French Made Enfield?

[Jim Leinicke 7368V]

I have an unusal P-53 "Enfield" type rifle-musket and I am hoping someone out there knows more about these than I do. This is an orginal P-53 in very nice condition with a bright bore and an almost un-dinged stock. The lock is marked "Tower 1862" and on the inside "Bayliss and Son" which was and is a Birmingham concern. Anyway, all components of the gun are stamped "12" including the stock, but the stock and barrel have none of the usual British marks we associate with these arms. Instead there is a "P" stamped near the barrel breech with a somewhat crudely made stamp, and in a rectangular cartouche, a small "G". It has been obvious to me that this was not a British barrel. Recently, I learned that "G" was a code used to mark P-53 barrels made under contract by firms in Ste. Ettienne, France, and my assumption is that this barrel (And perhaps the entire weapon except the lock) is French made. Does anyone out there have any further information on this interesting P-53?
Thanks-
Jim Leinicke

[R. McAuley 3014V]

Conceivably, G is for St. Etienne, according to Roads, but this was purely conjecture on his part, hence why he stated: “B for Birmingham, A for America, L for Liege, and, conceivably G for St. Entienne.” If you’re asking were there French-made P53s, the answer is yes.

As Roads states (p90):

It was the urgency with which P/53 rifled muskets continued to be required in the Crimea that was the prime factor in inducing the Ordnance authorities to seek yet further sources of supply. On 6th August, 1855 an offer, made by M. Escoffier of St. Entienne, was accepted though, in March and April, a similar French proposal had been rejected. The considered opinion of most Ordnance officers was that French military arms were markedly deficient in exact workmanship and finish (F/241 of 27th March 1855). There was therefore nothing surprising in the official invitation, O/5399 of 2nd August 1855, to M. Escoffier to visit England to “see over method of manufacture and so prevent difficulties arising in the execution of his contract”. As an additional safeguard, Colonel Shone, R.A., who was placed in charge of the viewing and inspection team, was not only briefed in his responsibilities by Captain Dixon, Superintendent at Enfield, but, even given the Head Viewer from Liege and encouraged to stop there on his way out to see how that viewing mission operated. The other members of his party were Moseley as finishing viewer, John Jackson as barrel viewer and John Wilkes as lock viewer. Of the 20,000 P/53s ordered under this contract there is a record of the receipt, by the War Department, of 19,603 of them between 31st May, 1856, and 31st March, 1858: presumably most of the odd 397 were delivered into store prior to the first date.
St. Entienne's proofmarks for this period are rather peculiar looking, and beginning on 30 April 1856 thru 22 April 1866, the definitive proofmark was changed by enclosing the earlier, circa 1824-56 proofmark design, inside an oval cartouche (similar to the Liege mark). Inside design is a crown over a laurel tree(?), between three small crosses, two in fess, one in base. The P mark could be that the musket was submitted for repairs and was marked accordingly P or PP. Given the lock is marked "Tower 1862" and a Birmingham maker's name, as hand-made "noninterchangeable" Enfields, the French-made arms were very likely surplused out of military stores as new "machine-made" fully-interchangeable arms were produced and replaced them in government store. Beginning in 1863, the Birmingham Small Arms Company erected their own armory producing "machine-made" Enfields that were fully interchangeable with the Government arms and those by the London Armoury Company, many of the earlier hand-made arms were exported to China or the Africa trade. These guns were sent to the west coast of Africa, where they are interchanged for palm oil. No ship’s cargo trading with that coast, was complete without a supply of them. Probably 100,000 to 150,000 of these guns, made in Birmingham, were annually exported. If the specimen was exported, if it was not proofed in England, it could not be exported without being resubmitted to proof and so marked. So since it bears a Birmingham merchant, one would expect it to bear Birmingham proofmarks, otherwise it could only have remained in England and never sold. Original lock marking were likely ground off and the face re-struck and double-line border re-engraved since the French-made arms were clearly manufactured between 1856 and 1858. It was not an uncommon practice to remark the lock-plate, as I have two Liege-made P/60 rifles, one dated 1860 (before any P/60s were made) and the other 1869, though both had been delivered into government store by August 1863.

