Most Authentic Civil War Era Reproduction?

[milsurpshooter]

I am interested in adding a reproduction Civil War era rifle/musket to the collection as a shooter. I'm open to looking at a P53, 1842, 1855, or 1861. However, without opening up a can of worms, I am looking for the most authentic. I'm thinking that barrel thickness, breech/bolster construction, and type of rifling (progressive, number of grooves, twist rate) would all be my primary concerns. My secondary concerns would be more cosmetic (sling swivels, stamps, stock contour, etc....) which could be tended to later. From what I've read, Pedersoli makes a very nice P53, but after that the waters get quite muddy. So who manufactures the most "correct" reproduction?
Thanks for the input.
- milsurpshooter

[Maillemaker]

All of the reproduction firearms have inaccuracies in shape to one extent or another.

When Pedersoli took over Euroarms, many folks (myself included) took it upon ourselves to petition Pedersoli to take this time to improve on the many inaccuracies of the 1853 Enfield. One person who was instrumental in getting Pedersoli to do this was Craig L. Barry, who was rewarded with serial #1 for his efforts.

Here is my understanding of the brief history of the P1853 Reproductions. Back in the 1970's Parker Hale went to the Royal Armouries and got the "original" tooling for making P1853 Enfield muskets.

Unfortunately, the last variant of the Enfield made by the Royal Armouries was the Type IV. Type IV Enfields probably never saw service in the American Civil War. The overwhelming majority were Type III. There are a very few documented examples of Type IIs. The Type IIs are easily recognized by the spring locks in the stock in front of the barrel bands, similar to the 1842 Springfield and other weapons.

So the PH Enfield was a Type IV. When Armisport and Euroarms copied them, they were copying PH's Type IV also. So no one was making a historically correct Type III P1853 Enfield.

Pedersoli incorporated a number of changes that make them look more correct.



The weight is closer to the original 9 pounds. The wood type is incorrect, but helps get the weight where it needs to be.
More-correctly shaped Palmer style barrel bands.
Correctly-shaped square-eared lock washers.
More-correctly-shaped swivel hardware.
More-correctly-shaped and stamped lock plate and hammer.
BSAT simulated cartouch on the butt stock.


Pedersoli also attempted to add some simulated "proof marks" on the barrel, but in my opinion they did a poor job of it. The proof marks carry over from the barrel onto the breech, which is cast. So the barrel on reproduction Enfields is a two-part affair, with a cast breech and a barrel mated to it. The proof marks on the cast portion are cast into the piece, with the proof marks on the barrel being, it appears, laser engraved or engraved by some other means. The difference is obvious and jarring. Also one of the proof marks they changed the lettering to have DP in it (Davide Pedersoli) which I don't mind and think is kind of neat. But the markings don't really match period stamped proof marks. Also of course the Pedersoli serial number is stamped into the side of the barrel, visible above the stock. This is going to be the case for nearly any reproduction.

This video compares the Pedersoli and Euroarms P1858 Enfields:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WVkEc6bd6lQ

The Armisport 1842 is said to be one of the more historically-accurate reproduction muskets. However it should have a brazed-in brass front sight and instead the sight is cast as part of the steel front barrel band.

There are a few vendors out there that will "de-farb" muskets. That is, they do extensive work to re-shape and replace parts on the gun to make it look more historically accurate. Lodgewood, Blockade Runner, Todd Watts, and others do this kind of work. There is a lot of debate as to the ethics and potential legal issues of having this done. Ethically many people are concerned about the potential for people to deliberately or intentionally be misled during the future sale of such firearms. Obviously the issue of people selling forgeries has been and continues to be a real problem. Legally there may be issues when defacing the original manufacturer's identification markings depending on where you live. In addition there is always the specter of the possibility that federal or state gun laws will change to re-classify pre-1899 firearms as "firearms", potentially making felons out of anyone who has defaced the manufacturer's markings.

And of course no matter what you do, my experience is that none of the internal lock components will ever be as good as on the originals. The originals did not use cast parts, and were crafted in an age where hand-fitted industrial craftsmanship was a real thing seldom seen today. It is not unusual to disassemble 150-year-old firearms that have been quite well used that have absolutely pristine lock works in them. On the other hand it is not unusual to disassemble modern Italian reproductions that have only been fired a few dozen times and find evidence of soft parts that have deformed over very little use. Unfortunately if you want to buy an original that is as pristine as a modern reproduction out-of-the-box you are looking at $3000-$5000 dollars or more. Original "shooters" in varying states of degradation can be had for much less.

Steve

[milsurpshooter]

Maillemaker, thanks for the detailed write up! Would I be correct in saying there aren't any with a traditional full length barrel with breech plug but only barrels with a cast breech?

