Looking to buy my first CW musket??

[MIR]

Looking to buy my first CW musket. Kinda a toss up between the Enfield and Springfield, leaning more towards the Enfield though, but would like opinions at to which is the better musket. As for make..Armi,Euroarms,Pedersoli etc… or should I build? Opinions…? Which one on the makes shoots the best OOB? or would a build shoot better…..?

[Muley Gil]

Euroarms was bought by Pedersoli and then much improved. Pedersoli is the way to go, unless you can find an older English make Parker-Hale.

[Fred Jr]

You might want to shoot both an Enfield and a Springfield before you buy. They are some what different to shoot. The Enfield has very little drop in the butt stock compared to a Springfield. Some find this makes it difficult to shoot. Also the Enfield has a touch more length in the pull, butt to trigger. You can make most of them shoot if you work with them to find out what they like to eat.


Good Luck!

Fred 1097
12TH PA

[Curt]

Hallo!

I would advise getting to handle and shoulder Enfields and Springfields first. Ideally, SHOOT some.

As shared, the Enfield RM and R have less stock drop and some lads find that annoying in the check at the end of the day. Plus the Enfield has a 'flat' butt plate versus the Springfields more curved one so it fits the shoulder differently.
Plus, over the decades, the different makers or brands have offered larger and heavier versions of Springfields and Enfields so they do not all feel the same or handle the same.

Next, it can depend on how much historical accuracy or faithfulness to the originals one needs or does not need.

And last... Pedersoli has bought out Euroarms, and have partially listened to the decade's old cries of folks clamoring for greater authenticity as well as listening to competitive shooters and are upgrading the Enfield line to have what, IIRC, they are calling "match grade" barrels.

Curt

[bobanderson]

Sorta depends on what you're planning to do with it. Your profile says you've been on this board for 10 years but are not an N-SSA member.
Competition, fun or hunting?
For competition, buy the best you can afford. You can't buy your way into the 10 ring, but you can't get there very often with substandard equipment.
For fun, get what looks cool and fits you. Might not need a match grade barrel, but buy a common caliber so ammo isn't a concern.
For hunting, buy a Zoli Zouave for 250-300 bucks and a bag of round balls.

With all that said, skirmishing will make you A) a lot better shot than you are now and B) want to buy more and better equipment. Join a team and they'll help you get geared up right the first time.

[Ron/The Old Reb]

Buy the best you can afford, you won't be sorry later on. You pretty much get what you pay for in guns and equipment. Plus if you take care of it, it will last you a lot longer.

[jonk]

Buy the best you can afford, you won't be sorry later on. You pretty much get what you pay for in guns and equipment. Plus if you take care of it, it will last you a lot longer.

This; but with a few caveats.

To get any gun really shooting, you need to:

1. Probably lighten the trigger.
2. Use a minie 1-2/1000 under bore size
3. Experiment with different minies until you find one that groups into one ragged hole off a bench at 50 yards
4. Experiment with powder charges to find the same
5. Replace/modify stock sights. Very rarely are they already 'on' and the teeny tiny front sight is NOT conductive to accuracy.
6. Relieve barrel tension if there is any, and if desired, glass bed part or all of the barrel. Make sure the bolster isn't resting on the lock.

As to brands... I'm fairly convinced that with the above steps, ANY of the modern repros will shoot pretty well. For true match grade accuracy, you'd want to go with an English parker hale, or get your barrel lined/replaced by Mr. Robert Hoyt or Mr. Whitacre.

[Michael Bodner]

Greetings to a fellow South Carolinian!! I'm in Rock Hill (Upstate) but we have members in the Greenville area that you can meet and handle (and perhaps) shoot their guns.

Drop me a line at mbodner@chemringds.com with your contact info (email and phone) and I will have a member contact you.

Tell me a little about yourself and what your interests are regarding CW guns etc. If you like to shoot, we're the organization for you!! We shoot ~5 times per year in Statesville NC which is less than 3-hours from ville (plus you could carpool with other members). Check out the N-SSA homepage for more info about what we do. Our shoots are two-day events so the travel is easier to handle when you consider it a 'weekend event'.

