Progressively rifled barrel for Enfield 1853/58

[BillinOregon]

Actually, progressive-depth rifling became standard with the shorter Pattern 1858 two-band musket and thereafter. The rifling twist was also changed from the earlier 1:78 to 1:48, which combined with the rifling change helped contribute to the 1858's reputation for accuracy.
If you can find a Parker Hale 1858 that you can afford, they are hard to beat. By the time you buy a Pedersoli and spend $500 for a new barrel, you may well find a Parker Hale for less.

 

[dave951]

The question is: what is the way ahead? How to get a good shooting Enfield for example?

Are the Parker Hale ones any good?

Or is it best to get a replica like a Pedersoli and change the barrel for a Whitacre one?

We've found in the N-SSA that many times, an original in "shooter" grade condition is less expensive than a new repro and is easier to get shooting properly.

Parker Hale is the way to go otherwise. Just be sure it's a Birmingham produced one and between the P53 and P58, the "2 band" is the most desirable IMHO.

Can the P53 shoot? Well........

 

[Barry Strickland]

Go with what Dave said.
I use a Hodgdon Mini and cast my own. They are designed with a thin skirt for using light target powder charges. Very accurate.
For those of you who are not familiar with NSSA matches they are shot in two phases.
The first phase is the individual matches using scoring bullseye targets. The second phase is team matches shooting breakable targets
against the clock. Accuracy is paramount speed is desired.
There is a NSSA match coming up at the end of this week at Brierfield State Park, near Montevallo, Alabama. Come by and take a look
at some fun shooting. The sponsoring Club is 4th Louisiana Delta Rifles.
I will be doing registration and target scoring, stop and say hi!
I will attach a pic of my lube setup. I use an electric hot plate with a stainless steel disc on top to preheat the minis before dipping them
into the lube. Mix is 50/50 mix of beeswax and tallow. I then throw in a small blob of lanolin.
I hold the minis by the nose with needle nose pliers to dip them just past the top groove. Careful not to get any inside of the cavity at the
bottom. They are then set on a Teflon sheet to let the lube harden. The grooves do not have to be entirely filled to work properly!
Barry

 

[Cubreac]

By the time you buy a Pedersoli and spend $500 for a new barrel, you may well find a Parker Hale for less.

Good advice. I've been told the Pedersoli cone and vent are set wide of the breech compared to the originals and the P-H. I don't think Whitaker makes a replacement barrel for a Pedersoli. They might be able to line a Pedersoli barrel, but then you still have to contend with the less efficient, right angle vent. Better to get a different Italian reproduction or P-H if you want accuracy.

Pedersoli has really cheated us today by just having standard round ball rifling. They are not worth the money they charge

I agree, but Pedersoli may assume many of the rifles they sell end up as wall hangers or in the hands of reenactors who only shoot blanks. David Glen, a maker of quality bagpipes on the Royal Mile in Edinburgh, it is said, didn't like to see his instruments go to people he thought might not actually play them or play them well. So when confronted with a customer who simply wanted to hang them over the fireplace he would go out the back door of the shop, head over to a seller of cheap, imported pipes, buy the set, then bring it back to his shop to sell to the unsuspecting customer, usually an American. I visited the shop just before it closed in 1979 or 1980. It was like stepping back into the 19th century. It's probably a short bread or sweater shop now.

We've found in the N-SSA that many times, an original in "shooter" grade condition is less expensive than a new repro and is easier to get shooting properly.

Out West we rarely see reproductions much less originals. The two reproductions I've managed to snag came from North Carolina and Kentucky. I aspire to the kind of amazing shooting you regularly post, @dave951.

 

[matt48]

Looks like Parker Hale it is. Original Enfields are hard to find around here...

Nobody has mentioned the 1861? How do you feel about them? I guess the short barrel would not be able to compete with the longer guns?

https://egun.de/market/item.php?id=19451939

 

[Cubreac]

Looks like Parker Hale it is.

Nobody has mentioned the 1861?

Welcome to the Enfield rabbit hole.

At least as far as the P53 goes, I'm told the P-H with a serial number 1500 or lower are the ones with progressive rifling. Others more knowledgable than me can confirm or correct.

I have an Artillery carbine, and just acquired a P58. The sight picture on the P61 Artillery Carbine, sometimes called the "musketoon", is not great. It's a good "brush gun" if you plan to hunt in dense woods. The P58 two band has the best sight picture, as far as I can tell.

@dave951 has a lot more experience and expertise than I do, so wait for his comments.

This is from Rob of "British Muzzleloaders" on YT. He has a very good series on the Enfield rifles of this period, which is where I've learned most of what I know about them.

"The modern and commonly understood designation for these rifles comes from the Parker Hale model line produced in the 1970s. It does not reflect the actual extent of the family or arms. The patterns produced were (here goes)...... The P53 Rifle-Musket, P53 Artillery Carbine, P55 Sappers and Miners Carbine (Lancaster) (later Royal Engineers), P56 Short Rifle, P56 Cavalry Carbine, P58 Short Rifle (Bar on Band), P58 Naval Rifle, P60 Short Rifle, P61 Short Rifle, P61 Artillery Carbine, the P61 Cavalry Carbine."

 

[tjiann]

I might have this wrong but I believe Hoyt will do gain twist but not progressive depth rifling.

He does progressive depth rifling as well. Depends on what you order.

 

[tjiann]

Looks like Parker Hale it is. Original Enfields are hard to find around here...

