The "Hay Pattern" Enfield Rifle, i.e., the "Medium Enfield"

[Southron Sr.]

I hadn't ever heard of this one before, but according to the author of an article on the "Hay Pattern" Enfield, they were used by both sides during "The Late Unpleasantness Between the States."

The arm was developed by a Colonel Hay of the British Army. It was a "3 Bander" but utilized a barrel only 36" long instead of the regular 39" barrel found on the regular P-53.

Apparently, it was never adopted an an "official" pattern by the British Ordnance Department although in 1864 the government of New Zealand ordered something like 5,000 Hay Pattern Enfields from the "trade" in England.

The rear sight was set forward just behind the rear barrel band-just like those found on the Enfield Naval Rifles.

The "Hay Pattern" used a three groove, progressive depth rifling with a 1 in 48" Twist. Supposedly, it was much more accurate than the regular P-53 with their 1 in 78" Twist.

Anyone know of any original Confederate or Yankee "Hay Pattern" Enfields in private or public arms collections? Any documentation of their use by either the U.S. or C.S. Armies?

For more information about the "Hay Pattern" Enfield:

Google:

"Hay 1858 Pattern Enfield Rifle" article written by John Osborne

[dbm]

I know three British shooters who have Hay Pattern Rifles and shoot them with good results in MLAGB competitions. (Iam in touch with John Osborne).

David

[Blair]

Southeron Sr.

I had a very nice long meeting with the Director of the new Pedersoli Distribution Center here, just today.

He suggest that most cosmetic changes to the furniture of various arms should not be any major issues.
However, changes in barrel length, caliber and/or rifling maybe cause for getting Italian Governmental approval before anything can be produced.
Perhaps, and this is just a suggestion on my part, it would be best to keep these new changes as simple as it may prove to be possible for Pedersoli to start off with during this time of new changes to an old product line?
Pedersoli seems to be very interested in the chances to make changes for a better finished product at this time. Let us give them that chance.
Blair

[Southron Sr.]

Dear Blair:

My suggestion was Pedersoli produce the P-60 Enfield (Army) Short Rifle which is IDENTICAL to the P-58 Naval Rifle with the exception of:

1. The nose cap is color casehardened steel rather than brass.

2. The trigger plate/guard is of color casehardened steel rather than brass-although the trigger plate is a tad longer and the rear sling swivel is attached to the rear of the trigger plate further rather than to the trigger guard.

3. The buttplate is color casehardened steel rather than brass.

From a historical standpoint, the P-60 Army Short Rifles were much more common in both the Union and Confederate armies than the P-58 Naval Rifles.

The P-60 Army Short Rifles was the "issue weapon" for the vast majority of the troops in the Army on Northern Virginia's "Sharpshoter Battalions," (also called "The Shock Troops of the Confederacy") because of a shortage of Whitworth and Kerr Sniper Rifles.

[Blair]

Southeron Sr,

Yes, I know what the differences are in the various patterns.
Was this topic not started based off of the "Hay Pattern" P-1853 medium length Rifle Musket's?
Please let me know how the P-1860 Infantry Rifle relates to the "Hay Pattern Medium length Rifle Musket" discussion in this thread?
Blair

[Southron Sr.]

My understanding is that Colonel Hay also designed the P-58 Naval Rifle. So, that explains why the Hay Pattern Enfield has the rear sight positioned where it is on the barrel-in the same place as those on the P-58 Naval Rifles. Of course, the P-60 Short Rifle was just a slightly modified Naval Rifle.

According to Dr. John Osborne who has researched the Hay Pattern Enfields, both the Union and Confederacy purchased Hay Pattern Enfields. Hopefully, I can get in touch with Dr. Osborne and find out what his documentation indicating U.S. or C.S purchase of Hay Pattern Enfields. Needless to say, adequate documentation would be required before the N-SSA SAC would approve the use of Hay Pattern Enfields at Skirmishes.

I really don't think any manufacturer would be interested in producing a replica Hay Pattern Enfield, but it would be an interesting project to build a custom one.

[R. McAuley 3014V]

Though in responding here earlier, I had wondered whether the "Hay Pattern" Enfield could have influenced the design of the .568-caliber experimental Whitworth that was manufactured by Manchester Ordnance in 1863, as it too had a shorter 36-inch barrel length like the "Hay Pattern", that does not appear to be the case nooting the New Zealand government did not place the first order for 500 Hay Enfields with Hollis & Sons until 1864, followed by a second order for 500 via Calisher & Terry in 1865.

[R. McAuley 3014V]

Dear Blair:

My suggestion was Pedersoli produce the P-60 Enfield (Army) Short Rifle which is IDENTICAL to the P-58 Naval Rifle with the exception of:

1. The nose cap is color casehardened steel rather than brass.

2. The trigger plate/guard is of color casehardened steel rather than brass-although the trigger plate is a tad longer and the rear sling swivel is attached to the rear of the trigger plate further rather than to the trigger guard.

