The Unfinished Fight

A Few Thoughts on the Enfield Short Rifle

By Craig L. Barry · Originally published December 2023 · pp. 12–13

A Few Thoughts on the Enfield Short Rifle Here is an image of a Confederate soldier, well outfitted with what appears to be a matching suit (jacket and trousers) for his uniform, an Enfield Pattern 1856 “short rifle” with saber bayonet, rifle sling, and at least a partial set of English accoutrements. Note the angle of the cap pouch and how it is worn. The cap pouch is supposed to be on the cartridge box sling in the

English system. This is why it is angled about 45% downwards, because the soldier has put it on his waist belt (with snake buckle) as in the American accoutrement system. The so-called “ball bag” and Enfield cartridge box are not visible in the image. One assumes the ball bag was discarded and that an Enfield type cartridge box is hidden from view behind his arm. What was the distinction between the Enfield “short” and the so-called Enfield “long” rifle? The Enfield pattern 1853 “long rifle” had a 39-inch barrel with three barrel bands and was also sometimes referred to as the P-53 rifle-musket. It was by far the most common English military rifle imported by both sides. The Enfield “short rifle” had a 33inch barrel, two barrel bands, and could be either the Pattern 1856, Pattern 1858, or (less likely) the later Pattern 1860. How common were imported two band Enfield short rifles? It’s hard to say because period records did not always distinguish between the Enfield “long rifle” (P-53) and the various “short rifles” (P-56/58/60), much less the exact model of short rifle. In the Official Records of the War of the Rebellion Series IV, Vol III:383, J. Gorgas provided Secretary of War Seddon a December 1862 summary of purchases made by Caleb Huse as follows: “131,129 stands of arms consisting of 70,980 long Enfield rifles, 9,715 short Enfield rifles, 354 carbine Enfield rifles, 27,000 Austrian rifles, 21,040 British muskets, 20 small bore Enfield, 2,020 Brunswick rifles. There were also 23,000 Enfield rifles in London awaiting shipment…” The ratio of roughly 7:1 is probably about right as the “short rifle” was about 25% more expensive than the P-53 long rifle. Perhaps it was due to the increased cost of the saber bayonet? It is more likely that manufacturers of both short and long rifles, especially in the same factory, had to set up the stock cutting machines differently. For whatever reason(s) Enfield “short rifles” were much less common than the long rifles. If the short rifles had been cheaper v. more expensive, it probably would

