Enfield P53 reproductions
- Thread starter Cubreac
- Start date
Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:
If you want to see it up close and get a better explanation than I can give, watch this video:
They drilled the flash channel at an angle. The nipple was placed closer to the barrel than the Springfield 1861, and the hammer reached over to strike the nipple, whereas the Springfield was more "vertical."
Th
Here's the Springfield 1861 for comparison. The flash channel is drilled into the side of the barrel and the hammer is more off to the side and straight up and down. The photo is small, but it was the best I could find using google.
thank you
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2006
- Messages
- 480
- Reaction score
- 661
I've owned many original and reproduction Enfields because I prefer them to original and reproduction Springfields. I won the North Carolina State Muzzleloading Rifle Musket championship by 20 points last year with an original Type 2 Enfield 3 band musket. I think Enfields represent the apex of muzzleloading martial arms. The Parker Hale reproduction was a chunky copy of the British issued Type 4 which was never used in the War Between the States. Parker Hale's P53 used a finger joined forestock. The joint was concealed under the barrel band and frequently separated (seceded from the wooden union), leaving the owner with a "sporterized" or home guard musket. The rear sight was a twentieth century interpretation of the original sights but were not similarly constructed.
Euroarms was an Italian copy of the British copy. When English gun laws contributed to the closure of Parker Hale, EuroArms purchased the brand name and parts and continued manufacturing guns in Italy.
When Pedersoli offered their versions of the 3 band P53, 2 band naval pattern and carbine, they prudently chose to replicate the Type 3 variants purchased in large quantities by both Federal and Confederate agents. Pictured below is the bolster of a Pedersoli Naval pattern. It was not made with a clean out screw, nor is it threaded for one. Ignition is excellent and it is N/SSA approved.
I have never understood the often heard criticism of the Enfield's stock architecture. Admittedly originals were made in both Long and Short butt variations resulting in longer and shorter lengths of pull. Personally, I find the long butt design provides an excellent repeatable cheek weld. The front sights on all period muskets are too low and narrow for serious 50 and 100 yard X ring accuracy. I have had to install a tall front sight on all period muskets to achieve best accuracy. I would recommend dovetailing a taller front sight, unless you simply want to use the musket for living history and intend to mount a socket bayonet on a P53. Dovetailing a tall front sight will allow you to make windage adjustments and lower the elevation sufficiently to shoot accurately at 50 and 100 yards.
The rear sights are adjustable for elevation, and if you don't obtain a good sight picture at the lowest elevation, raise the ladder, and adjust (file) the front sight to shoot to point of aim at the desired range.
You should be able to shoot one ragged hole off a bench at 50 yards, and a 3" group at 100 yards.
I've had few opportunities to compete on paper beyond 100 yards but at 200 to 300 yards was able to consistently hit a propane cylinder sized gong.
Accuracy with an Enfield of any pedigree comes down to load development. All of my muskets are .577 bore. I size the bullets to .576. Lube with SPG and shoot 42.5 grains of Goex 3F.
I've owned 2 Parker Hale Volunteer rifles, and both were excellent shooters. The sights offered greater out of the box adjustability than Parker Hale muskets. The two that I owned were very accurate at 200 yards, but I sold both to purchase original Enfield P53's simply because I didn't have opportunities to often shoot at 200 yards. At 100 yards, I could do everything with a P53 musket three times faster than I could do with a volunteer rifle. I averaged one shot per minute with a volunteer and could shoot 3 times per minute with a P53 using prepared ammunition.
The styling of the volunteers was very attractive, but they were substantially heavier than P53's and could not be used in musket competition. Very nice rifles, but of limited competitive use for me.
Euroarms was an Italian copy of the British copy. When English gun laws contributed to the closure of Parker Hale, EuroArms purchased the brand name and parts and continued manufacturing guns in Italy.
When Pedersoli offered their versions of the 3 band P53, 2 band naval pattern and carbine, they prudently chose to replicate the Type 3 variants purchased in large quantities by both Federal and Confederate agents. Pictured below is the bolster of a Pedersoli Naval pattern. It was not made with a clean out screw, nor is it threaded for one. Ignition is excellent and it is N/SSA approved.
I have never understood the often heard criticism of the Enfield's stock architecture. Admittedly originals were made in both Long and Short butt variations resulting in longer and shorter lengths of pull. Personally, I find the long butt design provides an excellent repeatable cheek weld. The front sights on all period muskets are too low and narrow for serious 50 and 100 yard X ring accuracy. I have had to install a tall front sight on all period muskets to achieve best accuracy. I would recommend dovetailing a taller front sight, unless you simply want to use the musket for living history and intend to mount a socket bayonet on a P53. Dovetailing a tall front sight will allow you to make windage adjustments and lower the elevation sufficiently to shoot accurately at 50 and 100 yards.