We've got a shoot coming up Sept 12-14 and I would encourage you to attend Saturday (Sept 13) to a) meet other CW gun fans, and b) get a chance to see/hold/shoot the guns before you spend your hard-earned cash.

Look forward to hearing from you.

-Mike Bodner
Commander Palmetto Sharpshooters

[Maillemaker]

Lots of good advice already.

If you decide on an Enfield, the Pedersoli is the most historically accurate reproduction currently available. That said, I bought a Pedersoli P58 and have yet to find a consistent, accurate load that works with it.

If you are looking for a competition gun, a good course of action would be to post here or inquire locally about a skirmisher that has a gun that has already been "worked up", and they can provide a proof target with load data. That way you have a gun that you know shoots from the git-go.

Buying a new gun means a lot of tweaking and load work-ups until you find the optimal accuracy.

Steve

[Curt]

Hallo!

Plus, a "Skirmisher's" gun will most all the time already have the front sight blade replaced with a higher one for 50 yard shooting (issue, or as is, is set for no less than 100 yards and shoot rather high at only 50).

Curt

[al2620]

Sir Contact me about a musket you want to buy. I have some for sale Enfields Springfields
3-band 2-band I might have one that would interest you
My e-m DSSA200@aol.com Thank you AL

[Eggman]

Hmmmmmmmmmmm. Ten years on this forum and need a musket. VERY interesting! The only thing I might add to hooking up with Bootsie and try some out is if you can't do that, and you decide to shoot somewhere else like in the NMLRA, there is an interesting wrinkle about sights. Most of us older guys are into the corrective lense (farsighted) business, and the Springfield models generally have the rear sight right up against the eyeball, impossible for us to use in the "as issued" mode. I suspect the NMLRA means the original (unusable) open sight when they require "as issued" sights for their musket matches. We generally use peep sights in the original sight location which the N-SSA allows to their great credit and very good sense.

[StonewallSharpeson]

I started reenacting about 2.5 years ago, and keep close tabs on the musket market for new people, to upgrade my arsenal, and because I find it fun. The following are my observations:

A couple notes: (1) No repro musket is progressively rifled (unless Parker-Hales are, of which I am not aware). (2) I am only comparing various companies' 1861 Springfields (M61) and 1853 Enfields (P53), as that is what I perceived the OP's question to be about. (3) I experience about the same results live firing both my M61 and P53 using historic loads. In theory, the P53 is better. (4) IME, M61s are heavier than P53s, by about a pound or two. (5) The M61 was the most widely used weapon in the war, with nearly 2 million units produced. The second was the P53, with about 700,000 imported between sides. However, the M61 did not see action until 1862, after it had been produced and supplied to Union troops. It was actually liked more than Enfields by soldiers because it was reputed to be more sturdy, reliable, and had interchangeable parts. (6) Because P53s were available at the start of the war and saw use until its end, they are generally considered the best starter-gun for reenactors. (7) I'm sorry for the use of so many initialisms. (8) This post is subject to edits, correction, and extension.

