Navy Arms P-H Enfield barrels question

[Steve Weems]

I noticed that Navy arms state that their P-H barrels are tapered. I've handled an original 3 band Enfield and was
surprised at the difference in weight and handling compared to reproductions. Are the Navy arms versions significantly
lighter than the other makers?

[R. McAuley 3014V]

Probably the most significant difference in barrel manufacture between original barrels and the reproductions, relies on the fact the original muzzle-loading barrels were typically made of wrought iron “rolled” (forged of iron sheeting, and welded along a seam before the barrel was then 'rolled' using a rolling mill until it was the proper length and shape), then latterly 'finish' filed to shape, while modern reproductions are typically machined (lathed and bored) from a steel billet. Some of the weight difference is in the metallurgy, with modern-made barrels typically made of low carbon steel alloys that naturally lend themselves to being easily machined; the iron weighing less due to its impurities. While some American manufacturers like Whitney used "cast steel" for barrels, this was more the exception rather than the rule. Cast steel was considered to be so expensive to make, the only part of the original British Enfield to use "cast steel" (prior to 1867) was for the front sight.

Although claims have been made that ‘the progressive rifling of P-H barrels is “cold hammer forged,” around a sliding mandrel to insure the proper depth,’ it is, however, my understanding of this process that the barrels are made much like the Italian copies, with the exception that the progressive rifling is formed by rolling the barrel over a tapered mandrel that under pressure forces the barrel to conform to the mandrel’s shape, hence when rifled, the rifling is cut deeper at the breech than it is at the muzzle, much like the manufacturing process of the original “rolled” barrels.

While the British Government standard barrel weight for the Pattern 1853 rifle musket was established at 4.5 lbs (like those machined-made arms produced by the Royal Small Arms Factory at Enfield Lock and by the London Armoury Company), I have an 1863-dated Birmingham-made Tower with a barrel that weighs 4 lbs, whilst my P-H barrel weighs 4 lbs 12 oz (2.15 kg). Though the external tapers of the two barrels are similar, the Tower’s contours, are, however, just a wee tad slimmer from the end of the breech toward the muzzle whilst at a point some 24-inches from the breech where the contours of the two barrels are almost identical in their taper on out to the muzzle. Yet, in comparing the wall thickness at the muzzle, while the Tower’s barrel wall thickness is 0.0728-inches (1.85-mm), the P-H wall thickness is very noticeably a more robust thickness of 0.095-inches (2.4-mm). Ergo, much of the weight difference appears to be in the barrel wall thickness and the fact the barrels were made of wrought iron rather than homogeneous steel.

What I can say about the P-H stock, is more by comparison to original stocks than by comparison to the Italian replicas, in that while the contours of the stock are very similar between the P-H and a RSAF-made Enfield, the P-H is slightly larger by the degree that the same Palmer-type screw bands when loosened and removed from the RSAF-made Enfield must be loosened more so to fit the P-H, the top band by such a degree that without spreading the band to permit it to slide over the end of the stock, would injure the stock. Because the original stock contours was more ovalate than the replicas (likely due to the differences between the original Blanchard stock machine and its modern counterpart), the replica stocks (including P-H) are typically larger in their dimensions. So too, with many of the parts manufactured by investment casing (often cast from the original), the resulting parts are typically smaller due to metal resolidification or 'shrinkage' which the Italians have done well to eliminate through the use of die-casting. While some of the Italian replicas skimp on material by reducing the dimensions of some parts (i.e. lockplate thickness, etc.), some of the early Euroarms products visibly bore the initial "P-H" (on the tumbler and hammers) because these parts were literally investment cast copies from Parker-Hale made parts, and so were even smaller due to their being copies of copies.

R. McAuley 3014V

[Steve Weems]

Great information Mr. McAuley--so how does the Navy Arms Enfield stack up weight wise compared to the EOA or Armi Sprot versions?
I know the EOA is on the heavy side.

[Southron Sr.]

Dear Richard:

You are exactly right, the stocks and other parts of non-interchangable, original Enfields vary not only from the original Enfield and LAC Enfields but the early P-H Enfields.

Also, keep in mind, after 140 years have passed, the wood found on original Enfields tends to shrink a tad-especially if the arm has been kept in a dry climate.

HAVE A GREAT DAY!!!!

[R. McAuley 3014V]

Yeah Brannen, and even though you hand-carried that 1862 L.A.C. over to Louis at EOA in Italy for the prototype, he had already copied the competition (i.e. P-H), literally. Or was that supposed to be a company secret? Now, in 1863 once the new Birmingham Small Arms Company had built their new factory at Small Heath, the company’s production of the government pattern arms became fully-interchangeable with those produced by the government and the London Armoury Company (afterwards reorganized under the corporate name London Small Arms Company Limited). Visually, the post-1863 "machine-made" production at BSA-Small Heath, Birmingham, are distinguished by their "round ears" rather than "square ears" of the lock-screw escutcheons.