3. The buttplate is color casehardened steel rather than brass.

From a historical standpoint, the P-60 Army Short Rifles were much more common in both the Union and Confederate armies than the P-58 Naval Rifles.

The P-60 Army Short Rifles was the "issue weapon" for the vast majority of the troops in the Army on Northern Virginia's "Sharpshoter Battalions," (also called "The Shock Troops of the Confederacy") because of a shortage of Whitworth and Kerr Sniper Rifles.


Are you certain that it was the Pattern 1860 Army Rifle (5-groove, 1:48 spiral, 1250 yard sights) or the Pattern 1856 Army Rifle (3-groove, 1:78 spiral, 1100 yard sights), as the Pattern 1860 was one of the shortest lived rifles, only adopted in November 1860 and afterwards replaced in August 1861 with the Pattern 1861 Army Rifle with which it is most often confused, and for which production at RSAF did not commence until 1861-62 with only 4,220 rifles produced that first year. The only difference between them is that the front sight base is made of steel on the Pattern 1861, and iron on the Pattern 1860. The 1250 yard sight was adopted in 1861 when the British War Department changed to the new J2 powder. Only about 18,000 of both patterns were made, 1861-64 at the RSAF, and the majority of Pattern 1860 Army Rifles were held in government store until converted to Snider in 1866-67, hence why so few survived, and most of those were made under contract by the Liege trade for the British government (part of the 1859 contract with final delivery by February 1863), some examples are dated as late as 1870. One of the distinguishing traits of the Pattern 1856 is its longer sword bar (on barrel) that will accept the Lancaster bayonet but will not accept the standard Pattern 1858 Navy Rifle or Pattern 1860/61 Army Rifle bayonet. The Army rifles were all iron-mounted.

[Southron Sr.]

Dear Richard:

I feel that there is a connection between the Hay Pattern Enfield and the large bore Whitworth. Colonel Hay, Commandant of the Musketry School at Hythe was very well known for his experimental work regarding the P-53 Enfield. Some research needs to be done on the matter.

If I were in England I would look for Colonel Hay's Official Letter Books, 1857-1865. They should be in a military archive somewhere.
Then I would look for correspondence between Colonel Hay and Sir Joseph Whitworth. Those should be some interesting letters to read!

As for the P-60 vs P-61. I agree that that today that original P-60's are rare critters as most made at Enfield were converted to Sniders.

I was referring to the "contractor made" P-60's that were sold by contractors to Confederate purchasing agents.

[R. McAuley 3014V]

Dear Richard:

As for the P-60 vs P-61. I agree that that today that original P-60's are rare critters as most made at Enfield were converted to Sniders.

I was referring to the "contractor made" P-60's that were sold by contractors to Confederate purchasing agents.

Trouble is, is that while Huse refers to some of his purchases by pattern or description (i.e. P51, P53, Brunswick, smoothbore, second-hand government, etc), he offers little distinction between patterns when it comes to his "short rifles”. Only in the invoices from William Grazebrook of Liverpool to Caleb Huse (in the McRae Papers) are we afforded any such distinctions in descriptions as either “iron mounted” or “brass mounted” short rifles that infer these to have been Pattern 1856 “iron mounted” Army rifles or the Pattern 1856 (Type 2) or Pattern 1858 “bar-on-band” Army rifles, or the Pattern 1858 ‘brass mounted” Navy rifles. Although these “short rifles” may not be specified by any specific pattern, to suggest that the "iron-mounted" referred only to those Model 1860 Army Rifles made by private makers is to further assume that some private makers produced such rifles in advance of the same pattern produced by the government in the case of the Pattern 1860 which did not commence until 1861, the very same year as these “iron-mounted” short rifles were sold to Huse.

The likelihood that the gun trade (whether in England or Liege) would have begun production of the P/60 rifle ahead of the government’s effort seems too ludicrous a gamble, especially in the light of the government’s late decision to adopt the 5-groove rifling over the previous Army rifle’s 3-groove. I must say that I just have not seen much evidence to show that sufficient quantities of P/60 rifles were actually produced by any private contractors ahead of those produced by the government, though I have owned one Liege example dated 1860, but I also have owned another Liege-made P/60 dated 1869. So too, America was not the only country to which these guns were exported. Indeed, the total quantities of all types of arms produced both in England and Belgium during the years 1861-65 greatly exceed the quantities exported to America during the same period.

Finally, though William Grazebrook also sold ‘artillery carbines’ to Huse in September 1861, I have not heard of anyone suggesting these were of the new Pattern 1861 (adopted 30 December 1861) like reproduced by Parker-Hale and Euroarms. More likely, these were either of the Pattern 1853 or 58, if not still earlier Pattern 1841 or 42 artillery carbines?

