Another Parker-Hale P53

[Whitworth]

I've been eyeballing one but been holding back due to the $1200 price. Maybe because I only have $900 in a PH Musketoon and a P-H P-58 but the price seems high. Am I wrong about the price?

 

[ResearchPress]

As noted in post #4.

Which also said ”No need to look for any proof stamps unless you really have to - there is no doubt that your rifle is a P-H product.” The ambiguous message made no reference as to the importance of the proof marks in determining P-H production timeline, which I sought to rectify with my post.

 

[Stantheman86]

I've been eyeballing one but been holding back due to the $1200 price. Maybe because I only have $900 in a PH Musketoon and a P-H P-58 but the price seems high. Am I wrong about the price?

The market is very weird right now.......I just saw a used ArmiSport 1861 Springfield go for $1000 when there are new ones on GunBroker for the same price.

There are relatively fewer people looking for reproduction rifle-muskets , but good ones get snapped up quick on the market.

I just paid, after all the fees, shipping, tax etc just over $1000 OTD for this P53 and it's the Parker-Hale, made in Birmingham, the Rolls-Royce of military rifle-musket reproductions, and I felt totally ok about that price.

 

[Whitworth]

The market is very weird right now.......I just saw a used ArmiSport 1861 Springfield go for $1000 when there are new ones on GunBroker for the same price.

There are relatively fewer people looking for reproduction rifle-muskets , but good ones get snapped up quick on the market.

I just paid, after all the fees, shipping, tax etc just over $1000 OTD for this P53 and it's the Parker-Hale, made in Birmingham, the Rolls-Royce of military rifle-musket reproductions, and I felt totally ok about that price.

Thanks Stan.

 

[kh54]

The "Struck Bright" P53 Enfield debate is probably the most emotionally charged and hotly debated topic among Reenactors that has ever existed, and although it's died down a lot in recent years it still lurks on message boards and at gun shows.

Even in the early 2000s when I started using internet message boards to discuss firearms, it was a hot topic.

Basically, in a nutshell, it was theorized or in some cases proven, that some Union or even CS Officers ordered armorers to "Strike Bright " shipments of Enfield P53's so they were uniform in appearance with 61 Springfields or .69 Smoothbore percussion conversions that were also Bright.

The old saw about soldiers using brick dust to "shine up" Enfields has been disproven.

It is now basically an accepted fact that some P53's were ordered Struck Bright by both US and CS commanders, but usually by armorers, not individual soldiers. Most were left blued

The whole thing most likely started because after the war, when the US Ordnance Dept was selling off vast stockpiles of rifle-muskets to foreign buyers, it was easier to Polish them up then reblue hard used rifles for resale. Also , places like Bannermans likely "spruced up" Enfield rifles by removing the blue to make them look better rather than rebluing them. So a bunch of surplus Bright P53s led people to believe most were "struck bright" in the field during the Civil War

There is a 70+ page thread on this on the Authentic Campaigner site, it's such a vast and heated topic.

Reenactors believed for years that defarbing an Enfield required it to be Struck Bright.

Me, personally I think it would look sharp to Polish up a P53 and the consensus is, it is not "wrong " to do so since it was done by some Units on both sides.

Here's a beautiful Bright commercial P53 that was probably made Bright after the war but no one will ever know

Thanks, Stan for the explanation. The finish on my PH P53 is a bit beat up so i was thinking of doing this anyway. I didn’t know that it was also historically correct. It might become this week’s project.

That's because they're handier to carry and generally more accurate than the 3 band. I've heard many reasons but IIRC, the 2 band has a faster twist and the barrel walls are a bit thicker.

I understand that Parker Hale gave their P53s intended for the US market a 1:48 twist rather than the historically correct 1:78. Both of mine (one I traded and one I just acquired) have 1:48 rifling. I also have a PH P58 but I haven’t fired it enough to know if it’s more accurate than the P53 with 1:48 twist. I understand that during the ACW the P58 was known to be more accurate than the P53 - was that solely due to the rifling/twist or does the shorter barrel give greater accuracy as well?

