Comparing the Pedersoli P1853 with the Pedersoli P1858.

[Maillemaker]

Now that I own both a Pedersoli P58 and a P53, there are some interesting tidbits I thought I would share with everyone.

I picked up the P58 shortly after Pedersoli released their re-tooled Enfields, buying it new in box but second-hand from a forum member here.

I picked up the P53 just a few days ago.

The P58 had left-over Euroarms parts on and in it. It was clearly using the cast Euroarms sight, which I promptly replaced with a Rich Cross machined sight. The P53 came with a crisp new machined sight. The P58 lock also had some left-over Euroarms parts. The bridle still had the P-H casting in it.

The stirrup arm on the tumbler of the P58 was very weak. There was not enough material around the hole for the trunnion on the the stirrup linkage. As a result, the part snapped as I disassembled the lock. Fortunately I had a machined Lodgewood tumbler and sear to drop in. As you can see on the P53, this problem has been remedied and there is plenty of material around the hole for the trunnion. Also the P53 lock appears to be all new components; No more Euroarms left-over parts.

Pedersoli P58 Lock:
http://i.imgur.com/MYSpamP.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/6cE5UQt.jpg

Broken stirrup arm on P58:
http://i.imgur.com/bmu4QEe.jpg

Pedersoli P53 Lock:
http://i.imgur.com/5wxn2vt.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/54uIXbp.jpg

The lockplate fit on both guns was extremely tight. So much so that on the P58 the first time I pushed the lock plate out, using its mounting screws, it raised a splinter out of the stock near the front of the lockplate.

Splinter:
http://i.imgur.com/m3anaoz.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/Zr3c00M.jpg

Another point of interest is that on the P58, Pedersoli obviously re-contoured the stock, making the rear of the lock panel protrusion more pointy, as is frequently seen on originals. But they did not propagate this change on the P53.

P58 compared to P53:
http://i.imgur.com/RxPo805.jpg

Both guns feature the numerous cosmetic changes including square-eared lock washers, BSAT stock cartouches, more correct Palmer-style barrel bands, more correct swivel hardware, and correct lockplate markings. On the P58, Pedersoli added pseudo proof marks to the barrel to mimic the historical markings, but they are clearly laser etched and do not look quite like the original stamped markings. On the P53, some of the pseudo-proofs are on the barrel, while some carry over across the seam onto the cast breech section. The proofs on the barrel are laser-etched as on the P58, whereas the proof marks on the cast breech are cast into it. The cast markings, while not as crisp as stamped markings, actually look more like stamped markings than the laser-engraved ones on the barrel.

Full view of both guns side-by-side:
http://i.imgur.com/CzbzCvP.jpg

It would appear that in the intervening months of my purchase of the P58 until my purchase of the P53 that Pedersoli has continued making improvements to their bought-out and re-tooled Euroarms Enfields. The quality of the parts has improved as they have replaced Euroarms components with their own, though it is puzzling why they are not re-contouring the stock around the lockplate as they did on the P58.


Link to entire album of photos:
http://imgur.com/a/b0ONh

Steve

[Gunnar]

Good writeup. I'm on the hunt for a P53 so that I can join in the fun, and I am glad to hear the Pedersoli has been improved.

Now to find one and a group with which to shoot.

[Maillemaker]

Hello Gunnar,

Here is a Google map showing where all the current active skirmish event sites are:

https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?mid=zJsZG0eZdDIU.kSOtqeWZ3gDU

If you click on any of the icons it will bring up a dialog showing you the web site of whatever region(s) use the site.

Steve

[Gunnar]

Great link, thank you. I'm pretty sure I'm in Tidewater, and I sent a membership query to Rowan Artillery a week or so ago, just waiting on a response. But glad to see this is an approved piece, since it was the one I planned to buy for use with the reenactment group.

[MR. GADGET]

Feel free to contact me fo info.
don't know why no one has contacted you could be a problem with our web sight.

most of our team is based in the raleigh area.

[R. McAuley 3014V]

"The lockplate fit on both guns was extremely tight. So much so that on the P58 the first time I pushed the lock plate out, using its mounting screws, it raised a splinter out of the stock near the front of the lockplate."


The lock-plates of original P53 Enfields have a slight bevel along the edges of the plate to eliminate this pressure against the wood, which in examining the photos you provide of the Pedersoli products, seem to be missing this bevel.

BTW does anyone know what the butt-stock length is on the new Pedersoli Enfields, short (13-inch) or long (14-inch)?

[Maillemaker]

I believe the Pedersoli's are the short pull.

Steve

[nssa-admin]

Hey Gunnar, email me at webmaster@n-ssa.org. I'm on Rowan, I think our website email is down, I'm checking it. But drop me a line.



Great link, thank you. I'm pretty sure I'm in Tidewater, and I sent a membership query to Rowan Artillery a week or so ago, just waiting on a response. But glad to see this is an approved piece, since it was the one I planned to buy for use with the reenactment group.