Nobody has mentioned the 1861? How do you feel about them? I guess the short barrel would not be able to compete with the longer guns?

https://egun.de/market/item.php?id=19451939

The 1861 musketoons are nice guns, but if you're competing in the N-SSA they are shot in the carbine competition, not musket.

 

[matt48]

Welcome to the Enfield rabbit hole.

Thanks! I think I‘ll do some reading first.

 

[Cubreac]

That book by Brett Gibbons is fascinating. I just started to read it for a second time last night. I'm not familiar with Huggett's book, so it's going on the list.
You might also be interested in this book:
https://www.ospreypublishing.com/us/pattern-1853-enfield-rifle-9781849084857/
It is not as technical as Gibbons' book. It is a military history of the P53 with a lot of good pictures. I wish it went to more detail about the two band Enfield.

 

[matt48]

That book by Brett Gibbons is fascinating. I just started to read it for a second time last night. I'm not familiar with Huggett's book, so it's going on the list.
You might also be interested in this book:
https://www.ospreypublishing.com/us/pattern-1853-enfield-rifle-9781849084857/
It is not as technical as Gibbons' book. It is a military history of the P53 with a lot of good pictures. I wish it went to more detail about the two band Enfield.

Thank you for the recommendation!

Love good books on the subject of (military) history.

 

[user 34300]

I have a PH 2 band, SN 7500. Were those made with progressive depth rifling? Someone posted above that the PH P53s under SN 1500 had progressive depth rifling. Obviously mine is a later gun. I have not had any accurate loads yet. IF it were shallow rifling that would explain it. Hmmmm?

Amended later. I grabbed the borescope and checked. I can not see any difference in rifling depth form breech to muzzle. Mine does not have original style progressive depth rifling, that was 15 to 5 thousands change. IT does have significant finishing marks that look like it was lapped. There are also annular marks from the boring and reaming. IT is clearly not a hammer forged barrel. Anyone have any information on how PH actually rifled the barrels over the years?

The repro super shallow rifling is not for round balls, but works with RBs to a degree. They are made that way to be cheap. The real round ball barrels are made with deep to excessively deep rifling. Usually 15 thousands or more. IF the repros did that I bet accuracy would improve with both RB and hollow base projectiles.

 

[tjiann]

I have a PH 2 band, SN 7500. Were those made with progressive depth rifling? Someone posted above that the PH P53s under SN 1500 had progressive depth rifling. Obviously mine is a later gun. I have not had any accurate loads yet. IF it were shallow rifling that would explain it. Hmmmm?

Amended later. I grabbed the borescope and checked. Mine does not have progressive depth rifling. IT does have significant finishing marks that look like it was lapped. There are also annular marks from the boring and reaming. IT is clearly not a hammer forged barrel.

The repro super shallow rifling is not for round balls, but works with RBs to a degree. They are made that way to be cheap. The real round ball barrels are made with deep to excessively deep rifling. Usually 15 thousands or more. IF the repros did that I bet accuracy would improve with both RB and hollow base projectiles.

It was my understanding that all the P-H barrels made/proofed in Birmingham England have progressive depth rifling. The later Italian-made barrels do not.

 

[Cubreac]

Someone posted above that the PH P53s under SN 1500 had progressive depth rifling.

Anyone have any information on how PH actually rifled the barrels over the years?

This video is where I learned that:

 

[ResearchPress]

I have a PH 2 band, SN 7500. Were those made with progressive depth rifling? Someone posted above that the PH P53s under SN 1500 had progressive depth rifling. Obviously mine is a later gun. I have not had any accurate loads yet. IF it were shallow rifling that would explain it. Hmmmm? …………….

Most P-H rifles with a serial number under 1500 were Volunteers or Whitworths. 7500 is still well within the original P-H production - and all their Enfields as far as I know had progressive depth rifling.

My understanding with regards to the ‘shallow rifling’ is the potential problem is associated with loading cartridges. This on my web site may assist - Managing the Enfield.

David

 

[Cubreac]

Another book to add to the reading list
The British Soldier’s Firearm 1850 -1864 by C.H. Roads
"....having been out of print for many years is now again available in a new edition."
@ResearchPress The new edition mentioned above didn't turn up in a search, but an old edition did. They must be exceptionally rare, considering the price.
Thanks for the information above.

 

[matt48]

Another book to add to the reading list
The British Soldier’s Firearm 1850 -1864 by C.H. Roads
"....having been out of print for many years is now again available in a new edition."
@ResearchPress The new edition mentioned above didn't turn up in a search, but an old edition did. They must be exceptionally rare, considering the price.
Thanks for the information above.

Do you know where it is being published and if it is available to be ordered?

 

[ResearchPress]

Another book to add to the reading list
The British Soldier’s Firearm 1850 -1864 by C.H. Roads

The article on my site was written some years ago by a late friend. The above book was first published in 1964 and in a new edition by R&R Books in 1994. I've amended the web site text, which was a little misleading in making the book appear more recent than it is.

David

 

[Cubreac]

The above book was first published in 1964 and in a new edition by R&R Books in 1994.

I found a couple on Biblio.com for over $100. The one listed on Amazon is the most expensive.

 

[Muley Gil]

I own these three P-H muzzleloaders:

Parker-Hale 3 band musket .577 blue # 6315

Parker-Hale 2 band rifle .577 blue # 7817

Parker-Hale musketoon .577 blue # 4662

All three are English made.