[Maillemaker]

I am by no means an exhaustive resource on reproduction guns. I only own a handful. But all of my reproduction guns have a cast breech married to the barrel.

And of course for some guns I believe it is correct. For example, I think some 1816 conversions were done by adding a threaded-on breech to the existing barrel.

I think this is called a Patent Breech but I'm not sure. Someone else more knowledgeable can chime in.


Steve

[MarkTK36thIL]

Steve,
There is little I can add that wasn't already mentioned by you. The H&P conversions that were rifled- and some that weren't rifled- used a replacement breech after the rifled cone-in-barrel conversions were blowing up from the pressure if I recall correctly. I believe the Remington Maynard 1816 conversions were rifled and had a Patent Breech as well.

[Curt]

Hallo!

In general...

The term "patent breeches" get used and misused a lot.

"Ideally" it referred to a a combination of one fixed cast unit made up of breech tang, breech plug, bolster, and internal flash channel and powder chamber that then threaded or was sleeved and soldered to a section of barrel.

And, a variation was a hooked patent breech that hooked onto a fixed breech plate to allow a barrel to be easily popped off for cleaning often found on sporting guns with barrel keys/wedges.

Yes, when they went to the .69 EB (Minie) after 1855, some numbers of M1822's, M1840's, and M1842's were sighted as well as "rifled and sighted." A pard of my was just talking about an M1822 with new percussion breech section he picked up last week that was just sighted.

By and large, to the point i would actually make it a Rule rather than Semantics.... ALL Italian repro "historical" firearms are hit-and-miss replicas and not reproductions of the originals.

As shared, the new Pedersoli "Enfield" is perhaps the best replica every made (well, incorrect American Black Walnut stocks aside). Now second to the previous "Best of the Worst," the M1842. But also as shared, all fall low and really really or short of being "renewed production" of the originals on the Sliding Scale of Imperfection.

All in all... one can fudge, approximate, or replicate Period wood and metal treatments and finishes, remove modern stampings and replace with Period looking ones, swap out original parts sometimes like rear sights or barrel bands, etc., etc. But it is hard to fix undersized or oversized parts, wrongly shaped or parts with incorrect configurations or dimensions, wrong barrel profiles, wrong calibers, wrong rifling, etc.

Curt

[Chris Sweeney]

Given the cost of defarbing/stock mods/barrel thinning, have you considered an original. There are lots of shootable, accurate originals for no more (or maybe less) than a well-reworked new repro.

[CAGerringer]

Given the cost of defarbing/stock mods/barrel thinning, have you considered an original. There are lots of shootable, accurate originals for no more (or maybe less) than a well-reworked new repro.

Chris is exactly right. I took an old Austrian Lorenz, and really cleaned it up. The barrel was shot out smooth, so Mr. Whitacre relined it for me. Now, I've got an original, unique, impressive looking, great shooting rifle, that cost me less than a really good repro. It's an option that I'd consider, if I were you.

Charlie Gerringer
Old Dominion Dragoons

[milsurpshooter]

Chris is exactly right. I took an old Austrian Lorenz, and really cleaned it up. The barrel was shot out smooth, so Mr. Whitacre relined it for me. Now, I've got an original, unique, impressive looking, great shooting rifle, that cost me less than a really good repro. It's an option that I'd consider, if I were you.

Charlie Gerringer
Old Dominion Dragoons

Yes, it's definitely a consideration. I already have an 1863 Springfield that's in really good condition and is a reliable shooter. But I also know that they're not making any more originals and I almost feel guilty taking it to the range. Plus there's always the question of whether it's been abused before I got around to shooting it. The modern repros seemed like a safe way to enjoy an historic era of firearms.
- milsurpshooter

[CAGerringer]

Yes, it's definitely a consideration. I already have an 1863 Springfield that's in really good condition and is a reliable shooter. But I also know that they're not making any more originals and I almost feel guilty taking it to the range. Plus there's always the question of whether it's been abused before I got around to shooting it. The modern repros seemed like a safe way to enjoy an historic era of firearms.
- milsurpshooter

And it is. I shoot a Pietta Smith Carbine that I got on Gunbrokers, used. Great price for a gun that I'm told can be hit or miss, new right out of the box. I was lucky and it shoots better than I do. But, if I had to pay full price, I may have looked for a shot out, original... that I could have worked on, and had relined. My point is that there are other options than a repro that you have to do extensive cosmetic repairs on. My Pietta is shot just the way it is. I haven't done anything to make it more "original". I accept it, for what it is...but if I needed to have the authenticity of an original, I'd have probably started out with one, rather than adjust, at great cost, a repro to origi standards. Know what I mean?

