Original guns vs Repros
Last week somebody asked how the Enfield muskets compare to the original patterns. Since the Enfield isn't one of my exclusive projects I didn't really have a good answer there, so after "regular" hours yesterday, Jeff and I tore apart some original Enfield muskets that I have here to compare with a sample reproduction one.
First, I should clarify that there are "regular" hours during which employees work here (10-6), then "normal" hours where Wendy and I work (10-midnight and beyond). Johnna and Jim had left, Wendy had taken Caleigh to visit friends in the next town, so at 6 PM, that meant Jeff and I were unsupervised by mature people and the potential was there for us to get into all sorts of trouble. In the big picture, tearing down three muskets and spreading out reference books is pretty minor trouble, at least until Johnna sees the mess we made of the packing table.
So anyway, we get into the rack of antiques with screwdrivers.
What we ended up doing was tearing down the repro Enfield, an original 3-bander and an original Enfield marked yeomanry carbine. I've got a bunch of other originals from this time period, but these are the Tower marked examples that should theoretically match the repro 3-bander in construction and pattern details.
Here is what we found:
Trigger guards: nearly identical with the exception of fitting variances (in other words, brass parts are sand-cast and need to be polished down, polishing takes away metal and thus changes the dimensions)
Buttplates: nearly identical, with one of the originals having the tang screw hole drilled off center and the other (the carbine) not having a tang screw
Sideplate washers: (not sure of the actual name for these, I'm talking about the washers that go under the lock bolts on the left side) Identical on the 3-bander, the carbine has a sling bar so is different
Locks: nearly identical (will detail this below)
Nosecaps: original 3-bander had a slightly worn down nosecap, hard to tell how close the repro is to it, but similar enough to say they are the same.
Barrel bands: bottom band identical, middle band was replaced on the original with a later one, the top band was identical with the exception of the sling swivel, which had been replaced with a brass one on the original
Original barrel #1:
The barrels were interesting on the originals. One of them had been replaced with a country-made spiral wound barrel with an integral breechplug that is NOT removeable. In other words, the breech was forged first, and then the barrel itself was formed by wrapping around a mandrel in a spiral fashion that gives a visual effect (under the wood line where there is less rust/browning) of a Damascus barrel, but it is not Damascus, just strap iron roughly 5/8" wide. I'm not sure if this can be clearly shown in a photograph. It is sketchy forge welding, kind of scary, but it's how they were really made and this thing survived at least one war (or at least a lot of abuse) as it was heavily used.
The seemingly poor welds may also just be spots where the century and a half of corrosion attacked the slightly different metallurgy of the welds at a different rate than the steel itself. On this example, the barrel tang is welded to the barrel, much like the old Belgian fowlers of the bicentennial era. I suppose this isn't a big deal, since the barrel is held with bands and the snail's fit to the lockplate keeps the barrel from rotating in the stock.
Original barrel #2:
The other original one used the typical British barrel with screw-in breechplug. I took a wire brush to the underside of it and revealed some period inspection and assembly marks on the barrel and breechplug. Jeff speculated that the barrels on this type of gun may have been formed by a rolling method the same way the US barrels were done at the time, resulting in a seamless tube. (of course the repro barrel is a seamless tube with a separate, threaded breechplug) If time allows, I'll research who the inspectors were.
Lock details:
The locks were quite interesting. They were so close that I suspect that parts may even be interchangeable (didn't try). There were only a few differences noted:
1. The Crown/VR stamp is behind the hammer on the originals, and in front of it on the repro.
2. There is no date stamp on the repro, one original was marked 1858, the other 1859
3. There are slight variances in the shape of the hammer head. Nothing really obvious, but minor dimensional issues in the size of the head, not even sure how I'd describe it. Of the three locks, none were quite the same in that respect, perhaps it has to do with who did the finish filing on each particular lock, how sharp the file was etc.
