Colt Characteristics

The lock differences are most pronounced. Colt’s design is 100 per cent Enfield in the interior, and the hammer form is influenced by the Enfield shape, but is stronger, less liable to damage if dropped on the spur. Enfield and Colt musket springs will interchange, giving to Colt at once, without additional capital invested, all the spring resources of the English spring specialists in London and Birmingham. The “bridle,” that part which supports the pivot of the hammer tumbler, and the sear screw, is heavier on the Colt model at the upper lockplate screw, than in the Enfield. Sears are about identical. The round stud of the Enfield plate, inside, which is cut across its diameter and against which the fixed limb of the mainspring bears, is much altered in the Colt plate. The Enfield piece is actually pressed into the plate as a separate piece; is liable to loosening or shearing straight across. In Colt’s plate, the base stud for the spring is a solid rectangular lump made integral with the forging of the plate, and machined and filed-squared to give the strongest possible support for the spring. At the rear lock screw or “side nail,” to use the English term, the Enfield plate has a threaded boss fitted into the plate itself, to give more threads than the simple thickness

Bright 40" barrel Enfield rifles larvis had made for Colt to sell have never been identified by collectors, but this wartime photo of Co. E, 4th U.S. Colored Infantry at Fort Lincoln, shows such arms issued in hands of troops. Close examination with magnifying glass confirms that bright barrels and bands are reflecting light and are not just retouched. Enfields held by first and second men in line compare with bright Colt Special Model held by third man.