[John Holland]

Thank you Richard! Those are also my thoughts on the P-60 production and distribution.

I would like to know if anyone knows the whereabouts of a documented P-60 that was actually used in the Civil War. I haver seen one documented.

I also agree with your thoughts on the Artillery Carbines. Another Artillery Carbine that comes to mind is the well known non-standard pattern made by Barnett that has no provision for a bayonet. I have seen references to Barnett being the "Whitney of England" by virtue of producing "good & servicable arms" for sale to anyone who needed arms quickly. It is an analogy that always makes me smile.

John Holland

[Southron Sr.]

Huse purchased both Long and Short Enfields and continued to do so throughout most of the war. Obviously, he purchased some P-60's.

Berry Benson's P-60 is in the collections of the Augusta Museum of History in Augusta, GA. It is well documented because it is the one Benson brought home from Appomattox.

[R. McAuley 3014V]

Though widely reputed as the rifle Berry Benson (1843-1923) carried during the war, the so-called “Pattern 1860” rifle at Augusta belonged to Benson and was donated to the museum in 1964 by his daughter-in-law, Mrs. Susan Williams Benson, but it is NOT the same rifle depicted with Benson on the statue atop the Confederate Monument on Broad Street. Mrs. Benson was also the editor of Berry Benson's Civil War Book: Memoirs of a Confederate Scout and Sharpshooter (1962), which drew upon Benson’s reminiscences from before his capture and largely borrowed from the diary of his brother Blackwood Benson during his absence on account Berry’s diary was taken from him when first made a prisoner at Point Lookout, Virginia, on May 16, 1864. His memoirs, completed in 1878, drew upon not only his own experiences, but also those of his brother Blackwood.

http://vidgrids.com/u/bviall

Escaping his confinement at Point Lookout Prison, he was recaptured in Maryland and for a time was held as a POW at the Old Capitol Prison in Washington, DC, until Benson was then transferred to Elmira Prison in New York where he joined eleven other prisoners in a daring tunnel escape. After some five months in captivity at Elmira and then on the run, he evaded re-capture and made his way south to rejoin his unit in Virginia in late October 1864. Not long after returning to his unit, Benson received a 60-day furlough and returned to Augusta, and remained there until travelling to Savannah to participate in the defense of that city until its fall in December 1864, when Benson “itching for his rifle” returned to his unit in Virginia.

The Enfield rifle he never surrendered had been picked-up just a few days (maybe a week) before Lee’s surrender at Appomattox. A few days earlier, around March 31st, Benson had been carrying a Spencer rifle with 40 rounds of ammunition, he had exhausted his supply of cartridges before finding himself about to be captured, when he having bluffed to possessing a loaded rifle and managed to capture three Yankee soldiers who had thought they were going to capture him. On or about April 2, 1865 Benson was tasked with destroying some rifles found in the outer breastworks of Petersburg, to prevent them passing to the enemy.

At Goode’s Bridge, on April 4th, of between 200 and 300 men of the whole battalion of sharpshooters, they were surprised on the bank of the river by Yankee cavalry, so many men were taken prisoner, only 40 men remained, of which Benson and his unit made 16. Upon learning of the impending surrender at Appomattox on April 9th, Benson and his brother Blackwood, made their escape with the intent of joining up with Johnston’s army in North Carolina. Upon reaching Danville on April 22nd, they learned of Johnston’s plans to surrender, so they headed home. Arriving at their grandparents home at Greenville, South Carolina, the two men were soon overtaken by Confederate soldiers paroled at Appomattox who were returning home, Berry and Blackwood elected to go home arriving at Augusta on May 15th, almost one-year since his capture at Spotsylvania.

In 1893 at the age of 50, Benson gave up eating meat, denounced hunting and fishing, and declared himself a pacifist. Not that his daughter-in-law could have known in 1962 that the Model 1860 short rifle was out-of-context for the American Civil War, the rifle was evidently acquired in the “post-war” period as Benson was very active in the United Confederate Veterans and each year led his fellow veterans in the Confederate Memorial Day parade down Broad Street, such that when the Memorial Association of Augusta sought to erect a monument to those of the city and county of Richmond who gave their lives in service to the Confederacy (unveiled October 31, 1878, Sergeant Berry Benson was the person selected as a model for the infantry soldier depicted atop the Confederate Monument.

Designed by Von Gunden of Philadelphia, the shaft of Georgia granite is contrast against the statues of Benson, and Generals Lee, Jackson, Cobb, and Walker, carved of Italian marble in Carrara, Italy, all costing upwards of $17,000. The rifle may simply have been one supplied as a prop by its Italian sculptor, and afterwards kept by Benson as a souvenir? The rifle is described by some as a P-1856 Army Rifle; others as a P-1858; and still others confusingly as a “P-56/P-58/P-60”. Some who have examined the rifle in its display are amazed by the fact that the lock-plate is unmarked, with no maker’s name or date; and due to the method of display, the proof marks are obscured so we cannot see to know whether it was proofed, or where, if it was indeed proofed? Loads of unanswered questions surround this rifle.