There are 7 main manufacturers of muskets in my book: Pedersoli (Italy), ArmiSport/Chiappa (Italy), Euroarms (Italy), Canada (via Loyalist Arms), India (generic, cheap), Miroku (Japan), Parker-Hale (England)., and bubba (custom, generally made in the US).
Parker-Hale (PH) muskets are generally considered the best, but they only made Enfields, and later outsourced to Italy, decreasing quality. There are more qualified people here that can tell you about PHs. They are no longer produced, and a good PH 1853 Enfield is quite expensive, if you can even find them.
ArmiSport (AS) is the current go-to manufacturer for muskets at the moment, though that could change in the near future. Their muskets are perfectly safe and functional, but require some defarbing, if that is your cup of tea. 1853s cost around $750 and 1861s around $900.
Euroarms (EA) muskets are about the same quality of weapon as ArmiSports, and have about the same price, depending on the model. Generally speaking, AS P53s require less defarbing than EA P53s, and EA M61s are slightly better than AS M61s. Euroarms was purchased by Pedersoli a year or so ago, and their muskets are no longer produced. On a selfish note, I have a like-new EA M61 I'm looking to sell, $750 shipped.
Pedersoli (Pe) muskets both very well made and are readily available. They normally cost closer to $1000 apiece, but a glut in supply has caused many to be put on sale. They are essentially defarbed out-of-box.
Loyalist Arms imports guns from Canada. I don't know much about them, so check out their websites. However, they are often confused for Indian guns, and I feel like there is a reason for that. Their prices and quality are mid-range.
Indian guns are hit or miss, some are good, some are bad. IMO, they're POSs that should be avoided. My bias is that they are not necessarily safe to live-fire. However, they are perfectly for blank-firing and reenacting purposed. An indian shouldn't run you more than $500 in any circumstance and usually require extensive defarbing.
Miroku muskets are somewhat a wild card. You hear a lot of things about them. But I've seen a few, and I'd argue they are on level with EA and AS. However, they require more defarbing and are no longer produced.
Custom guns (bubba) are made by individual gunsmiths. I'm sure they're great, but I'm not paying $3000 for a muzzle-loader when I could by a fully-tac'd up, latest-and-greatest AR for less.

That's my $0.02. It would be easier to answer specific questions. Feel free to PM or email me: wthoms1992@aol.com

[Curt]

Hallo!

Trivia...

265,129 M1861's were made at Springfield. Contractors made a known 462,149 plus an odd believed few thousand for a nominal 727,278 total.

For the Special Model 1861, 152,001 with a possibility of several hundred parts guns.

For the "M1863," 273,265.

For the "M1864," 255,040.

For the P1853 3rd Model "Enfield" RM, some 900,000 out of 1,078,200 of all types imported by the US and CS. (The Italian reproductions are of the British government type P1853 4th Models which were not used in the ACW.)

Plus one could also look at much smaller pool of M1855's and "Richmond type M1855's."

Curt

[R. McAuley 3014V]

Hallo!

Trivia...

For the P1853 3rd Model "Enfield" RM, some 900,000 out of 1,078,200 of all types imported by the US and CS. (The Italian reproductions are of the British government type P1853 4th Models which were not used in the ACW.)

Features typically distinguishing the fourth model (adopted Nov 1861) from the third model (adopted Apr 1859) Enfield rifle muskets, though per official dates of adoption, some (like Baddeley bands) may be found on the earlier model arm:

- Butt-stock was shortened by 1-inch (adopted Dec 1859 but not implemented for six months) excepting production by the London Armoury Company and Liege trade which continued producing the longer 14-inch butt.

- Use of Baddeley-patent screw barrel bands (patented June 6, 1861, adopted by War Department June 3, 1861). From 1858 to 1864 the Royal Small-Arms Factory at Enfield Lock alone produced some 323,035 Pattern 1853 rifle muskets of both third and fourth models, with and without Baddeley bands. Many private makers quickly adopted the Baddeley patent bands for their own offerings, including Whitworth.

- Front sight made of cast steel (adopted Apr 1861) rather than of malleable iron. New cast steel sights were stamped with an “S” on the sight stool. Too many front sights were knocked off because of the bayonet pressure on the soft iron sights.

- Rear sight enabling soldiers to lower the slide to 500 yards, should it be necessary (adopted Nov 1861), together with recalibration of the sighting marks on the ladder, graduated to 1000 yards.

- Use of “round ears” to distinguish between new fully-interchangeable “machine-made” arms from former “square-ear” non-interchangeable “hand-made” arms of the past. To compete with the London Armoury Company’s dominance of government contracts, the Birmingham Small-Arms Company (est 1861) built a new factory at Small Heath and began producing the machine-made fully-interchangeable government model in 1863; and also produced the half-stocked Whitworth match rifles used in the NRA matches at Wimbledon in 1866.