[Jim Leinicke 7368V]

Thank you Mr. McAulay for all of your knowledgeable input. I ought to note that the Birmingham merchant's mark (Bayliss and Son) is stamped on the inside of the lockplate. Since Bayliss is today in the machine tools business, I had presumed it to be the manufacturer of the lock, but perhaps it was merely the purveyor. Your observation that the lock may have been remarked is interesting. The external lock markings are relatively light for the condition of the gun, but it is clearly the original lock as it is marked with same "12" assembly stamp as all other parts. The buttstock on this P-53 has the pre-1859 pull of 14" and the rear sight is the early 900 yard type, both features from the mid-1850s. However, the bands are the usual clamping sort. Were it not for the 1862 date on the lock, I would have placed it in the circa 1857 time frame. Unfortunately, I still don't know the origins of this rifle, but I will conclude from your observations that it probably is not Ste. Ettienne, despite the "G" mark.

Jim Leinicke

[R. McAuley 3014V]

The proofmark of St Entienne was a variation on the city’s blazon or coat of arms, which was similar to what I described above as basically: ‘a royal crown in chief, surmounted of two palm branches in saltire, between three crosses-bottony, two in fess, one in base’.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Blaso ... tienne.svg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Blason_ville_fr_Saint-%C3%89tienne.svg)

Look to see if you can discern any name that may be stamped into the stock behind the rear of the trigger-plate, as this is often one of the locations a purveyor stamped their name if not stamped in the form of a circlet or stock cartouche on the butt. It was not until August 1860 that the reduction in the butt-stock length was implemented among the various government contractors, and was not adopted by either the Liege trade or the London Armoury Company, but who continued manufacturing the longer butts. If the musket is not one of the 20,000 St Entienne contracted arms, it may be Belgian, and may only bear the Luttich “perron” definitive proofmark, which many people mistake for the letter “I” or an “I” on top of a diamond-shaped lozenge. The Belgians only submitted their arms but to a single proof, not two proofs as the English did, so it is not unusual to find a Belgian made firearm bearing only the perron-mark or perhaps the LE script as a provisional view mark. The Luttich perron refers to the city’s mercat cross that was later converted into a fountain, and became the recognized symbol in the Liege city coat of arms. On some finer made Luttich fowlers, the “perron” mark has been less than 1/32 inch high, so it is easily overlooked or mistaken for corrosion. While discussing proofmarks read the statements below very carefully.



“A gun made in Birmingham may be proved in London, and a foreign-made gun may bear the Birmingham or the London Gunmaker’s proofmark. It is contended therefore that the proofmark is not an indication of origin, but a test made at a certain place. For although English, Belgian, and German proofmarks frank guns of English, Belgian, and German manufacture in all three countries, a gun of English manufacture bearing a Belgian or German proofmark only is an “unproved” gun, if offered for sale in England as an English gun. Like postal letters, guns must bear the stamp of the country of their origin.”

“Take the case of a gunmaker in London or the provinces who takes an order for a special gun at £25. He may estimate that he can make it according to his methods for less than £20, but he can buy it from a Birmingham manufacturer for less, and from Liege cheaper still— not a gun of the same real quality, but one which he can sell for £25. He may order it from Liege, and take the risk of its entry being queried at the Customs on importation, or he may have the gun “finished in the soft,” when it will pass, notwithstanding the Merchandise Marks Act, as it bears no name, and has the English proof mark stamped on barrels and action. To name the gun and colour the parts will cost him less than £1, and more than that sum the Liege manufacturer may allow from the quotation for a finished gun. He therefore gets a gun bearing his name and address for less than he could make it or get it made in England. Although the State may get the same amount of income-tax on the transaction made by the English dealer, it loses the tax on the profit made by the Belgian manufacturer. Of course, the Belgian manufacturer counts each pound profit made in trade with England as £1, whilst to the English manufacturer £1 profit is only 19s., a twentieth going to the State in income-tax. In these days of keen competition every little helps. A manufacturer who might undertake to make a thousand guns for £100 estimated profit might refuse an order for an estimated profit of only £95 for so much work and risk.”

[Extract from “On the Progress of the Small Arms Manufacture”, by J. D. Goodman in Journal of the Statistical Society of London, Vol. 28, No. 4 (Dec 1865), p494-506] John D. Goodman was a principal with the firm of Cooper & Goodman, who served as chairman of the Birmingham Small Arms Company Limited, 1863-1900.

[Jim Leinicke 7368V]

Thanks again. No, there is no corrosion at all (The gun seems to have been little fired, if at all) and the P is clear as a bell on the breech. And, there are no marks anywhere in or out on the stock other than the small 17 in a square cartouche stamped behind the trigger guard. Why don't you Email me at usrifle1841@sbcglobal.net and I will take a picture of some of the more significant markings and send them to you by a return Email?

Speaking of "in the soft", I found the tumbler and sear were dead soft on this thing, though with no wear because of no use. I case-hardened those parts myself just so I could shoot a few rounds through it.

Jim Leinicke