All this talk of Enfield rifles got me thinking

[Stantheman86]

Not sure I understand the comment about loading. It doesn’t matter if it’s progressive or uniform depth rifling, the bore size is constant and the properly fitted Minie bullet will load the same with each. There may be some advantage in fouling control with the progressive depth rifling, which gets shallower towards the muzzle.

David

This old post does a good job summing up what I believe is the main advantage of Progressive Depth rifling.

https://www.gunboards.com/threads/progressive-depth-rifling-what-it-is.373743/

 

[TFoley]

I shoot an original Pritchett Volunteer rifle from around 1858 - the bore is not far off that of a totally new rifle made yesterday. Most owner-shooters of original Enfields over here in UK, like Mr Minshall and others in the MLAGB, are used to seeing excellent to near-mint bores on their rifles, indicative of many years of care and attention post-shooting.

Those buyers lucky enough to find an original these days will only accept a good to excellent bore, since the reason for owning it in the first place is to shoot it in competition with the not unreasonable hope of actually hitting the target, or at least, giving it a good fright.

 

[Rudall]

- Also the 'EN' in STEN gun and BREN light machine gun.

Right about the sten, but not the Bren. That was derived from Brno, the city in former Czechoslovakia.

 

[Bad Karma]

I shoot an original Pritchett Volunteer rifle from around 1858 -the bore is not far off that of a totally new rifle made yesterday. Most owner-shooters of original Enfields over here in UK, like Mr Minshall and others in the MLAGB, are used to seeing excellent to near-mint bores on their rifles, indicative of many years of care and attention post-shooting.

Those buyers lucky enough to find an original these days will only accept a good to excellent bore, since the reason for owning it in the first place is to shoot it in competition with the not unreasonable hope of actually hitting the target, or at least, giving it a good fright.

I’ve noticed that same thing with European handguns. 150 year oil guns in like new condition. well done.

 

[TFoley]

Right about the sten, but not the Bren. That was derived from Brno, the city in former Czechoslovakia.

The EN of BREN comes from Enfield. Br and En. Check it out. I carried one for two years when I was in the TA infantry, and it was the LMG in non-teeth arms of the British Army until way after GW1.

If the arm was designed at the Royal Small Arms Factory, Enfield Lock [RSAF], then the En- comes first. As in Pattern 53 Enfield. If the arm was designed or developed elsewhere, and adopted by the British War Office, then the -en or Enfield becomes a suffix - Lee-Enfield, Martini-Enfield, STEN [for Sterling, the designer] or BREN, for Brno.

 

[Jaytee]

I have recently acquired a Parker Hale reproduction of an 1861 Enfield musketoon. It’s serial number is 6185. Could anyone inform me of its production date?

 

[ResearchPress]

I have recently acquired a Parker Hale reproduction of an 1861 Enfield musketoon. It’s serial number is 6185. Could anyone inform me of its production date?

I’d estimate c1980. If you ever take barrel from stock, after the proof information on the underside there will be a tiny code of two letters and a number between crossed swords or within a circle. Let me know this and I can tell you the year the barrel was proofed.

David

 

[Jaytee]

Hi David
I’ve attached the proof mark, but it’s not particularly clear. Do you think you may be able to identify it?
Thanks for your help
Regards
Tim

 

[ResearchPress]

Hi David
I’ve attached the proof mark, but it’s not particularly clear. Do you think you may be able to identify it?
Thanks for your help
Regards
Tim

Well looks possibly like YB5, which is 1973, and not what I would expect from the serial number given. I was also expecting the code within a circle for the initial date I suggested. There are anomalies in P-H production and it may well be an old barrel used in a later rifle. Can you confirm that the rifle is indeed no. 6185 ? Thanks.

David

 

[ResearchPress]

Pedersoli doesn't use Progressive Depth rifling , which probably doesn't matter to 99% of prospective buyers but the ability to more easily use smaller Minies that load easier is totally worth tracking down a P-H

On firing the bullet expands to fill the rifling. As it moves the progressive depth rifling squeezes the bullet ensuring it holds the rifling, and reduces any tendency for it to strip the rifling. The change from a .568 diameter bullet to .550 was not associated with progressive depth rifling, but to allow the cartridge to use beeswax as a lubricant while still loading easily.

This old post does a good job summing up what I believe is the main advantage of Progressive Depth rifling.

Contrary to Southron's post this was not an improvement in accuracy, and Charles Hay (Inspector General of Musketry) expressed reservations, particularly with regards to long range accuracy. Trials did show that when used with a wooden plug the new bullet was not inferior to the .568 and may have had some advantage in trajectory. The plug was vital to gain sufficient expansion of the bullet. The smaller diameter bullet enabled easier loading from the beeswax lubricated cartridge, especially when the barrel was fouled.

Commercial ammunition makers continued to produce cartridges with .568 bullets to meet the demand from Rifle Volunteers competing in matches.

