Enfield vs Springfield

[user 34300]

Unfortunately the "square" shooting stance, like the modern "tactical" stance, is not suitable for precision shooting. Since I am a target shooter, an otherwise fantastic rifle, is pretty useless.

 

[ResearchPress]

That's really interesting, I didn't know there were 2 twists for the P-H P53's.
I'll have to shine a bright light down the bore and see if I can see the twist rate by eyeballing it and comparing it to my Musketoons

The pitch on the Parker-Hale P.53 rifling was 1 in 78 as per the original Pattern 1853 Enfields, and included the progressive depth rifling. They later made some with 1 in 48 twist - I think an attempt to make a 'more accurate shooting P.53 style rifle'. Most of these ended up in the US, possibly for the N-SSA shooters? The Muzzle Loaders Association of Great Britain (MLAGB) banned them from their Enfield Rifle Championship matches, which are for Pattern Enfield rifles only.

Put a tight fitting patch on your cleaning rod, and push it down the bore. Mark the rod at the muzzle and slowly extract it - stopping when it has made a quarter turn. Measure the length of rod extracted and multiply by 4 - or half turn and multiply by 2. That'll give you a close measure of the rifling pitch.

David

 

[Stantheman86]

The pitch on the Parker-Hale P.53 rifling was 1 in 78 as per the original Pattern 1853 Enfields, and included the progressive depth rifling. They later made some with 1 in 48 twist - I think an attempt to make a 'more accurate shooting P.53 style rifle'. Most of these ended up in the US, possibly for the N-SSA shooters? The Muzzle Loaders Association of Great Britain (MLAGB) banned them from their Enfield Rifle Championship matches, which are for Pattern Enfield rifles only.

Put a tight fitting patch on your cleaning rod, and push it down the bore. Mark the rod at the muzzle and slowly extract it - stopping when it has made a quarter turn. Measure the length of rod extracted and multiply by 4 - or half turn and multiply by 2. That'll give you a close measure of the rifling pitch.

David

Thank You for this info, I will do this tonight when I get home.

I am beyond curious what the pitch is on my P53

I do know , it cloverleafs with the .550 Pritchett bullet and my Musketoons shoot "patterns" with the same bullet. So if I had to guess I'd guess, I have the 1-78 twist

 

[Stantheman86]

Unfortunately the "square" shooting stance, like the modern "tactical" stance, is not suitable for precision shooting. Since I am a target shooter, an otherwise fantastic rifle, is pretty useless.

I'd honestly sand out a "dish". I just saw an original P53 on GunBroker with this done.

A little matching touch up stain, it would look good in my opinion

It's better to make an alteration and be able to use the rifle than have it collecting dust. I wouldn't hesitate to make a "historically possible" modification to any of my rifles. Someone will make less $ selling it after I'm dead. Oh well, at least I enjoyed it

 

[Frod733]

When I had a Volunteer, I mounted a high globe front sight and moved the rear sight up a step from bottom. It helped. Also, a vernier tang sight with the globe works very well.

 

[ResearchPress]

Plate is Enfield Position Drill from Hans Busk's 'Hand-Book for Hythe.' (1860)

Regulations for Conducting Musketry Instruction of the Army. (1859)
". . . the body is erect, the left side being perpendicular, with the left breast over the left foot; that the shoulders are at the half face, and the feet at right angles. . ."

David

 

[user 34300]

The engraving in the previous post is very cool.

The man in the final shooting position is not looking down the sights, his head is too high. His feet are positioned so that they lineup with the target. That is over rotated for a good off hand position. It does not allow lining up the sights for me. It may be they were trying to present a slimmer target for the enemy. As drawn it is an impossible shooting position for me. I suspect the illustrator was not a shooter. The shooter's arm or elbow are not against the body, as they should be for target shooting. Shooting in combat is not target shooting. I would take more of a shotgun shotgun when time mattered. What is illustrated is a mishmash of conflicting positions.

It could be that an contributing factor is that people were much smaller in 1853 than now. The stock may have fit them better if the distance between the cheek bone and eye was shorter.

 

[DuncNZ]

The Lyman Bullet mould which came with my Musketoon , I can't remember the number , had very thick base walls and in my experience was almost useless for accurate target shooting .as a matter of interest , what is a PH 53 in v good condition worth in the USA

 

[vibraphonusrex]

The engraving in the previous post is very cool.