CivilWarNews.com have been the other way around. Soldiers for their part referred to the Enfield short rifles as “lighter and handier.” Charles Sawyer noted in Our Rifles: Firearms in American History Volume III (1920) that they were often assigned to the sharpshooters in the company as “accuracy was slightly better than that of the (Enfield) long rifle.” The majority of Enfield “short rifles” used in the American Civil War by both sides were a mix of two types of the Pattern 1856. The first type P-56 had the bayonet lug on the barrel while the later version had the lug on the top barrel band. According to the McRae Papers, Caleb Huse purchased a small number of P-58 naval rifles early in the war for the Confederate States Government. The P-58 naval rifle was similar to the P-56, but with some cosmetic changes and different rifling. The P-58 was a brass mounted rifle, instead of iron, and had the rear sling swivel attached to the front of the trigger guard like the Enfield P-53 “long rifle” instead of being screwed into the stock behind the trigger guard like the P-56. The naval rifle typically retained the 1,100yard rear sight of the P-56, but the 33-inch barrel was heavier and rifled with five grooves instead of three. The P-58 rarely, if ever, appears in period images where an Enfield short rifle can clearly be made out. Why so few? One factor that may have limited its utility is that the P-1858 naval rifle was designed to accept a non-standard cutlass bayonet instead of the P-56 saber bayonet. U.S. and C.S. orders of the P-58 naval rifle appear to be very limited, perhaps as few as 700. Hence based upon the known documentation, it appears that less than one percent of the Enfield short rifles imported by both sides during the Civil War were the 1858 naval rifle pattern. There were no known U.S. orders for P-58 naval rifles The later Enfield Pattern 1860 “short rifle” had a very limited production run. It was first adopted in November 1860 and replaced in August 1861 by the Pattern 1861 “army rifle.” Production at Royal Small Arms Manufactory did not commence CivilWarNews.com until 1861 and only a few thousand were produced. The majority were held at the Tower (in storage) until converted to Snider breechloaders in 1866-67. These would of course, not have been sold to either side in the US Civil War. An unknown number may have been commercially made in Birmingham or London and sold to either side, but the surviving documents do not indicate exactly which pattern Enfield “short rifle” was made to fill any specific contract, except as previously noted. Therefore, given the limited numbers of both the P-58 and P-60, the greatest likelihood is that the majority of Enfield short rifles used during the Civil War were the Pattern 1856. The images of Union and Confederate soldiers with Enfield short rifles also bear this out. Since two-band P-56 Enfield rifles with the thirty-three-inch barrels were issued to both sides during the Civil War, why are they not allowed at many larger modern Civil War reenactments? There is quite a bit to consider here. The ban is not limited to Enfield short rifles, but rather all “two band” rifles. As far as the use of 33 inch rifle barrels being any safety issue, that nonsense has been debunked already. The key thing is that 14 inches distance from the hammer to the front rank soldier’s ear be maintained. This is easily achieved with a twoband rifle. There has long been a rumor that the whole ban due to a “safety issue,” grew around a desire to prevent the two-band reproduction ‘Zouave’ rifle from being widely used at modern Civil War reenactments. ‘Zouave’ was the Italian gun makers name for their version of the 1863 Remington contract rifles. The ‘Zouave’ rifles were some of the first black powder Civil War reproductions made, although the original on which it is based was never issued during the conflict. If firing from the rear rank is no more than a training issue than perhaps another reason for the ban is to establish a uniform appearance in the ranks, or maybe to assist in stacking arms? Who knows? It is impossible to figure it out. One of the best things about the historic weapons demos at the National Battlefield Parks is that no such prohibition against twoband rifles exists, if the scenario supports it. No entity is more safety conscious with the use of black powder weapons than the National Park Service. The final irony is that the only reproduction currently available of the two-band Enfield short rifle is the P-58 naval rifle. As noted above, this model amounted to less than 1% of the total number of Enfield short rifles imported during the Civil War. Hence, even if the use of a two-band Enfield short rifle is “right” for a particular living history event, you still can’t get a reproduction of the “right” two-band Enfield short rifle. It appears the reason for this is that the reproduction P58 naval rifle is cheaper to make because, cosmetically, it is essentially a cut down, 6 inches shorter, version of the P-53 riflemusket, at least from a tooling standpoint. Sources: •

•

•

•

•

C. Barry & D. Burt, Suppliers to the Confederacy: Imported English Arms & Accoutrements, Schiffer Publishing (Atlen, PA) 2012, p. 15. Official Records of the War of the Rebellion Series IV, Vol III, U.S. Government Printing Office, (Washington, DC) p. 383. Charles Sawyer, Our Rifles: Firearms in American History Volume III, Pilgrim Press (Boston), 1920, p. 162. McRae Papers, South Carolina Relic Room & Military Museum show two early C.S. contracts for naval rifles with saber (not cutlass) bayonets made in June 1861 by Caleb Huse. The two orders total about 700. There were no known U.S. orders for P-58 Naval Rifles. The Civil War Musket: A Handbook for Historical Accuracy, by the author, Watchdog Publishing (Warren, MI), 2005, p. 151. The name “Remington” could not be used on the reproduction because the modern gun-making firm operating under that name has the trademark. The same is true of the reproduction Colt revolvers, except those made by Colt Mfg. for a time.

Craig L. Barry was born in Charlottesville, Va. He holds his BA and Masters degrees from UNC (Charlotte). Craig served The Watchdog Civil War Quarterly as Associate Editor and Editor from 2003–2017. The Watchdog published books and columns on 19th-century material. He is the author of several books including The Civil War Musket: A Handbook for Historical Accuracy (2006, 2011), The Unfinished Fight: Essays on Confederate Material Culture Vol. I and II (2012, 2013). He has also published four books in the Suppliers to the Confederacy series on English Arms & Accoutrements, Quartermaster stores and other European imports.