Springfield vs Enfield

[Stantheman86]

The Colt vs Remington thread was very entertaining, how about a Springfield vs Enfield thread?

I own both, repros and originals, and it's honestly hard to pick one way or the other but I have to lean toward my Enfields mostly because of the Parker-Hales , and also the Pedersoli Confederate copies like the Cook & Brother have a nice, simple windage adjustable dovetailed rear sight.

They are both good looking rifles.

There are things about both I like better than the other

I just went with owning a few of each to solve the problem

 

[64Springer]

Springfield.

American made.

End of thread.

 

[smoothshooter]

The Colt vs Remington thread was very entertaining, how about a Springfield vs Enfield thread?

I own both, repros and originals, and it's honestly hard to pick one way or the other but I have to lean toward my Enfields mostly because of the Parker-Hales , and also the Pedersoli Confederate copies like the Cook & Brother have a nice, simple windage adjustable dovetailed rear sight.

They are both good looking rifles.

There are things about both I like better than the other

I just went with owning a few of each to solve the problem

I would prefer the Enfield in several ways if the stock did not have such a high comb.
I have trouble getting my head down low enough to see the sights well.

 

[Stantheman86]

I would prefer the Enfield in several ways if the stock did not have such a high comb.
I have trouble getting my head down low enough to see the sights well.

I have to remember not to shoot the Enfields "American style" when I'm standing up and if I square my feet to the target, the cheek weld becomes easier.

I was shooting my P53 from a rest and my cheek was sore all day so there's also that. They were designed to be fired by a soldier who was standing, feet slightly staggered and your body square to the front. Not the "boxer" style sideways stance Americans use.

 

[TDM]

I believe the P53 to be the superior weapon, but agree on the comb height. My Son has both, which I've shot, I like the Enfield.

 

[Stantheman86]

I believe the P53 to be the superior weapon, but agree on the comb height. My Son has both, which I've shot, I like the Enfield.

If it's a repro it would be easy to put a "dish" in the stock like a Charleville musket has, which I think is kinda neat looking and comfortable. My Pedersoli Charleville lets your cheek fall right into that dish and it's a perfect pointer.

 

[Horse]

I have both (repros). Springfield for me.

 

[TDM]

If it's a repro it would be easy to put a "dish" in the stock like a Charleville musket has, which I think is kinda neat looking and comfortable. My Pedersoli Charleville lets your cheek fall right into that dish and it's a perfect pointer.

I agree, but my Son would never allow it! His Enfield is a Pedersoli but his Springfield is an original stock, lock, and trigger assembly. He had a new barrel made for it, but I don’t remember who made it.

 

[Stantheman86]

My repro Springfields can be more "finicky" with ignition than my Enfields. I have used a #11 nipple on my Armi Sport CS Richmond and had some pop-Bangs and it doesn't always like the weaker new CCI Musket caps with the musket cap nipple. I've fired 50 rounds through my Parker-Hale Musketoon with new CCI musket caps with 0 problems and my one P53 has a #11 nipple, and it always fires.

With Rio musket caps and real Black, the ArmiSport CS Richmond was 100% reliable. It just seems to need a hot cap to fire after a long string when the flash channel gets gummy where the Enfields keep running with weaker caps. In a world where we can't always find the caps we need it's a consideration. My Enfields are more reliable than reproduction Springfields. I understand the Italian Springfields have a different flash channel than originals.

I like the Enfield rear sight better because I can Fine Sight, Half Sight and Full sight much easier than the big V rear on some repro Springfields or the very very fine notch on my Pedersoli. Also repro Springfield rear sights are sometimes "floppy" with the leaf moving around. My original Springfield rear sight is well fitted and does not move. Since a lot of us shoot the repros more often it's worth comparing all of them.



I have not fired my original P53 since it has been bored smooth in it's past life and I haven't gotten around to firing my original 1861 yet but I've fired other original Springfields.

 

[dave951]

For those who complain about "old eyes" note the location of the rear sight on an Enfield. There's a reason it's where it is.

Past that, the stock on an Enfield can be off putting to domestic taste.

 

[Widows Son]

The weapons technology is very similar between them..essentially the same calibre, same rifling twist, similar overall length etc…

The stock geometry is rather different, but not necessarily better than each other…just different styles of marksmanship.

