Original P-53 Enfield names stamped

[kaac1221]

I have an original P-53 Enfield that has several names stamped in various places. I would like some information on these names. Inspectors? Armorers etc?

The first name is J. Bourne and it appears on the stock in two places, on the barrel and the lockplate. From that I would assume that he was an inspector.

The lock is marked "Siddons", with what looks like a three pointed star at the end.

The bottom of the barrel is stamped "Beasley RRS or BRS.

Lockplate has the 1858 date and Tower.

Thanks for any info!

Dryball

 

[Grumpa]

The British Military gun trade in the 1850s-early 1860s was based on civilian gun makers who supplied the Gov't on contract.

J. Bourne was a member of the Birmingham Small Arms Trade, and the Maker of your rifle.

Further information which will be of great interest to you can be found here:
www.authentic-campaigner.com/articles/walden/enfauth.htm

The Enfield In The Civil War - Geoff Walden
"Authenticizing Your Reproduction Enfield"

If the link doesn't work, google "Authenticizing Your Enfield - The Authentic Campaigner".

I came across this looking to answer your query, so I am indebted to you for the increase to my knowledge when I finish reading the above. (rushed for time right now.) I hope I have been of help to you. :hatsoff:

Richard/Grumpa

 

[arquebus]

Much depends on whether your musket is a commercially produced or a government-issue. Government inspectors marks usually take the form of a Crown over a letter over a number, with the number denoting the individual inspector. You will usually find these stamps with different numbers on various components of the arm, as the inspectors each had a certain portion of the musket they were responsible for.

You say that your lockplate is marked 'TOWER' & has a crown, is there a VR under the crown? If not, your musket is most likely a commercial version, but this could be verified by looking at the proof marks on the left hand side of the barrel by the breech. If the number 25 is part of the proofs then it is a commercial musket, as government proofs did not incorporate the bore size.

Some photos would help with a positive i.d.

 

[Grumpa]

Dryball has determined that Beasely Brothers were barrelmakers located in Smethwick ( a town 4 miles from Birmingham).

Neither of us have found anything re "Siddons". Since both that name and J. Bourne appear on the lock plate, a picture of it might go a long way in helping determine whether "Siddons" was the lock maker or an inspector.

There were 14 members of the BSAT, but I have not found any list of who they were.

Richard/Grumpa

 

[kaac1221]

Arquebus, yes the letters VR appear under the crown. Should have mentioned that earlier. The markings at the breech end of the barrel are indistinct except for what looks like a capital S lying on its side. The BOTTOM of the barrel has several marks: B 12/1, crown over B over 27; crown over B over 57; and crown over B over 61, plus the numeral 9 over a capital D.

What is the meaning of the word TOWER? I always thought it stood for the Tower of London armory, and that's where it was made.

Thanks for your reply

Ken

 

[arquebus]

Those (Crown/B/Number) are certainly government inspector's markings, so along with the VR below the crown on the lockplate we can say it was a military-issue musket.
To the best of my recollection, the TOWER locks are trade-made locks purchased by the government, & the name stamped on the inside of the lock is the manufacturer. Interestingly, locks weren't made with the hammer, as these were supplied by another contractor & they will normally have another maker's mark on the inside face (usually initials).
I am fairly confident in saying that none of the stamped names will be for inspectors, but rather from the various contractors who had a hand in either supplying the components or those that did the final assembly (the 'setter-up') of the musket. The stockmakers name is often found in the ramrod channel & the setter-up is generally behind the trigger guard tang. The underside of the barrel will have its makers stamp, & the bolster will have the mark of the 'percussioner'.....there were many, many, individuals involved with the production of these arms, each of whom were very specialized in producing a particular item, ie stocks, locks, hammers, springs, furniture, barrels, etc.

 

[TFoley]

The Tower of London armoury is where all the component parts were assembled into the complete arm.

BTW, the name 'Beasely' appears on the lock of my pal John's Whitworth rifle.

tac

 

[kaac1221]

You are correct that there were many individuals involved in making these muskets.

I stumbled upon a site that lists all the parts mfrs and there were many! The site is:

Graces Guide to British
Industrial History

History and Directory of
Birmingham, 1849:guns

It lists all the trades involved and their addresses. I was amazed at the numbers.

Thanks for the response,

 

[Artificer]

Since your rifle musket was originally purchased by British Ordnance, you may be interested that it is 99.99999% a sure thing it is an "Interchangeable Parts" Pattern Rifle. What that means was the British Government demanded the arms supplied to them were of the then fairly new Interchangeable Parts Manufacturing System and were more expensive than arms that were not made with Interchangeable Parts. British Gunmakers also made and sold "Non Interchangeable Parts" Enfields at the time for lower cost "to the trade," but not to the British Government.

Gus

 

[Grumpa]

Gus,

When did the English Government begin insisting on interchangeability of parts"? I know it was late 1850-ish.