[Blair]

The new Pedersoli Enfield's have the "short" stock, 13" length of pull.
The Short Naval Rifle, P-1858 has a 13.5 length of pull
My best,
Blair

[R. McAuley 3014V]

The new Pedersoli Enfield's have the "short" stock, 13" length of pull.
The Short Naval Rifle, P-1858 has a 13.5 length of pull
My best,
Blair

Interesting! So they are still essentially using the Pattern IV stock.

[Curt]

Hallo!

Correct.

"By and large" British Parker Hale (and later the "Italians") merely took the RSAF P1853 4th Model RM gauges and reversed engineered what is essentially kinda-sorta an 1858 "Naval Rifle" but is not fully.

Curt

[Maillemaker]

So the Pattern III were long pull stocks?

Steve

[Curt]

Hallo!

"Enfield" (RSAF) only began to use the short stock proposed in 1855, authorized in 1859, in 1860.

However, no P1858 Naval Rifles were produced at the RSAF until 1863-1864 when 2,280 were made. The predominate majority of Naval Rifles made, some 40 to 1, were non-interchangeable. London makers were initially kinda/sorta left out and received one contract in 1859 for 5,000 that was increased in June leading to a 16,554 production run. Throwing in some Liege and Moxhamm pieces all but 95 out of 78,000 ordered were delivered into store by 1864. London Armoury pieces made for the Government were also long stocked.

Curt

[Maillemaker]

"Enfield" (RSAF) only began to use the short stock proposed in 1855, authorized in 1859, in 1860.

So...does this mean that Type III P53 Enfields used both long and short stocks, while the P58 used only short?

Steve

[Curt]

Hallo!

"So...does this mean that Type III P53 Enfields used both long and short stocks,"

Yes, depending upon who made them and when. (BSAT, London commercial, London Armoury Company, and RSAF (aka "Enfield" or "Enfield Locks")

"while the P58 used only short?

No, depending on who made them and when.

Curt

[R. McAuley 3014V]

As Curt noted, but best to quote:

“The suggestion, that a shorter stock would be of advantage, even to men of ordinary stature, had been made by Colonel Hay as early as November 1855 but, for four years, nothing was done about it. It was ultimately followed up by orders 77/15/570 of 30th November, and 16th December, 1859, but it was liad down that the change-over was not to be implemented for six months. In fact it appears that the matter rested until late in the following year since new patterns to guide the stock contractors were not ordered to be dispatched until 25th August, 1860, though they appear to have been prepared with little delay.”

Thus the arms most likely affected would have been those rifles and rifle muskets manufactured after August 1860, excepting production at London Armoury Company and the Liege trade which continued to produce the “long butt”. Interestingly, the Parker-Hale P/53 and P/61 Artillery Carbine (pictured at left) were manufactured with the “long butt”, despite their allegedly being copies of the last pattern arm with the short butt. The third stock pictured from left is an 1863-dated Birmingham Small Arms Company “Tower”; while the musket at right is an 1862-dated Government Enfield.

http://i267.photobucket.com/albums/ii305/rmac1023/Enfieldpics001_zps768178b1.jpg

[Maillemaker]

Alright, sorry guys, I'm trying to follow along here. This stock length issue is a new one to me.

OK, so it seems like some variants of Enfields were short-pull stocks after 1860.

We have 1853, 1858, and 1861 variants. Presumably they all were made in both short and long variants after 1860, depending on manufacturer?

So the LAC and Liege trade makers stayed with the long? Did everyone else go to short?

I don't know how many of the Enfield variants imported by the Confederacy were made before 1860; I thought Huse arranged for contracts for them to be made, which would mean that most of the Confederate imported Enfield variants would be made after 1860, thus I would expect most Civil War-era Enfield variants to be short pull, Type III, except, it seems ones made by LAC? Perhaps some pre-1860 Enfield inventories existed that were sold to the Confederacy and so we might find some long-pull examples?

To get to the heart of the matter, are the Pedersoli Enfield variants correct with a short-pull stock as BSAT reproductions?

Steve

[ian45662]

A friend of mine who I have been trying to talk into doing skirmishing Finally got him a musket. He got the pedersoli 1853 3 band musket. I went to his house to give it a once over and I was really impressed. I have an armi sport enfield and it feels like a heavy 2x4 compared to the gun pedersoli makes. We were supposed to shoot it today but the snow is preventing us from going to the range. It is worth noting though that a 578 pin gauge fits in the bore

[R. McAuley 3014V]

For the most part, only the “government pattern” Enfield had the shorter stock; the commercial export market did not worry about adhering to “pattern” unless their customers desired arms to meet the government pattern standards (that is to be fully interchangeable). As Roads noted “it was officially considered that only those arms manufactured by the Enfield factory and the London Armoury Company were interchangable so far as their component parts were concerned. Spare parts for all other arms were sent to amourers in the forged state and were filed and fitted to individual arms.” So other than any rifle muskets that were purchased from the London Armoury Company (which only began producing the machine-made arm in 1858), any other makers would have produced arms with the long butt stocks.