4. The original locks had internal marking as to the maker, inspectors etc. that are not there on the repro.
5. The TOWER stamping is larger on the originals, probably to fit it under the Crown/VR. As I said, it isn't my design and have no idea where the specs came from, so it is possible that the repros were made copying an original that had non-spec lock markings.
Upon close examination, the originals proved to have had the same decorative engraving and checkering of the tip of the hammer spur that the repros have.
What I found especially interesting is the apparent lack of care that went into the finish of the original guns. If you look close (and sometimes not so close) you can still see file marks on the metal parts and rasp marks on the wood. This is how they were really made folks! Not finely polished, high-end sporting guns, these were mass-produced work guns for the infantry. For a more modern example of this, take a look at any of the stamped steel machine gun receivers of the WW2 era. Big blobs of weld here and there, tack welds with a little stub of rod still sticking out, the whole thing covered in black paint etc.
It would be really neat to reproduce them exactly as the originals were finished, but can you imagine the whining I would hear if there were file marks left in the brass or rasp marks still on the wood?
What I wasn't able to compare was the rear sights because the original 3-bander has had it's rear sight replaced with a simple notched non-adjustable rear sight (to idiot-proof it? simplify training of native troops?). The repros sight, however, does look correct when looking at other originals in photographs.
All in all, this was an interesting investigation. Over the years I have learned to expect ANYTHING when tearing down an original gun. What I have to do now is track down the regimental markings on the butts to figure out who carried them and form theories on how and why certain changes were made. For instance, on the 3-bander, the muzzle has been cut back a little, likely to "freshen" it if it were worn out or dented. The carbine's muzzle is still dented!. Both of them have had their stocks painted black, was this to protect them or to identify them? Under the woodline, the original barrels appeared to have been left in the white. Neither of them are loaded (surprising), but the 3-bander is kind of chocked up with crud and rust, indicating that it went into storage dirty.
I took pictures of the original parts alongside of the repro parts and when time allows I'll crop them and throw together a webpage about the comparison.
Right now, however, I gotta go set up the folding tables, Coleman stove, trash barrel, cooler and a bucket to start transforming a bunch of obnoxious free-range chickens, ducks and geese to a freezer full of food...but that's a whole 'nother story.
First, I should clarify that there are "regular" hours during which employees work here (10-6), then "normal" hours where Wendy and I work (10-midnight and beyond). Johnna and Jim had left, Wendy had taken Caleigh to visit friends in the next town, so at 6 PM, that meant Jeff and I were unsupervised by mature people and the potential was there for us to get into all sorts of trouble. In the big picture, tearing down three muskets and spreading out reference books is pretty minor trouble, at least until Johnna sees the mess we made of the packing table.
So anyway, we get into the rack of antiques with screwdrivers.
What we ended up doing was tearing down the repro Enfield, an original 3-bander and an original Enfield marked yeomanry carbine. I've got a bunch of other originals from this time period, but these are the Tower marked examples that should theoretically match the repro 3-bander in construction and pattern details.
Here is what we found:
Trigger guards: nearly identical with the exception of fitting variances (in other words, brass parts are sand-cast and need to be polished down, polishing takes away metal and thus changes the dimensions)
Buttplates: nearly identical, with one of the originals having the tang screw hole drilled off center and the other (the carbine) not having a tang screw
Sideplate washers: (not sure of the actual name for these, I'm talking about the washers that go under the lock bolts on the left side) Identical on the 3-bander, the carbine has a sling bar so is different
Locks: nearly identical (will detail this below)
Nosecaps: original 3-bander had a slightly worn down nosecap, hard to tell how close the repro is to it, but similar enough to say they are the same.
Barrel bands: bottom band identical, middle band was replaced on the original with a later one, the top band was identical with the exception of the sling swivel, which had been replaced with a brass one on the original
Original barrel #1:
The barrels were interesting on the originals. One of them had been replaced with a country-made spiral wound barrel with an integral breechplug that is NOT removeable. In other words, the breech was forged first, and then the barrel itself was formed by wrapping around a mandrel in a spiral fashion that gives a visual effect (under the wood line where there is less rust/browning) of a Damascus barrel, but it is not Damascus, just strap iron roughly 5/8" wide. I'm not sure if this can be clearly shown in a photograph. It is sketchy forge welding, kind of scary, but it's how they were really made and this thing survived at least one war (or at least a lot of abuse) as it was heavily used.