On the cover of the 1962 monograph by his daughter-in-law, is a photo of Berry Benson posing for the sculptor, with what appears to be the same rifle, Enfield sling included. But the rifle depicted by the sculptor has the rear sling swivel attached to the trigger-guard in the same manner as a P/58 Naval rifle rather than the butt-swivel for a P/56 Army rifle. So ii seems evident the sculptor was given free license in his model’s historical accuracy.

Though I was in Augusta last weekend, there wasn’t time to get by the museum, but I did find my photocopy of Benson’s book over the weekend, and refreshed my memory. Though the rifle looks very much like a P/60 rifle, I noted that Roads mentions a special pattern P/58 Sergeant’s rifle that succeeded the P/56 and possessed much the same features of that same pattern later incorporated into the P/60 and P/61 rifles, including the same sword bar without the key. But I also noted that much the same sword bar (without the key) was also present on the P/56 rifle (fig. 166) and that the key was a standard feature of the early P/58 experimental rifles (fig. 169), and as a refinement, the key was later eliminated (fig. 170).

In recalling that the Liege trade had received a contract to supply P/58 rifles (contract dated June 1859), no Naval rifles were produced by RSAF until 1863-64 when a mere 2,280 were made, the United States had in 1863 cancelled its contracts with all British arms suppliers. As Roads adds, a majority of Naval rifles have the lower sling swivel attached to the trigger-guard but (he notes) some examples are to be found with butt swivels, for special issue, mainly to the Royal Marine Artillery. Some of these were all iron-mounted; others a mixture of iron barrel bands and other furniture of brass.

[Southron Sr.]

Dear Richard:

According to Frederick L. Ray, in his book: "Shock Troops of the Confederacy," CFS Press, ISBN-10: 0-9649585-5-4, pp 265-266,

On April 2nd, 1865 Benson (long after escaping Yankee captivity) was serving as a Sharpshooter in McGowan's Brigade of South Carolina troops, in the action taking place at Sutherland's Station, Virginia.

Benson stated that after he had fired all the Spencer ammo he had for his captured Spencer Rifle, he picked up the P-60 Enfield (presumably from a fallen Sharpshooter in his unit) and used it. This was the Enfield Short Rifle he carried home.

As my understanding is that the rifle has Confederate "accounting numbers" stamped in the wood below the trigger guard tang would seem to indicate that the rifle displayed at the Augusta History Museum is indeed Benson's Rifle acquired at Sutherland's Station, IF Benson's first person account it to be believed.

I look forward to your report on the rifle. Please take some pictures of the rifle and post them.

MERRY CHRISTMAS & HAPPY NEW YEAR
Old Friend!

[Geoff Walden]

I have a file on Berry Benson's rifle, but it's in storage right now where I can't access it. I can tell you that the rifle has the Confederate "lot number / accounting number" 2319 stamped in the stock behind the triggerguard tang, along with the JS-anchor mark. If this is a P60, then it's a Confederate P60. I was thinking it was a P56, but I haven't looked at this gun myself in years. Hope you can get an up-close look at it, Richard.

[Southron Sr.]

Richard:

According to a British expert on Enfields, the O.D. of the barrel at the muzzle should be: 0.829" IF the Benson Rifle is a P-60 or P-61. Replica P-H Naval Rifles have a barrel O.D. of 0.847 but Parker-Hale purposely made their Naval Rifle barrels a tad oversize. That kills the P-H advertising hype that they used that they built their replica Enfields to a set of original Enfields gauges they borrowed from the British govenment!

[John Holland]

I recently checked the muzzle diameter of a P-H Naval Rifle, serial # 43xx, and it was 0.833". All production operations have a +/- allowable tolerance, usually using a set of "Go/No Go" gauges. P-H had to have had a +/- allowable tolerance on muzzle diameter. We just don't know what it was. If you start measuring original British P-56, P-58, and P-60 arms you will find the muzzle diameters are rather inconsistent. Perhaps the original British gauges were also a "Go/No Go" type of guage. If so, then the P-H advertising may not be so wrong after all!

John

[Southron Sr.]

The Parker Hale barrels were made by the process of "Hammer Forging which means that a hardened steel mandrel with the reverse of the rifling Lands & Grooves was inserted into a shorter, cylinderical piece of steel with a hole drilled in the center.

