Enfield Smoothie on TOW

I was just on the TOW website and discovered a 3-Band Enfield smooth bore for $329. Anybody seen one of these? Anything I'm missing in terms of reasons to not purchase one? It comes ready to go except for needing the flash channel drilled and that's not a problem for me.

Thanks,
John

 

[Va.Manuf.06]

Other than a fact that it is a reproduction of a gun that never existed in military service (a "forager gun"? Give me a break! :rotf: ) there is nothing wrong with it. It is an Indian made semi-copy of the P53 with the usual quality issues. With shipping the cost is high for what it is.

 

[Trot]

I would think it may be geared toward reenactors for shooting blank loads.

 

[hounddog]

Trot, you are exactally right, I own a full size 53 enfield in .62 cal smoothbore, I use it as a civil war reinacting gun. Plus if you arent really worried about it makea a good fowler for hunting either shot or .600 rb. I got mine from Loyalist arms in Nova Scota and am satisfied with the quality of the gun for what I use it for. yours hounddog

 

[Jason Lewis]

i've seen that too. i think i'd save my money up and get a good shooting repro or one from james river.

 

Okay, so someone mentioned quality issues. What specifically are we talking about? Breaking springs or what? Someone said "a gun that never existed in military service". But I have seen at least one original that had been bored out into a smoothie. That or the rifling had been worn smooth with time. I don't see this as a problem as I don't participate in re-enactments. The big problem as far as I'm concerned is that they say the bore is 24 gauge but then state it is a .565 cal. Can't be both as 24 gauge should be .579. If the bore is .565 I see a problem because I'd need a .550 round ball mold. TOW offers .550 cast balls but no mold in that size. Neither does DGW. Thoughts?

Thanks,
John

 

I've got an update to this gun. I called TOW this afternoon and asked about the bore size. Greg miked one of the bores and it comes out to exactly .579 which does make it a 24 gauge. It also solves the need for the .550 balls that would have been required if the bore had been the .565 shown on the webpage. As it stands I'm thinking it would make a good all-round gun for hunting and plinking. As I stated earlier I'm not a re-enactor and I'm not likely to go anywhere that they want to put my gun, clothing, or gear under inspection for historical accuracy.

I ordered one and will post my impressions once I've had a chance to shoot it.

John

 

[tg]

The time frame of a smoothbore will have a lot to do with the /gauge/bore/.caliber/ terms original a gun of x number of balls to the lb would be bored much larger so it would shooot a ball of that size with lots of room for windage and fouling, later the gun was bored to the size of the balls per lb but obviously could not shoot a ball the same size as the bore so a smaller ball was needed as with a .50,cal rifle most use a .480-.490 ball the same concept is there with smoothbores., I have a Fusil with a .58 bore and it will comfortably/accuratel shoot balls from .535-.575 by using wadding above and below tha ball or patching of the proper size and most balls work with the same patch, all that is needed is to hold the ball in place, Many guns made for a particular ball to the lb had enough oversize for windage that they would actually overlap and the some of the same balls could be used in either gun this would apply more to the first half of the 18th century but even later the specs were not nearly as close and inflexable as we use today., as for the quality of the Indian guns there are two schools of thought here and both are well entrenched, I will not even go here now

 

TG,
I just commented on the differing views about guns made in India on a different post but I'll repeat some of it here.

I remember when muzzleloaders made in Italy and Spain were first imported to this country. Many of the old-timers of the day hated them. They criticized the lack of historical accuracy and said they were inaccurate and poorly made. Some claimed they would blow up.

Today, of course, Italian replicas are highly thought of and many bring premium prices. India isn't the technologically backward country it used to be. I owned a Made-In-India Royal Enfield motorcycle that was a great bike. I'm waiting to see how this Enfield looks and shoots but I'm willing to bet that in a few years a gun "Made In India" won't be looked down on.

John

 

[tg]

You may be right John, I am quite content with as much American built stuff as I can find myself, I have not really seen anything in the Indian guns that struck me as "proper' for the kind of guns I am interested in, if viewing these as a "kit" that needs taken apart and redone I would as soon buy a localy made parts set myself, one of which I am familiar with the various parts quality and longterm reliability records, just my opinion.I am not much for cutting corners to make a purchase with any kind of guns, again just my opinion.

 

[paulvallandigham]

John: There are no Proof Laws in India, as there are in Italy and other European Countries. Italy has a long history of proof-testing guns made and sold in that country, and THAT is the reason that the negative comments were overcome so quickly.

The problem with Indian made replicas is that we can't know what steels they use, or what heat treatment the parts are given. There is no proof testing of guns made there, and you can't sue those manufacturers ( even if you could identify them) if the gun fails here.

Those are the reasons people remain wary of replicas made in India. The other problem is that the way the Indian manufacturers get around our gun laws, is to NOT put a flash hole into the barrels of those flintlocks. The guns come into the country as " Wall-hangers". Non-fireable replicas. It is the import companies HERE that drill the THs, and or install liners in the barrel to make the guns capable of being fired. The USA also has never had a Proof Laws, so you simply can't know what you are buying until you get it home, and do your own testing. And, even then, you can't get your money back, except from the seller, if he hasn't filed bankruptcy yet.

I don't think you would want to buy a car, or any other appliance or tool under those conditions of sale, now, would you? :hmm:

I wish the buyers of these guns all the best of successes, but I also understand why others here and elsewhere recommend saving your money and buying a better product. Caveat Emptor- "Let the Buyer Beware". :hmm: :idunno: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

 

As I said, we shall see. I originally posted the question to see if anyone on this forum owns or has even handled one of these guns so I could get some practical input before buying. It appears that no one has. I ordered one. If it is a POS I'll post that as a warning to others. If it's good I'll post that so someone else can get a neat gun at a decent price. The fact that the stock is teak at least hints of quality. The photos on the TOW website certainly look good and I'd think TOW would be hesitant to sell junk. They've been around a long time and have a reputation to protect.

