1858 Enfield "Naval" rifle use in North

[vljenewein]

Was wondering if the Enfield P1858 Naval rifle, with the brass furniture, was ever used much, or at all by the Union military (North)? I know that there were many of the 1860 Army rifles (Enfield) issued and used by the South, but not sure about either the P1858 or P1860 Army being used by U.S. Grant, or others, in the ACW.

[Muley Gil]

I believe US Grant carried a .36 Colt Navy revolver. :)

[CAGerringer]

I believe US Grant carried a .36 Colt Navy revolver. :)

I don't think Grant carried anything other than a pocket full of cigars. And, unfortunately, that seemed to be plenty!
Charlie Gerringer
Old Dominion Dtagoons

[vljenewein]

I wasn't so interested in the pistols as the short rifles of 33" , like the P1858 Naval and P1860 Army (all steel fixtures).

[R. McAuley 3014V]

You may be confusing the P1856 Short "Army" Rifle with 3-groove rifling and normal weight barrel) with the P1860 Short Rifle with the 5-groove heavy "Navy" barrel for which the majority of the latter were subsequently converted to Snyder. The P1860 pattern was only in effect for about 6 months before being replaced by the P1861, both of which had the buttstocks shortened by 1-inch. Only the Liege trade continued producing the long butts on the short rifles, and they were the only ones to produce the P1860 and P1861 in any significant numbers from 1860 to 1863. These rifles were also "non-interchangeable" and so will not interchange with their own much less anything made in Great Britain. Berry Benson's short rifle had been suggested to have been a P1860 short rifle but upon closer examination proved to be a P1856 with 3-groove rifling.

[vljenewein]

Perhaps I might be wrong, but as I understood it, the P1860 was basically a 33" 5 groove barrel .58 caliber rifled musket with progressive depth rifling like the Naval versions (brass) with some minor changes, such as casehardened steel for the parts that were brass on the Naval and the sling swivel was attached behind the trigger guard frame directly into the stock. The Naval 1858 was just in the front part of the trigger guard like the P1853. The steel versions, I thought, were referred to as the Army Short Rifle. Look again.

I know the South did have some of them, and thought highly of them for long distance sniper shooting. But I was wondering if any of these style of Naval rifles with the brass furniture were ever used by Union troops?

This link has some really nice pictures of a Naval rifle that was repaired during the conflict. http://www.collegehillarsenal.com/shop/product.php?productid=934&cat=0&page=1

[R. McAuley 3014V]

The Pattern No. 1 or 1856 Short Rifle was the Army rifle with 3-groove, pitch of one turn in 78 inches. It was next succeeded by the Short Rifle, Pattern No. 2 or 1856 "Bar-on-band" adopted in July 1858, and had the same rifling and pitch. That's the rifle that had the snub nose muzzle like the Whitworth. The Pattern No. 3 or 1860 Short Rifle was not adopted until November 1860 and was initially fitted with the same 3-groove barrels as the P1856 Army rifle until about March 1861 when it was decided to adopt the 5-groove barrel like the Navy Rifle. The Pattern No. 4 or P1861 Short Rifle was adopted in August 1861, and differed from the P1860 by having a cast steel barley corn front sight rather than the previous iron rifle sight. Other than the few thousand P1860 and P1861 short rifles made at Enfield 1861-64, like the P1858 Navy Rifles, most were produced by contract, chiefly by the Liege trade producing some 18,000 P/60 and P/61 rifles, and some 30,000 P/58 Navy rifles. The only parts of any of these rifles made of steel was the ramrod and bayonet, and latterly the front sight on the P/61 short rifle. They were made of iron with iron furniture for the Army rifles and brass for the Navy rifles, though among the arms destined for export could be either or mixed, particularly those of the Birmingham trade.

[vljenewein]

I had read on other forums how some of the members had converted their Parker-Hale Naval Enfields P1858, 33" 5 groove barrel, brass fixtures by buying the appropriate steel counterparts... butt plate, trigger guard, end cap, and even the barrel bands (to be bright and then case hardened/colored) It takes a small bit of in-letting of the wood to get the steel trigger guard into place, and I believe that the sling swivel is now positioned behind the trigger guard, and attached directly to the stock.

