Tin-plated Enfield two-band naval rifle

[TFoley]

An aquaintance of mine in Toronto is about to collect his latest acquisition today. It is a two-band Enfield naval rifle in reasonable but dirty condition. However, rather than being brass-fitted, a common feature of guns that went to sea, this one appears to be tin-plated on the lock and much of the barrel.

I have just got off the phone from calling Peter Dyson here in England, who has not heard of such a thing. Now if HE knows nothing about this type of treatment being applied to a service arm, who might?

Anybody here?

TIA

tac

 

[dave_person]

Hi Tac,
During the American Civil War era naval rifles were often tinned to prevent rust. I have seen examples of Spencer repeating rifles and Springfield muskets that were tinned. However, I think the method was eventually dropped in favor of a thick coating of a finish composed of beeswax, linseed oil, and turpentine.

dave

 

[TFoley]

Many thanks, Sir, I'm extremely grateful. :thumbsup: x 10

I know that a number of naval service handguns were tin-plated to prevent corrosion, but I did not know that some long arms were similarly treated.

tac

 

[Lawrence_N]

I'm the gentleman that tac has referred to. I captured a pic from the auction site which may provide a better idea of the rifle in question. I will try to post it in this forum and maybe another more knowledgeable person will chime in.

 

[ResearchPress]

Is it tin-plated or is it that there’s just no trace of the original finish? Lock engraving still looks crisp. Are there any markings to suggest it ever saw service or conforms to Pattern for a Naval rifle, or is it a commercial short rifle? Probably can’t answer until you have the rifle in your hands...

David

 

[TFoley]

It has been suggested to me that it is actually japanned, rather than tinned - whatever, it's an interesting pce for sure.

tac

PS - Welcome to the best ML forum on the internet!!!

 

[Artificer]

Tac,

Of course Dave Person is correct to mention that during the UnCivil War/WBTS here in the Colonies, that the U.S. Navy had firearms tinned to withstand salt spray and air. In at least one case of the Sharps and Hankins breechloading carbines, they also permanently sewed a leather sheath over the barrel to withstand the salt air and spray. Not only that, but some of these carbines were also tinned as well. http://www.nramuseum.org/guns/the-...le-shot-breechloading-percussion-carbine.aspx

However, there is another explanation for quite a few of that period firearms, swords, bayonets and some other accoutrements that were either tinned or even plated (some were nickel plated and some were chrome plated). It was quite common for GAR or Grand Army of the Republic members and later SUCVW members to have these things tinned or plated after the WBTS to use in their dress activities. I have personally owned one Model 1840 NCO sword that was so plated and have seen quite a few bayonets, Springfield Rifles and some other rifles and accoutrements so tinned or plated. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Army_of_the_Republic

Having written that, if it is indeed tinned and not plated, then it is quite possible (though not absolutely certain) it was done for Sea Service use aboard U.S. Naval Ships during the UnCivil War.

Gus

 

[Artificer]

The reason I purchased the Plated M 1840 NCO Sword was because in the early 1980's, many of us who did UnCivil War Reenacting or Skirmishing - used original swords for living histories, parades and even some of us carried original swords on the field during reenacting. There just were no good reproductions of such swords available for a while.

Here is a picture of an original M 1840 sword and the common leather scabbard and brass throat and drag. It also shows the very common break of the leather scabbard, but this time near the throat, rather than the more common break near the drag.
http://www.antiques.com/vendor_item_images/ori_1910_216326815_1148640_american_sword_402.jpg

The M 1840 sword I owned was plated from the tip of the blade and all the way and completely covering the brass hilt. That was fine for me because I did not have to worry about using it to wet form leather around the blade and sew it up. I used original throats and drags to complete the scabbards. Well, sure enough, after I did four or five such scabbards, they came out with a pretty good repro of the sword and scabbard that was pretty inexpensive. So I only got a couple more commissions to make the scabbards in the next 10 years and finally traded/sold the plated NCO Sword.

Sorry to go ff , but this brought back some good memories.

Gus

 

[Gene L]

Remington used to zinc plate imported Rolling Blocks. Could it be zinc instead of tin?