- The Parker-Hale replica P/53 was the only modern replica produced using progressive-depth rifling like the originals; Euroarms, Chiappa, and new Pedersoli replicas are all straight bored, button or broached rifled.

[Southron Sr.]

Well, to start with I would NOT RECOMMEND purchasing any 3 Bander (39 Inch Barrel) Rifle-Musket. Simple "Rule of Life" is it takes longer to load a 3 Bander than a 2 Bander (33 Inch Barrel.) With a 2 Bander there is 6 Inches LESS of barrel you have to push a ramrod and Minie Ball down and 6 Inches LESS of barrel from which you must withdraw the ramrod. So, IF you are planning on shooting in the N-SSA Musket Team Matches, WHY handicap yourself and your team using a slow loading 3 Bander?

In 1862 the Army of Northern Virginia conducted an exhaustive series of tests with all of the various models of arms in use in the ANV. What they learned was that while most Minie Rifles were equally accurate out to 500 yards, the Enfield Naval Rifle and the Enfield P-60 Army Short Rifles were not only very accurate but accurate out to 800 or 900 yards!

So, the Enfield Naval Rifle and P-60 Army Short Rifles became the "arm of choice" (when available) to be issued to the members of the ANV Sharpshooter Battalions. IN other words, the Enfield Naval Rifles and P-60 Short Rifles were the best, most accurate, .577 issue arm of the Civil War.

Back in Britain, where the British NRA sponsored target matches open to members of the militia and also the British Army, any competitor that used an Enfield Naval Rifle in a match had 10% automatically deducted from his final score because the Naval Rifle was acknowledged to be so much more accurate than the standard issue P-53 3 Bander Rifle-Musket.

So, IF you can comfortably shoot an Enfield, then I would highly recommend the Pedersoli Enfield Naval Rifle.

GOOD LUCK!!!

[Eggman]

I have to concede sometimes a three bander causes problems. I know at least on our team Norm has difficulty reaching up high enough to load a bullet in the top end of a three bander.

[Curt]

Hallo!

Yes, a shooter can get off a couple, three, or few more rounds per event using a rifle versus rifle-musket.

In theory though, since we start with a loaded gun.... for 16 target events if every man hits his first, he only needs 10-20 seconds to reload his second shot to get the second target. For 32 target events like pigeon board, everyone would only need 30-60 seconds to break their 3rd, 4th, and 5th pigeons.

Hahahahaa, so the rifle's speed advantage is minimal. Just a-funnn', just a-funnin' :) :)

Hit more, reload less. :)

Seriously, I was. am not a very good rifle shooter. I did shoot season or two with a Parker-Hale Parker Hale 'Naval" Rifle. For me personally, I did not shoot the heavier 33 inch barreled rifle as well as I shot my M1855 rifle-musket and went back to it. I also tried a "Zouave," a M1855 Rifle, and a Cook & Brother rifle.
So, at the end of the day, for me and the way I shot/shoot... it did not matter how many "extra" rounds I could load and fire in a minute with a rifle if I was not hitting targets with the shots.

As compared to our No 4 or 5 shot who was 6' 5" and about 325 pounds.. and with his build he just "smothered" a Zouave and could hold it steady and true.

As compared to our team's No 1 Shot (at the time) who was a speed demon reloading his PH "Naval" Rifle and routinely popped off 8-9 rounds per minute, and consistently scored Hit Times in the low 20's. Our No. 2 and 3 used rifle-muskets, and consistently scored in the mid to high 20's.

IMHO still, all shared experience and what works for "us' personal is valuable.. but what works for one lad may not work the same for the next. So, it is good to be able try and experiment to see what actually works for the individual as...

Others' mileage may, and your actual mileage, may vary...

Curt

[jonk]

It really comes down to personal preference. Is a 2 band rifle a smidge faster than a 3 band? Probably, in the hands of someone good enough to make the difference. I know I can manage- when I'm in the groove- 3 shots a minute. I know guys that can do double that with no issue with musket. But I'd rather shoot 3 shots a minute and get 3 hits than rush, get off 6 shots a minute, and get 1, 2, or even 3 hits- less wasted ammo. And I know if I rush, I miss. Heck, I'm just (tentatively) starting to get good with musket as it is!