John

 

[Jim Fitzgibbon]

Why would anyone want a smoth bore for hunting.
You stand a better chance of hitting game with
a bow & arrow.
Fly :idunno:

 

[Jason Lewis]

Why would anyone want a smoth bore for hunting.
You stand a better chance of hitting game with
a bow & arrow.
Fly :idunno:

they shoot just fine, most guys on here have plenty of accuracy out to 50yrds some out to 75. you can also use them as a shot gun.

 

[bkovire]

just out of the sake of curiosity is it like one of thees? http://www.marstar.ca/gf-armisport/ArmiSport-Enfield-rifles.shtm "some fine gent in Va used one in the war, to bad he dead now" a quoit from the Civil war film by ken burns. and just wish i had the money for this one http://www.michaelsimens.com/Civil_War_Weapons_Muskets_Rifles_Carbines.asp
1013 - CIVIL WAR TOWER ENFIELD RIFLE DATED 1862. IDENTIFIED.

 

[bkovire]

not used in the war hu well tell the'm that http://www.antiquearmsinc.com/confederate-marked-enfield-rifle.htm from the site "This is nice example of a late war Confederate marked 3 Band Enfield rifle with the Anchor "S" symbol next to the top toe of the buttplate. Its quite similar to the our 1864 dated Anchor "S" marked carbine we also have listed. The only difference is this one is dated 1863 on the lockplate instead of 1864. The lock is marked TOWER with a Crown behind the hammer WITHOUT "V.R." denoting it was from a private contractor as are all Civil War imported Enfield rifles and not built for the British War Dept." just for the sake of getting it right.some of them rifles are pricy http://www.marstar.ca/gf-armisport/ArmiSport-1842-muskets.shtm from the link, can you say house payment 1842 U.S. Perc. (smoothbore) perc. bright .69 Perc. 42.0" Yes $909.00

 

While popular belief has frontiersmen owning and using rifles, the truth is that the majority had smooth bores. While the rifle is king in terms of accuracy it is lacking in utility. The frontiersman needed to use his gun to defend himself and put food on the table. The smoothbores ability to shoot anything from a large single ball to birdshot make it tops in the do-anything category. And, as Medic302 noted, the smoothie can be very accurate with a patched round ball out to 75 yards and sometimes beyond. Looking back over a lifetime of deer hunting I don't remember ever taking a shot beyond 80 yards with a muzzleloading rifle. Given my ageing eyes I don't have a problem limiting my shots to 50 yards nowadays. I limit myself to 20 yards when using a traditional bow so I'm more than doubling my effective range. :v

John

 

Thanks for the info!

John

 

[Va.Manuf.06]

"The other problem is that the way the Indian manufacturers get around our gun laws, is to NOT put a flash hole into the barrels of those flintlocks."
Sorry, no. They are not getting around our gun laws, they are getting around theirs.

Paul, good post with some good information but let me correct you on one thing: India does have proof requirements for functional firearms whether they be muzzleloaders or breach loaders, very stringent proof laws guaranteeing a safely functional weapon as a matter of fact. The guns that are under discussion here that are imported into Europe, Canada and the US without vents, whether flint or percussion, are not by Indian law considered firearms and therefore are not required to be proofed.

See #22 here:
http://gunaccessory.com/LAWS/rule_15-24.htm

More information is available here:
http://www.abhijeetsingh.com/arms/india/laws/act/

Laws governing the manufacture of actual firearms is restrictive and conversion of imitation firearms - what we are talking about here - into firearms is carefully covered by law. The sellers here and in Europe want imitation guns and that is what they get, the weight of damage is on the end user if something goes wrong when an imitation gun that is made into a functional firearm blows up. The buyer needs to be aware of that - the guns are not meant to be functional under Indian law when sold by the makers.

 

[Va.Manuf.06]

not used in the war hu well tell the'm that http://www.antiquearmsinc.com/confederate-marked-enfield-rifle.htm from the site "This is nice example of a late war Confederate marked 3 Band Enfield rifle with the Anchor "S" symbol next to the top toe of the buttplate. Its quite similar to the our 1864 dated Anchor "S" marked carbine we also have listed. The only difference is this one is dated 1863 on the lockplate instead of 1864. The lock is marked TOWER with a Crown behind the hammer WITHOUT "V.R." denoting it was from a private contractor as are all Civil War imported Enfield rifles and not built for the British War Dept." just for the sake of getting it right.some of them rifles are pricy http://www.marstar.ca/gf-armisport/ArmiSport-1842-muskets.shtm from the link, can you say house payment 1842 U.S. Perc. (smoothbore) perc. bright .69 Perc. 42.0" Yes $909.00

bkovire, not sure I understand what you mean? Of course the P53 Rifle Musket was used in military service in many countries, including here in North America, any fool knows that. What I said was that a "forager gun" was never used in military service. If a rifle musket's bore was damaged in service, the barrel was replaced or the gun was broken up for parts. Track is playing a little loose with the facts, that is all. Now if they had said that this imitation firearm (see my post above addressed to Paul concerning Indian law) that they are selling had been advertised as "a retired military gun surplussed by the government and converted by a civilian to use as a shotgun or to fire an over sized roundball at game while hunting to put food on the table in their move west in the 1870s", that would have been a fairly accurate statement on their part. Smoothbored P53s were never used By US, CS, British or Canadian forces, that's all I am saying.