Re: 1853 Enfield - How is it made? -- Middlesex Village Trading Muzzleloading Forum

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 15:58:21 11/14/07 Wed
Author: Pete
Subject: Re: 1853 Enfield - How is it made?
In reply to: Steve T 's message, "1853 Enfield - How is it made?" on 16:28:24 11/13/07 Tue

Some of these questions are good ones, others are not because you are trying to examine a piece of 19th century technology by looking through 21st century eyes.

Historically, barrels were made by wrapping a flat piece of iron called a skelp around a mandrel, forge welding it up the bottom, then reaming it out to the required size. Our repros and all other modern made muzzleloaders (except certain rifles that are bored from solid stock) are made using seamless tubing.

Seamless tubing can handle much more pressure than the old fashioned forged barrels. The breechplugs on the repros are much more substantial as well. Those are the only concessions to modern manufacturing. The rest is done using 19th century methods (I.E. brass parts are sand cast and steel parts hand forged using swage blocks).

Even the bluing is done the old fashioned way, by using the slow rusting method as opposed to modern hot tank bluing.

I didn't design this one, these have been made for the UK market since at least 1992, thus I am not privy to the original drawings, specs, or prototype. 19th c guns don't really excite me all that much, so I can't quote a bunch of specs from memory. That's not to say that I haven't taken hundreds of them apart, both original and repro.

I have an original here, and if you lay the two side by side there are only a few differences (besides being smoothbored). When I get some time, maybe I should photograph them side by side. Here they are, in no particular order:

1. The front sight/bayonet stud is a bit oversized. For someone who is going to shoot it with ball, this is actually a good thing as it allows you to sight it in by filing it down to the height you require. It is a little problematic in that they are sometimes too tall to slide a bayonet over without filing it down a little first.

2. The Crown stamping on the lock is in the middle of the lockplate, it should be behind the hammer. I'm working on changing this, but as I said, it's not my design. On the original, in front of the hammer it says "Tower 1858". On the repro, the Crown, VR and Tower are all one above the other in front of the hammer with no date. The only other visible marks are a serial number on the buttplate.

3. The original gun has what appears to be a replaced middle barrel band so a comparison is moot, likewise the rear sight, it also has the tulip end of the rammer broken off, so again, I can't compare.

Take a look at the photos, do some homework, and decide for yourself if the markings and patterns of the furniture are correct or not. I will say that they match my original with the exception of the list stated above.

Asking someone else's opinion is not a good research technique, looking at original stuff is. Rule #1 should be to never believe something a sutler tells you unless they can show you their documentation. Good research means not trusting any hearsay without evidence as none of us alive today were there when this stuff was being built and used for real, not just for fun! There are tons of originals in museums and private collections you can look at.

We recently got in a crate of Enfield bayonets, but I haven't filed down the stud to fit one to my sales sample musket. Now that we've finally found a source for bayonets, we have not decided if we will include one with the gun (higher price for the package) or just offer them separately. We are quite short handed at the moment and I haven't even had a chance to photograph the bayonet and scabbard for the website yet.

As far as testing goes, it is all explained in the FAQ section. The locks are function tested. The barrels are not because there is no approved process to do so by US standards at this time. If you have any doubts about any new gun regardless of where it was manufactured, proof test it using the old standards of "double ball, double load" or have someone do it for you.

The finish is varnish with a color mixed in. You easily strip it off with paint stripper and refinish if you like. I've seen them refinished with tung oil and they look great.

Muzzleloading guns have a special set of risks that go along with them because it is up to the guy pulling the trigger to load it properly and nobody can design a gun that can really withstand a dangerous shooter. The powder charge must be right for the gun and the ball must be seated properly. No amount of modern engineering can overcome those simple facts. With the exception of certain CVA inlines that were recalled, I have never heard of a single gun failure that did not ultimately prove to be user error. The shooter is the most unsafe part of any gun.

Reenactors are by far the most dangerous shooters. I've met lots of guys who clean their gun once a year as if it were a modern .22 then blame the gun when moving parts are rusted in place. I've seen dumbasses double and triple load their muskets because they think it sounds cool. Think about it. A standard blank for a .58 cal gun is what, 65 grains? A proof load for a .58 cal is 116 grains, so double loading blanks actually exceeds a proof load! For so many guys out there, the only gun experience they have is shooting blanks out of their gun on weekends and many of them really have no concept of what kind of power they are playing with. In my opinion, every unit should require that members range-qualify at least annually so they will have a healthy respect for exactly what gunpowder can do and why they should be aware where the muzzle is pointing at all times. OK, I digressed a bit, but gun safety is a pet peeve.

Research-research-research before buying any big $$$ item for a living history portrayal. (actually, before any purchase, regardless of cost)

Take care,

Pete

>Hello!
>
> I hear if I want an inexpensive, but good quality,
>Enfield this is the place to go. I am looking into
>possibly purchasing one of your 1853 Enfield muskets.
>You state in the FAQ that these repros are NOT
>�proofed�, but that people do use them to fire blank
>charges and even live loads with a ball. I have
>several questions for you about this.
>1) How much control over the manufacturing process do
>you have?
>2) Do you receive inspection data of in-progress
>machining processes? I�m not exactly looking for
>ISO-9001, just some record of showing that the
>manufacturer is making every effort for consistency.
>3) Since the gun is not proofed, can you supply
>engineering showing that the guns can theoretically
>handle a live round?
>4) Have they been tested in any way?
>5) What alloy of steel is used for the barrels? Is it
>hardened?
>6) How long have you been manufacturing these
>Enfields?
>7) Have there been any complaints or safety concerns?
>8) Will it fit the Bayonets from the common Italian
>makers or do you sell one for it?
>9) Have you tried quoting manufacturers in Mexico?
>Just curious.
>
>10) Would it be possible for you to list the
>differences and similarities to the original in more
>detail than is in the FAQ? In other words what can
>still be defarbed on it?
>11) Style of the hammer, lock plate, barrel bands,
>rammer, and guard period correct?
>12) Shape of the stock period correct?
>13) Is the stock linseed oiled or Polyurethane coated?
>14) Wall thickness of the barrel?
>15) markings?
>16) swivels?
>17) rear sight accurate to originals?
>
>
>I am more concerned with the safety than the period
>correctness. I understand that at this price I won�t
>be getting an extremely high quality piece.
>
>Thanks for the trouble. As you may have guessed I am
>in the manufacturing business and like to know as much
>as possible about how things are made especially if
>there is a possible safety concern.
>
>Thank you,
>Steve Talaga

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Re: 1853 Enfield - How is it made? -- Steve T, 20:38:34 11/14/07 Wed
- Re: 1853 Enfield - How is it made? -- Pete, 17:31:34 11/19/07 Mon