A comparison between Euroarms P53 and Pedersoli P58 (pictures)

[Maillemaker]

Here you can see a side-by-side comparison of the new Pedersoli P1858 compared to the Euroarms P1853 Enfield. I have refinished the Euroarms stock to remove the polyurethane, and it has a custom Whitacre barrel.

http://imgur.com/a/NgnJo

Steve

[Muley Gil]

Good pictures, Steve.

[Southron Sr.]

Of course, the Grand Irony is that the Pedersoli Enfields are made on the (rebuilt) Euroarms machinery. The Pedersoli Enfield is a copy of a "Non-Interchangeable Enfield" while the Euroarms Enfield is a copy of the "Interchangeable" Enfield. The Interchangeable Enfields were made ONLY by the London Armory Company and the government armory at Enfield Lock.

The "Interchangeable Enfields" had Rounded Escutcheon Wing Tips While the Non-Interchangeable Enfields had Square Escutcheon Wing Tips. Also the Butt Plate, Trigger Plate, etc wood screws on the Interchangeable Enfields has heads with a slight dome on them. The Non-Interchangeable Enfields had flat head wood screws.

My GRIPE with Italian Enfields as that copied the Parker-Hale Enfield that used a ramord that had a "Press Fit" head on it. The head wasn't even screwed on so when you tried to pull a stuck Minie Ball using your ramrod, the ramrod head would usually come off of the ramrod!!!

The Pedersoli Enfields are probably the best replica Enfields to ever be put on the market!

[Maillemaker]

They way I have heard the story is that the Italian manufacturers copied a Parker Hale (My Eurarms actually has P-H visible in the casting of one of the lock parts), and the Parker Hale, made from "original" tooling, was made based on a Type IV Enfield, which was never used during the American Civil War. The Type III was the most common Enfield in the war. So when Pedersoli bought out Euroarms a lot of folks pestered them to try and take this opportunity to make it better, and they listened!

Steve

[Muley Gil]

They way I have heard the story is that the Italian manufacturers copied a Parker Hale (My Eurarms actually has P-H visible in the casting of one of the lock parts), and the Parker Hale, made from "original" tooling, was made based on a Type IV Enfield, which was never used during the American Civil War. The Type III was the most common Enfield in the war. So when Pedersoli bought out Euroarms a lot of folks pestered them to try and take this opportunity to make it better, and they listened!

Steve

Yeah, that's the way I read it, several years ago.

[R. McAuley 3014V]

It was Herb Woodend (former curator of the Royal Small Arms Factory (MoD) Pattern Room) who had loaned the set of Enfield pattern gauges to Parker-Hale's production engineer when P-H began production of their new line of replica Enfields, and that the gauges used was a set of pattern gauges originally made for the London Armoury Company, hence why the Parker-Hale replicas had the "long-butt" stocks while the Euroarms (and presumably the new Pedersoli Enfields), utilized the "short-butt" that was adopted in June 1861 with the new pattern 1853 rifle musket which is commonly referred to as the Type IV. The London Armoury Company and the Liege trade were the only manufacturers not to adopt the change in the butt-stock length which the government imposed on the London and Birmingham trades. So with all these other "changes" that Pedersoli has implimented to produce the "non-interchangeable" variant, which butt-stock length did they use -- the Type III or Type IV?

http://i267.photobucket.com/albums/ii305/rmac1023/Enfieldpics001_zps768178b1.jpg (http://s267.photobucket.com/user/rmac1023/media/Enfieldpics001_zps768178b1.jpg.html)

(L to R): Parker-Hale No. 3 Pattern 1861 Royal Artillery Carbine; Parker-Hale No. 4 Pattern 1853 Long Enfield; Original "1862 Tower" (by J&WT Tolley, Birmingham) No. 3 Pattern 1853 Long Enfield; "1862 Enfield" (by RSAF) No. 4 Pattern 1853 Long Enfield.

P.S. I don't recall whether the set of pattern gauges were made by Ames Manufacturing Company of Chicopee, Mass. or by Robbins & Lawrence, I suspect that the set of pattern gauges were made by R & L as some of the gauges now in the Leeds Collection bear those initials. Robbins & Lawrence provided the original machinery that Burton oversaw installed at the Royal Small Arms Factory at Enfield Lock. Ames supposedly copied that machinery for the London Armoury Company.