The ladder sights on the Enfield are an advantage (with training) over the simple leaf of the Springfield, as is the rear sight being farther away from the shooters face.

The British Pritchett cartridge used with the Enfield provided a real advantage. I know the topic is about the weapons and not the ammunition. But without ammunition a weapon is just a high-tech club.

The 1855 US Springfield with the ladder sight and a Pritchett cartridge would truly have equalised the two weapons (Ignore the failed Maynard tape primer)

 

[Grenadier1758]

Springfield.

American made.

End of thread.

Most of the present reproductions are made in Italy or India.

I would prefer a Parker Hale Enfield made with the British parts.

 

[Stantheman86]

The weapons technology is very similar between them..essentially the same calibre, same rifling twist, similar overall length etc…

The stock geometry is rather different, but not necessarily better than each other…just different styles of marksmanship.

The ladder sights on the Enfield are an advantage (with training) over the simple leaf of the Springfield, as is the rear sight being farther away from the shooters face.

The British Pritchett cartridge used with the Enfield provided a real advantage. I know the topic is about the weapons and not the ammunition. But without ammunition a weapon is just a high-tech club.

The 1855 US Springfield with the ladder sight and a Pritchett cartridge would truly have equalised the two weapons (Ignore the failed Maynard tape primer)

Having used Pritchett cartridges and also the US pattern cartridges that I make, the Pritchett is hands down the superior ammunition choice. The Pritchett is a little less accurate but for a cartridge to use in combat it is way better, because shooting for a 2" tighter group at 100 is irrelevant when you're shooting at other soldiers in volleys. Getting 50+ rounds down the pipe and being able to shoot for the entirety of a prolonged battle is a huge advantage

It probably just came down to cost, the US Ordnance Dept started with the 1855 cartridge then started deleting stuff like the powder cylinder, to speed up production until the 1863 pattern was basically just 2 paper tubes holding the powder and the Minie. Even the Minies weren't always properly sized by the various contractors

The 1855 with the ladder sight is probably the best of the Springfields and then they tried the peep hole with the 1863 Springfield, and also changing the bolster and flash channel so the 1863 might be the most "reliable " of them.

Colt also made that Special Rifle that was basically a Springfield-Enfield hybrid that he had originally planned to sell to anyone that wanted to pay for them. And the US Govt just decided to pay him to make the Colt rifle -musket with some changes, that the 1863 was based on .

So there's a lot of stuff to muddy the water with weapons comparisons

 

[Stantheman86]

Also the reproductions have evolved so far away from the originals that it's hard to compare them anymore

Recent production Pedersoli Springfields and Enfields are part of their "Silver Line" now that are popular with European Match Shooters and world class shooters like Dr Nemeth are heavily involved with what Pedersoli produces and the changes made for the market

Instead of just being rehashed Euroarms rifles like they used to be, which were marketed to reenactors and casual shooters and Skirmishers shooting at 50 yards, with the heavy triggers and sights that shoot high.....this new Pedersoli CS Richmond is basically a Target Rifle that looks like a repro of a CS Richmond. The trigger is light and crisp, more care is taken in cutting the rifling to avoid the "tight spots" and chatter like other repros might have , and they are made for target shooting, and priced accordingly.

I put a Lodgewood rear sight on it and it takes a .577 Minie. I've had it out once and it's extremely accurate

My ArmiSport CS Richmond is more of an actual reproduction of a military Rifle-Musket, with the heavy mainspring, and correct rear sight that's not the best for accurate shooting.

 

[Stantheman86]

Most of the present reproductions are made in Italy or India.

I would prefer a Parker Hale Enfield made with the British parts.

Besides being very well made, the fact that the British made Parker-Hales are made in Birmingham England with modern steel makes them that much cooler.

If you want an American made Springfield you have to go with an original , which is also what I did too.

 

[Stantheman86]

For those who complain about "old eyes" note the location of the rear sight on an Enfield. There's a reason it's where it is.

Past that, the stock on an Enfield can be off putting to domestic taste.

Britain had guys in their 40s joining the Army plus all the Colonial troops. Pure genius idea