of the plate will admit. This gives a more secure fastening of the lockplate screws. But, this boss is a cylindrical block like the spring stud which is pressed into the plate and welded before hardening and finishing. The plate is thin here and rejected Enfield locks often show a dny crack in the plate itself at the top, thinnest portion, above the screw boss. The Colt plate is shaped with a wider outline at this point to increase its strength; also, the Colt plate is thicker with a bevel, giving added strength to the support of the tumbler. While main holes in the Colt plate will almost coincide with Enfield plate holes, as for tumbler, spring-fixing pins, sears, and screws, the oudine of the Colt plate is different.
Its main changes are in areas where trouble was experienced with the Enfields because of their plate oudine. For example, all side lock guns of the bar action type, with spring before the hammer, have trouble with the stock wood being damaged if for some mischance the mainspring should flex too much when the hammer is let down. On the Enfield, the hammer comes to rest with the tail of the tumbler bearing against the lockplate screw boss, and the mainspring hook, attached to the tumbler stirrup, at the bottom edge of the lockplate.
On badly fitted guns or those which wore in service, this point might cause trouble, with the spring hitting the stock wood itself, breaking the stock at the bottom of the plate. Colt’s plate was increased at this point by Va of an inch to allow for excess motion in the main spring—“tolerance,” we call it today, in manufactures.
In stock form, the Colt Special Model musket resembles the usual United States pattern, there being little to choose from between the esthetics of the Enfield pattern and that from Springfield. The butt plate also is standard U. S. Colt could buy this from subcontractors, from Springfield Armory itself, or could make it in his own works if practicable; the cost was not too important. The bands of the Colt gun are like the Second Type Enfield, split bands, fastened by a screw instead of solid held by a spring. The split bands reflected some special experience of the British in issuing the original Enfield with solid bands, spring-held.
Using a smoothbore musket with an undersized round ball, inaccuracy resulted from what is known as “balloting in the bore.” That is to say, the ball would rest upon the bottom of the barrel, with its “windage” or loading clearance, at the top of the ball. Upon firing, the hammer-like blow of the powder burning would be transmitted to the ball and through it, as by a hammer, to the bottom of the bore. In cannon, this point was known as the “ball seat” and, using hard cast-iron cannon balls, a dished place soon appeared which required reboring of the cannon to a larger size to restore smoothbore accuracy. With a musket, as with a cannon, the effect upon the ball was to cause it to rebound from the elasticity of the barrel metal, throwing it upwards at the same time
it passed along the bore. In bore time, the ball might strike three or four different parts of the barrel as it bounded along and out the muzzle. The direction it took on its last bounce affected greatly its direction of flight at the muzzle. To correct this, bore-fitting solid bullets were devised and the bores grooved, rifled, to afford stability by spinning to the elongated bullets in use. Balloting was no longer a problem.
During balloting, no constant stress was imposed upon the bore. Bands could encircle the barrel closely to grasp it to the stock. And simple spring clips could hold those bands against shoulders cut in the stock wood, with some assurance they would remain tight. Suddenly the armies of the world engaged in mass riflings of their old smoothbore muskets, to take tight fitting    bullets. The    Enfield    with the solid    Pritchett
bullet    was put into    service    in the Crimea.    And the
bands    loosened up.    Nothing could tighten    them up
again.    The solid bullets in    passing down    the bore
made an imperceptible but energetic “goose egg” passing the whole length of the bore. When the bullet came opposite each band, the hammer blow stretched the band a trifle. Repeated firing made this stretched band take on a permanent set, enlarged oversize. With a rifle, if you had solid bands, you had to put up with loose bands if you wanted rifle accuracy. Of course, as the barrel then loosened in the stock, you had to tighten it up again. The sensible way was to cut the band and fit an adjustable screw to draw the ends of the bands tighter together. Springfield Armory (as is so often the case) did not discover this sensible solution until the War had progressed for several years. In “mixed model muskets” using components from several basic patterns, split bands appear, and with the thicker wall ratios of .50-70 barrels post-War, this band permanent set became less important. But Colt introduced it from the first.
The purpose was not to make a superior musket; it was because he had costed-out precisely the work needed to make the Enfield split band in his boast to Parliament, and he knew how much profit he could make on that item. It was the Enfield split band he put on the Colt Special Model musket, minutely different in shape, but identical in cost, machine time, labor of polishing and finishing, and about the same in materials. And screws were cheaper to machine by the ton than special L-shaped springs that also needed precision stock drilling to fit them properly. It was better, cheaper, and could be sold for the same price as the Springfield pattern.
In the barrels he also made innovations which were better and cheaper, and could be sold for the same price. Along with small parts, he proposed to supply his barrel needs from England and Liege. The Liege barrels had been sold, and the English barrels of Marshall iron were so finished that final machining about the cone seat and rifling had to be done, and final outside work. On 20,000 of these, breech plugs were fitted in England. Locks also were made in England, though by whom and of what model is not con-clusively determined. By June 10, 1861, Hugh Harbison was able to speak of the 2,500 locks Jarvis had already sent them. Later letters speak of not wanting more than the 6,000 contracted for, and the context is, they are speaking of the bright Enfield rifles, locks for Enfields.
By September 16, 1861, Colt’s secretary, Thomas Fales, was able to write to Jarvis in recapitulation of the transactions, noting that they had received “per “City of Baltimore’ 1 box 4A containing 755 gun locks.” It seems probable these locks were referred to by Colt in an earlier letter to the Honorable George Ashmun, dated July 15, 1861. Colt, to escape the heat of town and relieve his knee joints’ inflammation by bathing in the mineral springs, had gone to St. Catherine Springs, “Upper Canada.” He sought Ashmun’s help in furthering the contract, and in getting Ripley to okay sending a United States Ordnance inspector to England. “The last mail brought me the important intelligence,” he wrote to Ashmun, “that the parties who contracted to furnish me with my rifle barrels and a part of the locks to make the Springfield Rifled Muskets, are about ready to submit them to the regular Enfield proof and inspection, and as it is my privilege to have an inspector present to detect any imperfections, I feel that it is of the greatest importance to both the Government and myself that this work and especially the barrels, be thoroughly inspected at the manufacturers before shipment.” Ripley declined to send a Government inspector to England, and even to examine the semi-finished barrels when they came into New York. Though he perhaps felt he was setting Colt’s mind at ease when he stated it was not required to have the 25,000 musket barrels made at any one place, just that they should pass proof and inspection in the usual manner. Since Colt had in the lot before him then, only 2,500 barrels, it is possible he did not import too many more in that state. As to the locks, nothing more appears on them, unofficially or officially.