Richard

PS: Not much that I can say about the EOA or Armisport replicas because I haven't ever purchased the latter, and had only purchased the former a short time before acquiring my first Parker-Hale. Not long after that, I purchased and began shooting an original Pattern 1860 Enfield rifle for which I used up until a couple of years ago when I acquired a '55 rifle, which I now shoot.

[Southron Sr.]

Dear Richard:

No company secret! The best I could do was to talk Mr. Amadi (the owner of Euroarms) into using "L.A.C." lockplate markings instead of "Enfield." Later on, Euroarms changed the marking from "L.A.C." to the non-authentic "London Armory" marking to help sales.

Why did I push for the "L.A.C." markings?

Funny thing, a lot of Enfields marked "L.A.C." made their way thru the blockade to arm THE SOUTH, Suh!

Eh...Eh...Eh...Turns out my Great-Great Grandfather, Francis Marion Warren of the Dekalb Guards, who was stationed on Jekyll Island was supposedly issued one of those Enfields that came in on the "Fingal" into Savannah Harbor!

My best guess is that they were1st or 2nd Model Enfields that were purchased as "surplus." Have you been able to document exactly what models of Enfields came in on the Fingal?

The Dekalb Guards, being from Bulloch County (South Georgia) immediately took their brand new Enfields they were issued and knocked the rear sights off of them! Seems that they were from "Shotgun territory" and had no idea what a rear sight on a rifle was for!

One of these days, I am going to make up a "Virginia Model Musket" Enfield and stamp the lockplate: "C.S." "MACON" & "1865."

As you know, the Confederacy was in the process of building the world's largest small arms factory in Macon to manufacture Enfields. These arms were to be built by machinery imported from the English Machine tool firm of Greenwood & Batley. (Their records still exist in an English archive.)

Unfortunately for the Confederacy, the war ended before the Macon plant got into production of Enfields. But it would be fun to have a real "Southern Enfield!"

Of course, I could never shoot it in N-SSA competition!

[R. McAuley 3014V]

Fingal (afterwards CSS Atlanta) arrived in Savannah on 13 Nov 1861, piloted (I seem to recall reading) by Teddy Roosevelt''s uncle, one of the Butler brothers of Roswell, GA (formerly of Savannah), for which the cargo breakdown I have only identified the arms as 11,340 Enfields, including some 9,620 Short Enfields (i.e. P56/58). This would have been too early for any of the L.A.C. production, and based on Huse's own inventory of purchases (May 1861-Dec 1862), included 70,980 Long Enfields (P53), 9,715 Short Enfields (p56/58), 354 Enfield carbines (P53/58), 2,020 Brunswick Rifles, 20 Small-bore Enfields, and 21,040 British muskets (presumably P51 and earlier).

C.S. Macon Laboratory was not just the future home for the Enfield machinery that was being shipped over. I believe that I understood that the first of three shipments of machinery had succeeded in getting through the blockade, but that the other two shipments were already delivered to their transhipment points (i.e. Nassau or Havana, as Bermuda was watched too closely), when the war ended. Apart from this, I believe I also recall reading that efforts were well underway seeking to procure the machinery from Ames Manufacturing to manufacture Spencer rifles and carbines at Macon. While some might have a problem with altering a replica to represent one of the proposed Macon Enfields, it would come much closer to getting SAC approval than my former proposal to P-H about building a Large Bore .568 caliber Whitworth. At the 1990 Gettysburg show, I spoke to Val shortly after he had acquired Parker-Hale, when he remarked of having my letter to P-H sitting on his desk at home, and was intrigued by the prospects. However, just to manufacture the barrels would have costs upwards of $150K, though Val did remark how he thought he knew where "we might off-load 300 barrels!" That was, unfortunately, as far as that project got.

[Yancey von Yeast, 8073]

All that I can say is WOW! I am always impressed with Mr. Mc Auley's information and research as well as his willingness to share. He is not the only one and I believe that this is one of the best parts of being involved with the NSSA and what makes us such a great group. I am excited each time that I read posts like this. Thank you all so much!

[Southron Sr.]

Dear Richard:

THANKS for your information! In the O.R.'s there is some correspondence regarding a controversey as how the arms that came in on the Fingal would be distributed that eventually involved the Confederate Secretary of War. Approximately half of them, if I recall correctly were shipped to the Western Theatre.

When the war was over, James Burton, now the former Confederate Superintendent of Armories wasted no time. He took off his Confederate uniform and donned a business suit. He left Macon and headed for the Spencer factory. He was now working as an agent for Greenwood & Batley.