[Maillemaker]

The Pedersoli has the shorter butt length.

Steve

[Blair]

The P-H, Euroarms and the Armi Sport all used the 14 inch length of pull, known as the long-stock (or long-butt)
P-H and Euroarms were based on the 4 th. Pattern interchangeable Enfield. Armi Sport uses a mix of the 3 rd. and 4 th. Pattern parts on the long-stock.
Pedersoli P-'53 has the 13 inch length of pull, or short-stock variation. Their P- '58 Naval Rifle has the 13 1/2 inch length of pull. (I don't know what the Musketoon length of pull is.) Pedersoli are based off of the 3 rd. Pattern (non interchangeable) Birmingham (BSAT) made Enfield's.

[R. McAuley 3014V]

If what you say was true, that Euroarms merely copied the parts made by Parker-Hale by investment cast, the resulting re-casts by that process would be smaller in size than the source parts copied due to the resolidification of the metal during casting. This was much the same issue with the earlier Parker-Hale production, such that when someone would swap out, say, the replica Baddeley bands for original Palmer-style bands, the replica bands were so much smaller (tighter) in their fit that you had to spread them open with a screwdriver just to free them from the stock, while the original bands were so loose a fit that even when tightened as tight as the band screw would allow, they still often shifted in use. So if Pedersoli has copied the Euroarms parts, the resulting castings would be that much smaller again? This might help to explain why the extension arm off the tumbler broke. That or it was improperly heat treated (too hard).

That extension arm off the tumbler, which the stirrup foot is engaged, looks a wee bit narrow compared to an original Enfield tumbler, as the foot of the stirrup generally appears as half the diameter of the width of the extension arm. The added fact that the faces of the stirrup are still as rough as they were when cast and are not polished (the same for the shoulders), just goes to illustrate how little care was taken as this rifle's assembly. But one thing is certain, the far face of the top foot of the stirrup should not bear so hard against the inside surface of the plate as to leave such marks unless it is improperly seated and/or is being torque out of balance by the mainspring during the forward rotation of the tumbler. Much the same appears to be the case where the end of the mainspring has dug into the plate surface at full-cock. Elsewhere on this BB is my report on how to determine the ideal temperature for metal hardness, but it may be in the archives or it could be on the previous BB?

Given the problem you noted how in removing the plate from the stock that it caused the front edge of the inletting to break away, it would also appear that the perimeter edge of the lock-plate has little or insufficient bevel along the edge, which when compared to an original Enfield plate, the latter has approximately a 7.5-degree angled bevel or chamfer (outside to inside) along the full perimeter of the plate that would otherwise prevent such damage to the stock. Though you may not be able to chamfer the edge at the full angle like the original, you could ease the inside edge along those vulnerable curves of the stock where this stress occurs.

If I may ask a silly question, Pedersoli has mounted a 900-yard P/53 musket rear sight on its P/58 Navy rifle? So Steve, why do you have a 1100-yard "rifle" sight mounted on a P/53 musket? You seem to be so concerned in these photos with the historical accuracy of the Pedersoli vs the Euroarms and Parker-Hale Enfields, surely that's not the correct rear sights for either of these guns! Why the disparity?

[Maillemaker]

This might help to explain why the extension arm off the tumbler broke. That or it was improperly heat treated (too hard).

I think the main reason it broke is that the part is just too small compared to the hole drilled in it for the stirrup.

You can see in this picture that there was maybe .02"-.03" of material around the hole:

http://i.imgur.com/5Yhi3J2.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/7WhReol.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/U1m0wFW.jpg

This is much less than I find around my Euroarms or Lodgewood stirrup arm.

I bet even if I had not broken it twisting the stirrup it would have broken eventually during use.


Given the problem you noted how in removing the plate from the stock that it caused the front edge of the inletting to break away, it would also appear that the perimeter edge of the lock-plate has little or insufficient bevel along the edge, which when compared to an original Enfield plate, the latter has approximately a 7.5-degree angled bevel or chamfer (outside to inside) along the full perimeter of the plate that would otherwise prevent such damage to the stock. Though you may not be able to chamfer the edge at the full angle like the original, you could ease the inside edge along those vulnerable curves of the stock where this stress occurs.

I do believe that the edges of the lock plate itself are tapered somewhat, but there is no chamfer on either the outward-facing or mortise-facing edges of the lock plate.

