Orison Blunt Enfield Rifle Musket

At the time this arm was discovered, it was assumed to be a good long Enfield, and was sold as such by the finding collector at the Columbus, Ohio, gun collectors’ show in October, 1961, to a dealer who priced it as a good shooting Enfield. The author had passed this display several times and seen nothing to interest him, when on the final pass he was asked by another customer if a spare parts sling swivel being offered for sale would fit an Enfield.
In responding, “Yes, it fits on the guard like this

Southern pistols included specimens of U.S. issue from early days. Most found were probably Johnson M1836 flintlock cal. .54, (top), but some North M1816 arms could be found (2d). Half-stock US M1806 pistol made at Harpers Ferry was popular and same model was made at Virginia State Armory early in century. Arm shown has been restocked, with country repair to ramrod guide. Major supplies of single shots were Aston or Waters U.S. Ml842 percussion guns, also cal. .54. Butt ring is non-issue addition for lanyard. Southern conversions from flint were often simplest type possible, like this altered North 1819 model (dated 1822) with hammerhead gripped in jaws of original flint cock, and country rifle drum screwed into barrel. Pernicious habit of modem dealers in “putting back” old converted arms to flint using cast iron parts and clumsy fitting reduces genuine old examples of this transition era; frequently destroys Southern association of gun which could be revealed by study of conversion systems. (Top three pistols from collection at Independence Hall, Chicago.)

