Purchases in Europe

To accomplish this, Colonel Colt delegated authority to his brother-in-law, John S. Jarvis, to go to England and arrange many matters. Mitchell (James H. Mitchell, Colt, the Man, the Arms, the Armory, 1959) reproduces a great many interesting letters in full from this period. They reveal a picture of a man, Jarvis, not fully briefed by Colt, and of Colt fatigued and harassed by so many different demands upon his attention, and pulled out of his activities for a month or two by illness, that Jarvis wound up quite confused. In the letters there is more than hint of displeasure of the Colonel at some of Jarvis’ actions; yet between one condemning letter the pace of events moved so rapidly and the boom in arms buying increased so much that the next letter rescinds the first. The Mitchell letters must be integrated with the correspondence, offers, and contracts, of Colt to the Ordnance Department, to determine what he really had on his mind.

At first it appears he sent Jarvis abroad to lay in small parts for making his militia musket. That he definitely intended to engage in manufacture of an Enfield pattern gun is revealed by his order of April 26, 1861 to Jarvis who was at the Depot 14 Pall Mall address in London. He told Jarvis to contract for all the Enfield barrels he could find in England and on the Continent, to make up into a gun “of the Springfield pattern.” Jarvis had with him a bright Springfield 1855 musket with Maynard tape primer. The expression, “of the Springfield pattern,” is clarified later on when it becomes evident that what Colt meant, or what Jarvis assumed, was to make a bright Enfield arm, steel mounted. He was instructed to buy all the plain military percussion locks he could find “suitable for making a good plain rifle like our Springfield or Enfield pattern.”
More explicitly, Colt wrote (April 30, 1861): “In contracting for military percussion rifle locks to be used upon the arms we make here, you must be very careful to select a fine, strong simple model which is or can be got up cheap, and have them so uniform in size of lockplate and general arrangement that they can all be let into the wooden stocks by machinery.”
While instructing Jarvis elaborately in lengthy epistles on what he should and should not do, Colt failed to realize the time lag in getting letters to Jarvis and in obtaining action and then replies. On May 10 he detailed his wishes on Jarvis’ getting three sets of barrel rolling machinery—sometimes he wanted them shipped to the U. S. and other times he wanted them set up there and the barrels “bored, turned and proved at the Government works,” though it is not stated whether the Enfield or the Birmingham Tower is meant.
The Mitchell-Colt letters indicate certain basic facts. Jarvis was authorized to buy ready-made Enfields. He purchased 1,000 upon his arrival in England and forwarded them to New York. Upon examination, Hugh Harbison, Secretary of Colts, informed Jarvis August 16, 1861, what Jarvis must have already known, that “In the lot of one thousand long Enfields received we find 115 second-hand guns besides a great variety of calibres.” It is conceivable that in this lot there were .450 Kerr or Whitworth rifles, Enfield Royal Small Arms Factory Whitworths, and ,577’s and possibly a few .58’s which both the London and Birmingham trade were beginning to turn out for the Yankee speculators.
By May 24, Colt wrote hoping that Jarvis had contracted for a large lot of locks, and also that Jarvis should send over Enfield barrels and small parts, to be finished up in Hartford and stocked there. But he changed his mind in the same letter, and urged Jarvis to have the fitting-up done in England or Belgium. Meanwhile, Jarvis did obtain locks, and shipped them; Harbison’s letter of June 10, 1861, reflects receipt by the factory from Jarvis of 2,500 locks. This was first installment of 6,000 locks, since Colt on June 26, 1861, stated, “It is not probable I will want any more of these locks made in Europe after these first 6,000 are completed.” The remainder of 4,500 locks remained in England subject to Jarvis’ direction, and were fitted up into special Colt-Enfield Rifle Muskets. These arms were to have bayonets of the American pattern (letter June 14, 1861), but this was modified by Colt on June 21, “if time can be saved in getting the supply, viz. 2,500 (guns) which I authorized you to contract for.”
The bands were to be split bands, no springs to the stocks; the lock and cone seat “may be the same as those made at the Enfield armory,” (June 21 letter) but “Be sure while you make this change (cone seat to Enfield pattern) not to make the length of the barrels you order made any shorter than those made at Springfield and have all of them made like the Springfield in every other particular except the cone seat as I have before written (June 10, 1861). All the metallic parts must be finished bright like the Springfield pattern. The heel plate and Trigger Guard to be of iron . . . the locks must be brightened on the outside after case hardening as well as all the other mountings, except the trigger and sights. You must look carefully to your Springfield model for all the little details and have our arms look just like it, except so far as I have directed changes . . . (June 14, 1861).”
We therefore have an indication Jarvis managed the fabrication of 2,500 Enfield rifles, with barrels of Springfield length, 40 inch instead of 39 inch, fitted with the Enfield bayonet probably, and with iron mountings instead of brass, all finished bright except for the sights, cones, and triggers. These rifles took a year to finish and deliver. On March 31, 1862, Thomas J. Fales, the new secretary of Colt’s who replaced Hugh Harbison, addressed an offer to Ripley:
We have in port in New York in bond three thousand rifled muskets of choice quality and of the U. S. Government caliber, say 600 Long Enfield rifles complete, brown finish, bayonets, etc., and 2400 rifles bright finish of the U. S. Springfield pattern in length, caliber and finish, with regulation bayonets, snapcaps, and muzzle stoppers. These are the guns made after the sample you furnished us.