I used a Dremel with a small bit to lightly touch up the lock plate mortise to ease the fit a bit.

I would like to know more about this chamfer you are talking about. Is it on the outside-facing or inside-facing edge of the lock plate? I believe my Richmod Carbine repro has a chamfer all along the outside edge of the lock plate. I see no chamfer on either side of this 1863 Enfield-manufactured Enfield I used to own here:

http://www.forth-armoury.com/temp/1853/1863/1863_enfield.htm


If I may ask a silly question, Pedersoli has mounted a 900-yard P/53 musket rear sight on its P/58 Navy rifle? So Steve, why do you have a 1100-yard "rifle" sight mounted on a P/53 musket? You seem to be so concerned in these photos with the historical accuracy of the Pedersoli vs the Euroarms and Parker-Hale Enfields, surely that's not the correct rear sights for either of these guns! Why the disparity?

Great questions! I don't know anything about the particulars of the different kinds of sights - I would like to know more about how to identify the different kinds of sights. If you could explain, I would greatly appreciate it. The sight on the P53 is the sight that Whitacre ships with his barrels (the barrel and sight on the P53 are not Euroarms). I do not know if it is correct or not, but it seems to be of very good quality. I had assumed that Whitacre put a correct P53 sight on his P53 barrel. It is good to know that this is not the case - do you know of a proper replacement?

Nor do I know that much about P58 rifles in general. It seems that Pedersoli has made all these authenticity improvements to their P53 Enfield, and carried them over to their P58 and Musketoon. But I do not know if all of these cosmetic changes are appropriate for all styles of gun, no doubt because they are all very similar and this was done for ease of manufacture. Mostly I'm showing these pictures to show the improvements that Pedersoli has made to the P53, but I have no idea whether these are appropriate for the P58. I would like to know this.

I don't know what the correct sight is for the P58 - can you tell me? I know the sight that is on it is not very good. The spring geometry is not quite right as the site leaf is not under proper tension when in its full-down (flat) positions, and as a result it tends to float up about .04" after every shot. The screw that holds the sight together/to the barrel interferes slightly with the slot in the leaf, and it holds the leaf up once it jumps after the shot. I would like to replace this sight with a proper, higher quality sight. Can you recommend one?

Steve

[Maillemaker]

I would like to know more about the appropriate sights for the different kinds of Enfield guns if anyone knows. I heard back from Whitacre and he said the sight he puts on his Enfield barrels, "is very close to an exact replica if not an exact copy." He says it is made by Rich Cross.

I can say that I'm not impressed with the sight on the Pedersoli at all. The spring does not contact the ladder correctly so that it is not under any tension when it is in its full-down position. I'm thinking of adding a bump of JB Weld to the spring to force some tension.

Steve

[R. McAuley 3014V]

The No. 3 and No. 4 Pattern 1853 (3-band) long Enfield was equipped with an elevating ladder rear sight graduated to 900 yards, while the No. 1 Pattern 1856 Army short rifle was similarly equipped with an elevating ladder rear sight but graduated to 1100 yards. Berry Benson's P/56 rifle was so equipped. The very same sight was again used for the No. 2 Pattern 1858 Navy rifle until 1861 when following adoption of the new J2 powder, the sights for the No. 4 Pattern 1861 short rifle was changed to 1,250 yards. Many of the earlier Pattern 1858 and 1860 short rifles were refitted with the latter sight graduation.

http://i267.photobucket.com/albums/ii305/rmac1023/BensonCloseUpSight_zps569cc4b4.jpg (http://s267.photobucket.com/user/rmac1023/media/BensonCloseUpSight_zps569cc4b4.jpg.html)

The No. 1 Pattern 1853 and No. 2 Pattern 1858 Royal Artillery Carbine utilized a multi-leaf rear sight that was graduated to 300 yards, but when the No. 3 Pattern 1861 artillery carbine was adopted was when a new pattern rear sight was introduced that was modeled after the elevating ladder type like used on the rifle and musket but graduated only to 600 yards. However, according to Dixie Gun Works, it seems that their Parker-Hale P/61 artillery carbine rear sight is graduated to 800 yards.

