"Springfield vs Enfield" Topic

Was there any difference in battlefield performance of the Springfield and Enfield rifled muskets? They seem about the same to me, but I recently saw a rule-set that gave the Springfield slightly better "short range" rating and slightly better overall range…Thanks!

Whatever differences in laboratory performance between the two rifles probably matters far less than the training, motivation and skill of the man behind the gun.

I may have learned this on a thread here somewhere, but…

The Springfield was preferred and sought after on the battlefield by the ordinary soldier b/c it was .58 caliber and didn't foul as quickly. The Enfield was .577 caliber.

Second, b/c the Springfield was a slightly larger caliber it could take Enfield ammunition when necessary whereas the Enfield couldn't take Springfield ammunition when necessary.

I can see where less fouling and greater ammunition availability in the HoB would've made a worthwhile difference to the ordinary soldier.

There may have been other reasons, but I've read the Springfield was preferred, and often picked up when foudn, and the reasons given above make sense to me. That said, I'm not an ACW small arms expert and haven't researched the question in depth.

Bottom Dollar:

Ah, but see, that's a myth about the ammunition bit.

The US Ordnance Department, and the CS Ordnance Bureau, both used a subcaliber ammunition so as to answer for both types of weapons. The elongated ball was reduced to .570 and what that did was to give the illusion that the Enfield fouled faster. technically, it did, but because the Springfield was a .58 it had slightly more surface area for the fouling to build up on, thus a few more rounds could be fired before fouling became an issue.

A similar solution was done for the .54 & .55 rifles, (Belgian, Lorenze, Potsdam, Mississippi etc).

The book "Ready…Aim…Fire…" by Dean Thomas references letters from the Watervleit Arsenal regarding this situation.

There should be no appreciable difference on the wargames table between the Springfield & Enfield rifles, or rifle-muskets.

V/R

Glengarry, completely agreed and feel that is the most important factor in any war/period. I was more curious if there is any factual backing to giving superior range to the Springfield…thanks James!!!

I had a feeling there was more to it. We often don't give the ACW era military enough credit for their practicality.

"Ah, let's make the mini .570, that way it'll fit both"

In game terms they would be identical in performance. Many ACW soldiers made statements about preferring one over the other, but it was almost always in reference to things like ease of cleaning or weight (the Enfield was a bit heavier) rather than any factor that would ever show up in game rules.

The Enfield stock is much sturdier for playing whack a mole in hand to hand combat.

From personal experience, the Enfield is a heck of a lot easier to keep clean.

I have own reproductions of each and used real ones. Really, no difference in practical use. I can see where the blueing would give the Enfield an advantage in cleaning. However, even this went away as many Enfields had the blueing removed.

"I was more curious if there is any factual backing to giving superior range to the Springfield…thanks James!!!"

From my live firing I couldn't notice a difference. Powder load would have a bigger affect in range than the very slight bore differences.

Now, some accounts might pick on the Enfield, but even then you have to clarify what they are talking about. Was it an older worn out Enfield? Was it even an Enfield? In Many cases accounts call Lorenz rifles Enfields. The Lorenz had problems not because they were a bad design, but because most were small shop productions rather than factory made. Therefore quality and even caliber was all over the place.

EJ Nashville:

Regarding your remark that "many Enfields had the blueing removed." I would offer the following article as the best 'to date' reference on that subject.

link

As to accuracy, the claim most often read in period accounts by soldiers was that the Enfield was more accurate, but the Springfield easier to clean".

The basis in that statement would be technically accurate, and the foundation of that is related to windage. Windage is the difference between the outside diameter of the round, and the inside diameter of the barrel. The greater the windage, the more the round can "wobble" inside the barrel on it's way out, and also the more gas that can escape and thus cause the round to lose energy.