That said, we know from Christopher Roads that the first machine-made P/53 muskets were not ready for production until 1859, though the earliest of the P/58 Naval rifles were not produced until 1863. From April 1858 to 31 March 1859, production at the RSAF was entirely confined to P/53 muskets, amounting to 57,256. In the following year, April 1859 to March 1860, 85,605 were entirely machine-made; with the following year (1 April 1860 to 31 March 1861) producing upwards of 99,000. After the peak of 1860-61, manufacture at Enfield was extended to include, among other types of arms, the short rifle, the Cavalry carbine, the Naval rifle, and the Artillery carbine. Of the latter two groups, only those produced after August 1860 would constitute the earliest of the short stocked P/53 rifle muskets. None of these arms were sold to the belligerents in America, so technically, all of the arms imported to America should have been the long butt.

[mpapajoffre]

Ian, I recently purchased a Pedersoli P53 and when I gauged the barrel it accepted a .578" gage pin also.

[Curt]

Hallo!

The "Enfield" most commonly and predominately used in the Civl War was the Pattern 1853, Third Model made by a number of commercial firms in Birmingham and London. A small number were made before 1860, yes, those being an unknown but small number of P1853 Second Models.
Going back to the 18th century, the British government had grown tired of paying inflated gun prices in timnes of crisis or wars, and developed the Ordnance system where component parts were made up and stored. Then when needed, they were paralleled out to "gun stockers" to be made into finished arms.
By the 1850's this had evolved into a "trade" consisting of civilian makers furnishing arms to the Crown on a contract basis. While part of the Birmingham Small Arms Trade (BSAT) or London commercial firms, they were essentially "small cottage industries" forging/casting, fitting, and finishing more-or-less by hand and to minor variations indifferent enough not to have interchangeable parts.
By and large due to the American company of Robbins & Lawrence, and later Sam Colt, the British government both realized the advantages of interchangerable parts as well as "copied' the machinery to do it by setting up the Royal Small Arms Factory (RSAF) at Enfield Locks (along with the London Armoury Company in Bermondsey south of London) ) demonstrated the advantages of mass-produced forearms made by machinery not individual workers' hands.

Basically that spelled the doom of the previous system and industry as the P1853 4th Model repllced the non-interchangeable 3rd Model. The BSAT and London commercial firms were unwilling or unable to upgrade produciton of the obsolete 3rd Model and were headed for going out of business. Then came the American Civil War, and both US and CS purchasing agents were scrounging for firearms. While US production of the Springfield kicked up enough to meet needs, US contracts in Britain ended mid War, but CS continued. Both US and CS purchases would extend the life of the 3rd Model companies but when ended they either folded or turned themselves into something else.

London Armoury survived because they kept CS contracts until 1865, although numbers fell off due to CS money issues and the strength of the Federal blockade.

CW used BSAT P1853 3rd Models are typically, NUG, most commonly are found numerically with 1862, 1861, and then 1863 dates.

BSAT 3rd Models continued on the "old ways" and were not updated to "short stocks" after 1860 as the Biritsh Government was no long relying on their production and had replaced it with their own RSAF first 3rd Model than 4th Model aftr 1860ish.

4th Models were never fully used or issued as muzzleloaders due to late production, and went into storage. They were 'recycled" into breech-loading Snyder conversions.

In the mid 1970's Parker Hale of England used the "sealed pattern" gauges for the RSAF P1853 4th Model to pretty much make their first Artillery Musketoon. Then a few years later, they used that to make the so-called P1858 Naval Rifle using incorect 4th Model fittings. And a few years later they came out with the P1853 4th Model rifle-musket. Either no one paiud any attention, or teh research was faiulty, or no one cared that the 4th Model was not used in the ACW.

When the Italians decided to make clones of the Parker Hale (as they had been making parts for it anyways...) they merely copied/cloned the Parker Hale Musketoon, "Naval Rifle," and rife-musket.

When Pedersoi bought out EuroArms, they actually (mostly) listened to complaints from reenactors and living historians who either used incorect 4th Models or went to the time and expesne to try to "authenticize' or so-called 'de farb' or "retrovert" the incorrect 4th Models to be (mostly BSAT) 3rd Models.
But NO, BSAT type P1853 3rd Models should NOT have short stocks.

Curt

[Maillemaker]

But NO, BSAT type P1853 3rd Models should NOT have short stocks.

Well crap. I wonder if they did it to try and hit the weight of the originals?

I wonder what Craig Barry has to say on this subject - he worked closely with them to develop the new Enfield.

Steve