Wilkinson Target rifle.. ??

[dave_person]

Hi,
Yes, the barrel is made for civilian use. It is not made for British ordnance. That still does not rule it out as an experimental military rifle made by a private maker.

dave

 

[Cannonman1]

What makes me believe it is an experimental military rifle is the non sporting rear sight, metal ramrod and the bayonet attachment at the muzzle. What are your thoughts??

 

[Heelerau]

Just curious as to what the later rear sight looks like. I wonder if it is a hunting rifle, custom made for an English gentleman explorer. I imagine it shoots a paper patched cylindro conoidal bullet.
Someone has set it up later as a long range target rifle. False breech and wedges make cleaning the barrel quite simple, I bet the bore is in excellent order.
I realise that a lot of English hunting rifles were half stocked, but the original owner might have been ex army and used to full stock arms. It would certainly be heavy enough to take deer, large antelope, lion, but not the larger dangerous game. The funny tube arrangement at the muzzle, to hold a cleaning jag?
A lovely rifle, a great purchase. Hopefully the later sight is just soft soldered onto the barrel. Whoever made the tunnel sight attachment had a thought to not permanently altering the original configuration.

 

[Cannonman1]

Just curious as to what the later rear sight looks like. I wonder if it is a hunting rifle, custom made for an English gentleman explorer. I imagine it shoots a paper patched cylindro conoidal bullet.
Someone has set it up later as a long range target rifle. False breech and wedges make cleaning the barrel quite simple, I bet the bore is in excellent order.
I realise that a lot of English hunting rifles were half stocked, but the original owner might have been ex army and used to full stock arms. It would certainly be heavy enough to take deer, large antelope, lion, but not the larger dangerous game. The funny tube arrangement at the muzzle, to hold a cleaning jag?
A lovely rifle, a great purchase. Hopefully the later sight is just soft soldered onto the barrel. Whoever made the tunnel sight attachment had a thought to not permanently altering the original configuration.

The attachment on the front end is a bayonet attachment.. The attachment is secured by 2 robust studs and the notch in the tubular part matches the notch on the Brunswick rifle and would secure a saber bayonet. It would have been a unique saber bayonet as the predecessors would have had a flat, not a round insert. Doubt I will ever find one to fit it. Rear sight is similar to Whiworth I believe. Bore is pristine and is Metford rifling (not sharp lands and grooves but rounded ridges and valleys .. Known to be very accurate I hear. Bore is a bit over .50 caliber (would take a .51 caliber paper patched hollow base style elongated ball (Pritchett style I assume).. That is my assumption.
The more modern ladder sight is indeed only silver soldered on and the front sight is only secured with 2 allen screws.. Easy repair to get it back to what i assume is original configuration. The footprint of the front sight is close to the muzzle and is indicative of a standard Enfield style front blade sight. I just can't imagine anyone ordering a custom rifle to have a unique saber bayonet attachment designed for it. Wood is fancy in the butt stock with lots of figure.

 

[Heelerau]

Might be then an officers private purchase.

 

[Cannonman1]

That's a thought. The caliber is non regulation as is the bayonet attachment and I would think an officer would have chosen regulation features mounted on custom weapon.. Your suggestion makes me think of the officers model 1873 Trapdoor Springfield. Standard caliber with a fancier styled weapon. Thanks for the idea.

 

[Cannonman1]

I don't think it's a target rifle, although with the out-of-period additional rear sight and added foresight, that's what someone appears to have used it for. The additional sights could have been added in 'modern times'? The foresight looks to have an Allen key fitting which I gather is a 20thC invention. The original rear sight is that closest to the breech and with elevation adjustment to 900 yards. I'd anticipate a blade foresight - but that may have been removed to fit the tunnel foresight. Is there anything on the rifle to date it? I'd wondered at first if it was aimed at the very early years of the Volunteer movement 1859-early 1860s, but would have anticipated Enfield type rifling, which it does not appear to have (at least from the pictures currently available).

If/when you have it in hand, can you post pictures of the proof marks and any other markings you may find?

David

David,
Based on what we have found out so far, do you have any thoughts on where this rifle falls in insofar as date of manufacture, purpose of manufacture etc ??

 

[ResearchPress]

What makes you think the rifle has Metford rifling (which didn't appear until 1865 and was as far as I know, 'square-cut' initially)? From what little I've been able to see of the muzzle it doesn't look to be Metford style rifling which was very shallow. Dave has already idenified that WIlkinson has involved in trials along with Purdey, Lovell, Greener, Richards and Lancaster - this was however 1852. You note this rifle has 7 groove rifling - Wilkinson's rifle used in the 1852 trials was 5 groove and .53 bore. The rearsight looks similar to a P.51 (the elevation slide is missing). My best guess is mid-1850s for the rifle.

David

 

[Cannonman1]

What makes you think the rifle has Metford rifling (which didn't appear until 1865 and was as far as I know, 'square-cut' initially)? From what little I've been able to see of the muzzle it doesn't look to be Metford style rifling which was very shallow. Dave has already idenified that WIlkinson has involved in trials along with Purdey, Lovell, Greener, Richards and Lancaster - this was however 1852. You note this rifle has 7 groove rifling - Wilkinson's rifle used in the 1852 trials was 5 groove and .53 bore. The rearsight looks similar to a P.51 (the elevation slide is missing). My best guess is mid-1850s for the rifle.

David

David,
Closer examination shows it is 7 groove rifling but of a more traditional cut.. Narrow lands and wide grooves.. Groove is basically twice the width of the land.
OK.. Mid 1850's makes sense. Why the bayonet fitting??.. Special order ? What are your thoughts? I imagine Wilkinson could have experimented with design on its own without a Government trial. This may be a sample. Just thinking outside the old envelope here.

 

[Cannonman1]

Barrel is .53 caliber. Do you think they might have tried a 7 groove version for their own testing??

 

[Cannonman1]

I found the Enfield test data and what a wealth of information !!... Main difference between my rifle and the test rifle is that mine has 7 groove rifling and the test rifle has 5.. the test barrel is 3 foot, 3 inches long while my sample is significantly less than 3 feet. The test rifle also likely had a socket bayonet and barrel bands and my sample is rigged to accept a saber bayonet and barrel is pinned. (reason is that the test rifle weighed in at under 10 pounds with bayonet)
Similarities are that both my rifle and test rifle are in .530 caliber and rear sight is consistent with mention in the documents
I am not sure if that leads us to what this rifle represents? Is it a factory sample, a special order or a fanciful experiment. The bayonet feature confuses the issue and the rear sight is military.. What this may be is an experimental design that would lead to the 2 band enfield with saber bayonet.. 1856 and 1858
That makes some sense.. and that may be where this story goes. Just no data to back that up that I have seen.

 

[Cannonman1]

I found the Enfield test data and what a wealth of information !!... Main difference between my rifle and the test rifle is that mine has 7 groove rifling and the test rifle has 5.. the test barrel is 3 foot, 3 inches long while my sample is significantly less than 3 feet. The test rifle also likely had a socket bayonet and barrel bands and my sample is rigged to accept a saber bayonet and barrel is pinned. (reason is that the test rifle weighed in at under 10 pounds with bayonet)
Similarities are that both my rifle and test rifle are in .530 caliber and rear sight is consistent with mention in the documents
I am not sure if that leads us to what this rifle represents? Is it a factory sample, a special order or a fanciful experiment. The bayonet feature confuses the issue and the rear sight is military.. What this may be is an experimental design that would lead to the 2 band enfield with saber bayonet.. 1856 and 1858
That makes some sense.. and that may be where this story goes. Just no data to back that up that I have seen.

After pouring over images, test reports from Enfield and taking in all the great input offered by some experts in the field, I have come to somewhat of a conclusion on this piece. I am the Student here and bow to the wisdom of those who have so much more insight but here are my thoughts.

Conclusions (2 possibilities ??)

I believe this rifle is a sample made at Wilkinson as a possible companion piece to the submitted rifle that found its way to Enfield in 1852 for testing. The fact that it has a saber bayonet mount along with a P51 rear sight and is in the same unique caliber (.53 inch ) as the submitted rifle, leads me in that direction.


It merges features of the Brunswick P37 (second model).. saber bayonet, pinned barrel, hook breech, muzzle profile is snubbed, centered notch on the bayonet lug …and the P51 Rifle musket insofar as sight and lock.. The caliber is unique and the rifling is a throwback to the Baker ( 7 groove)


I believe this rifle was made as a sample but never submitted.


Another possibility is that internally, Wilkinson did its own experimentation and independently showed this rifle to British Ordnance or intended to prior to the British Army adopting the 3 groove .577 P53… Once the P53 was adopted, this rifle became irrelevant.

The bayonet attachment has the notch in the middle, similar to the 2nd Model Brunswick but instead of having a squarish or angled form, the attachment on my rifle is round and dowel or rod shaped. Location is same as on the Brunswick.

It is not a production rifle.. It is a specially made weapon with a totally unique bayonet attachment and metal ramrod.

 

[Mattox Forge]

Congratulations on winning the auction. I bid on that one as well. This is a civilian target rifle. During the late 1800's long range target shooting became a hugely popular sport in the UK and in the US. One of the major classes if competition was "military rifle". This is similar to the current high power class today of service rifle. In order to qualify the rifles had to be outfitted to meet military requirements, bayonet lugs and limits on the rear sight types and calibers and so on. Most of the high end gun makers built very high quality rifles like this one. The top winners of the day were usually set up with Metford rifled barrels. The muzzle loaders persisted in UK competion longer than they did in US competion. The Irish team used muzzle loaders in the first Creedmoor match against the breech loader equipped US team.

 

[Cannonman1]

OK.. That explains it. Thanks for contributing to the discussion and clearing this up. The bayonet lug was a big question. Why would it be present on a civilian rifle?? Now we know. I thought the rifling was Metford rifling. Thanks again for your input.

 

[Cannonman1]

Congratulations on winning the auction. I bid on that one as well. This is a civilian target rifle. During the late 1800's long range target shooting became a hugely popular sport in the UK and in the US. One of the major classes if competition was "military rifle". This is similar to the current high power class today of service rifle. In order to qualify the rifles had to be outfitted to meet military requirements, bayonet lugs and limits on the rear sight types and calibers and so on. Most of the high end gun makers built very high quality rifles like this one. The top winners of the day were usually set up with Metford rifled barrels. The muzzle loaders persisted in UK competion longer than they did in US competion. The Irish team used muzzle loaders in the first Creedmoor match against the breech loader equipped US team.

Is there information on line or published that tells more about this subject ? I would like to read more about it. Rifle is very well made and has a pristine bore. I may shoot it some day. Would need to make up a bullet .. likely a pritchett style, paper patched round or maybe a sized .54 minie that is just under bore size by a .001 or .002 Thanks. Not sure how the minie design shoots with Medford riding but we would find out.

 

[Eddie Southgate]

It's one cool assed rifle is what it is .

 

[TFoley]

Can we see a couple of full-length shots, please?

 

[Cannonman1]

Can we see a couple of full-length shots, please?

Here is a full length shot and a more close up of lock area in comparison with M1861 Springfield for scale and dimension .. Hope that helps. Would be happy to post any additional shots if these don't fit the bill.

 

[TFoley]

What a strange amalgam of designs it it - tenons and a front swivel and an Enfield-like lock. It really needs shooting, and published on Youtube so that we can all enjoy it in action!!

 

[Cannonman1]

What a strange amalgam of designs it it - tenons and a front swivel and an Enfield-like lock. It really needs shooting, and published on Youtube so that we can all enjoy it in action!!

I intend to do that this Spring. I will be going with a Minie/Burton bullet ( as sized down .54 cal lyman design which will only require .004 or so reduction down to a .529. Will see how that goes. I will post on U tube. That sounds like a fun experiment. Stay tuned.