1861 Springfield vs 1853 Enfield

[bennadatto]

Merry Christmas week all!

I have narrowed my next blackpowder firearm purchase to either an 1861 Springfield or 1853 Enfield. I think I like the appearance of the Springfield better, but being a southerner tried and true, I feel a natural inclination to the 1853 Enfield.

If you had to choose between the two, which would it be, and why?

Thanks!

 

[Ohio Gun Guy]

Being a "Northerner" I like the springfield.

Seriously, that would be my preference, for just that reason! I don't blame you for liking the Enfield.........Maybe I do......


Just dont start dressing up like Jeff Davis. (I was laughing when I wrote this.... Sarcasm is sometimes difficult in writing!)

 

[4v50 Gary]

Enfield. It was found that the Enfield was the more accurate of the two.

 

[barneyrw]

Springfield vs Enfield

I don't own either, but I have researched both as I am also interested in getting one. One thing that I found is that the Enfield has a more inline stock while the Springfield has more drop to the stock. This can effect the pointability as well as easyness of lining up the sights. The Enfield is a British design while the Springfield is an American design. I think the British at the time were more interested in volly fire and less interested in actual aiming the rifle at individual soldiers. The Americans stressed aimed fire and the greater stock drop on the Sprinfield puts the rifle more on target when first put into the shoulder. I decided on the Colt 1861 Signature Series Musket as the one I want to get but I haven't found one at the price I am willing to pay. Since they are all fairly expensive I think I would like to actually hold one to see which one appeals to me the most. By the way, the Springfield Reproduction by Euro Arms has much nicer wood in the stock than the other popular maker (can't remember the name off hand, maybe San Marcos?). Anyway, good luck on your search.

 

[kBob]

Well both sides used the 1853 Enfield.

And the south did use a lot of captured, only dropped once, Union gear during the first two years of the war.

The British actually had a marksmanship program that stressed individual target engagement and provided the 1853 with better sights for precision shooting than the US generally had.

While GB had dedicaded marksmanship schools and programs many US troops only fired their rifles a few times or even not at all before combat.

In the first two years of the war the US north and South concentrated on vollyfire and it was still in use up until the last days of the war with some northern units as was the manuevering of densly packed troop formations. The US even attacked some of the Mobile Alabama forts that way in April of 1865.....with horrific losses.

If you are even remotely considering reenacting get what is appropriate for the time and unit you are interested in.

Keep in mind that Enfields were breifly made in Windser Vermont BTW

-Bob Hollingsworth

 

[RON in PA]

For me the Enfield stock does not have enough drop and makes aiming difficult. The Springfield is much better in this regard.

 

[pohill]

Maybe this should be a new thread but I'll start here.
I bought a Belgian rifle recently that was made in the 1860s. I haven't had much luck in IDing it but that's OK. My question is - from the pics, is it more like an Enfield or a Springfield? I'm going to buy a repro metal ramrod (it was missing from this gun) but I don't know what type, length, style etc to buy. The barrel from the nipple to the tip is about 36 1/2" long. It was originally a .54 caliber but it measures about .56 now (reamed out smooth at some point).
I actually fired it once, last week, with a patched .535 ball.

 

[Niner]

Reproductions are reproductions

Don't think the Springfield has any particular advantage over the Enfield. I don't buy the Springfield stock benefit...but just my opinion. And one reproduction maker can do a better job than another in the product they offer.

I have an Italian reproduction 1853 Enfield. Shot it in a contest just before Thanksgiving. 100 yards with .577 minnie bullets and 70 grains of BP. Me, as a shooter, a 63 year old man with some eye problems....but the long distance between the back sight and the front was a plus in this shooting exercise. The contest was for 5 round group size at 100 yards. It didn't matter what the target was like.

 

[bonza]

I have to second what Ron in PA said. If you have the chance, try & get a hold of both model muskets. There is a considerable difference in the way they are stocked, & I find the Springfields/Zouaves are much more comfortable to shoot. With the Enfields I have to really scrunch down on the comb to get the sights aligned, & within two or three shots I get a 'mouse' on my cheekbone. Of course, this is all determined by your build & shooting style, & you may find the Enfield to be more comfortable, but I would definately recommend trying both out before you buy if at all possible.

 

[rjsixgun]

Personally I would buy niether!!!

I would buy an 1855 Harpers Ferry/Springfield Rifle or a Harpers Ferry Mississippi Conversion Rifle with a long range rear sight.