Fales offered the guns at $20 but the next mention is a telegram from Colts dated April 18, saying “they have received an application” for the Enfields, now numbering 5,000 in bond, and seeking to know if the Government wanted them. Apparently the Government did not want them, and some state or private purchaser took them. Whether these identical guns turned up

Colt in London in 1854 had experimented with Enfield rifles and understood the cost of fabrication. Specimen shown is Tower gun rebuilt at Colt’s London factory with Colt patent rear sight and Colt patent oiler on ramrod. In middle is Potts & Hunt iron-mounted short Enfield, believed one of 1940 arms sold by Colt of 2,000 specially contracted for abroad. At bottom is Colt Special Model 1861, rifle actually manufactured in Hartford for the Union. Arm shown has had breech slotted and banded for very primitive experimental Colt cartridge conversion, but is otherwise regular for the model. Bright finish, or blued bands with color-hardened locks, were supplied under different contracts throughout the War.

later in some other importer-contractor’s deliveries to the U. S. is not certain from studying the records.
Finished Enfields were sold by Colt to the Union. Jarvis had orders to buy “all the finished rifles you can find of the Enfield or any good military pattern at a cost not exceeding three pounds sterling each” (Colt to Jarvis, April 26, 1861). One thousand finished Enfields were shipped, plus 2,200 “Smoothbore Birmingham Muskets,” as Colt named them, saying “they are the poorest lot of arms so far as yet received I have ever seen.” Three hundred saber bayonet Enfield rifles were also obtained. It appears that Colt dumped these in the market somewhere, possibly at a loss, for no listings seem to reflect their being purchased by the North. He was not happy with them.
Jarvis also followed the colonel’s instructions in contracting for “all the Enfield rifles you can get made in three months on the best terms you can get and at a price not exceeding two pounds ten shillings Sterling each.” (April 26, 1861) On May 22, Jarvis wrote to Colt stating what contracts had been made, and Colt in reply June 10 after receiving this information stated that he approved. On July 9, Colt wrote a letter which was carried to Jarvis personally by the subject of the note, Davis Brown, “late superintendent of the barrel department at Enfield who I have engaged to return to Europe and take charge of the inspecting department on the finished arms which you have contracted for, and also the barrels, under your direction. He will no doubt require several assistants to keep the manufacturers up to the full standard of the Springfield or Enfield work, as no other quality of work must be received or paid for.”
Colt urged Jarvis to condemn bad work liberally, and notes he (Colt) “shall not be in the least grieved if at least half of them are found so faulty that you cannot receive them.” The arms that Brown was to inspect, rejecting all that would not pass inspection at Springfield Armory as to quality, were made under several exclusive contracts for Colt.
In the London trade, Potts & Hunt were Colt’s prime suppliers in the summer months of 1861 and on into 1862. They made 4,000 Enfields with 39inch barrels, price 65 shillings, which Colt approved “provided they are well made of the Springfield calibre and the delivery is made punctually.” Potts & Hunt also were ordered to make 2,000 short rifles with sword bayonets, at 100 shillings, about twice what Colt authorized Jarvis to spend. Jarvis contracted for 6,000 long Enfields with the Birmingham Small Arms Trade, through Mr. J. D. Goodman at 65 shillings, approved by Colt “provided the calibre of bore is precisely the same as that of the U. S. Springfield Model you took out with you. ... If it should so happen that the barrels of these arms are finished to the Enfield size and that alteration to the size of our U. S. Springfield pattern cannot be made, then they had better be laid aside and others of the right bore size substituted.” Colt was quite sure he wanted only .58 Enfields, not .577. The difference in a clean, sharp bore, is not too much; a .58 U. S. regulation bullet slides down a .577 bore snugly, and in a .58 bore there is perceptible side-play. But when fouled, the .577 is difficult to load though the skirt and grooves of the .58 U. S. bullet tend to fold or collapse, allowing loading if one uses force on the ramrod. The Potts & Hunt sword bayonet rifles were too high-priced, and Harbison wrote to Jarvis August 20, 1861, saying:
There is no prospect of getting rid of the short Enfields with sword bayonet in this country at a profit, and the Colonel again desires us to state that the short rifles with sword bayonets must not be forwarded to this Country, and he hopes that you have been able to dispose of them at cost or a small advance.
General Ripley had informed Colt’s officially that Major Hagner “at the 5th Avenue Hotel” was authorized to purchase arms, and that they should call his attention to the fact they had Enfields for sale. In sudden inspiration, Colt sent a telegram to Ripley, offering the 10,000 long Enfields at $22.50 and the short sword bayonet Enfields, same price, “they are a number one article.” Ripley replied at once by telegram accepting the Enfields, and followed up by a letter setting up the conditions for acceptance “if they pass inspection at New York Arsenal as good and serviceable arms.” The letter accepted the short as well as the long Enfields. A following letter from Ripley dated August 31, to Colt’s, refers to the “12,000 Enfield rifles purchased from you to be paid for in bond.” Ill and in bed though he was, the nutmeg colonel still had effected a sale of the short rifles in spite of the general trend away from sword bayonet arms to long rifle muskets.