 

[Lawrence_N]

Is it tin-plated or is it that there’s just no trace of the original finish? Lock engraving still looks crisp. Are there any markings to suggest it ever saw service or conforms to Pattern for a Naval rifle, or is it a commercial short rifle? Probably can’t answer until you have the rifle in your hands...

David

David, for sure it's tinned other than the butt plate and trigger guard, both of which are brass. Though it has the crown it lacks the "VR" cipher underneath. Both the butt plate and trigger guard have the WD and "crows foot" as well as a number. There is no bayonet lug and it is a smooth bore, no rifling. It's a poser!

 

[Artificer]

I don't know as much as I would like about how Government Arms were disposed when the British Government surplus sold excess/out-of-date arms.

As far as I know, the Tower marking and Crown indicated these were originally Government Arms, though "VR" for Victoria Regina under the Crown in the Cypher is missing. Was the "VR" removed to indicate this was no longer a Queen's Arm when "surplus" sold? Then the bayonet lug was removed and the barrel smooth bored to use as a fowler/shotgun?

Bailey mentions British Ordnance selling off broken or excess/out-of-date arms in the 18th century, but does not mention if the King's Cypher was removed to demonstrate such Arms were no longer the King's property.

Or is it possible the Rifle did not have the "VR" on it originally, as it was made to be issued to British Militia Units?

Gus

 

[Lawrence_N]

Under a magnifying glass I couldn't find any sign of grinding or buffing to indicate cypher removal. I've been talking to other friends more knowledgeable than I about the rifle, and the general consensus thus far is that it was either altered to be a civilian fowler (as you mentioned) when it was taken out of service, or it is correct in its current configuration and was issued to secondary troops, Sepoys, or other native levies.

 

[dave_person]

Hi,
Is it possible it was tinned and smooth bored because it was used just for ceremonial or parade purposes?

dave

 

[Artificer]

.... or it is correct in its current configuration and was issued to secondary troops, Sepoys, or other native levies.

In the 18th century, such arms were not marked with the Royal Cypher and Tower markings, rather they were marked "East India Company" or "EIC" in some manner. Did they change that in the 19th century for Arms issued to those troops?

I would be very much surprised if this Arm originally came with Rifle Sights and was a smoothbore when first issued.

Gus

 

[TFoley]

The usual sold-out-of-service stamp is simply two opposing broad arrows, giving the appearance of a large asterisk.

tac

 

[Artificer]

It just occurred to me that if this rifle was originally made as a smoothbore for Secondary troops, Sepoys or other native levies; then would not the smoothbore diameter conform to a standard British caliber such as the .66 cal. carbine bore?

Do you have a measurement of the bore size?

Gus

 

[ResearchPress]

For a British military arm I'd have anticipated a Crowned Broad Arrow Ordnance ownership mark to the front of the lock.

This article may help understand identifying British government arms. P.53 Enfield Production Markings

David

 

[Lawrence_N]

I've been over the whole thing with a magnifying glass! There is a hard-to-read Enfield cartouche with the number "1" under it on the right side of stock and the only other marks I can find are the Birmingham proof marks, one being the crown and "BP" with the number "25 and the other is the crossed spears & BPC and the number "25"

 

[RAEDWALD]

The smooth bore for Indian service Pattern 1858 & 1859 had a simple one piece with notch rear sight and were in 0.656" bore. The weapon in question has the standard Enfield rifle rear sight.

 

[Artificer]

For a British military arm I'd have anticipated a Crowned Broad Arrow Ordnance ownership mark to the front of the lock.

This article may help understand identifying British government arms. P.53 Enfield Production Markings

David

Thank you for that link, it was most informative.

In the 18th century per Bailey and as I understand it, the Tower received locks from commercial firms in an unhardened state (except for the springs). Once Tower inspectors approved the locks, the lock plates would be engraved with the King's Cypher, Tower and the Broad Arrow you mentioned. Then the lock plates and other parts would be sent to commercial firms for hardening before being returned to the Tower for assembly into complete Arms.

I wasn't aware that in the 19th century that London and Birmingham gun/lock makers sent the locks with "Tower" already marked. Did the contractors also mark the lock with the Crown part of the Cypher, but did not mark the Sovereign's initials and Broad Arrow until after British Ordnance acceptance?

If that is true, then it would seem this lock was never accepted by British Ordnance for a government Arm?

Gus