Both Firearms have the long range rear sight that the Enfield has, both were used by the North and the South, the Harpers Ferry Miss, comes in Rifle Form only and the 1855 Harpers Ferry/Springfield come in both rifle and rifled musket lengths.

As for the stocks of both, The Spingfields are ment to be shot "American Style" (body canted towards the target)
Enfields are ment to be shot "British Style" body faceing the target. This is why American shooters have a problem getting there face on the stocks.

again, personally I preferr the Springfields over the enfields for this reason.

 

[Edward S]

Thanks kBob...Most informative!
I have not posted here much at all, but I sure enjoy the information etc!

I'll be sure and read more here.
Regards, Doc
aka Ed

Upstate NY

 

[4v50 Gary]

Now the 1855 is something I like too. Has that neat patchbox that holds the long range front sight. Too bad the Maynard Tape Primer can't be made to work with red paper caps.

I also have a Colt hybrid (repro) and an Armi-sport Springfield. Never shot either of them and I bought them because they weren't terribly expensive.

 

[Mike OTDP]

I like the P1858 Enfield. The two-band muskets usually are better balanced and better shooters.

 

[rjsixgun]

Both the 1855 Rifle and the Harpers Ferry Conversion Mississippi Rifle are 2 banders.....They are RIFLES, not Rifled Muskets.

Here's some info:

Musket = smoothbore
Rifled Musket = 3 bands Full lenght barrel
Rifle = 2 band Rifled Musket.
Carbine = 25 inch or less barrels.



This is how the Armories of the time classified there production. If you look through the logs of Civil War armory production you will find these terms, It can get very confusing, asspesialy with the Confederate armories that use the term "RAISED" which means cut-down battlefield pick up. For example: if the had found an 1861 Musket that the barrel was destoyed beyond repair, they would "Raise" the barrel into a carbine. So you would still have a funtioning gun but with a really shot barrel.

I myself have such a gun, a CS Richmond Musketoon made from an 1861 Springfield, it's basically a "sawed-off" 1861 musket. This was a very common thing to find in the south. They even had a "Sawed-off" 1842 .69 caliber Smoothbore!!! OUCH!!!!! That Hadda hurt!! But the North did have this as well, it was the 1847 Carbine, which was a 20 inch barreled 69 caliber smoothbore....made that way for "Sappers & Miners" and Calverey.

Now the Harpers Ferry Conversion Mississippi, This is an amazing rifle. What Harpers ferry did was take exsisting .54 caliber 1841 rifles and convert them to .58 caliber rifles, put on a bayonet lug, and an 1855 long range rear sight(borrowed from the 1855 Springfield Rifle)

Then you have the Whitney Rifle, Whitney bought junk parts from the Natl Armories and made a Rifle that was a cross between the 1841 and the 1855, it too uses the long range rear sight and the 1855 lock, but an 1841 stock and bands.

Now you say "Well RJ, thats all fine and dandy, but I cant afford an original and nobody makes these fine rifles in repoduction!!"
Well thats where your wrong!!! There are 3 people that do!!!

Dan Whitacre of Whitacre Barrels......Great Guy!!! AMAZING CUSTOM BARRELS
http://www.whitacresmachineshop.com/
Mark Hartman of James River Armory.....Good guy, great guns. Bobby Hoyt Barrels.
http://jamesriverarmory.com/?page_id=20
John Zimmerman, No comment, I never delt with him, but his guns look nice.
http://www.edsmart.com/jz/

 

[4v50 Gary]

rjsixguns - thanks for the info on those guns. I didn't know that naval terms were applied to shortened guns. In the navy, it is "razed" and not "raised." Oh well, leave it to a soljer to git it wrong.

Anyhow, here's some clarification as to firearms terms.

Musket - smooth bore weapon firing a round ball (and sometimes accompanied with some buckshot).
Rifle-musket - infantry weapon, generally 39" or so barrel that was originally a rifle when made.
Rifled-musket - infantry weapon, generally 39" or so barrel that wa originally issued as a smoothbore weapon but subsequently rifled to modernize it.
Rifle - short barrel gun (generally 33-36") with rifled barrel.
Musketoon - short (24") barrel rifle.

 

[rjsixgun]

Yeah I think your right "Razed" not "raised" heck I'm hook on guns not phonics. LOL!