Charlie Gerringer
Old Dominion Dragoons

[Chris Sweeney]

"Yes, it's definitely a consideration. I already have an 1863 Springfield that's in really good condition and is a reliable shooter. But I also know that they're not making any more originals and I almost feel guilty taking it to the range."

I shoot an original Maynard carbine, an original 1851 Cadet smoothbore, and a cut down 63 Springfield that's original except for a replacement barrel and the sear and sear spring. Original parts are still available. Reproduction parts are available and cheap(er). Thery're guns - they was meant to be shot. Sure, they'll last longer in the safe, but they ain't no fun in there!

[jonk]

The thing to remember is, if you look at the approval sheets that show dimensions for repro firearms, there was quite some variation in originals too. Saying "Which is the best repro?" should take that into account.

This said, most of the ones I have seen have some small to large inaccuracies which might not impact the overall look of the weapon, but do impact the specifics. That being the case, the best repros I have seen are the handmade ones. Guys who start with a hoyt or whitacre barrel, quality lock made by Harmon or someone else who knew what they were doing, and going from there. Speaking of whom: Jerry Harmon Sr. recently passed away. At his eulogy, they pointed out that he took one of his 1855 rifles to a museum to compare to a good quality original, and the staff couldn't tell the difference. Similar quality guns put together by Large, Jensco, and so on would be the ones I would say are best; those that are repros, but hand-made ones, done by gunsmiths and machinists who paid attention to details for our sport.

[Curt]

Hallo!

John Holland can correct me...

But, IMHO, the variations on dimensions on SAC "spec" sheets are more for the benefit of the builder/maker not so much that individual CW arms varied that much (leaving the factory).

After the U.S. post 1842 "interchangeability" of parts concept the use of standardized gauges and inspections almost eliminated the effects of hand-work. However, in England, it took them a bit longer even with the boost in that concept from Robbin's & Lawrence "Enfield" contribution to only standardize the P1853 Enfield with the 4th Model (resulting in a ton of 3rd Models being sold to the USA and CSA.)

(Although I once had an original M1842 Springfield musket whose lock would not drop-in to an original Harpers Ferry made one without a little inletting relief.)

Curt
Former builder of M1855's and Richmonds/Fayettevilles

[Michael Bodner]

Milsurpshooter,

Don't know where you are in North Georgia, but you should check out your travel time to: 1742 Turnersburg Hwy, Statesville, NC

That's where the Carolina Region conducts its events, called Skirmishes. Next one (and last for the year) will be Nov 11-13. Saturday the 12th is the best time to come if you can only be there one day.

You can a) check out what we do in the N-SSA, b) see LOTS of different CW guns (many authentic), c) meet lots of folks to talk to and ask questions and d) get a chance to shoot some.

I'm Mike 'Bootsie' Bodner, Commander of the Palmetto Sharpshooters. If you're at all interested in being part of the N-SSA or you just want to check it out, drop me a line (either here, pm, or at mbodner@chemringds.com_ and I'll be happy to help you!!

BTW: We also skirmish in the GA, AL area throughout the year...

-Mike

[R. McAuley 3014V]

Even the set of gauges that Herb Woodend (curator of the RSAF Pattern Room) loaned to Tony Kitchin (engineer at Parker Hale) to aid in making the tooling that was used to manufacture the Parker-Hale replicas, was not an original set of pattern gauges used at RSAF-Enfield but a set of gauges donated to the Pattern Room by Birmingham Small Arms Company, and which were made exclusively for BSA by the firm Greenwood & Batley of Leeds, for the new BSA factory at Small Heath (built 1861-63) for manufacturing the British Government pattern 1853, period. Incidentally, Greenwood & Batley was also the same ordnance firm who Burton commissioned to make the machinery for C.S. Macon Armory in 1863. But no machinery was loaned to Parker-Hale, just a set of inspector's gauges for verifying adherence to pattern. Parker-Hale chose to manufacture their replica Enfield using modern manufacturing techniques, such as casting parts using the lost wax process rather than milling the parts by machine like the original machine-made Enfield produced by the Royal Small Arms Factory and London Armoury Company. So I find it hilarious that Pedersoli is producing a machine-made reproduction of what originally was a No. 2 class Hand-man Enfield.

[John Holland]

Richard, you have the unique ability to provide back story information that most of us do not know! My understanding of why Pedersoli chose to produce a Birmingham rifle musket was because there were more Birmingham arms imported than Class 1 London arms.