I would say this. If you have experience as a high power rifle shooter or shotgun shooter, that may make some difference in your choice. I came to this from high power rifle shooting, and to me, the natural way to hold a gun is to have my left arm nestled firmly against my ribcage, hand in close to the trigger guard. For a long gun, that's not going to work so well; too nose heavy. For shotgun shooting (trap, skeet, etc) one normally holds the gun out farther on the barrel, in particular with pumps, to help swing it around faster, and that hold works well for any gun- but especially the long 3 banders. It is in theory less stable, but I question the stability of a high power stance with a nose-heavy gun and a slow, heavy, torque inducing bullet in any case. So consider that, for what it's worth.

Naturally, the longer gun has a longer sight radius, which should in principle mean easier, faster aiming and more hits. In practice though, I don't see any difference in hit time among really good shooters, whether they shoot a 2 or 3 band variant. It comes down to how good they are with the gun, and how good their team is for team events. If your barrel is slick and well made, it's not going to make much difference in load time; the only difference comes in when things start to get fouled. THEN the extra few inches you need to hammer the bullet down may indeed have an impact.

I have shot a P-58 Enfield (Euroarms), Armi Sport 1861 Springfield, and custom made Fayetteville (2 band, similar to the 1855). My number of shots fired per relay was the same with all of them. I personally prefer the shorter guns but feel at no disadvantage with the longer. YMMV.

[norman horne, 12321]

It really comes down to personal preference. Is a 2 band rifle a smidge faster than a 3 band? Probably, in the hands of someone good enough to make the difference. I know I can manage- when I'm in the groove- 3 shots a minute. I know guys that can do double that with no issue with musket. But I'd rather shoot 3 shots a minute and get 3 hits than rush, get off 6 shots a minute, and get 1, 2, or even 3 hits- less wasted ammo. And I know if I rush, I miss. Heck, I'm just (tentatively) starting to get good with musket as it is!

I would say this. If you have experience as a high power rifle shooter or shotgun shooter, that may make some difference in your choice. I came to this from high power rifle shooting, and to me, the natural way to hold a gun is to have my left arm nestled firmly against my ribcage, hand in close to the trigger guard. For a long gun, that's not going to work so well; too nose heavy. For shotgun shooting (trap, skeet, etc) one normally holds the gun out farther on the barrel, in particular with pumps, to help swing it around faster, and that hold works well for any gun- but especially the long 3 banders. It is in theory less stable, but I question the stability of a high power stance with a nose-heavy gun and a slow, heavy, torque inducing bullet in any case. So consider that, for what it's worth.

Naturally, the longer gun has a longer sight radius, which should in principle mean easier, faster aiming and more hits. In practice though, I don't see any difference in hit time among really good shooters, whether they shoot a 2 or 3 band variant. It comes down to how good they are with the gun, and how good their team is for team events. If your barrel is slick and well made, it's not going to make much difference in load time; the only difference comes in when things start to get fouled. THEN the extra few inches you need to hammer the bullet down may indeed have an impact.

I have shot a P-58 Enfield (Euroarms), Armi Sport 1861 Springfield, and custom made Fayetteville (2 band, similar to the 1855). My number of shots fired per relay was the same with all of them. I personally prefer the shorter guns but feel at no disadvantage with the longer. YMMV.

Hey Col. K(Egg).
I just figured it was easier to shoot a 2-band rather than lugging a concrete block back and forth to the shooting line!

[jek279]

I would LOVE to see a you tube video of these supposed shooters laying down 7-9 shots a minute. Then put that video on the n-ssa homepage. That would help recruit and show people maybe the 2 bander is the better choice.

[Eggman]

You could run that right alongside the latest footage of Bigfoot. Charlie Richie has that (Backwoodsman Mag.).