Enfield P53 reproductions

[Cubreac]

Which of the Enfield P53 reproductions is the best, and which are the ones to be avoided?
thanks

 

[Whitworth]

Parker Hale P53 has always been highly rated and priced accordingly but you get what you pay for....

 

[Cubreac]

Thank you @Whitworth
What have you heard about the Pedersoli. They are pretty pricey too, but are they worth it?

 

[springfield art]

Which of the Enfield P53 reproductions is the best, and which are the ones to be avoided?
thanks

The current Pedersoli was developed with authenticity in mind. The fellow who wrote & published 'The Civil War Musket; Lock, Stock, and Barrel' was a consultant and that's probably the 'standard' at this point. In fact, the several small 'cottage industry' shops that offered 'de-farbing' of muskets went out of business largely because of the Pedersoli offering. (I think his name is Craig Barry, and he is a well known Civil War era material culture researcher.)Good luck!

 

[Conquerordie]

Go on to Lodgewoods website and look at his defarbs. He gives a good description of what he had to do to a variety of different makers. Even the Parker Hale which is the best, is not a perfect Civil War Enfield, needing parts and shaping to be more correct. Quality wise both Pedersoli or Parker Hale

 

[Whitworth]

Thank you @Whitworth
What have you heard about the Pedersoli. They are pretty pricey too, but are they worth it?

I've got all older Parker-Hales so I may be a bit biased I can only judge by what I've read, it's a roll of the dice. Some are nice, others finished poorly. Hopefully it was just a passing QC problem caused by Covid. Others will chime in too on their experiences who have bought them recently. No longer produced, the fit and finish on the English P-H rifles set the bar high for others IMHO.

 

[TDM]

One of my Sons has an older Pedersoli P-53 that is quite nice with no issues and a good shooter. But I’m sure Lodgewoods could improve it.

 

[Scota@4570]

Before buying, one thing to explore with the PH Enfields is the stock configuration. I have a 1970s 2-band. The drop is about 1 3/8" at the comb and 1 7/8" at the butplate as measured from the sights. The stock is very round.

To line up the sights requires tilting the my head in an awkward way. It is impossible for me to shoot it comfortably.

The British military at the time was using an awkward very open stance. IT was like the modern tacti-cool guys do. IT is a very weak ill conceived offhand position if accuracy is your goal. I no idea what they were thinking.

Mine was a gift and is in beautiful condition. Modifying the stock is not an option for mine.

I made a size die today. The sized bullets are now a perfect press fit in the bore. They were oversized before. My bore is real close to .577" I plan to shoot it soon with properly sized bullets. I am hoping for better results than last time.

 

[Sam squanch]

I thought they wanted more stocks out of a blank, and more of a straight grain for a stronger stock. I’m sure the elite were not concerned about the shooting comfort of the lower classes…..I don’t like the way the enfield handles either…

 

[nkbj]

Armisport put attractive case colored barrel bands on their '53's.
And while I don't know if all Armisport's have 48" twist, mine does.
Hardly kosher for those who want reproductions to meet some higher level of authenticity but certainly acceptable to one wanting .575" pieces of lead to go where intended.

 

[Russ T Frizzen]

I thought they wanted more stocks out of a blank, and more of a straight grain for a stronger stock. I’m sure the elite were not concerned about the shooting comfort of the lower classes…..I don’t like the way the enfield handles either…

The trouble with these straight grain stocks is the musket grain through the wrist. It's a weak point ang pretty much guarantees a break after a while.

 

[Packrat]

I had a Armi Sport, it functioned fine, traded it for aParker Hale, only difference the PH had gain twist rifling and was partial to .577 diameter

 

[Muley Gil]

I've had the Parker-Hale, the Armi-Sport, the Euroarms and an original. The P-H and the Armi-Sport are much closer to the original dimensions, with the lock work on the AS being of lesser quality. The Euroarms, which morphed into the Pedersoli, was chunky and much heavier than the others.

I still have the P-H and the original Tower, which was once carried by a soldier in the 14th Virginia Infantry.

 

[tjiann]

I've got an all British-made P-H that I bought from a person who used to shoot it in N-SSA skirmishes, and I have an original 53 Enfield contract musket. I'll do a few side-by-side pics and post them just for reference.

 

[Scota@4570]

I checked in to the stock shape issue a while back. Here is what I learned.

First, the stock shape is not about strength. The idea was to shoot the rifle with your chest facing the target. Relative to your chest the rifle was to he held way to the right compared to how a good shot does it. It was ill conceived military doctrine of the time. Today we shoot with your left shoulder facing the target. The rifle goes across our chest. Many officers and target shooters, of the time, had a new stock made with a normal amount of drop. This made more accurate and comfortable shooting possible. As made you can not get your face down enough to align the sights using accepted modern shooting form. Even at the time the drop was not in line with how a stock should be made.

If I can get really fine accuracy out of mine I may make a proper stock for it.

One stop gap is to install very high sights.

 

[Barry Strickland]

I totally agree with Scota
I don't know why I am a Enfield fan, I have a original 53 with a Whitacre replacement barrel, a AS 2 bander (safe queen) and a PH Musketoon. They are
designed terrible. Too long a pull for target shooting and not enough drop.
I can scrunch around with elbow held high and manage to see the sights.
I shoot with NSSA and use the 53 in musket matches and the Musketoon in the carbine matches.
If I had good sense I would switch around to another CW design that had better dimensions for accurate shooting.
Barry

 

[TDM]

I’m no authority on ACW weapons, or anything else for that matter, but I’ve shot my Son’s P-53 and found no problem with it. And I’ve read that many a Federal soldiers threw down their Springfields when they had a chance to pick up an Enfield. Maybe someone with more knowledge can elaborate.

 

[Cubreac]

The idea was to shoot the rifle with your chest facing the target.

This was still the technique in 1916 in the British Army shooting manual.

 

[ResearchPress]

I had a Armi Sport, it functioned fine, traded it for aParker Hale, only difference the PH had gain twist rifling and was partial to .577 diameter

The Parker-Hale’s have progressive depth rifling (that gets shallower from breech to muzzle), as do the originals. It is uniform 1 in 78 twist, again as the original. It is NOT gain twist - where the pitch of rifling increases from breech to muzzle.

It’s my understanding that the Pedersoli version of the P.53 replicates the 1 in 78 twist rifling, but unlike the Parker-Hales does not replicate the original progressive depth rifling.

David

 

[tjiann]

As I promised above, here are some (amateur) pics comparing my original contract P53 to my P-H P53.