[Maillemaker]

Even the set of gauges that Herb Woodend (curator of the RSAF Pattern Room) loaned to Tony Kitchin (engineer at Parker Hale) to aid in making the tooling that was used to manufacture the Parker-Hale replicas, was not an original set of pattern gauges used at RSAF-Enfield but a set of gauges donated to the Pattern Room by Birmingham Small Arms Company, and which were made exclusively for BSA by the firm Greenwood & Batley of Leeds, for the new BSA factory at Small Heath (built 1861-63) for manufacturing the British Government pattern 1853, period. Incidentally, Greenwood & Batley was also the same ordnance firm who Burton commissioned to make the machinery for C.S. Macon Armory in 1863. But no machinery was loaned to Parker-Hale, just a set of inspector's gauges for verifying adherence to pattern. Parker-Hale chose to manufacture their replica Enfield using modern manufacturing techniques, such as casting parts using the lost wax process rather than milling the parts by machine like the original machine-made Enfield produced by the Royal Small Arms Factory and London Armoury Company.

Interesting stuff!

Steve

[R. McAuley 3014V]

In a photo of B.S.A.’s works on Armoury Road at Small Heath, erected 1861-63, the new armoury bears an uncanny resemblance to its contemporary, the C.S. Macon Arsenal, erected 1861-65. And though Burton had little to do with how B.S.A.'s new works was designed, he had been the one to provide Greenwood & Batley to copy the drawings for the machinery installed at R.S.A.F Enfield, not to mention some of the latter's machinery had originally come from Greenwood & Batley. Then after the war, Burton went to work for Greenwood & Batley as well as their subsequent joint venture with Westley Richards, the National Arms and Ammunition Company who produced the Martini-Henry and its ammunition for the British Government.


http://www.birminghamgunmuseum.com/BSA_Small_Heath.php


http://www.csarmory.org/pictures.html

[Curt]

Hallo!

IMHO, much if not nearly all of the motivation or impetus to produce a "Third Model" Enfield finally came from a more than decade long campaign from the CW reenacting and living history community wanting an ACW import Enfield that did not require (more) extensive "retroversion" (aka De-farb) work back-dating the 4th Model.

(And maybe also with a nod towards a more "competitive" or "match grade" barrel option from the factory.)

Curt

[R. McAuley 3014V]

Features typically distinguishing the fourth model (adopted Nov 1861) from the third model (adopted Apr 1859) Enfield rifle muskets, though per official dates of adoption, some (like Baddeley bands) may be found on the earlier model arm:

- Butt-stock was shortened by 1-inch (adopted Dec 1859 but not implemented for six months) excepting production by the London Armoury Company and Liege trade which continued producing the 14-inch butt.

- Use of Baddeley-patent screw barrel bands (patented June 6, 1861, adopted by War Department June 3, 1861). From 1858 to 1864 the Royal Small-Arms Factory at Enfield Lock alone produced some 323,035 Pattern 1853 rifle muskets of both third and fourth models, with and without Baddeley patented bands.

- Front sight made of cast steel (adopted Apr 1861) rather than of malleable iron. New cast steel sights were stamped with an “S” on the sight stool.

- Rear sight enabling soldiers to lower the slide to 500 yards, should it be necessary (adopted Nov 1861), together with re-calibration of the sighting marks on the ladder, graduated to 1000 yards. The Pattern 1856 Army rifles were graduated to 1,100 yards as were the Pattern 1858 Navy rifles until the adoption of the new P2 powder (in 1861) when the graduations was increased to 1,250 yards. Also, with the Pattern 1860 adopted in November 1860 then replaced by the Pattern 1861 a year later in December 1861, because all the Pattern 1860 and 1861 Army short rifles were only made at the Royal Small Arms Factory at Enfield, which did not begin its production until 1861-62 is why no Pattern 1860 or Pattern 1861 short rifles were ever imported during the American Civil War. Most were converted to Snider in 1866-69.

- Use of “round ears” to distinguish between new fully-interchangeable “machine-made” arms from former “square-ear” for the non-interchangeable “hand-made” arms of the past. To compete with the London Armoury Company’s dominance of British government contracts, the Birmingham Small-Arms Company (est 1861) built a new factory at Small Heath and began producing the machine-made fully-interchangeable government model in 1863; and they produced the Whitworth match rifles used in the NRA matches at Wimbledon, 1866.

- Parker-Hale replica P/53 was the only replica produced using progressive-depth rifling like the originals; Euroarms, Chiappa, and new Pedersoli replicas are all straight bored, button or broached rifled.

Since the fourth model was not adopted until Nov 1861, while many of the features found on it are the same features which are also to be found on its preceding model, just as there were some machine-made Enfield rifle muskets made by the London Armoury Company and Birmingham Small Arms that were purchased by the Confederacy, why would these not be considered as fourth model arms?