The Hammer Forging machine literally "forged" the the shorter, cylinderical piece of steel around the mandrel and at the same time, lengthned it and then fashioned the outside diameter and taper of the barrel. Obviously the barrel had a little "spring back" in it when the Hammer Forging process was completed, or it would have been impossible to withdraw the mandrel. That "Spring Back" probably accounts for the variation in the outside diameter of P.H. barrels.

That 0.829" O. D. at the muzzle I gave was provided by Mr. Bill Curtis. I posted a question on the MLAGB website and he was kind enough to measure the muzzle O.D.s of two original rifles in his collection and post the results. He measured the muzzles of both an Enfield armory produced P-60/61 and an London Armory Company produced P-60/61. The identical measuements should be no suprise because Enfield and London Armory Company produced "Fully Interchangeable" Enfields that conformed to the same gauges.

Of course, the other Enfield manufacturers in England, Belgium and France at the time made "non-interchangeable" Enfields and their barrel O.D.'s probably varied slightly. That being said, IF Benson's rifle is a P-60 or P-61 the O.D. of its muzzle should either be 0.829" or very close to that diameter.

[R. McAuley 3014V]

Richard:

According to a British expert on Enfields, the O.D. of the barrel at the muzzle should be: 0.829" IF the Benson Rifle is a P-60 or P-61. Replica P-H Naval Rifles have a barrel O.D. of 0.847 but Parker-Hale purposely made their Naval Rifle barrels a tad oversize. That kills the P-H advertising hype that they used that they built their replica Enfields to a set of original Enfields gauges they borrowed from the British govenment!

Hate to pop that bubble, but the manufacturing tolerances even with the machine-made Enfield varied greatly from musket to musket, indeed, as much as did those manufactured by Springfield Armory up until the production of the Krag rifle. Though the firearms produced the by the London Armoury Company (1856), Royal Small Arms Factory (1857) at Enfield Lock, Birmingham Small Arms Company (1861) at Small heath, Birmingham, London Small Arms at Victoria Mills (1866), and Henry Rifled Barrle Company in Hoxton, London (1870) were machine-made, the parts still required hand-filing to bring them to “gauge” just as they did at Harpers Ferry and Springfield. In 1823 it was said that one file was worn out for every musket made at Springfield, which by 1852 this had been reduced to one file for every three muskets. The introduction of milling machinery in 1855 reduced the time required for an artificer to bring a forged tumbler blank to size in a tenth of that required to do the same job with files alone. So while manufacturing by machine increased output and helped to bring about better interchangeability, parts even made by machine sometimes still required hand-fitting. Indeed, as late as 1864 the percentage of a U.S. musket that required handwork vs machine, was still about 50%. The machines still did not assemble the muskets, and just as today, an armorer's tool box still contains files and stones for hand-fitting parts.

I just finished measuring several Enfield barrels, and found that the muzzles varied from 0.791, 0.778, 0.792, to 0.763. These muzzles corresponded to a Parker-Hale P53, a 1862 RSAF P53, a Pattern 1842 Royal Artillery Carbine, and a 1861 Tower P53, respectively. I could expand this to include Enfield rifles, but I think you will find as much variation among them as you will carbines and long Enfields.

[Southron Sr.]

Dear Richard:

The 0.791" O.D. on the muzzle of the Parker-Hale is to be expected because P-H barrels according to Mr. Curtis were purposely built oversize. This is confirmed as the muzzle of your "Fully Interchangeable" RSAF Made Enfield is 0.778."

I would expect the O.D. of the muzzle of the "Non Interchangable" Tower P-53 to be different, but not that much at 0.763"! Apparently the contractor that made that "Tower" barrel was really conserving iron!

All My Best!

Southron, Sr.

[Blair]

Richard,

Please site your documentation for this lack of interchangeability within the American System of arms manufactureing into the 1890's?

[R. McAuley 3014V]

Conservative Innovators and Military Small Arms: An Industrial History of the Springfield Armory, 1794-1968, prepared for U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, North Atlantis Regional Office, Boston, MA (August 1989) by Raber Associate, South Glastonbury, CT, and Edited 2006 by Richard Colton, Springfield Armory, NHS.

http://books.google.com/books/about/Conservative_Innovators_and_Military_Sma.html?id=I YeQHAAACAAJ

http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online_books/spar/spfld_armory_history.pdf

[R. McAuley 3014V]

My 1863 Tower (by Tulley & Co) has even an even smaller muzzle of 0.756, and most all of its dimensions are less than most examples of the gov't Enfields that I have seen dimensions shown. While I had the opportunity this afternoon, here are the muzzle diameters of my two Liege contract P60s (0.805 and 0.796).

[Blair]

Richard,

Thanks.
But, how does this relate to the subject of this trhread?

