that the battalion was issued "small-bore Enfield Rifles." The weapon fitting this description may be the 0.45 cal Kerr target rifle, sometimes referred to as an "Enfield type" rifle. However, it wasn't imported in nearly the quantities for the entire battalion to have been armed with it"

"He also states that the battalion kept two rifles with globe sights in their wagon's for use on special occasions, these may have been the famous English imported Whitworth rifle, another highly accurate arm with extremely limited distribution and fetched a price of $1,000 a piece... in 1860's currency."

History

Historical evidence on Mahone’s Sharpshooters specifically is quite lacking when compared to more mainstream and thoroughly documented regular units. Much can be derived from a speech given by...

mahonessharpshooters.weebly.com

The Enfield P1860 was the same caliber as the P53 - .577" - but had five-groove progressive rifling with a 48" twist, making it more accurate (P53 was 3-groove/78"). The Enfield-type 'small-bore' of .451" calibre like the Whitworth, but with an Enfield rifled bore, was not made by Enfield. It was crafted by civilian gunsmiths and introduced for target shooting (match rifles), for Volunteers only, from about 1862 onwards. They were never a British issue weapon and cost considerably more than the standard P1853/P1860. They would only be bought for marksmen. They were accurate up to 1,000 yds.

 

[67th Tigers]

where can I read more about them? never heard this before...

All I have to hand is Whitworth case from when he sued the government. Hay stated that the small-bore Enfield shot better than the Whitworth, and Whitworth then pulled out of the trials. My memory is the government wanted to adopt the .451 Enfield, but the legal case delayed matters.

There were two series of tests, in 1858 with a batch of 10 .451 Enfields, which resulted in the recommendation of adopting a small-bore Enfield as a sharpshooter weapon, and then in 1862, which resulted in the Whitworth being adopted instead. Here are the results of the 1862 tests. Here is an 1859 report, mentioning the .451 Enfields in various riflings, and that they outperformed the Whitworth.

Parker-Hale and Kerr both started manufacturing .451 Enfield's as the "Volunteer Rifle" and "Kerr Rifle" respectively. A number of Kerr's reached the rebel sharpshooters. When you see reference to a "Kerr Rifle," it is a .451 Enfield.

A PS: The original 10 test .451 Enfields were indeed made by Enfield. The civilian copies were just that.

 

[thomas aagaard]

When you see reference to a "Kerr Rifle," it is a .451 Enfield.

Thanks. Guess I learned something new.

a bit of googling resulted in this link

Kerr Rifle - Very Scarce & Fine

Kerr Rifle Very Scarce Fine

collegehillarsenal.com

It cover the topic well. It do give the indication that the less than 50 guns imported where all used out west.

 

[Joe Whitworth]

Thanks for the link. lots to learn there about the Kerr.

 

[Old Soldier]

The initial tests by the British were done after the 1851 Minie proved a bit of a handful. The caliber was .702" - like it's French original so it could fire musket ball if necessary and the recoil was considered a bit too strong for a long engagement and fouling meant only 12 shots before cleaning was necessary. So the Board of Ordnance began tests for a 'small bore Minie'.
The rifles tested in 1852 were different calibers from .65" to .53" and different varieties of rifling including oval bore. The Enfield .577" won and was put into production as the Pattern 1853. The smaller bores were rejected principly because of their perceived lack of 'knock-down'.

The next set of tests were for a smaller polyagonal (hexagonal) bore promoted by Whitworth and were carried out by Whitworth for Enfield 1858-62. This resulted in the .451" Enfield Pattern 1862 and 1863 Whitworth trials rifles. About 1,000 P1862 and 8,000 P1863 were produced for trials which lasted until 1868, but were not adopted, mainly through hot fouling and being slow to load, and eventually sold off as surplus. Therefore no 'small-bore Enfields' would have been used in the Civil War.

Whitworths, produced by Whitworth's company and in 1862 reorganized as the Manchester Ordnance & Rifle Company were used in the Civil War, but, as usual, these would be 'civilian' rifles produced to an Enfield pattern. They had to be to Enfield pattern to qualify for use in Volunteer shooting matches. None of those sold abroad at that time would be 'Enfield' marked and all would bear British civilian barrel proof stamps.

'Kerr rifles' at this time were produced by the London Armoury Company (L.A.Co) for which Kerr was Superintendent, and the barrels marked with 'Kerr patent' on the barrel. His patent was for a .451" 6-groove bore, with ratchet rifling starting straight at the breech and increasing to a twist of one turn in 20".

The rear sight was mounted "backwards" compared to a standard P53. There was no provision for a bayonet and was 'short' at 37" long. The rest of the rifle was a standard P53 type 3 and the barrel could be replaced with a standard 39" Enfield-type barrel with no fitting. It was only slightly more expensive than a P53 and London Armoury were a significant supplier to the Confederate Army.