http://www.antiquearmsinc.com/enfield-artillery-carbine-confederate.htm
(http://www.antiquearmsinc.com/enfield-artillery-carbine-confederate.htm)
The machined copy which Lodgewood and others sell is the one made by Rich Cross, and is offered with ladders graduated for both 900 yards for the Long Enfield and 1,100 yards for the short rifle, but Rich also offers replacement sight ladders designed to fit the Parker-Hale replicas in both graduations. Though the new sights may look almost identical to the original, Rich did not copy the dovetail end of the spring not only to make it simpler to reproduce but also so as not be confused for an original Enfield sight as I have already seen these same sights “antiqued” and offered for sale for an original Enfield sight. So buyers beware, and look closely at your purchases.

http://www.lodgewood.com/-Enfield-Complete-Rear-Sight-Machined-Copy-of-Original-_p_891.html
(http://www.lodgewood.com/-Enfield-Complete-Rear-Sight-Machined-Copy-of-Original-_p_891.html)
As for the bevel along the perimeter of the lock, you can probably observe this best in the links below:

http://www.lodgewood.com/1853-1862-Enfield-1862-Tower-Lock-Plate_p_152.html

Below is a good example of an original tumbler for a comparison to the replica that broke:

http://www.lodgewood.com/1853-1862-Enfield-Tumbler_p_512.html

[R. McAuley 3014V]

Of course, the Grand Irony is that the Pedersoli Enfields are made on the (rebuilt) Euroarms machinery. The Pedersoli Enfield is a copy of a "Non-Interchangeable Enfield" while the Euroarms Enfield is a copy of the "Interchangeable" Enfield. The Interchangeable Enfields were made ONLY by the London Armory Company and the government armory at Enfield Lock.

The "Interchangeable Enfields" had Rounded Escutcheon Wing Tips While the Non-Interchangeable Enfields had Square Escutcheon Wing Tips. Also the Butt Plate, Trigger Plate, etc wood screws on the Interchangeable Enfields has heads with a slight dome on them. The Non-Interchangeable Enfields had flat head wood screws.

My GRIPE with Italian Enfields as that copied the Parker-Hale Enfield that used a ramord that had a "Press Fit" head on it. The head wasn't even screwed on so when you tried to pull a stuck Minie Ball using your ramrod, the ramrod head would usually come off of the ramrod!!!

The Pedersoli Enfields are probably the best replica Enfields to ever be put on the market!

In his book, The British Soldier’s Firearm, Dr. Roads makes a rather curious statement regarding the No. 2 Pattern 1858 Navy rifles, with respects to the “non-interchangeable” rifles versus those machine-made arms manufactured by the government, when he says: “Apart from the usual pattern arms required to guide manufacture in the trade no Naval rifles were produced by the Royal Small Arms Factory until 1863-64 when a mere 2280 were completed. In other words, over 40 contract Naval rifles were made for every one turned out by Enfield, so non-interchangeable arms entirely predominate.”

Recognizing that Parker-Hale, Euroarms, and Armisport each elected to replicate the machine-made No. 2 Pattern 1858 Naval rifle not produced until 1863, together with the machine-made No. 4 Pattern 1853 Long Enfield not produced until 1862, as well as the No. 4 Pattern 1861 Royal Artillery Carbine which was not produced until 1863-64 — none of these arms were in fact of the pattern arms imported to America during the Civil War. They are all “post-war” imports. Given now that Pedersoli is offering the 'short butt' of the machine-made Enfields, yet, is offering still other features found only on the “non-interchangeable” arms, several folks here have given the impression that Pedersoli had corrected all these issues? Surely progress has been made. It just hasn't been completed.

[Maillemaker]

Thanks for the detailed reply, Rich.

I'm trying to follow along, but we are covering more guns than I am familiar with. I think I'm seeing more "Enfield" type guns than I knew existed!

OK, so the Type III 3-band Enfield (the one used during the ACW) should have a rear sight graduated to 900 yards. This is not what came with my 3-band Enfield barrel from Whitacre, as you can see in this picture here (again):

http://i.imgur.com/xJatn2l.jpg

So it looks like I have the wrong sight on my 3-band Enfield.

And the 1858 2-band Enfield had an 1100-yard sight until 1861, and then went out to 1250 yards (though older ones may have been upgraded)

It looks to me like I have the right sights, just reversed on the wrong guns! :)

I am aware of the different types of 3-band Enfield, but I am not aware of the different types of 2-band.