Curious if their use by the Northern Army, either Naval P1858 or Army P1861 did actually happen? Or were they more a South weapon?

[vljenewein]

Reading last night how there was an entire regiment outfitted with the 1858 Navy rifle. Thread was here "with" pictures of one owned by a PA volunteer. https://civilwartalk.com/threads/enfield-p58-naval-rifle.141542/

[John Holland]

An interesting link and information. I would wonder, since the stamping (and not "engraving") states it was for a "Pennsylvania Veteran Volunteer" as per the "PVV" stamping, I would suspect that it is a post-war stamping so that the Veteran could identify his own arm when used in GAR functions. Nowhere in the post does it claim that the 28th PVI was actually issued these very scarce arms.

[vljenewein]

An interesting link and information.... Nowhere in the post does it claim that the 28th PVI was actually issued these very scarce arms. Not in that thread, but in a "link" in that tread that stated;

A quote from the link in the thread " From surplus recruits a battery was formed and attached to the regiment, which was known as.Knap's Battery of the Twenty-eighth Penasylvania Volunteers. Mr. Charles Knap, of Pittsburg, presented this company with four steel guns, which were subsequently exchanged by the government for six ten-pounder Parrotts. Also connected with the regiment was Beck's celebrated Philadelphia Brass Band.
The uniform was of gray cloth, manufactured in the vicimity of Oxford Park, and furnished to the several companies as they were mustered in. This sbsequently gave place to the blue regulation uniform.
The arms were the Enfield rifle with the formidable sword bayonet. These were obtained of a firm in Philadelphia, who fortunately had them for sale, else the regiment would have been armed with the ordinary musket, altered from the flint to percussion lock, many of which were in possession of the government."

I might disagree with the stamping. You would think to "stamp" such a multitude of information that the mere making of the hardened steel stamp to do such a job would have been just as much or more trouble than to merely engrave it at the beginning. Now is you talk TOWER and dates like 1862 it stands to reason that this would be made into a very high carbon steel stamp, hardened, and used on a lot of lockplates to reduce time of manufacture.
There is also no mention of the fact that is was done post war from that link I read: http://www.pa-roots.com/pacw/infantry/28th/28thorg.html

Just looking at this objectively. It seems a private firm might have access to the 1858 Navy Enfield, and went through that channel rather than direct importation from England to the U.S. Union purchasers.... or they rifled muskets did arrive in some purchase agreement and someone cut a deal to buy these rifles at a price, and turned around and delivered some of same to troops.

[John Holland]

The ID stamping on the breech of rifle was done with individually stamped letters. I still say the stamping was done post-war because the rifle was the property of the regiment, not the individual, until the end of the war.

[geezmo]

OK, you've piqued my interest. I googled a roster for the 28th P.V.I. and found Charles R. Seville who enlisted as a private in Co. L on July 20, 1861. On October 28, 1862 he transferred to Co. A of the 147th P.V.I. There must have been a close connection between these two regiments as there was a post war association of the two. I then checked Dyer's "Compendium of the War of the Rebellion" and found that the regiment was mustered in on June 28, 1861, apparently for two years. According to Dyer, on October 28, 1862 Companies L, M, N & O ( I never heard of an N and O ) were transferred to the 147th P.V.I. The regiment re-enlisted on December 24, 1863 and the veterans were on furlough for the months of January and February of 1864. This would explain the V. V. stamping, although we don't know his status after transferring to the 147th. I then went to Frederick Todd's "American Military Equipage", the last volume printed after his death, and found that the 28th P.V.I. was issued in "1862 - 1863: Enfield rifles, most of which had saber bayonets. 1864: Springfield rifled muskets." For the 147th P.V.I. he shows "1862 - 1864: Enfield rifles, some with saber bayonets; Springfield rifled muskets." So, for at least part of his enlistment he had an Enfield rifle. I agree with John Holland and believe the stamping is post war.

For what it's worth,
Barry Selzner