 

[ResearchPress]

. . . 'Kerr rifles' at this time were produced by the London Armoury Company (L.A.Co) for which Kerr was Superintendent, and the barrels marked with 'Kerr patent' on the barrel. His patent was for a .451" 6-groove bore, with ratchet rifling starting straight at the breech and increasing to a twist of one turn in 20". . . .

As a point of detail, and irrespective of the barrel marking, Kerr did not Patent his rifling. He claimed a Registered Design dated 10 May 1861. This relates to the prevention of fouling in rifle barrels and the expansion of the bullet before it enters the spiral portion of rifling. It only relates to the short straight portion of rifling - he made no claim for the shape or configuration of the rest of the rifling.

David

 

[Old Soldier]

As a point of detail, and irrespective of the barrel marking, Kerr did not Patent his rifling. He claimed a Registered Design dated 10 May 1861. This relates to the prevention of fouling in rifle barrels and the expansion of the bullet before it enters the spiral portion of rifling. It only relates to the short straight portion of rifling - he made no claim for the shape or configuration of the rest of the rifling.

David

But since that was part of the rifling in the barrel, it was to his patent. The rifling was part of Kerr's design and that will be found in the barrels maked 'Kerrs Patent'. He did not patent rachet rifling but it was significantly different to the established Enfield rifling to make it different.

 

[ResearchPress]

But since that was part of the rifling in the barrel, it was to his patent. The rifling was part of Kerr's design and that will be found in the barrels maked 'Kerrs Patent'. He did not patent rachet rifling but it was significantly different to the established Enfield rifling to make it different.

No, there was no patent insofar as I am aware, irrespective of the mark on the barrel. Registered Designs and Patents are different means of protection, and quite often misunderstood / mistaken - so for example in the College Hill Arsenal linked page above they refer to "English Patent" and cite a reference. That reference is in fact the Registered Design, not a Patent. Barrels are also marked "REG'd / 10 MAY 1861", i.e. the date registered with the Design Office.

David

 

[Old Soldier]

No, there was no patent insofar as I am aware, irrespective of the mark on the barrel. Registered Designs and Patents are different means of protection, and quite often misunderstood / mistaken - so for example in the College Hill Arsenal linked page above they refer to "English Patent" and cite a reference. That reference is in fact the Registered Design, not a Patent. Barrels are also marked "REG'd / 10 MAY 1861", i.e. the date registered with the Design Office.

David

THAT is the problem with many designs at this time. The US patents system appears to have been a lengthy process. There were many US gunmakers who patented designs in Britain and often produced them here too.
Maybe it was not patented in the USA, but the barrels are marked 'Kerr's Patent' because they were patented and produced in Britain.

That same article also states "On May 10, 1861 Kerr received English Patent #4348 (1861) for his unique rifling design." Just because it is not a US patent does not mean it has not been patented elsewhere. The registered date was provided for reference but basically for sales in Britain - it was a NEW patent for the match riflemen.

Capatain Beaumont (RE)'s patent for a change to the trigger mechanism of the Adams Revolver making it 'self-cocking or single action' was entered for patent in England and the USA (British 374; US 15032) in Feb 1855 . The British one was sealed in May 1855 but the US patent was not complete until June 1856.

 

[ResearchPress]

... Maybe it was not patented in the USA, but the barrels are marked 'Kerr's Patent' because they were patented and produced in Britain.

That same article also states "On May 10, 1861 Kerr received English Patent #4348 (1861) for his unique rifling design." Just because it is not a US patent does not mean it has not been patented elsewhere. The registered date was provided for reference but basically for sales in Britain - it was a NEW patent for the match riflemen.
...

I am well aware that British gunmakers took out Patents here and in the USA, and vice versa. But that is irrelevant to the discussion.

I have in front of me a copy of James Kerr's, Useful Registered Design Number: 4368 - for "Rifle Groove." It is dated 10 May 1861, and includes illustration of his rifling and a hand written description of the purpose of the design.
This falls under the 1839 Designs Registration Act, later amended. If you wish to examine Kerr's Registered Design, you will find it in the Board of Trade Records at the National Archives.

A Registered Design is not a Patent.

David

 

[Old Soldier]

I am well aware that British gunmakers took out Patents here and in the USA, and vice versa. But that is irrelevant to the discussion.

I have in front of me a copy of James Kerr's, Useful Registered Design Number: 4368 - for "Rifle Groove." It is dated 10 May 1861, and includes illustration of his rifling and a hand written description of the purpose of the design.
This falls under the 1839 Designs Registration Act, later amended. If you wish to examine Kerr's Registered Design, you will find it in the Board of Trade Records at the National Archives.

A Registered Design is not a Patent.

David

It still had 'Kerr's Patent' on the barrel!!!!! Whether he had one or not!

 

[ResearchPress]

It still had 'Kerr's Patent' on the barrel!!!!! Whether he had one or not!

Yes, as I said form the outset, "irrespective of the barrel marking, Kerr did not Patent his rifling."

David