A little background first: From the latter part of 1863 onwards the Confederate armies had been capturing Spencer Carbines and Rifles. Unlike almost all of the other Yankee small arms they captured, the Confederate Ordnance Department did not have the technical capability to manufacture Spencer ammo. The problem was that of "drawing" the Spencer cases. They never discovered the proper procedure! So, by the end of the war, the Confederacy had lots of Spencers they could not use because they could not make the ammo!

Even if Burton or one of his subordinates had figured out the procuedure it would have been a "moot" point after the Copper Hill area of Tennessee fell behind enemy lines due to the advance of the Yankee armies. With the supply of copper curtailed, the manufacture of Spencer ammo would have been impossible anyway.

One of the avenues Burton was exploring after the war was "selling" complete Spencer factories to a number of European countries. The idea being that G&B would supply the machinery and set up the factory-sort of a "Turn Key" Ordnance facility deal. Apparantly, Burton was rebuffed by the Spencer company-because G&B would have had to purchase patent rights from Christopher Spencer before they could begin setting up Spencer plants in Europe.

Apparantley, by the time the Franco-Prussian War broke out in 1870, either Burton or one of the machinists at G&B had learned how to "draw" Spencer cases because during that war, G&B opened up a "sideline" business of manufacturing Spencer ammo for the French Army-now partially equipped with "war suprlus" Spencer Carbines and Rifles purchased from Uncle Sam.

Don't feel bad about the .568 Whitworth Enfield falling thru. For the past ten years I have been trying to interest some manufacturer into coming out with a decent repro of the Austrian Rifle!

Historically speaking, both the North and South imported many, many Austrians. It is the ONLY IMPORT ORIGINAL ARM used in large numbers that has not been reproed. Sooner or later someone in the repro industry is going to figure this out and they will make a fortune selling Austrians. The Re-enactors will buy them by ton!

[Southron Sr.]

Dear Richard:

I encourage you to write a book. I always LOVE reading your posts on Civil War Ordnance!

Couple of late thoughts:

Regarding the importation of G&B machinery to the Confederacy-

I recall one letter in Burton's papers in which a particular large piece of G & B machinery in storage in Nassau was needed. The problem was that it was too big to get below decks on the smaller, swift blockade runners heading into Wilmington.

The solution: The Captain of the blockade runner lashed the machine down on the deck and painted it Gray to match the "camaflouge" color of the ship!

In his classic "Civil War Guns" Bell Edwards laments the facts that the G&B records were destroyed during WWII when a stick of Luftwaffe bombs hit a building in which they were stored. Edwards was wrong-the complete G&B records exist in an archive in England to this day. I am sure there is a "ton" of information, correspeondence, etc., regarding the machinery for the Macon Arsenal in those records.

I am convinced that the Enfield that was going to be made in Macon was simply a Virginia Model Musket that Burton championed before the Virginia Armory Commission. It was a "hybrid" design between an Enfield and a Springfield.

As the prototype Virginia Model Musket was made up at Springfield Armory in 1860, there is a lot of CIRCUMSTANSIAL evidence to indicate that the Virginia Model Musket served as the inspiration for the U.S. Special Model of 1861!

Contrary to the mistaken belief, the Special Model of 1861 was NOT designed by Sam Colt, but the Special Model of 1861 prototype was built in Springfield Armory (and probably by some of the same workers) that had built the prototype Virginia Model Musket several months before. Some of the features of the Virginia Model Musket and the Special Model of 1861 are identical!

Another point-
If you are planning on returning to England any time soon, all the records of the Frasier, Trelholm & Company are in storage in an archive in Liverpool! Not only is the war time correspendence, invoices, etc included but the "Discovery" transcripts when the principals in England were being interrogated by lawyers working for the U.S. Government for the "Alabama Claims" in the post-war era.

Needless to say, those records are an absolute "Gold Mine" of previously unknown information about the activities of Huse, Bulloch and the other Confederate agents abroad during the war. One or two books could easily come out of those records!

HAVE A GREAT DAY OLD FRIEND!

[Blair]

Richard & Bennen,

You should both get together and write a book! Or Books.
You are both excellent writers and have been doing research on these subjects longer than many "new" commers into the hobby/sport have been alive.

Brennen,
I believe a book about getting these early Repro guns made by the Italians would be a great read.
Much of this history (such as in starting EoA) is being lost today and is even being mis interperated by folks who claiming they know the real story.
Efforts at trying to getting Italian repors made with greater degree of authenticity would be a real eye opener to most of the reeacting community today.
Just an idea on my part,
You guys be good to yourselves,
Blair