Springfield or Enfield?

[ratscoot]

Hello,
I want to buy a military percussion rifle.
I've narrowed it down to the Springfield 1861 and the Enfield, two or three band.
I'l be shooting it mostly recreational and sometimes a 100m match.
What are the pro and cons of these rifles?
Thanks.

 

[Russ T Frizzen]

I have a Navy Arms '63 Springfield and a Parker-Hale 1853 Enfield. The Enfield probably has the edge in accuracy due to its splendid barrel and its more sophisticated sights. Both shoot better than I can. I occasionally punch paper with them, but tend to use them for hunting and plinking these days. These are old guns--the Springfield is one of the first of the repos made-- and would need to be bought used. New versions are available that are made in Italy and I believe are of fine quality, but prices tend to be very dear indeed.

 

[Jerry Coffee]

If I were going to purchase a new reproducton rifle musket and all I was going to do is hunt and shoot at targets, I would get an Armi Sport P58 Enfield, .577 cal., .575" minie, .570"-.015" patched round ball, 2-band rifle musket.

The 3-band rifle muskets are required for reenactors but both the 2-band and 3-band rifle muskets shoot equally well. There is no use swinging a long 3-band rifle musket unless you are shooting blanks at reenacting events.

 

[rice1817]

Might want to try them both on for size. The Enfield does not have much drop in the stock and I had to really scrunch the stock to get the sights. The Springfield has drop, but the rear sight is positioned very close to the rear of the barrel and older eyes may find it more difficult to focus.

Best gun for the money is a James River Armory workover of the Italian guns. Their skirmish grade guns are tackdrivers with target loads, and at least mine shoots dandy with full service loads.

 

[Jumpshot]

Here's mine...
http://www.muzzleloadingforum.com/fusionbb/showtopic.php?tid/218229/

 

[arquebus]

Yes, if at all possible, try & shoot both types as they are stocked very differently. I find the Enfields to be very uncomfortable to shoot.....in fact downright painful as I have to really scrunch down on the comb to see the sights. If you find the Springfield's dimensions & sights are more to your liking you might want to consider getting a Zouave (Remingtom Model 1863 Contract Rifle-Musket) as they have a heavier barrel than the Springfield models & I find they shoot more consistently over longer strings of shots. I shoot MLAIC competition were 13 shots on paper plus one or two foulers are fired in a 30 minute relay so the barrels to tend to warm up, which can cause the shots to 'walk' up the target, & a heavier barrel helps to minimize that I feel.

 

[Jumpshot]

I find the Enfields to be very uncomfortable to shoot.....in fact downright painful as I have to really scrunch down on the comb to see the sights.

And it fits me perfectly. Comfortable, no scrunching, sights come up perfectly in line with my eye without dropping my head. One of the most natural-feeling, comfortable long arms I've ever tried.

Like the others said, try both to see which fits you better.

 

[Russ T Frizzen]

I find them equally comfortable to shoot. As for the length difference, we're talking about 6 inches here. Essentially irrelevant in handling the rifle, but it does add useful length to the sight base. The weight difference is negligible.
With either rifle the trick is to use the tightest Minie you can and still load easily--.575 in the Enfield and .577 in the Springfield. I use 70 grains of FFg in the Enfield and 60 in the Springfield for pretty much all uses, but they can each take 10 more grains without a problem.

 

[jdstrang]

I find the Enfields to be very uncomfortable to shoot.....in fact downright painful as I have to really scrunch down on the comb to see the sights.

And it fits me perfectly. Comfortable, no scrunching, sights come up perfectly in line with my eye without dropping my head. One of the most natural-feeling, comfortable long arms I've ever tried.

Like the others said, try both to see which fits you better.

What they said! :rotf:

For some (myself included) the fit is a real problem. For others, it ain't no big thing.

I'd vote Springfield -- or, better (best?) yet, a '55 Harper's Ferry two-band rifle, with its heavy, 33-inch barrel and classic good looks. Check it out at: http://www.jamesriverarmory.com/Model 1855 Harpers Ferry Rifles.htm
:grin:

 

[varsity07840]

Might want to try them both on for size. The Enfield does not have much drop in the stock and I had to really scrunch the stock to get the sights. The Springfield has drop, but the rear sight is positioned very close to the rear of the barrel and older eyes may find it more difficult to focus.

Best gun for the money is a James River Armory workover of the Italian guns. Their skirmish grade guns are tackdrivers with target loads, and at least mine shoots dandy with full service loads.

The nice thing about the Sprinfield sights being set so far back is that you can drill a hole in the leaf of your choice as a peep sight. Great for my tired eyes. Also, by doing that, you can locate the hole to correct windage and elevation
problems. They always shoot high with issue sights and often are off left or right.

Duane

 

[billandbeaufort]

Might want to try them both on for size. The Enfield does not have much drop in the stock and I had to really scrunch the stock to get the sights. The Springfield has drop, but the rear sight is positioned very close to the rear of the barrel and older eyes may find it more difficult to focus.

Best gun for the money is a James River Armory workover of the Italian guns. Their skirmish grade guns are tackdrivers with target loads, and at least mine shoots dandy with full service loads.

The nice thing about the Sprinfield sights being set so far back is that you can drill a hole in the leaf of your choice as a peep sight. Great for my tired eyes. Also, by doing that, you can locate the hole to correct windage and elevation
problems. They always shoot high with issue sights and often are off left or right.