Were not the "interchangeable parts" guns made by the Royal Small Arms Factory and the London Armoury Company? This issue led to the private manufacturers of guns and components selling their guns to buyers from the Confederacy and/or the Union. As a soldier, you received a "handmade" rifle, but there were many complaints when something broke and needed a handmade repair.

Few (if any) of the British Gov't accepted P-53s made their way here during the Civil War. Indeed, when Springfield Armory was finally able to meet the demand for rifled muskets, the death knell was sounded for many of the smaller English firearms makers.

On this thread, I am learning as I go! :grin:

Thanks

Richard/Grumpa

 

[robinghewitt]

As a soldier, you received a "handmade" rifle, but there were many complaints when something broke and needed a handmade repair.

I think you got a "stand of arms" which required some work. I have a Baker Rifle bayonet by Osborne and Gunby which has never been fitted to anything.

I resist the temptation :thumbsup:

 

[kaac1221]

Squire Robin, who is J. Bourne? His name appears in several places on my gun. The bottom of the stock just forward of the buttplate; in the barrel channel and in very small print inside the lock. Some of us thought he was the maker of the gun but his name doesn't appear in the list of tradesmen noted in Grace's Guide.

I do have to say, this has been a learning experience!

Ken

 

[Wes/Tex]

Here is one of the better pages on info for Enfield pattern rifles of the 19th century. Joseph Bourne appears on the Birmington list about half way down the page as does a picture of one of his stock stampings. Good luck.
http://www.authentic-campaigner.com/articles/walden/enfauth.htm

 

[Wes/Tex]

Here is one of the better pages on info for Enfield pattern rifles of the 19th century. Joseph Bourne appears on the Birmington list about half way down the page as does a picture of one of his stock stampings. Even though it's an indepth article about converting new replicas into more authentic looks, it's good info on what originals were and what they really looked like.Good luck.
http://www.authentic-campaigner.com/articles/walden/enfauth.htm[/quote]

 

[robinghewitt]

Squire Robin, who is J. Bourne?

Hi Ken

From 1849 to 1866, before becoming Redfern & Bourne, Joseph was at 5 Whittall Street, Birmingham.

I have a page 410 from The Illustrated London News April 28, 1855 which shows the making of the Enfield barrel from Marshall's iron. It ends, "For much of the information contained in this article we have to thank...".

Wish I had page 411 :idunno: :rotf:

 

[Artificer]

Gus,

When did the English Government begin insisting on interchangeability of parts"? I know it was late 1850-ish.

That is correct, but I don’t know the exact date it happened. More information has been published on this since the late 90’s, but I have mostly been studying the 18th century since then.

Were not the "interchangeable parts" guns made by the Royal Small Arms Factory and the London Armoury Company?

Yes. We do know the American Firms of Robbins and Lawrence and especially Ames Manufacturing provided technical assistance and machinery to the British during the mid/late 1850’s to implement the Interchangeable System of Manufacture.

Perhaps even more important was the fact that the American Master Armourer, James Burton, came to work for the Royal Small Arms Factory in 1855. He had learned the system initially from the American Founder of Interchangeable Parts Manufacture, John Hall, and improved on it while he (Burton) was employed at Harpers Ferry. He left there in 1854 to work for Ames and then on to Enfield in 1855. He and the Royal Small Arms Factory helped the London Armoury Company adopt the system as well. What many people DON’T know is he came home to Virginia during the WBTS to take over the Richmond Arsenal. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_H._Burton

This issue led to the private manufacturers of guns and components selling their guns to buyers from the Confederacy and/or the Union.

Well, not quite, but this issue is extremely complicated and often very confusing.

As an interesting aside, there was a British Government Commission that studied the “American System of Manufacture” or the Interchangeable Parts System, when Sam Colt wanted to set up a manufacturing facility in England and eventually did so in 1854. British Gunmakers at first did not want to believe it possible and sued over Colt’s Patents, but they eventually lost out. British Ordnance purchased many Colt’s Revolvers and though I cannot document it, I believe it was that British Government Commission who had studied Colt also “lit the fire” and caused the great interest for them to begin using the “American System” of manufacturing.

The Royal Small Arms Factory (RSAF) at Enfield was rather unique because it was set up by the British Government in 1818 and similar to our own Springfield and Harpers Ferry Armories. Its purpose was primarily what we would call “R & D” and manufacture of Arms for the British Government and British Militia forces throughout the UK. I may be mistaken about this, but as I understand it, they did not sell Arms to the Commercial Trade as their production was for the Government and Militia. However, they like our own Armories, could never instantly manufacture huge numbers of Arms at the beginning of Wars to fulfill all the War Requirements. So, during the initial times of crisis or beginnings of wars, British Ordnance had to resort to what they had always done and rely on both British Commercial Firms and even purchase of arms from foreign sources. However, BECAUSE of the Government ownership/backing and especially the funding available to them, this was the first main arms production for the then New System of Interchangeable Parts Manufacture. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Small_Arms_Factory