It sounds from your description like the Type 4 2-band came on the scene in 1861. Since the Pedersoli lock is stamped 1861, it seems reasonable to assume that it should represent a Type 4 2-band. Does it look like one to you (sight not withstanding)?

It is starting to sound to me like the 2-band and 3-band Enfields are entirely different animals in terms of their "eras" (types) - the 2-band is not simply a cut-down 3-band.

I have a question about the replacement machined sight you linked to at Lodgewood. It says that this sight must be soldered on. But the Rich Cross sight on my Whitacre barrel is not soldered - the screw that holds the spring down passes through the sight base into a tapped hole in the barrel. The Pedersoli sight is likewise only screwed down.

Is this sufficient or should it be soldered? Can the Lodgewood sight be just screwed down?

Also it looks like the version shown at Lodgewood is the 900 yard sight. I don't see an 1100 or 1250 yard version. I'm guessing the 900 yard is the only choice? Interesting that Whitacre is getting them in the 1100 yard variant.

Steve

[iron brigade]

So Steve, did you shoot the dang thing yet?......I was really hankering for the pedersoli 1858, ended up buying a Euroarms for half the cost. in shooting it I have to have the rear sight ladder up on the first notch because I can't get my head down far enough on the stock. I replaced the front sight with a higher one to bring the POA down. I also have a pedersoli musketoon and it needed a higher front sight which was installed by the previous owner and still needs to be taller. it shoots high yet. I much prefer the Springfield stock design or even the Lorenz over the Enfield.

[Rebel Dave]

Iron Brigade
That is why years ago, I sold my Enfields, (Parker Hales) and went to Springfields/Richmonds/ Fayetteville rifles. I like the drop in stock on them much better. I never looked back.

Rebel Dave

[R. McAuley 3014V]

Thanks for the detailed reply, Rich.

I'm trying to follow along, but we are covering more guns than I am familiar with. I think I'm seeing more "Enfield" type guns than I knew existed!

OK, so the Type III 3-band Enfield (the one used during the ACW) should have a rear sight graduated to 900 yards. This is not what came with my 3-band Enfield barrel from Whitacre, as you can see in this picture here (again):

http://i.imgur.com/xJatn2l.jpg

So it looks like I have the wrong sight on my 3-band Enfield.

And the 1858 2-band Enfield had an 1100-yard sight until 1861, and then went out to 1250 yards (though older ones may have been upgraded)

It looks to me like I have the right sights, just reversed on the wrong guns! :)

I am aware of the different types of 3-band Enfield, but I am not aware of the different types of 2-band.

It sounds from your description like the Type 4 2-band came on the scene in 1861. Since the Pedersoli lock is stamped 1861, it seems reasonable to assume that it should represent a Type 4 2-band. Does it look like one to you (sight not withstanding)?

It is starting to sound to me like the 2-band and 3-band Enfields are entirely different animals in terms of their "eras" (types) - the 2-band is not simply a cut-down 3-band.

I have a question about the replacement machined sight you linked to at Lodgewood. It says that this sight must be soldered on. But the Rich Cross sight on my Whitacre barrel is not soldered - the screw that holds the spring down passes through the sight base into a tapped hole in the barrel. The Pedersoli sight is likewise only screwed down.

Is this sufficient or should it be soldered? Can the Lodgewood sight be just screwed down?

Also it looks like the version shown at Lodgewood is the 900 yard sight. I don't see an 1100 or 1250 yard version. I'm guessing the 900 yard is the only choice? Interesting that Whitacre is getting them in the 1100 yard variant.

Steve

Steve,

A date of "1861" shown on the lockplate does not have anything to do with when the No. 4 Pattern 1861 was adopted. The contract production of the 1861-dated No. 2 (Navy rifles) and the production of the RSAF No. 3 Pattern 1860 short rifles overlapped, but a majority of the latter pattern rifles were converted to Snider. In 1859 the British government contracted the manufacture of the No. 2 Pattern 1858 Naval rifles among several suppliers among the Birmingham and London trades as well as abroad in Belgium, and these arms entered into government stores between 1861 and 1863. It was only after the close of the ACW that many of these "noninertchangeable" Enfields were surplused and finally made it to this country. But since so many of these do not possess any definitive marks showing when they arrived in America, hundres if not thousands of them were simply assumed to have arrived during the ACW. But the British owned rifles carry marks that show government ownership, and for those arms we pretty much know they arrived "post-war".