Harbison’s letter of August 20 telling Jarvis to dump the Potts & Hunt short rifles was therefore followed up quickly by one August 27:
My object in writing by this mail is simply to state that the Colonel has sold the 10,000 long Enfield rifles and the 2,000 short Enfield rifles to the U. S. gov’t.
Rather wryly, he postscripts, “excuse all blunders.”
While Jarvis had told Goodman rather sternly that since he was behind in deliveries with the Birmingham Small Arms Trade guns, Colt’s would have to annul the contract, Colonel Colt was much disturbed at this prospect. It is not likely that Jarvis was able to salvage the deal. Early in September, 660 long Enfields and 440 short sword bayonet Enfields were received for Colt’s account in New York. Six hundred of the long, 400 of the short, were delivered to Major Hagner September 11, 1861, and somehow Colt persuaded the major to accept the swords at an extra $2.50 for the short rifles were paid for at $25 each. A total of 2,680 long Enfields and 1940 short Enfields was sold by Colt to the United States from the Potts & Hunt order. But then Enfield sales by Colt cease, and no more are listed as being delivered to the United States. If Jarvis was able to rescue the Birmingham contract, the. 6,000 long Enfields would have gone into the general trade in New York. It seems unlikely that Jarvis did rescue the sale, and Colt’s Birmingham Enfields went into the melting pot of deliveries to Schuyler or Hartley or Howland & Aspinwall.
These Potts & Hunt arms are distinguished from British Government purchases by having the commercial London Company’s proof marks on the barrel, including the provisional proof stamped on barrels which were in the state to also receive definitive proof, e.g., fully finished. A Potts & Hunt short Enfield in the author’s collection with a New York provenance is stamped on the top flat of the breech “48,” which may have been Jarvis’ or inspector Davis Brown’s serial number of the lot. The breech plug has been unscrewed, apparently a long time ago, and might have been done so by Hagner in inspecting the bores. The stud for bayonet is unusual, which is forged as a lump on the front band, the stock continued near to the muzzle. The fittings are all iron, not too common for Enfields; a snap cap is attached to the eye-pin on front tang of the guard. Of Enfield type arms obtained specially for Colt and actually delivered, it appears Jarvis shipped:
2,200 Birmingham bright smoothbore muskets, caliber, maker, model unknown.
2,680 long iron-mounted Enfields caliber .58, by Potts & Hunt (possibly 4,000 in all accepted, but perhaps also Davis Brown rejected the balance).
1,940 short iron mounted Enfields with sword bayonets, by Potts & Hunt.
600 long Enfield rifles, brown finish, maker unspecified (balance of the Potts & Hunt guns, most likely).
2,400 Bright finish rifles polished like the Springfield, iron trim. The maker is unspecified; probably it was also Potts & Hunt, since Colt had so heavily contracted with them, through Jarvis. If the locks bear any special markings, none have come to the attention of the writer at this time. Enfields engraved “Colt’s” etc. should obviously hereafter be viewed with deep suspicion.
2,500 locks only, probably Enfield pattern.
Jarvis had further the responsibility to contract for large lots of barrels and for the manufacture of three sets of barrel rolling machinery. A lot of 10,000 barrels had been contracted for by LeMille of Liege, while 30,000 barrels were to be supplied by Millward of Birmingham. It was considered desirable by Colt for the English barrels to bear the Birmingham proof marks, as he supposed this would help him sell the finished arms to the United States. It was proposed to fit these barrels, finished up at Hartford, into Springfield rifle muskets. Liege barrels not proving to the liking of the United States, Colt directed Jarvis and their Liege agent, Baron Friedrich August Kunow Waldemar von Oppen, to sell the barrels. Mention is made of a possible sale to “Mr. Schuyler,” so perhaps Colonel George Schuyler managed to buy the barrels put up into Liege arms, anyway. But another possible Schuyler is J. Rutsen Schuyler, and it is on a London Armory Enfield 24-inch carbine fitted with a Liege proved barrel, underneath the London Proofs, that the enigmatic stamp “JS-Anchor” appears. Could J. Rutsen Schuyler have arranged for some Liege barrels to go to London from the abandoned Colt contract for fitting into special-order short carbines? But this is a digression, raising insoluble problems in history.
The barrels which Charles Millward had made for Colt were in the rough bored and turned state, not finished. They had passed provisional proof at Birmingham, and by September 17, 2,500 had been received in New York. But to comprehend the details of the rifles which Colt at last did make in the United States, it is necessary to revert to events of some months prior. On July 5, 1861, Colt agreed to make 25,000 Springfield rifle muskets, described as “of the exact pattern of the muskets made at the U. S. armory in Springfield, according to sample to be furnished tothe contracting party,” at $20 each. But the rifle muskets that Colt delivered under this and subsequent contracts was quite different from the Model 1855, or even the modified Ml861 that was undergoing a facelifting for economy production that spring and summer of 1861.