one here,” he noticed that “this one” was of U.S. Rifle form, and a moment later picked up the gun to examine the proof marks. Instead of British marks, the barrel breech 1-9/16 inches forward of the back bore an oval proof mark V«-inch long, encircling the initials DP/B. The oval is engraved, not stamped, and at the finish of the engraving circle the engraver cut a little inside the more gentle curve of the oval and had to put his tool again to the metal to finish the loop oval. It is generally considered this mark stands for “Definitive Proved, Blunt,” in keeping with Blunt’s recognized knowledge of British and continental gun-making practice as he testified later before the Holt Committee.
The barrel is exactly 40 inches long, the rear steel screw-clamping band exactly 10 inches on its middle from the barrel breech flat. The hammer of straight Enfield form is originally not checkered on the spur and is rather slender in the neck. The Enfield-type lockplate is border engraved but the engraver did not finish his job, doing little more than scratching the double guide lines in and that not completely around. Behind the hammer a crown is stamped, the die jumping for a double stamp. While this resembles the British St. Edward’s Crown on Enfield locks, it is not the same stamp, for example, as on the Robbins & Lawrence “Windsor” Enfield locks.
Forward of the hammer the mark: 1860/tower is fraudulently engraved. That it is fraudulent is revealed by the lock itself: thicker in the plate than an Enfield lock, and with the rear boss where the “side nail” or rear lockplate screw is supposed to enter, undrilled. Instead, the rear lock screw is set forward about IVs inch and the threads are cut in a hole drilled through the thin part of the plate forward of the hammer. Threads of both side screws are finer than Enfield threads. To clear the new location of rear screw, the spring stirrup and forward limb of the tumbler have been filed bright after final drawing to a bronzy temper after hardening. If they had not been filed down, they would perhaps wedge against the rear screw when installed.
All the lock parts are straw colored. File finishing is good, but the spring, of true Enfield form, has many scars on the surface and would never have passed the sharp inspectors at either Tower, in England. The lock, case hardened in smoky gray-blue colors, is entirely unmarked as to bona-fide maker’s marks. To accommodate the new location of rear side screw, the stock is likewise drilled and the square-tipped brass escutcheons sunk there and in the regular place for the front screw. In the spot where the regular rear screw is on the ordinary Enfield, a plug of walnut has been inserted and the grain is a little cockeyed to the grain of the stock; inside, the fact that the screw hole was provisionally drilled in the wood is shown by it coming all the way through the wood in the usual place, but never had a piece of metal in it. The stock is of good, straight-grained military American black walnut, unmarked; the brass nose cap, trigger guard, and buttplate are of Enfield form. The trigger plate is like the Enfield, but squared at the ends instead of rounded. Beneath the butt plate a centerline and cross scribed marks appear, indicating hand work in the stock finishing. The bottom of the barrel near to the breech plug, and the stock inletting opposite, are both stamped 1. The tang screw passes through the location of the regular Enfield rear side screw, accounting for the relocation.
In relocating, the screw now passes across the line of the breech plug wedge, hence this section is notched to receive it. The barrel cannot be lifted free from the stock unless the rear lockplate side screw is removed. The ramrod fitted bears the name deeley lightly stamped near the regular Enfield-shaped head. The cone unscrewed readily with the fingers when this gun was first examined, and apparently has never been fired; the rifling, 3 deep grooves of half the width of the lands, was in perfect condition. Cap size was not for musket, but smaller as for rifle or pistol caps. The original bayonet, its existence revealed by marking in the finish at the muzzle, was not found; the regular Springfield type fits the sight-base stud better than the Enfield, which has too much sideplay, but the socket of the bayonet extends l/16th of an inch forward of the muzzle so those shipped with these rifles must have had deeper slots and different locking rings, or else were cut flush with the muzzle when individually fitted.
The snapcap of Enfield form was attached to the rear swivel by prying the chain’s last brass loop open enough to slip it over the swivel screw-base end, then crimping it tight after assembly. The interior of the hammer striking face is cut in a hemisphere shape with a deeper short cylindrical recess shrouding the nipple; this form is not found on Enfields generally. The barrel is browned by a rust-blacking process, now somewhat worn; the original metal surface of the barrel was not polished by emery, but finely file-finished.
While these minute details may seem redundant, they are cited because they reveal the emergency fitting up by non-standard methods of good military rifle parts to produce a good military rifle. If the Tennessee origins of this rifle mean anything, more than that some later collector bought the gun in the North at a junk shop and ultimately sold it in Tennessee, then it suggests this was Blunt’s first pattern musket sent down to Tennessee as a sample. That samples were sent down is proved by J. R. Powell’s letter cited, to Governor Andrew B. Moore of Alabama: “I send to you by express also a specimen of Colt’s Navy pistol as a present for you. Also some samples of guns for your inspection.” The Navy sent was the Ml851, serial 95844 and is owned by a descendant of the governor today.
Another Ml851 Navy Colt is the same period of sale, #94745, and was carried by, as near as can be made out from the marking, W. W. Edwards, Company B, of Terry’s Texas Rangers. A Hartford-stamped gun, evidently the resistance to Hartford-marked products in some Texas circles, was not so much as Hartley imagined. As J. R. Powell wrote to Governor Moore, “I think it would be well to let me order some more (arms) of Hartford manufacture.”
It is not wise to generalize too much on the samples and pre-war purchased arms with which the South was sprinkled, lest one fall prey to such relic-creators as the chap who called on J. M. Shafer, a columnist for the present-day Altoona, Pennsylvania Mirror. As Shafer wrote to the author April 14, 1961, “People keep insisting I take a look at their Civil War relics. Last evening I saw a queer one. It was a Henry barrel attached to a Martini action and had a full American walnut stock. On the right side of the rifle butt was attached a brass name plate which read, ‘This rifle is the property of James O. Swithley, Company B, 3rd Virginia Cavalry, 1863.’ On the action is stamped ‘Martini Patent No. 9354.’ On the barrel is stamped ‘Henry Arms Company, B7194.’ The rifle is of .45-70 caliber. Also stamped on the action are a pair of crossed guidons with the letter “B” immediately below the guidons.”
It is perhaps hardly worth commenting that the metallic cartridge rifle described was a development of the Swiss engineer F. von Martini modifying the breech from the American Peabody rifle of 1865, which was combined with the Scotsman Tyler F. Henry’s rifling, and in .450 Martini-Henry caliber (not .45-70) was adopted in 1871 to replace the Snider breech-loading conversions in the British service. The crossed guidons is the British Army ordnance proof mark and the rifle so blithely carrying the date “1863” was manufactured some years after 1871. With this guidepost to the maxim of caveat emptor in the field of Confederate firearms, we may now proceed.