[R. McAuley 3014V]

As an artificer of replica martial arms, you of all people should appreciate the fact that the gun-stocks you use are of a quality far exceeding what was typically available during the period in terms of dimensional quality even with those stocks produced by the various armories using the Blanchard lathe. The stocks, like the barrels, were roughed out to shape, before being finished shaped by hand, such that no two were truly alike. Gun-barrels, even those made using a rolling-mill possessed similar variations between them, which required the barrels to be straightened, and filed to finish shape, a practice not remedied by machine until the introduction of the Krag rifle. The example given with respect to the importance of the files in gun-making, that even as late as 1862 it was estimated that 6,328 files were needed to complete 100,000 muskets (about 3/4 file per musket), even the parts that were machine-made required hand-fitting to insure interchangeability of parts. If all that was required was a set of fully-interchangeable parts to assemble a rifle or musket, and those parts were readily available, and simply required people to just assemble the parts without any hand-fitting or quality control to attain the same quality gun as you offer, just how many guns would you expect to sell of your own manufacture?

As stated earlier, even though the firearms produced by LACo as well as at RSAF at Enfield Lock (and after January 1863 at Small heath, Birmingham) were machine-made, the parts still required hand-filing to bring them to “gauge” just as they did at Harpers Ferry and Springfield. The Brits imported not only the innovative technology for barrel-making by roll-forging from America, they imported the technology for machine milling of locks and other irregular shapes (compliments of Flagg and Robbins introduced to Springfield Armory in 1835) as well as the whole American method of manufacture (compliments of Robbins, Kendall & Lawrence and the Ames Manufacturing Company) that were not only is use at the R.K. & L. Armory and the Sharps Armory, but earlier with Flagg & Waters (and afterwards at Palmetto Armory), you only need to stop and look at the very men who were involved with forming these companies to realize that they were the very pioneers of the American system of manufacturing. They exported this technology to the rest of the world, and they didn't just manufacture firearms.

[John Holland]

Well stated, Richard, thank you!

JDH

[Blair]

Yes. I agree. The information is quite impressive.

But what does the title of this thread, The "Hay Pattern" Enfield Rifle, i.e., the "Medium Enfield" (wlmailhtml:{95813624-B5F8-487F-9E0F-002742917309}mid://00000056/!x-usc:http://www.n-ssa.org/vbforum/showthread.php?4220-The-quot-Hay-Pattern-quot-Enfield-Rifle-i.e.-the-quot-Medium-Enfield-quot) have to do with the American System of interchangeability?

[dbm]

According to a British expert on Enfields, the O.D. of the barrel at the muzzle should be: 0.829"

FWIW, I have a trade 'Enfield' that closely approximates the specification for the P.60.

Overall length: 49.5"
Barrel length: 33"
Rifling: 5 groove, progressive depth, 1 in 48 twist
Bore: 25
Backsight graduated to 1100 yards

The lock is just marked Tower 1866

The O.D of the barrel at the muzzle is 0.827"

I've won matches at 50m offhand and out to 600 yards with this rifle and currently hold the MLAGB (http://www.mlagb.com/) 50m record and at one time the 200 yard record.


I'm no student of Civil War arms, however note much discussion revolves around Pattern rifles. Would the trade rifles exported during the War have necessarily been fully compliant with Pattern specifications?

David

[R. McAuley 3014V]

Though widely reputed as the rifle Berry Benson (1843-1923) carried during the war, the so-called “Model 1860” rifle at Augusta belonged to Benson and was donated to the museum in 1964 by his daughter-in-law, Mrs. Susan Williams Benson, and is NOT the same rifle that is depicted with Benson on the statue atop the Confederate Monument on Broad Street. Mrs. Benson was also the editor of Berry Benson's Civil War Book: Memoirs of a Confederate Scout and Sharpshooter (1962), which drew upon Benson’s reminiscences from before his capture and largely borrowed from the diary of his brother during his absence on account Berry’s diary was taken from him when first made a prisoner at Point Lookout, Virginia, on May 16, 1864. His memoirs, completed in 1878, drew upon not only his own experiences, but also those of his brother Blackwood.

http://vidgrids.com/u/bviall

Escaping his confinement at Point Lookout Prison, he was recaptured in Maryland and for a time was held as a POW at the Old Capitol Prison in Washington, DC, until Benson was then transferred to Elmira Prison in New York where he joined eleven other prisoners in a daring tunnel escape. After some five months in captivity at Elmira and then on the run, he evaded re-capture and made his way south to rejoin his unit in Virginia in late October 1864. Not long after returning to his unit, Benson received a 60-day furlough and returned to Augusta, and remained there until travelling to Savannah to participate in the defense of that city until its fall in December 1864, when Benson “itching for his rifle” returned to his unit in Virginia.