You are 100% correct in your Terminolgy:

Musket - smooth bore weapon firing a round ball (and sometimes accompanied with some buckshot).
Rifle-musket - infantry weapon, generally 39" or so barrel that was originally a rifle when made.
Rifled-musket - infantry weapon, generally 39" or so barrel that wa originally issued as a smoothbore weapon but subsequently rifled to modernize it.
Rifle - short barrel gun (generally 33-36") with rifled barrel.
Musketoon - short (24") barrel rifle.

I keep forgeting about the smoothbore conversions to rifled-musket, Hey I'm luck I can remember my name sometimes.

I currently own the following
1855 Rifle .58 (Custom made by Dan Whitacre)
1841 Harpers Ferry Conversion Mississippi .58 (custom made by myself, Dan Whitacre Barrel)
1861 "Razed" Springfield CARBINE! .58 (Custom made by Mark Hartman and Dan Whitacre Barrel)
1842 Springfield Musket .69 (Original)
Austrian Lorenze Carbine/ Fruworth .73 caliber 12 inch barrel!!!! (original) (not a cut down)

All my Whitacre barrels are .577 1 in 72 ROT, and all can shoot single hole groups at 50 and 100 yards with my load. Which is a 520 grain Minie sized to .576 backed by 45 grains of 3F GOEX Black Powder. The mold I'm useing is made by Ray Raypine, but can also be done with a Lee Mold and get the same results. My lube is 50/50 bees-wax and Crisco, homemade ofcource.

 

[Curator]

If you are going to use either of these rifled muskets for reenacting, get the Enfield. The 1861 Springfield has a right-angled flash channel which is known for misfires and hangfires. The 1861 does have a clean-out screw to be sure the flash channel can be cleaned and dried, but the straight flash channel of the Enfield is to be preferred. Also, if shooting for target accuracy find an Enfield with 1 in 48" rifling twist. The 1 in 78" twist of the early Enfields and the 1861 are not condusive to top accuracy with heavy minnie bullets. Most 1861 Springfield replicas have too-large bore diameters to accurately shoot off-the-shelf home cast minnie bullets. The three I have in my gun safe have .589-592 groove diameters

 

[Jim K]

I have both and like the Springfield better, but that may be because I prefer a gun that is all machine made with little or no "filing and fitting." (I mean originals here, not repros.)

I find accuracy to be about the same, maybe a bit of an edge to the Springfield, but that is probably due to the barrel being near new, where the Enfield barrel has some wear.

Jim

 

[Jim K]

Hi, Pohill,

The pictured musket has a different type of lock than either the Springfield or Enfield. Both are front action locks, which means the spring is forward of the hammer, while that musket uses a back action lock with the spring to the rear of the hammer.

The advantage to the back action lock is that it keeps the lock mechanism away from the primer residue which tends to foul the lock. The disadvantage is that it weakens the wrist of the stock, making it more susceptible to breakage in heavy use or when the musket is used as a lever, prybar, or carrying pole.

In general, the British and Americans preferred front action locks in military rifles and muskets.

As for the ramrod, Dixie has several different types. I think that musket would probably have used either an Enfield type (Dixie number RP0200) or a trumpet type (RP0800 or RP0679), most likely the latter. You can order the catalog at www.dixiegunworks.com and judge for yourself.

Jim

 

[rjsixgun]

I do not agree with the claim that one is "more accurate" than the other. I have shot original guns with .582 bores and and found them to be quite accurate. If your just gonna "dump" any load and bullet down a muzzle-loader your doomed from the start. First measure your bore. Then cast bullets as close to, but not smaller than your bore diameter. Then Size the bullet to your gun. All my muskets are .58 caliber with .577 bores, I size to .576. My bullet "FITS" my bore, and I get single hole groups. Also I have never had a miss fire with a 55 type barrel (this includes the 61) I not only do I NEVER remove my clean out screws, but there locked in there with "red" lock-tite and JB weld. That is how convident I am in there design. The 1 in 72 ROT is what the US Armories found works the best for the heavy bullets. This is why you will only find 1-72 in US issue 58 cal muskets and contrack muskets, this does not include forgian or state malitia guns. remember the US govt never adopted the Remington Zouve, Colt Special Musket, Whitneyville, or the Enfield, but they were all bought and issued as secondary guns. But never formally adopted as US Military Muskets.

Even in Re-pops you need to size the bullet to your gun, other wise your never gonna get any type of accuracy. Even your powder charge matters, to much or to little your groups will open up, tight groups will only come to you when you match powder and bullet to the gun...........I wont even get into lube! LOL! but yes that too matters. but not as much as the other 2