The rear sights for the Enfields, rifles, muskets, and carbines, were all soldered on. If you should wish to do so, I recommend that you use the solder strips like Brownell's sells. It is a lot easier to solder on a sight than drill a hole into the barrel in the right place, and tap it with the right threads. But I have both the 900 and 1100 yard sights by Rich Cross, and purchased them both from Lodgewood. That was three or four ago when Oz and Becky still ran the store. The new Lodgewood may not carry all that Oz and Becky had carried but maybe you need to call them and ask if the 1100 yard sight is still available. As for Dan, he may not be aware of there being any difference in sight graduations?

[Maillemaker]

As for the bevel along the perimeter of the lock, you can probably observe this best in the links below:

I see what you mean. Yes, the Pedersoli lock has that taper. I believe it is simply too tight a fit for the wood. It is almost a press fit. The bevel makes it go in great, but coming out, it pulls up a splinter very easily.


It is a lot easier to solder on a sight than drill a hole into the barrel in the right place, and tap it with the right threads. But I have both the 900 and 1100 yard sights by Rich Cross, and purchased them both from Lodgewood.

Perhaps I was not clear. The sight on both my Pedersoli and my Whitacre barrel with the Rich Cross are screwed to the barrel. The barrel is already drilled and tapped. My question was, is this sufficient? Presumably since the Pedersoli shipped that way they think so?

But anyway, it sounds like the 3-band Enfield should have a 900 yard sight while the 2-band should have an 1100 yard sight or a 1250 yard sight, correct?


So Steve, did you shoot the dang thing yet?

Yes. I tried the RCBS Hodgdon bullet with 44 and 46 grains 3F Shuetzen, sized to .576. I slugged the barrel and what it really needs is a .577. I have a new sizer on the way.

Anyway, the RCBS Hodgdon bullet was a disaster. About 50% of the shots keyholed through the target at 50 yards.

I then tried some RCBS 500M bullets, sized to .576 and lubed with period lube. They shot much better, in that all of the bullets went into the target nose first. But the group at 50 yards was about an 8" group and it shot about 8" high.

But I can't totally count on that because the rear sight leaves much to be desired. The sight leaf is not under much tension from the spring in the full-down position. Consequently after every shot it jumps up a bit. If I didn't remember to push it down before the next shot it could have thrown off my shot. When my sizer comes in I will take it back to the range and try again.

Steve

[R. McAuley 3014V]

The backsights on all of my Enfields are soldered on, and even though the originals were equipped with a small screw in the centre of the sight base, the screw had served as a means of holding the spring in its place. When Parker-Hale developed their backsight, they attempted to stream-line their sights as much as possible, hence why the ladder was cast as one-piece rather than two-piece held together by a small screw on the underside of the sighting vee. They also produced an overly complicated slider. Personally, I prefer my sights soldered on less they become loose and my shots begin wandering off target. Though some prefer using super-glue ti secure their sights (if screwed in place), the glue eventually fails due to the heat from the barrel. But if the two sights are as you say, held in place with a screw, and they can be swapped with the other gun, you may find little change in your grouping at short range, but at least the sights would be "correct" for each pattern arm.

I realise it may not be Christmas yet, but certainly the following text is indispensable for any Enfield collector, and a huge savings over buying one of the 1962 copies, if you can find one. A friend and I made the mistake of walking out of a gun show in Ohio leaving an original "Large-Bore" experimental Whitworth rifle in .568 caliber sitting on a dealer's table, because, like everyone else, we assumed all Whitworths were only made in .451 -- not so. Although my friend was able to buy the rifle a couple of days later, we later found according to Roads' book, that only four or five of these rifles were even made.

http://www.ssfirearms.com/proddetail.asp?prod=BKA374

Just imagine trying to identify this Whitworth rifle WITHOUT using Roads' book: (see Roads page 231, fig. 238 and close-ups on page 232)

2027

2028

2029

2030

[GPM]

A great book to have, but keep in mind it pertains mainly to the Enfield in British service with very little about the contract rifles brought into this country during the ACW.

[Maillemaker]

But if the two sights are as you say, held in place with a screw, and they can be swapped with the other gun, you may find little change in your grouping at short range, but at least the sights would be "correct" for each pattern arm.

Yes the site on both my Whitacre barrel and on the Pedersoli are both screwed into the barrel.