The Enfield rifle he never surrendered had been picked-up just a few days (maybe a week) before Lee’s surrender at Appomattox. A few days earlier, around March 31st, Benson had been carrying a Spencer rifle with 40 rounds of ammunition, he had exhausted his supply of cartridges before finding himself about to be captured, when he having bluffed to possessing a loaded rifle and managed to capture three Yankee soldiers who had thought they were going to capture him. On or about April 2, 1865 Benson was tasked with destroying some rifles found in the outer breastworks of Petersburg, to prevent them passing to the enemy.

At Goode’s Bridge, on April 4th, of between 200 and 300 men of the whole battalion of sharpshooters, they were surprised on the bank of the river by Yankee cavalry, so many men were taken prisoner, only 40 men remained, of which Benson and his unit made 16. Upon learning of the impending surrender at Appomattox on April 9th, Benson and his brother Blackwood, made their escape with the intent of joining up with Johnston’s army in North Carolina. Upon reaching Danville on April 22nd, they learned of Johnston’s plans to surrender, so they headed home. Arriving at their grandparents home at ville, South Carolina, the two men were soon overtaken by Confederate soldiers paroled at Appomattox who were returning home, Berry and Blackwood elected to go home arriving at Augusta on May 15th, almost one-year since his capture at Spotsylvania.

In 1893 at the age of 50, Benson gave up eating meat, denounced hunting and fishing, and declared himself a pacifist. Not that his daughter-in-law could have known in 1962 that the Model 1860 short rifle was out-of-context for the American Civil War, the rifle was evidently acquired in the “post-war” period as Benson was very active in the United Confederate Veterans and each year led his fellow veterans in the Confederate Memorial Day parade down Broad Street, such that when the Memorial Association of Augusta sought to erect a monument to those of the city and county of Richmond who gave their lives in service to the Confederacy (unveiled October 31, 1878, Sergeant Berry Benson was the person selected as a model for the infantry soldier depicted atop the Confederate Monument.

Designed by Von Gunden of Philadelphia, the shaft of Georgia granite is contrast against the statues of Benson, and Generals Lee, Jackson, Cobb, and Walker, carved of Italian marble in Carrara, Italy, all costing upwards of $17,000. The rifle may simply have been one supplied as a prop by its Italian sculptor, and afterwards kept by Benson as a souvenir? The rifle is described by some as a P-1856 Army Rifle; others as a P-1858; and still others confusingly as a “P-56/P-58/P-60”. Some who have examined the rifle in its display are amazed by the fact that the lock-plate is unmarked, with no maker’s name or date; and due to the method of display, the proof marks are obscured so we cannot see to know whether it was proofed, or where, if it was indeed proofed? Loads of unanswered questions surround this rifle.

On the cover of the 1962 monograph by his daughter-in-law, is a photo of Berry Benson posing for the sculptor, with what appears to be the same rifle, Enfield sling included. But the rifle depicted by the sculptor has the rear sling swivel attached to the trigger-guard in the same manner as a P/58 Naval rifle rather than farther back like a P/56 Army rifle. So ii seems evident the sculptor was given free license in his model’s historical accuracy.

Though I was in Augusta last weekend, there wasn’t time to get by the museum, but I did find my photocopy of Benson’s book over the weekend, and refreshed my memory. Though the rifle looks very much like a P/60 rifle, I noted that Roads mentions a special pattern P/58 Sergeant’s rifle that succeeded the P/56 and possessed much the same features of that same pattern later incorporated into the P/60 and P/61 rifles, including the same sword bar without the key. But I also noted that much the same sword bar (without the key) was also present on the P/56 rifle (fig. 166) and that the key was a standard feature of the early P/58 experimental rifles (fig. 169), and as a refinement, the key was later eliminated (fig. 170).

In recalling that the Liege trade had received a contract to supply P/58 rifles (contract dated June 1859), no Naval rifles were produced by RSAF until 1863-64 when a mere 2,280 were made, the United States had in 1863 cancelled its contracts with all British arms suppliers. As Roads adds, a majority of Naval rifles have the lower sling swivel attached to the trigger-guard but (he notes) some examples are to be found with butt swivels, for special issue, mainly to the Royal Marine Artillery. Some of these were all iron-mounted; others a mixture of iron barrel bands and other furniture of brass. So Benson’s rifle could have been one of these Royal Marine Artillery pattern rifles with the butt sling swivel?

In recognizing that a majority of P/58 Naval rifles were produced (1860-64) by the Liege trade, for which the lock-plates typically bore in addition to the Queen’s coronet only the year of manufacture in italics, any such “second-grade” or “commercial” rifles (without a coronet) might have been sold to Confederate agents (even Union agents) but would have been manufactured in Belgium between March 7, 1860 and March 31, 1864. All of the RSAF rifles and those produced by the Birmingham and London trades would have further been produced with the short butt-stock while only the Liege trade continued to produced rifles with the long (14-inch) butt-stock like Benson’s rifle.

Berry Benson’s rifle: Pattern 1856, Pattern 1858 or Pattern 1860 Enfield Short Rifle?