I’ve been very confused by the different designations for the percussion muskets of the ACW: rifle-musket, rifled musket, rifle, naval rifle, musketoon…am I missing any? My ancestor’s regiment was issued “Enfield rifles” and I always thought that would have been the P1853. But if they were particular about the term “rifle” I now understand it’s more likely that would have been the P1858, i.e. “naval rifle.” Anyone care to comment or clarify? At least I have an example of each so I know I have been able to shoot a musket or “rifle” like the one my ancestor carried in battle.

 

[ResearchPress]

I understand that Parker Hale gave their P53s intended for the US market a 1:48 twist rather than the historically correct 1:78. Both of mine (one I traded and one I just acquired) have 1:48 rifling. I also have a PH P58 but I haven’t fired it enough to know if it’s more accurate than the P53 with 1:48 twist. I understand that during the ACW the P58 was known to be more accurate than the P53 - was that solely due to the rifling/twist or does the shorter barrel give greater accuracy as well?

I’ve been very confused by the different designations for the percussion muskets of the ACW: rifle-musket, rifled musket, rifle, naval rifle, musketoon…am I missing any? My ancestor’s regiment was issued “Enfield rifles” and I always thought that would have been the P1853. But if they were particular about the term “rifle” I now understand it’s more likely that would have been the P1858, i.e. “naval rifle.” Anyone care to comment or clarify? At least I have an example of each so I know I have been able to shoot a musket or “rifle” like the one my ancestor carried in battle.

Parker-Hale exported their P.53s with 1 in 78 twist to the US. When they later introduced the 1:48 twist version there wasn't much market for it in the UK - the MLAGB actually banned it from their Enfield rifle competitions, which are for Pattern Enfields.

The P.58 Naval Rifle had brass furniture, 5 groove rifling and a heavier barrel than earlier Short Rifles. The placement of the rearsight on the Short Rifle is also further forward than the P.53, which for some target shooting today gives a clearer sight picture. The P.60 and P.61 Short Rifles had the same barrel as the P.58. Birmingham made rifles for the trade won't necessarily conform exactly to any Pattern.

A rifled-musket is just that - a smooth-bore arm that has been rifled. The Rifle-Musket (eg. P.51 and P.53) is a full musket length in the barrel (39") and fitted for a bayonet. The various Short Rifles have a 33" barrel, P.56, P.58, P.60., P.61 and P.58 Naval Rifle. With shorter barrels still are the carbines. Parker-Hale reproduced the P.61 Artillery Carbine and this is also referred to as 'musketoon' (see issue 10 if my free Research Press Journal). [Ref. D.W. Bailey 'British Military Longarms']

David

 

[towgunner11h]

They are also favored by skirmishers- quicker to load than a 3 bander.

 

[Stantheman86]

Thanks, Stan for the explanation. The finish on my PH P53 is a bit beat up so i was thinking of doing this anyway. I didn’t know that it was also historically correct. It might become this week’s project.


I understand that Parker Hale gave their P53s intended for the US market a 1:48 twist rather than the historically correct 1:78. Both of mine (one I traded and one I just acquired) have 1:48 rifling. I also have a PH P58 but I haven’t fired it enough to know if it’s more accurate than the P53 with 1:48 twist. I understand that during the ACW the P58 was known to be more accurate than the P53 - was that solely due to the rifling/twist or does the shorter barrel give greater accuracy as well?

I’ve been very confused by the different designations for the percussion muskets of the ACW: rifle-musket, rifled musket, rifle, naval rifle, musketoon…am I missing any? My ancestor’s regiment was issued “Enfield rifles” and I always thought that would have been the P1853. But if they were particular about the term “rifle” I now understand it’s more likely that would have been the P1858, i.e. “naval rifle.” Anyone care to comment or clarify? At least I have an example of each so I know I have been able to shoot a musket or “rifle” like the one my ancestor carried in battle.

It's definitely historically correct, for various reasons Enfields were polished Bright , either because company commanders thought it looked more impressive and militaristic to have shiny, bright rifles , or to make all them bright to look the same for uniformity

British troops had been keeping Brown Besses shiny since the early 1700's, the soldiers were usually forbidden from polishing muskets but they did it anyway because a shiny , bright musket was seen as professional and soldierly . So maybe the whole "if my musket gleams I have more pride in my appearance " idea carried through in some cases.

It is less likely that an Infantry company would be issued P58's, if your ancestor was issued an Enfield it was likely a P53 unless he was a senior NCO or a Sharpshooter