David

 

[Jaytee]

Well looks possibly like YB5, which is 1973, and not what I would expect from the serial number given. I was also expecting the code within a circle for the initial date I suggested. There are anomalies in P-H production and it may well be an old barrel used in a later rifle. Can you confirm that the rifle is indeed no. 6185 ? Thanks.

David

 

[Jaytee]

Hi David
Yes, it’s definitely 6185. I’ll probably have the rifle apart again for cleaning in a week or so and I’ll try and get a clearer pic of the proof mark.
Do you mind if I contact you again then?

 

[Rudall]

If the arm was designed at the Royal Small Arms Factory, Enfield Lock [RSAF], then the En- comes first. As in Pattern 53 Enfield. If the arm was designed or developed elsewhere, and adopted by the British War Office, then the -en or Enfield becomes a suffix - Lee-Enfield, Martini-Enfield, STEN [for Sterling, the designer] or BREN, for Brno.

From Wikipedia:
Sten is an acronym, from the names of the weapon's chief designers, Major Reginald V. Shepherd and Harold J. Turpin, and "En" for the Enfield factory.

Other than that, you are of course correct.

 

[TFoley]

From Wikipedia:
Sten is an acronym, from the names of the weapon's chief designers, Major Reginald V. Shepherd and Harold J. Turpin, and "En" for the Enfield factory.

Other than that, you are of course correct.

Thank you for the correction, even at my advanced age, I like to learn something new every day. BTW, did you know that Lines Brothers, makers of the mostly tin-plate toys with the brand-name Tri-Ang, were responsible for improving the presswork that made the STEN somewhat better than it had been originally?

Not a lot of people know that.

 

[ResearchPress]

Hi David
Yes, it’s definitely 6185. I’ll probably have the rifle apart again for cleaning in a week or so and I’ll try and get a clearer pic of the proof mark.
Do you mind if I contact you again then?

Send me a direct message here and I'll see it. Thanks.

David

 

[rmark]

As I understand it there are three generations of Parker Hale Enfields 1. All English made, 2. English barrel with Italian stock, 3. All Italian made. The first two have 1-48 barrels with progressive rifling, the last has 1-66 with constant depth rifling and is stamped Italy on the trigger guard. The English barrels were .577-580, but the Italian can run larger (.581 in my all Italian 2 band Enfield).

Anyway that’s as I understand it.

 

[TFoley]

As I understand it there are three generations of Parker Hale Enfields 1. All English made, 2. English barrel with Italian stock, 3. All Italian made. The first two have 1-48 barrels with progressive rifling, the last has 1-66 with constant depth rifling and is stamped Italy on the trigger guard. The English barrels were .577-580, but the Italian can run larger (.581 in my all Italian 2 band Enfield).

Anyway that’s as I understand it.

Just about nailed it.

1. Muzzleloading firearms made from ALL Parker-Hale components, made in Golden Hillock Road, Birmingham - serial number up to ~9000. Birmingham-proofed.

2. Using Parker-Hale barrels and an undisclosed amount of Parker-Hale/Euroarms-made components - serial number up to ~14,000. Parker-Hale-made barrels that were obtained ready-breeched - that is to say, fireable - will have been Birmingham-proofed. Barrels received by Euroarms WITHOUT a breech-plug will have been assembled in Gardone Val Trompia and proofed there. They will just have Parker Hale Birmingham rolled on them, and Italian proof marks in the higher than 16000. Note that breech plugs were made on a different line, and have their own serial numbers - see right-hand end of image below -

3. After they all ran out, there is no Parker-Hale content of any kind, but it seems that Euroarms may have bought the rights to use the name in connection with the guns. Parker-Hale here in UK is still in business making gun cleaning accessories of all kinds.

 

[springfield art]

I have recently acquired a Parker Hale reproduction of an 1861 Enfield musketoon. It’s serial number is 6185. Could anyone inform me of its production date?

Probably the day before or after no. 6186! (Just kidding!) I do wonder if there's a similar list like the Italian production date one.

 

[ResearchPress]

As I understand it there are three generations of Parker Hale Enfields 1. All English made, 2. English barrel with Italian stock, 3. All Italian made. The first two have 1-48 barrels with progressive rifling, the last has 1-66 with constant depth rifling and is stamped Italy on the trigger guard. The English barrels were .577-580, but the Italian can run larger (.581 in my all Italian 2 band Enfield).

Anyway that’s as I understand it.

The Parker-Hale 'Pattern 1853 Rifle Musket' has 1 in 78 rifling as standard, but there was also batch made with 1 in 48 rifling - which of course does not conform to Pattern.
The Parker-Hale 'Pattern 1858 Naval Rifle' and 'Pattern 1861 Artillery Carbine' had 1 in 48 rifling.
Parker-Hale used progressive depth rifling.

David