Benson’s rifle, on display at the Augusta Museum of History is no doubt a peculiar specimen, and stylistically the rifle appears to be a Birmingham-made Tower except that the lock-plate and rear sight are void of a maker’s name or the usual “Tower” and date markings. However, it is double-bordered as is the hammer, along with the normal flame markings on the hammer like most Birmingham "Tower" specimens just as its butt-plate and trigger-guard screws are of the flat-head variety have come to typify Birmingham-made products. But unlike the later all “iron-mounted” P/60 Army rifles, Benson’s rifle features a brass butt-plate and iron trigger-guard together with iron Palmer-style barrel bands. Not only is the rear sight ladder graduated to 1,100 yards but it is also the three lands and grooves that best distinguish this rifle as a Pattern 1856 from the subsequent P/58 Naval and P/60 Army rifles. Also, immediately behind the rear tang of the trigger-guard is the JS-anchor marking along with a four-digit number “2819” in Arabic numerals, further associating this specimen as one of those Confederate imports rather than a federal one.

Though I had hoped to speak with the museum’s curator, perhaps collaborate on our observations, the display case holding the rifle is made such that does not render access to the rifle a convenient matter. But certainly when equipped with a strong light, it is possible to get very close to the specimen to even observe of the surface of the lock-plate that there are no visible markings and indentations present indicative of any markings having ever been there (i.e. such as the date in italics had it been made in Liege). The label that is included in the display notes that the rifle is of the type or pattern "introduced in 1856", so the museum curator apparently is satisfied that the rifle is the Pattern 1856 and not a Pattern 1860.


http://i267.photobucket.com/albums/ii305/rmac1023/Benson0001_zpsd19d8397.jpg



http://i267.photobucket.com/albums/ii305/rmac1023/Benson0003_zps7fd5bd49.jpg



http://i267.photobucket.com/albums/ii305/rmac1023/Benson0005a_zps460fac90.jpg

http://i267.photobucket.com/albums/ii305/rmac1023/Benson0006_zpsa94bf11c.jpg

[R. McAuley 3014V]

Benson’s rifle on bottom of display, and also a Cook & Brothers carbine (top edge of photo). Middle, a close-up of the rear sight of Benson’s rifle shows the graduations on the sight ladder of “6, 7, 8” and “11” on the top right-hand side of ladder but no numerals on the right side of rear sight base fence. According to Roads', the 1,100 graduation was standard on the short rifles from 1857 up to July-August 1861 when the ladder was regraduated to 1,250 yards on adoption of the new J2 powder. This would suggest that Benson's rifle was probably made in or before 1861. Bottom: view of the sculpture of SGT Berry Benson atop the Confederate Monument on Broad Street, Augusta, Georgia.

http://i267.photobucket.com/albums/ii305/rmac1023/Benson0007_zps89fed7e5.jpg

http://i267.photobucket.com/albums/ii305/rmac1023/BensonCloseUpSight_zps569cc4b4.jpg

http://i267.photobucket.com/albums/ii305/rmac1023/BensonMonument_zps31b77075.jpg

[Southron Sr.]

Dear Richard:

OUTSTANDING!!! EXCELLENT!!! Your posts on this BB are always so very enlightening!

You have solved the "Mystery" of the Berry Benson Rifle! Apparently it is a "commercial" P-56 Army Short Rifle that had a brass buttplate rather than the standard iron buttplate.

So, now we must start looking for an original example of one of those elusive 800, (possible) "P-56 Sergeant's Fusils for India Service" that were purchased by Major Anderson from the Sinclair, Hamilton & Company and came into Savannah aboard the Fingal.

[Southron Sr.]

The location of the Confederate accounting "Control Number" for Benson's rifle [2919] stamped on the stock behind the tang of the trigger guard is interesting. I understand that the stock is also stamped with an "F." this indicated that the rifle came from Parker, Field & Sons (one of the 5 contractors that furnished Enfields to Sinclair, Hamilton & Company for their contracts with the Confederacy for arms) WITH THE BRASS BUTT PLATE.

Normally, on 3 band Enfields and P-58 Naval Rifles that had brass buttplates, the Control Number was engraved there. On the P-56 and P-60 Short Rifles that had casehardened iron buttplates, the Control Number was stamped in the stock like on Benson's Rifle.

I am thinking that if the brass buttplate was a replacement for the original iron buttplate, then it would also have a control number engraved on if for the original arm it came on.

Of course, the Confedracy was purchasing "Commercial Enfields" which, while they closely resembled the "official sealed pattern Enfields" adopted by the British Army, they did not have to follow the exact pattern. I am guessing that Parker, Field & Sons simply used a brass buttplate because it was available or cheaper to use than the iron buttplates required on the P-56's purchased by the British Ordnance Department.