I'm tempted to put the 1100 yard sight currently on my 3-band onto the 2-band, but I already have the 3-band dialed in exactly. I'd hate to screw that up.

Steve

[iron brigade]

I see what you mean. Yes, the Pedersoli lock has that taper. I believe it is simply too tight a fit for the wood. It is almost a press fit. The bevel makes it go in great, but coming out, it pulls up a splinter very easily.



Perhaps I was not clear. The sight on both my Pedersoli and my Whitacre barrel with the Rich Cross are screwed to the barrel. The barrel is already drilled and tapped. My question was, is this sufficient? Presumably since the Pedersoli shipped that way they think so?

But anyway, it sounds like the 3-band Enfield should have a 900 yard sight while the 2-band should have an 1100 yard sight or a 1250 yard sight, correct?



Yes. I tried the RCBS Hodgdon bullet with 44 and 46 grains 3F Shuetzen, sized to .576. I slugged the barrel and what it really needs is a .577. I have a new sizer on the way.

Anyway, the RCBS Hodgdon bullet was a disaster. About 50% of the shots keyholed through the target at 50 yards.

I then tried some RCBS 500M bullets, sized to .576 and lubed with period lube. They shot much better, in that all of the bullets went into the target nose first. But the group at 50 yards was about an 8" group and it shot about 8" high.

But I can't totally count on that because the rear sight leaves much to be desired. The sight leaf is not under much tension from the spring in the full-down position. Consequently after every shot it jumps up a bit. If I didn't remember to push it down before the next shot it could have thrown off my shot. When my sizer comes in I will take it back to the range and try again.

Steve I to have the .576 Hodgdon and they keyholed for me also. the minie that worked best was the old 575602 shot as cast and dip lubed. 1.5" groups at 50. that minie shoots well in all my .58 cal muskets. real well in my 1864 Bridesburg Springfield.

[R. McAuley 3014V]

You better carefully cull those Lyman .575602 minies very closely as that round has a very thin skirt. I used to shoot a modified wadcutter made from the .575602 (with 1/8" milled off the top), and it was fantastic out of a Euroarms Enfield and didn't matter whether it was the 2-band, 3-band or carbine. I once shot that minie using a C&B carbine that had almost three rounds in the same hole! But I had so many blown skirts, I had to change bullets.

Currently, I shoot a Rapine .575320 wadcutter with 40 grains FFFg Goex, and have had good success with this ratio whether using my (Hoyt relined) Pattern 1860 rifle or my Model 1855 Rifle (with Whitacre barrel). I get practically the same group at 50 with the heavier Hodgdon, sized .575 in the '55 and .576 in the Enfield. For 100 yard, I use a Lee Ashcan .575470 with 45 grains FFFg Goex.

[Maillemaker]

Well my .577 sizer came in today so I'm going to try the P58 out again this weekend with the 500M.

Steve

[William Schoenfeld, 1386]

I use a Rapine old style 575510. The weight of the Minnie is 496. I use 3 F Goex at 41 grains. The group is from 1 inch to 1.5 inch. I had my front sight buried into the bottom of the V and I was hitting dead center to 12 with a 6 hold. I just put a taller sight on it and I hope to take it out to the range in the near future. I also use Lens lube on the 2 bottom rings.

[iron brigade]

You better carefully cull those Lyman .575602 minies very closely as that round has a very thin skirt. I used to shoot a modified wadcutter made from the .575602 (with 1/8" milled off the top), and it was fantastic out of a Euroarms Enfield and didn't matter whether it was the 2-band, 3-band or carbine. I once shot that minie using a C&B carbine that had almost three rounds in the same hole! But I had so many blown skirts, I had to change bullets.

Currently, I shoot a Rapine .575320 wadcutter with 40 grains FFFg Goex, and have had good success with this ratio whether using my (Hoyt relined) Pattern 1860 rifle or my Model 1855 Rifle (with Whitacre barrel). I get practically the same group at 50 with the heavier Hodgdon, sized .575 in the '55 and .576 in the Enfield. For 100 yard, I use a Lee Ashcan .575470 with 45 grains FFFg Goex. thanks for the heads up, I read in the Lyman manual that it has a thin skirt. I check and weigh them before loading. I have the Lyman wadcutter mould also. a guy can never have enough moulds. yeah, that 602 bullet shoots good in every musket I have. I use 40 grains of fffg kik powder.

