Help Identifying an Enfield

[Jim Wimbish, 10395]

I have a two band Enfield that seems to be closest to a P1856 Sergeant's Rifle but has some significant differences. The butt plate, trigger bow, and nose piece are brass, not iron mountings. The rear swivel is 3.5" ahead of the butt plate and the rear sight is 7.5" from the rear of the barrel and is graduated to 1,000 yards. The lock is marked 'Tower 1862'. It is definitely not the Naval Model. The barrel has three lands and grooves and it is not as heavy as the Naval Model and it is 33 inches in length. It is stamped '25' on the barrel so it is 58 caliber. I have a detailed book on the P53 Enfield and its history and I can't identify it there either. Did any group in the US spec a gun like this during the War?

[YOU DON'T KNOW ?]

What are the lock markings inside.

[Jim Wimbish, 10395]

Two names are in block letters on the inside of the lock plate; 'SARGANT' and "IDDOMS'.

[John Holland]

It may help if you would be able to post some photos.

[R. McAuley 3014V]

I forget the exact number but many of the early Navy rifles were fitted with barrels having 3-groove rifling because there were some 8,000 such barrels had been manufactured before the 5-groove rifling was adopted, and rather than the government throwing the 3-groove barrels away, they were mated up to the new pattern brass-mounted Navy rifle until the stock was exhausted. The earlier regulation pattern P/56 Army rifles were iron-mounted, but we find almost as many non-regulation pattern with brass-mountings or mixed mountings that were shipped to his country.

[Southron Sr.]

You might have an Indian Army "Sergeants Pattern Fusil." These were made in England for export to India. These fusils took a regular P-53 Enfield bayonet, hence the bayonet locked around the front sight, just like it did on the P-53. So, if there is the absence of a bayonet stud on the right side of the barrel (like on a P-58 Naval Rifle) that is an indication that you might have a Sergeants Fusil.

IF you do have a Sergeants Pattern Fusil, be aware that in early 1861 the State of Georgia purchased a quantity of those rifles, they were imported into the state they were issued to Georgia troops, early in the war.

[Jim Wimbish, 10395]

Here are some pix that I took of the gun. The lock is dated 1862. Note this is the first time that I have been able to load photos this big up to our website. Yeah!!!

After reviewing "The British Soldier's Firearm" again, the gun looks to be a Sergeant's Pattern Fusil. It is definitely not a short rifle or a naval rifle. The rear swivel is mounted further back than the short rifle, and the forestock extends to a point on the barrel consistent with the Sargeant's Pattern Fusil. It might be one of those Georgia guns that Southron mentions in his post.



63336334633563366337

[Dan Mastin]

http://www.collegehillarsenal.com/shop/product.php?productid=1603

Jim

The attached link looks to me like the same gun you were asking about. It is from the archives of College Hill Arsenal and Tim (as usual) has written an interesting history. No clue what the asking price was or what it sold for.

Dan mastin
2829

[Jim Wimbish, 10395]

Dan,

I would agree with you that is the same model of the Enfield. However, mine is in much better condition and lacks all of the markings that make it a valuable Georgia marked gun. There is no serial number, no 'G' and no JS anchor. Also, mine was made in Birmingham, not London. The fit and finish on my gun are excellent. You have to really work to get the lock plate out. The fit is really outstanding. The only difference that I noted is the placement of the rear screw on the trigger bow. Mine is closer to the end. Not a big difference. My barrel is exactly 33 inches. it is not long or short by 1/4 to 1/2 inch as Tim indicates in his write up. The gun I have was lightly used. The ramrod channel is nearly perfect and clearly didn't see much use. This gun was carried by some one who wasn't called upon to shoot very often. It would be interesting to know about other contracts to import the Sergeant's Pattern Fusil, because that is clearly what this gun is. It would have been a nice gun for an artillery unit. Plus it would fit the socket bayonet and not require the sabre bayonet.

[R. McAuley 3014V]

If you can pick up a copy of Christopher Roads 1964) The British Soldier's Firearm: 1850-1864, the author describes your rifle on the bottom of page 110 and top of 111, just as Southron Sr. noted. It's a Sergeant's Fusil, Rifled, Pattern 1856, ordered from Birmingham contractors, and intended for issue to the sergeant's of native Indian regiments. Only 8,198 were delivered out of the 10,000 contracted. These rifles were stocked closer to the muzzle than rifles fitted for sword bayonet because they were fitted with socket bayonets having a larger socket to fit the muzzle.

[Jim Wimbish, 10395]

I read the view mark as a crown over the vertical letters 'RT6" and on the left side an 'S' and the right side an 'A'. So it looks like RT6 Small Arms. Is that the correct mark for Birmingham Small Arms Company? I would have guessed that RT might mean Royal Tower or something like that.

[R. McAuley 3014V]

I read the view mark as a crown over the vertical letters 'RT6" and on the left side an 'S' and the right side an 'A'. So it looks like RT6 Small Arms. Is that the correct mark for Birmingham Small Arms Company? I would have guessed that RT might mean Royal Tower or something like that.

If you have access to Pritchard & Huey (2014) The English Connection, there is a picture of the BSAT roundel that was usually stamped on the right face of the butt stock, and the view mark is similar, except having a "C" rather than the "T". The Birmingham Small Arms Company was formed in 1861 of the 15 principal arms makers in the city. They were joined in 1863 by Joseph Whitworth which enabled BSAC to manufacture the Whitworth patent rifle, becoming the de facto manufacturer of that arm.

[Jim Wimbish, 10395]

I don't have access to the Pritchett Reference. But it is clearly the Birmingham Small Arms Trade Roundel. Thanks.It was a 'B' not an 'R, although the way it was struck it looks more like an R. Is there a difference between the Birmingham Small Arms Trade and the Birmingham Small Arms Company? I'm checking online.

[R. McAuley 3014V]

Essentially, by 1855 with the advent of the modern machine-made Enfield both by the government at Enfield and subsequently by the London Armoury Company, orders for non-interchangeable "hand-made" arms dwindling, the gun trade of Birmingham were forced into a decision they must buy machinery or go out of business. At a meeting of the Birmingham Small Arms Trade in June 1861, it was resolved to form a company, "The Birmingham Small Arms Company," to make arms by machinery. Your "1862 Tower" was still a "hand-made" arm assembled from parts produced by the various contractors in the trade, as it was not until January 1863 that the new factory built at Small Heath was completed, it was not until 1865 that all of the necessary machinery was installed to enter into manufacture of the regulation Enfield rifle musket by machinery. Besides their contract with the Turkish Government, eventually for some 50,000 arms, BSAC also secured a contract for the conversion of some 100,000 muzzle-loaders into breechloaders.

http://www.rifleman.org.uk/Birmingham_Small_Arms_Co.htm

https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/2338574.pdf

[Jim Wimbish, 10395]

I removed the barrel and inspected the bottom of the barrel and the barrel channel for markings. The barrel channel was marked with the name JHOLMES. There was what appeared to be a G on the ramrod spoon (Georgia gun??). The barrel was also marked SARGANT, which is the same name found on the inside of the lock. So it appears that SARGANT made the gun and JHOLMES made the stock. The Sargant brothers were well known makers or military guns during this period. I found several references to them on the web. There is some writing on the barrel that was struck over at the beginning with a large 'F' and there is a slash mark through one of the letters. My Nikon did a great of making the writing more readable. If these marking mean anything to anyone let me know.
639763986399