The man in the final shooting position is not looking down the sights, his head is too high. His feet are positioned so that they lineup with the target. That is over rotated for a good off hand position. It does not allow lining up the sights for me. It may be they were trying to present a slimmer target for the enemy. As drawn it is an impossible shooting position for me. I suspect the illustrator was not a shooter. The shooter's arm or elbow are not against the body, as they should be for target shooting. Shooting in combat is not target shooting. I would take more of a shotgun shotgun when time mattered. What is illustrated is a mishmash of conflicting positions.

It could be that an contributing factor is that people were much smaller in 1853 than now. The stock may have fit them better if the distance between the cheek bone and eye was shorter.

The illustrations are/were just an aid, and used in conjunction with a veteran instructor. Some of the pictures in the “SMART Book” we had in basic training were almost hilarious. I tried throwing a training grenade like the picture showed, and would have died a terrible death in real life. The instructor then told me to just throw it like a baseball.

 

[Stantheman86]

The Lyman Bullet mould which came with my Musketoon , I can't remember the number , had very thick base walls and in my experience was almost useless for accurate target shooting .as a matter of interest , what is a PH 53 in v good condition worth in the USA

The P-H P53's are less common in the US but they go for about $1000 in Very Good condition. Just saw one on GunBroker go for $900.

I got mine for about $700something 2 years ago from a gun shop's website , and I nearly broke my finger adding it to my cart.

 

[Stantheman86]

The illustrations are/were just an aid, and used in conjunction with a veteran instructor. Some of the pictures in the “SMART Book” we had in basic training were almost hilarious. I tried throwing a training grenade like the picture showed, and would have died a terrible death in real life. The instructor then told me to just throw it like a baseball.

The drawing in the Ranger Handbook "teaching" you how to sneak up on a Russian sentry and crack him over the head with your helmet I'm like good thing there is a drawing for this, I have all the training I need for WW3 now.

 

[ResearchPress]

….. .. His feet are positioned so that they lineup with the target. That is over rotated for a good off hand position. It does not allow lining up the sights for me. It may be they were trying to present a slimmer target for the enemy. As drawn it is an impossible shooting position for me. I suspect the illustrator was not a shooter. The shooter's arm or elbow are not against the body, as they should be for target shooting. Shooting in combat is not target shooting. I would take more of a shotgun shotgun when time mattered.…

The image I posted is a contemporary illustration of the position adopted under British musketry instruction of the period and as taught at Hythe School of Musketry. The foot position (perpendicular to each other), shoulders at half face, and hand and arm positions are as per instruction; it was not a matter of choice, and the position drill was practiced to accustom the soldiers to it. The image and brief regulation text I included are for historical reference - the Enfield is not a target rifle, but a military rifle and its management was governed by the Regulations of the time.

Target shooting today with such arms is a great sport and I shoot offhand in competition out to 200 yards and prone 600 yards (occasionally 800 yards) with the Enfield rifle. I don’t adopt the offhand position illustrated, rather a more ‘modern’ stance with ‘back bend and body twist’, support arm against the body, and the rifle sits on top of my balled fist. That works with success for me.

David

 

[Stantheman86]

I used this method, and pulled about 15" of rod for a Quarter turn , x4 would be 60, so it looks like my P53 with the checkered stock has the slow twist

Also. The Musketoons have a different type of rifling , it is a thinner land type with the 1-48" twist. I would guess the 1-48" P53s have the same type

 

[springfield art]

I probably won't buy any more repro 61 Springfield rifles because of that serpentine flash channel. If my brand new Pedersoli CS Richmond is finicky in ignition I'll probably eat a $200 loss and sell it, and hunt down another Parker-Hale P53 or a 2-bander. My Armi-Sport CS Richmond gets cranky after 30 or 40 rounds , it starts the
" pop - no boom" game while I've regularly fired my P-H Musketoons all day, burning through 50+ cartridges without cleaning and it always fires on the first cap.

I even tried some of the much hated new CCI Musket caps in my P-H Musketoon a few days ago, no problems, first pop it fired . Which is good because a sketchy GB seller flim flammed me and I ended up with 600 of them instead of the Rio caps.

The Miroku repro is closest to the originals according to Craig Barry; I have one and love it.