The seemingly poor welds may also just be spots where the century and a half of corrosion attacked the slightly different metallurgy of the welds at a different rate than the steel itself. On this example, the barrel tang is welded to the barrel, much like the old Belgian fowlers of the bicentennial era. I suppose this isn't a big deal, since the barrel is held with bands and the snail's fit to the lockplate keeps the barrel from rotating in the stock.
Original barrel #2:
The other original one used the typical British barrel with screw-in breechplug. I took a wire brush to the underside of it and revealed some period inspection and assembly marks on the barrel and breechplug. Jeff speculated that the barrels on this type of gun may have been formed by a rolling method the same way the US barrels were done at the time, resulting in a seamless tube. (of course the repro barrel is a seamless tube with a separate, threaded breechplug) If time allows, I'll research who the inspectors were.
Lock details:
The locks were quite interesting. They were so close that I suspect that parts may even be interchangeable (didn't try). There were only a few differences noted:
1. The Crown/VR stamp is behind the hammer on the originals, and in front of it on the repro.
2. There is no date stamp on the repro, one original was marked 1858, the other 1859
3. There are slight variances in the shape of the hammer head. Nothing really obvious, but minor dimensional issues in the size of the head, not even sure how I'd describe it. Of the three locks, none were quite the same in that respect, perhaps it has to do with who did the finish filing on each particular lock, how sharp the file was etc.
4. The original locks had internal marking as to the maker, inspectors etc. that are not there on the repro.
5. The TOWER stamping is larger on the originals, probably to fit it under the Crown/VR. As I said, it isn't my design and have no idea where the specs came from, so it is possible that the repros were made copying an original that had non-spec lock markings.
Upon close examination, the originals proved to have had the same decorative engraving and checkering of the tip of the hammer spur that the repros have.
What I found especially interesting is the apparent lack of care that went into the finish of the original guns. If you look close (and sometimes not so close) you can still see file marks on the metal parts and rasp marks on the wood. This is how they were really made folks! Not finely polished, high-end sporting guns, these were mass-produced work guns for the infantry. For a more modern example of this, take a look at any of the stamped steel machine gun receivers of the WW2 era. Big blobs of weld here and there, tack welds with a little stub of rod still sticking out, the whole thing covered in black paint etc.
It would be really neat to reproduce them exactly as the originals were finished, but can you imagine the whining I would hear if there were file marks left in the brass or rasp marks still on the wood?
What I wasn't able to compare was the rear sights because the original 3-bander has had it's rear sight replaced with a simple notched non-adjustable rear sight (to idiot-proof it? simplify training of native troops?). The repros sight, however, does look correct when looking at other originals in photographs.
All in all, this was an interesting investigation. Over the years I have learned to expect ANYTHING when tearing down an original gun. What I have to do now is track down the regimental markings on the butts to figure out who carried them and form theories on how and why certain changes were made. For instance, on the 3-bander, the muzzle has been cut back a little, likely to "freshen" it if it were worn out or dented. The carbine's muzzle is still dented!. Both of them have had their stocks painted black, was this to protect them or to identify them? Under the woodline, the original barrels appeared to have been left in the white. Neither of them are loaded (surprising), but the 3-bander is kind of chocked up with crud and rust, indicating that it went into storage dirty.
I took pictures of the original parts alongside of the repro parts and when time allows I'll crop them and throw together a webpage about the comparison.
Right now, however, I gotta go set up the folding tables, Coleman stove, trash barrel, cooler and a bucket to start transforming a bunch of obnoxious free-range chickens, ducks and geese to a freezer full of food...but that's a whole 'nother story.
posted by MVTCoPete | 10:58 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home