The London Armoury Company was founded as a strictly Private/Commercial Firm in 1856 to make REVOLVERS, about two years after Colt set up his factory in London in 1854. Unlike other British Commercial gunmaking firms who mainly made long arms or muzzle loading pistols, they had to “get with the program” of Interchangeable Parts manufacture to compete with Colt and that gave them an edge over some other British Contractors later on. Their 1859 contract with the British Government for Infantry Rifles were ALL to be made under the Interchangeable Parts System and most likely the reason they got the contract, because they were already at least somewhat familiar with the then “New” Manufacturing System. The Confederate Arms Agent, Caleb Huse, outbid and out negotiated the Union Buyers sent to England. At first, the LAC supplied monthly overruns to Huse, as they were still primarily focused on the British Contract. Later on, their entire production went to the Confederacy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Armoury_Company

However, the London Armoury Company could not supply ALL the arms that the Confederacy, let alone the Union wanted during the early stages of the war. So Caleb Huse and other Confederate Buyers, as well as Union Buyers at first scoured Europe for arms and made contracts with British Commercial Firms in Birmingham, England for future productioin. The Birmingham Contractors were used to making Enfield Infantry Rifles and selling them to the British Government, but were not yet on the interchangeable parts system. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caleb_Huse

What is interesting is that Union Buyers here in America also purchased both Interchangeable Pattern and Non Interchangeable “Springfield Pattern/Type” Arms and some similar ”Enfield Type Arms” from American Manufacturer’s in the North. Not all American Arms Contractors were set up for the Interchangeable Parts System when the WBTS broke out, either.

OK, this is running long and will have to get back later with more.

Gus

Edited to add: BTW, pardon me for using so many Wiki sources, but it saves me one Heck of a lot of typing and Wiki is fairly accurate on these sources, though not perfect, of course.

 

[Artificer]

Oh, and a P.S. to the above. Some American manufacturers who had already begun using the Interchangeable Parts System ALSO provided Non Interchangeable Parts Arms to the North. The parts that did not pass inspection as Interchangeable were made into Non Interchangeable Arms at a lower cost to the Federal Government.

Gus

 

[Artificer]

As a soldier, you received a "handmade" rifle, but there were many complaints when something broke and needed a handmade repair.

I have been fascinated for many years about how Military Artificers/Armorers repaired Arms in the 18th and 19th centuries. This from both that I spent a Career as first a “regular” Military Armorer and then a National Match Armorer, plus actually repairing original guns of the period and doing special “Trigger Work” on many of them.

Prior to the introduction of the Interchangeable Parts System, it was required that ALL repair parts had to have more hand fitting done so the parts would fit and work correctly, but there is very little to no information available, especially for the 18th century.

I have seen lists of parts that British Ordnance sent over with/for their Artificers/Armorers to America in the FIW and AWI, but outside of quantities and the names of the parts, there is really no further information on them I have ever found. Where did they get the spare parts? How did they know the parts would fit or at least could be fitted since they bought locks from different makers? Were the parts finished and hardened or left oversize to ensure they could be fitted to more locks? We know that period Artificers/Armorers were not full-fledged gunsmiths, but looking at the lists of tools sent for their work, it seems British Ordnance expected them to have known a lot more about fitting parts than we expect of Regular Military Armorers today. I have theories to answer these questions, but no documentation.

With the advent of Percussion Locks that did not require as many spare parts, better metallurgy of the parts, better measuring instruments, etc.; I imagine the job of the Artificer/Armorer got easier before the introduction of the Interchangeable Parts Manufacturing System, but the parts would still have needed to be largely hand fit.

The job of Artificers/Armorers got a LOT easier after the introduction of the Interchangeable Parts Manufacturing System, BUT that did not mean the repair parts were “a drop-in fit” even when supplied by Springfield or the London Armoury Company for their own arms made during the UnCivil War. I can verify this from having worked on original locks and with Original New/Old Stock Parts that were still plentiful in the 1970’s/80’s. Those parts still needed some fitting, or selective interchange, so they would work correctly in the lock one needed to repair, but not as much as in earlier periods.

There are rather glowing and fantasmagorical accounts written about the Arms and workers in 19th century manufacturing plants and Arsenals under the then “New” Interchangeable Parts System ”“ that just don’t match up to reality. However, compared to those who prior to that manufacturing system had to have much longer and more extensive apprenticeships to make Arms, it was a huge step forward. The workers in the factories/Arsenals who fitted/assembled Arms were comparatively unskilled to earlier workers who had to have had more gunsmith training, but they still had to have training and with experience, could make the guns faster and cheaper.

Gus

 

[Grumpa]

Gus,

Thank you. :hatsoff:
As always, good information.

Richard

 

[wpnsman]

Lots of good information here,

While Wiki and the AC article by Geoff Walden are decent resources, you really need to go here and ask your questions.

http://britishmilitariaforums.yuku.com/forums/4/British-Flint-and-Percussion-Arms

Hope that member Bill Curtisra will reply as he is "The" expert when it comes to deciphering the various makers from the trade on Enfields and other arms of the era.