[R. McAuley 3014V]

The "modified" .575602 I referred came with my first musket (a Navy Arms Mississippi) that I acquired through a trade with a dealer on Sutler's Row back in the mid-1970's. The minie shot so well not only in the Mississippi but just about every musket I tried it with save a Parker-Hale with 1:48 spiral, that eventually the mould wore out because everyone on two teams was using that same mould to make their minies. I still have that mould, or at least half of it. The neat part of that design was that the centroid occurred in the apex of the hollow base just below the surface of the lead, such that even when air bubbles might be cast in a minie, it had no affect on the trajectory. But the problem we had with the skirt was that if a wrinkle occurred in casting, it was likely to blow the front of the bullet off with the skirt hanging up in the bore. If I recall correctly, we all used 35 grains of FFFg Goex at 50 and 40 grains at 100, and it was a tack driver.

[iron brigade]

If I remember correctly from space cowboy's video's, the Pedersoli Enfield's have more drop in the stock compared to the other makes. this would surely be an added benefit to the shooter. I had to have a higher front sight put on my parker hale p53 and it shoots real well but compared to my original Springfield its like night and day. my 15 year old son was handling my muskets last night and was really taken by the lightness of the Bridesburg musket compared to the others. he himself shoots a 1858 parker hale Enfield and does real well with it as long as he shoots his own ammo:) last skirmish he was unknowingly shooting my loads. he couldn't figure out why he got a donut!! 0-12. our commander called him the fastest misser on the team! IB

[R. McAuley 3014V]

Over the years I have heard people complain about how they just couldn't shoulder an Enfield because of the shallow drop in the stock; they said how they could not get their cheek low enough to align the sights. I suggested they simply move their cheek or stock weld farther to the rear, which not only permitted them to better align the sights but because they were farther away from the rear sight, it helped to visually narrow the width of the rear sight vee and made it easier to centre the front sight. While this does take some shooter self-discipline to insure that you return to the same spot each shot, if you have trouble finding the same spot on the stock each time, put a piece of tape there to mark the spot so you can remember where it is. But there is really no need to adopt the British style of shooting over the American style with regards to the angle of the rifle to the body, I shoulder a musket in much the same way as I do an M-14 simply because this is the manner by which I have shot rifles for the past 40 years.

[Maillemaker]

Well I took the Pedersoli P58 out for another go this morning. Still nothing good to report.

I started out with 46 grains 3F Shuetzen behind an RCBS 500M minnie sized to .577. This weighs about 535 grains. I weighed all my bullets and discarded any that were outside of +/1 half a percent from average. My charges were weighed digitally to within 1 grain.

I can tell that even .577 is too small as on a clean barrel it drops down to the powder without the ramrod. I'm going to bump up to .578.

With 46 grains I was still unable to consistently hit an 8.5x11 sheet of paper. Groups got a little better with 48 grains. I am not sure whether I am getting a couple of shots tearing a single hole or whether I'm still having keyholes and some bullets are missing the target all together.

I was able to get shots sort-of on target by burrying the top of the front sight in the bottom of the V-notch in the rear sight.

But the rear sight is still no good - the ladder is not under spring tension in the full-down position. I have to push the sight back down on every shot. I'm going to have to work on that or replace the sight.

I guess I'm going to have to order that Lyman 575213PH that Space Cowboy used in his review to get groups like his.

Steve

[iron brigade]

Over the years I have heard people complain about how they just couldn't shoulder an Enfield because of the shallow drop in the stock; they said how they could not get their cheek low enough to align the sights. I suggested they simply move their cheek or stock weld farther to the rear, which not only permitted them to better align the sights but because they were farther away from the rear sight, it helped to visually narrow the width of the rear sight vee and made it easier to centre the front sight. While this does take some shooter self-discipline to insure that you return to the same spot each shot, if you have trouble finding the same spot on the stock each time, put a piece of tape there to mark the spot so you can remember where it is. But there is really no need to adopt the British style of shooting over the American style with regards to the angle of the rifle to the body, I shoulder a musket in much the same way as I do an M-14 simply because this is the manner by which I have shot rifles for the past 40 years.that may be true with some Enfield muskets, but my experience with the Euroarms is different. I put my head in different positions to no effect. my parker hale is okay. I bought a lb of shuetzen 3fffg and did not have any luck with it as far as groups go. kik was more powerful.