The rear sights are adjustable for elevation, and if you don't obtain a good sight picture at the lowest elevation, raise the ladder, and adjust (file) the front sight to shoot to point of aim at the desired range.
You should be able to shoot one ragged hole off a bench at 50 yards, and a 3" group at 100 yards.
I've had few opportunities to compete on paper beyond 100 yards but at 200 to 300 yards was able to consistently hit a propane cylinder sized gong.
Accuracy with an Enfield of any pedigree comes down to load development. All of my muskets are .577 bore. I size the bullets to .576. Lube with SPG and shoot 42.5 grains of Goex 3F.
I've owned 2 Parker Hale Volunteer rifles, and both were excellent shooters. The sights offered greater out of the box adjustability than Parker Hale muskets. The two that I owned were very accurate at 200 yards, but I sold both to purchase original Enfield P53's simply because I didn't have opportunities to often shoot at 200 yards. At 100 yards, I could do everything with a P53 musket three times faster than I could do with a volunteer rifle. I averaged one shot per minute with a volunteer and could shoot 3 times per minute with a P53 using prepared ammunition.
The styling of the volunteers was very attractive, but they were substantially heavier than P53's and could not be used in musket competition. Very nice rifles, but of limited competitive use for me.
Last edited:
@Iron Jim Rackham That is incredibly helpful. Thank you so much for sharing your hard earned knowledge with us.
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2006
- Messages
- 480
- Reaction score
- 661
My pleasure. I neglected to mention that Pedersoli makes very good barrels. While I own and compete with original P53 Enfields, I shoot a Parker Hale and Pedersoli Naval Pattern (2 bands, 33" heavy barrels) equally well. It bears mentioning that the Parker Hale Naval Pattern shoots better with a Robert Hoyt barrel than it originally did with the Birmingham barrel it came with. The Birmingham barrel featured 5 groove progressive depth rifling and the Hoyt barrel does not have PDR, but shoots a 565 grain conical with excellent accuracy. The Parker Hale Type 4 guns are over 50 years old, well used, and often indifferently maintained. It should be mentioned that if the barrels are shot out, you can have Robert Hoyt or Daniel Whitacre make a new barrel for you. Whitacre barrels feature progressive depth rifling.
Original muzzleloading Enfields had iron barrels, and were not as well made as modern barrels. Many of the original Birmingham P53's Type 3's were hastily made. I have one that was manufactured without a ramrod spoon, despite having been inletted for one. The quality control of the Birmingham guns was inconsistent, as was the manufacturing process itself. The quality of the shops involved in the Birmingham Trade varied substantially, and might be equated to the Kyber gun markets of today. The Type 3 muskets exported to American buyers were hurriedly made, and while proofing was required by law, they were not inspected or approved by the British War Department since they were never purchased by the British government. The British arms merchants were not particularly concerned with the quality of their products or the morality of arming foreign combatants. I think the materials and quality of 21st century Italian manufacturing is better than 19th century British contractors.
Arguably the best quality original Enfields were the Type 2 pattern muskets made by Vermont yankees for the British government during the Crimean War. These muskets featured interchangeable parts, that the Birmingham manufactures couldn't duplicate. 19th century British arms making was so inferior to American manufacturing that the British government outsourced production, and turned to American management and staff when they established the Enfield arsenal. While the British could make good quality items, interchangeability of parts was not achieved until after the end of the American Civil War.
Original muzzleloading Enfields had iron barrels, and were not as well made as modern barrels. Many of the original Birmingham P53's Type 3's were hastily made. I have one that was manufactured without a ramrod spoon, despite having been inletted for one. The quality control of the Birmingham guns was inconsistent, as was the manufacturing process itself. The quality of the shops involved in the Birmingham Trade varied substantially, and might be equated to the Kyber gun markets of today. The Type 3 muskets exported to American buyers were hurriedly made, and while proofing was required by law, they were not inspected or approved by the British War Department since they were never purchased by the British government. The British arms merchants were not particularly concerned with the quality of their products or the morality of arming foreign combatants. I think the materials and quality of 21st century Italian manufacturing is better than 19th century British contractors.
Arguably the best quality original Enfields were the Type 2 pattern muskets made by Vermont yankees for the British government during the Crimean War. These muskets featured interchangeable parts, that the Birmingham manufactures couldn't duplicate. 19th century British arms making was so inferior to American manufacturing that the British government outsourced production, and turned to American management and staff when they established the Enfield arsenal. While the British could make good quality items, interchangeability of parts was not achieved until after the end of the American Civil War.
Last edited:
