In part one of this blog series, we will touch on a brief overview of the Pattern 1853 rifle, its presence during the Battle of Bentonville, and discuss the reproductions we have seen in many Civil War reenactments and motion pictures. Next, we will begin the process of recreating an authentic example from a reproduction by utilizing a process known as “defarbing.” An original weapon will serve as guidance as well as carefully researched information.
The 1853 Enfield: Introduction
The monumental task of arming both Union and Confederate armies resulted in an arms race during the American Civil War. At the start of the war, both sides issued their regiments the inventory on hand in their respective armories. A soldier in the early days of conflict could be armed with anything from older model smoothbore muskets converted from flintlock to percussion ignition, or newer rifled muskets capable of deadly accuracy at extended ranges. Arsenals on both sides immediately kicked production of modern rifled arms into high gear and subcontracted to companies increase the output. Despite these efforts, it was soon realized that an alternative solution existed overseas. Thousands of foreign arms were imported to supplement the existing inventories of both the Union and Confederate Armies. One of the most notable of these weapons was the British Pattern 1853 Enfield Rifle.
The Confederate government had strong hopes for Britain to intervene in the war. The British Empire possessed a much-needed navy capable of challenging the Union blockade of Southern ports. British foreign policy however, ultimately declared the nation neutral in the conflict. This policy of neutrality did not stop the British arms industry from doing business with both sides. Soon shipments of Pattern 1853 rifles began to make their way across the Atlantic and, in the case of the South, through the Union blockade. Equipped with an adjustable ladder style rear sight and firing .577 caliber Minnie ammunition, the Enfield quickly gained a favorable reputation on the battlefield. Many units found themselves armed with a mixture of both the Enfield and domestically produced Springfields. Being surpassed only by the U.S. Model 1861 Springfield in number of rifles fielded, the Pattern 1853 cemented its place in both Northern and Southern arsenals until the war’s end.
As early as late 1861, the state of North Carolina began efforts to arm its soldiers with modern rifles. Appointed by Governor Henry T. Clark, John L. Peyton, former special envoy to Great Britain, would serve as the state’s purchasing agent in England. Peyton soon set out across the Atlantic with a $200,000 line of credit authorized by the state. The balance of which North Carolina intended to pay with sterling, gold, cotton, or naval stores when the rifles reached the state. Peyton eventually contracted with the English firm, Barnett & Sons for 1760 rifles, all of which were to be stamped “N.C.” on the top of the barrels. The completed rifles were shipped to Nassau, where they were transferred to blockade runners Thomas L Wragg, Cecile, and Minho andshipped into the ports of Charleston and Wilmington. By the time North Carolina received the shipment Clark had relinquished his post to newly elected Governor Zebulon Vance, former commander of the 26th North Carolina infantry. It is suspected that many of these rifles ended up in the hands of the 26th N.C. due to Vance’s influence. Fewer than ten examples of the N.C. contract rifles are known to still exist, with one supposedly having been recovered from the field at Gettysburg.
The 1853 Enfield: Bentonville
In February of 1865, Union forces under the command of Major General William Techumseh Sherman set course north from the newly conquered city of Savannah towards the Carolinas. “Uncle Billy”, as Sherman’s soldiers affectionately referred to him soon marched two separate wings of his army through South Carolina and into North Carolina towards Goldsboro, their primary objective. A consolidated force of remaining Confederate armies under General Joseph E. Johnston sought an opportunity to assault Sherman’s force and impede its movement. That opportunity presented itself near Bentonville, N.C. a small pine tree laden community in Johnston County. On March 19th the Left Wing of the Union advance, consisting of the XIV and XX Corps, found themselves drawn into an intense engagement with Johnston’s entire army. The Pattern 53 Enfield was present on both sides of the fighting.
The presence of the Pattern 53 rifle at Bentonville can be confirmed in multiple ways. Relics recovered from the battlefield such as .577 minnie balls, and gun parts are the most common. Records from individual units, like the 70th Indiana Volunteer Infantry, reflect “Enfield Rifle-Muskets” being turned into the quartermaster during the months of February to March 1865. The period in which the unit marched through the Carolinas with Sherman’s Left Wing. Additional Enfield and Springfield rifles were turned in at Goldsboro by members of the unit during the month of April, which curiously, were listed as being unserviceable. It is, however, the visitor center museum at Bentonville Battlefield State Historic site that holds the ultimate proof, a surviving example belonging to Corporal Doctor Franklin Denton, a member of the 3rd Regiment N.C. Junior Reserves. Denton’s unit was near the center of Johnston’s army throughout the three-day battle.
Corporal Denton’s Pattern 1853 on display.
The 1853 Enfield: Today
The Centennial of the Civil War sparked a revival of interest in the conflict, and a market for reproduction firearms. Those with the passion to recreate history began for the first time to organize themselves into historical reenactment groups. The reenactors obviously needed to arm themselves but, no firearms manufacturers in the United States – with the exception of limited runs of centennial commemoratives – were actively producing reproduction Civil War era weapons. The profit potential, however, was soon realized by firms such as Centennial Arms and Navy Arms who, rather than undertaking the great cost of tooling up to make the reproductions, sought out manufacturers in Europe. The era of Italian made reproductions, which continues to this day, was born. The Pattern 1853 Enfield was soon to be placed back in production for the first time in a century.
European arms makers such as Pietta, Uberti, Pedersoli, Parker-Hale and Armi Sport began pouring Civil War reproduction firearms into the United States. Armi Sport, Parker-Hale, and Pedersoli capitalized on muzzleloading rifles and muskets including the Pattern 1853, while Pietta and Uberti tended to focus more on revolvers and, in the case of Uberti, cartridge weapons such as the 1860 Henry repeating rifle. One Japanese company, Miroku, began making highly regarded reproductions as well. All these arms makers had a reputation for making quality firearms, and their copies of Pattern 1853s were no exception. The weapons were both functional and pleasing to the eye. However, historical accuracy compared to original weapons often suffered due to modern production methods. Locks, stocks, and barrels often suffered the worst inaccuracies due to inauthentic small parts, markings, shapes and styles. Reenactors wanted and needed firearms for the field however and these issues were for the most part overlooked at the time of purchase and in many cases corrected later by gunsmiths or the reenactor themselves. This correction of mistakes on reproduction firearms came to be known throughout the community as “defarbing.”
To understand the need for defarbing, we must first look at the issues that call for it. In the case of the Pattern 1853, the most noticeable issue is the finish on both the metal and the stock. Most reproductions made by Armi Sport and other competitors up until the last few years have had color case hardened locks and barrel bands, bright hot blued barrels, and stocks finished with incorrect stain and sometimes a glossy oil finish. Hot bluing, which involves surface prepping a part, then immersing it in a tank of boiling caustic salts and water, did not become a common practice until the 20th century. To correct this mistake, many reenactors will simply sand and polish the finish on their Enfield’s metal parts to what is known as “armory white”, leaving no finish at all. The proper finish technique for the barrel of an original Pattern 1853 however, is known as browning. Browning is a process that involves applying a solution to the part, giving about a day to rust, then gently brushing off the layer of rust before repeating the process again over the course of a few days, until a deep blackish finish develops. Thus, making the barrel less susceptible to further rusting. The color case hardening on lock plates, hammers, and barrel bands is another issue. Locks plates and hammers were case hardened. This utilized a process involving the parts being packed in both wood and bone charcoal prior to intense heating, then quenched in water. The purpose of this process in the case of the Pattern 53 however, was not to achieve pretty colors in the surface of the metal. It was to surface harden the metal so that it would be better resistance against the wearing of moving parts. The colors are simply a byproduct of the quenching process. If the case-hardened lock emerged from the process looking more gray than vibrant with color, that was just fine as well. The finished product was tempered back with lower heat and cooling to aid against brittleness, reassembled, oiled and sent along its way. Barrel bands were fire blued by heating until the metal turns to a deep blackish blue color.
In the case of stocks, several steps are necessary to make the feel and appearance more accurate. For starters, the wood will need to be stripped of finish to leave a bare canvas to work with. Then lock plate panels on both sides of the weapon can be reshaped to be accurate and the excess wood in the wrist and other areas rasped away. The lock plate screw washers, known as escutcheons, are often made rounded on the edges. Originals are slightly larger and have squared edges. Once the stock is stripped, shaped, and sanded back out, a proper finish of linseed oil can be applied. All these processes will be covered in greater detail throughout the course of the project.
Escutcheon on the Armi Sport reproduction.
Escutcheon on the original rifle.
Lock plate panels on the original rifle compared to the reproduction.
To begin, however, let’s start with some basic rules of firearms safety by orientating our Armi Sport Pattern 1853 in a safe direction, and confirming that we are indeed working with an unloaded weapon. The ramrod can be used to determine this but since we have a borescope on hand, we will use its camera to not only confirm the weapon is unloaded but inspect the condition of the rifling as well. With our weapon safely clamped in a gun vise and oriented safely we insert the camera and start running it slowly down the barrel. We can see as the camera travels towards the breech end that years of firing have left some minor pitting in the lands and grooves. This is not uncommon for muzzle loading firearms and in this case, is nothing to be concerned with. As the camera reaches the end, we can see the metal on the face of the breech plug, as well as some built up black powder residue. Now we can be sure the rifle is unloaded and safely proceed with our project. In part 2 of this series, we will disassemble our Pattern 1853 and begin stripping the stock of its finish. Then we will replace the incorrect lock screw washers with accurate square ended escutcheons.
Inspecting the bore in our Pattern 1853 reproduction.
Post written by John Clark
Sources
Barry, Craig L, and David C. Burt. Suppliers to the Confederacy: British Imported Arms and Accoutrements. Atglen: Schiffler Publishing Ltd. 2012
Knott, Steven W. The Confederate Enfield. China: Stephen W. Knott. 2019
Invoice of Ordnance Stores. 70th Indiana Volunteer Infantry, 9 April 1865.