Duane

Duane, They don't all shoot high! My brand new Euro-Arms 1864 Springfield was 16 inches low at 100 yards! I bought 3 blank sight leaves and finaly got it "on target" with a rear sight .215 higher than what it came with!

 

[varsity07840]

WOW!!! That's a rare one indeed. I wonder if that barrel has some run out in the bore or has a slight bend to it. Do you have any trouble getting the barrel bands off?

Duane

 

[Dillohide]

I don't own an Enfield or Springfield but would like to some day. Wouldn't it be historically correct to take down the comb on an Enfield if it was to high and or wide to sight comfortably? I can't believe a soldier in the field would have not done the same thing with whatever tools were available to him since his life depended on it. In fact I saw an original where the cheek was cut out, supposedly in the period. I just took a rasp to a Renegade stock comb which sounds scary but with file shaping and a lot of sanding turned out looking better than the original (at least to me) and a perfect fit.

 

[ratscoot]

Does annyone own or has shot a Pedersoli Würtenbergischer Mauser? http://www.davide-pedersoli.com/ArmiCategoria.aspx?CategoriaId=145&lang=en

 

[arquebus]

Have handled but not shot one of the 'Mauser' Rifle-Muskets & they seem to be of very high quality. They are becoming quite popular with the MLAIC shooters, as they have the advantage of having fully adjustable rear sights. I have heard that the rear sights are a bit delicate which might be a consideration if you were considering it as a hunting arm. They are also in .54 caliber which tends to reduce your choice of Minie molds too. In addition, I don't believe they are NSSA-Approved if that would matter to you.

 

[ratscoot]

Thank you for the reply.
I'm only intend to shoot the rifle at the range and live in Europe where this rifle is conform to local match regulations.
The only issues are indeed the price and caliber. For the price of the Pedersoli Mauser i can almost buy an Armi sport Springfield and Enfield together.
Pedersoli sells the bullet mould and complete bullets for this rifle too.
On a German forum i've read many shooters use a Lee mould anbd sizer with very good results.
Groups of 2,5" are possible

 

[jdstrang]

... I've read many shooters use a Lee mould and sizer with very good results.
Groups of 2,5" are possible

Even as we endlessly debate the relative merits of Springfields and Enfields, we seldom agree on the best moulds. :yakyak:

Some shooters are perfectly happy with the inexpensive (that's cheap), aluminum Lee moulds, while others swear by the more costly, but longer-lasting Lyman moulds. :hmm:

And there is a third company of which you may not have heard, but is fairly popular among North-South Skirmish Association competitors -- Rapine Bullet Moulds. Rapines are made from high-strength aircraft aluminum, and cost about the same as Lymans. Unfortunately, Ray Rapine doesn't believe in Web sites, but you can find his moulds using a search engine.

I personally favor Lyman, because I cast upwards of 2,000 minies a year and prefer a mould that will hold up to long, hot sessions. Others will make arguments for their favorites as well. :youcrazy:

But, most important, be sure the bullets you cast are made from ONLY pure, soft lead, have flawless skirts and do NOT have voids in the bases. Size them to a thousandth or so under the bore diameter of whatever rifle you choose. If you follow those steps, and take the time to find the combination of bullet and powder your rifle favors, you should be able to get the maximum performance out of whatever gun and mould you end up with. Good luck! :thumbsup:

 

[Rick Davis]

...

Best gun for the money is a James River Armory workover of the Italian guns. Their skirmish grade guns are tackdrivers with target loads, and at least mine shoots dandy with full service loads.

That's a fact! I bought a JRA-made '61 Springfield, he custom marked it for me at no extra charge.

Check it out here: http://www.muzzleloadingforum.com/fusionbb/showtopic.php?tid/205760/post/399391/hl//fromsearch/1/

 

[Coot]

I don't own an Enfield or Springfield but would like to some day. Wouldn't it be historically correct to take down the comb on an Enfield if it was to high and or wide to sight comfortably? I can't believe a soldier in the field would have not done the same thing with whatever tools were available to him since his life depended on it. In fact I saw an original where the cheek was cut out, supposedly in the period. I just took a rasp to a Renegade stock comb which sounds scary but with file shaping and a lot of sanding turned out looking better than the original (at least to me) and a perfect fit.

Looking at originals from AWI, ACW, WW1 & WW2, I see very little evidence of "customization". Consider that the military gun does not belong to the soldier carrying it. It is the property of the government that issues it to him. He is responsible for its care and will be punished if he neglects or abuses it. Modifications to make it a better fit for one user may well make it a worse fit for the next user. Ask the Gunny - "if the government wanted you to have a stock with a lower comb, they would have issued you one" - or other less diplomatic words to the effect of your not "f--king up his weapon". :grin:

 

[rebelyell]

While I own both, & have nothing against the springfield (other than its *&^%! "Armory Bright" finish, is parkerizing period correct? :grin: ). My vote is the Enfield. I bought a used Armi-sport about 7 years agao, I've shot the fire out of it, using it at one time or another for reenacting, N-SSA, plinking & hunting. It shoots better than I do, is forgiving of a hard day of use, and is a great companion.
As to the stock drop, I was told that the Brits shot differently than we do. They hold the right arm straight out, level with the shoulder rather than down. I guess that is right, as when I tried it, shooting the Enfield got stupid easy...