The Enfield had a bore diameter of .577 inches, while the Springfield had on of .58 inches. That small difference was sufficient to impart more energy to the round in the Enfield, because there was less windage and thus the skirt of the mini had less distance to travel, thus containing more of the expanding gasses from the burning powder. It also meant that the round was in the rifling and with a tighter fit for a longer distance than in the springfield, thus making less time for any "wobble" and thus chances for damaging the surface of the projectile, which would cause drag on odd surfaces and thus slow down the round and potentially cause deviations in it's flight path.

With the Springfield, there was more windage, and thus a greater surface area for the gasses to foul. That meant a slower buildup of fouling, thus allowing for more rounds to be fired before fouling made loading difficult and cleaning required.

In game terms, however, these differences are negligible, and with the numbers of troops being represented, would be of no value to differentiate. Both Enfield & Springfield rifles and rifle-muskets should be given the same stats.

V/R

I think I am right in thinking the Enfield was craftsman made, whereas the Springfield had mass produved parts making them infinitely easier to repair, as the parts were interchangeable.

I still prefer the Enfield…but then I am English!

There should be no difference between the Enfield and Springfield in any set of rules. As pointed out above, the Enfield was a bit more accurate due to less windage as well as because it's sight was a slide instead of the leaf sight on the Springfield (allowing for finer graduations). As a practical matter none of that mattered in a firefight at 300 yards or so.

Perhaps the folks writing the rules became confused by the fact that the .69 smoothbore was also manufactured by Springfields and at very close range the buck-and-ball was really effective.

I prefer the enfield, Ive used both, owned both, and my enfield has had the blueing removed. I still prefer the enfield. I beleive the tendency was as you got further "east" you would see more federals with springs., as you went "west" you would see more federeals with ens. my tcw. by 64-65 tho, there would be an effort to replace the imports with springs. again my tcw.

I can see a possible reason why game designers would give a Springfield better short range stats--but it would be a misinterpretation.

The model 1842 Springfield was a smoothbore, .69 caliber, "punkin' slinger" that could shoot a single musket ball, but could also fire Buck & Ball cartridges (a single .69 musket ball plus three smaller buckshot balls). This virtually turned the weapon into a large shotgun. The model 1861 Springfield was a true rifle with the afformentioned smaller caliber, that did not shoot B&B ammo but had the same characteristics of the .577 Enfield.

Perhaps the designers saw the name "Springfield" and didn't realise that there were multiple weapons with that name?

I think I am right in thinking the Enfield was craftsman made, whereas the Springfield had mass produved parts making them infinitely easier to repair, as the parts were interchangeable

Not so sure about the "craftsman" part with the Enfield but the Springfield factory(s) became a model for mass production in both US and European industrial process that led to large scale manufacturing as we know it.

As a proud Enfield owner ,it works for me.

So, are we talking about a 1861 Springfield or a 1863 Springfield Rifle?

That's a reproduction (I'm assuming) of a model 1861 Springfield manufactured in 1863.

The only Springfield Rifles were the M1841 and the M1855. These were shorter, with the M1841 being, in many cases re-rifled from .54 to .58 after the adoption of the elongated ball as standard ammunition. Both were fitted with sword bayonets with, again, the M1841 being modified in several fashions to use it, while the M1855 Rifle was designed to take one from the start.

The rest were Rifle-Muskets, being weapons of martial (musket) length which were manufactured with riflings. these included the M1855 Rifle-Musket, and the various patterns of M1861, the M1863 & the M1864, These were also equipped with socket bayonets.

The earlier series of M1816, and it's later dated M1822 and M1835 incarnations, along with the M1842 were Muskets. These were weapons of martial length, with socket bayonets, but with no rifling in the barrels. The M1816 and later dated weapons in the series were flintlock ignition, though many were re-manufactured in one of three variants to percussion ignition when that was adopted by the US Army. The M1842 was the first musket designed specifically as a percussion weapon.

SOME of the M1816 series and M1842 (especially the Remington contracts) were re-bored with riflings and had long-range sights added. These were referred to as rifled-muskets by the Ordnance department.

Thus, you have Muskets, Rifles, Rifle-Muskets and Rifled-Muskets.

Though most gamers (and many reenactors) refer to ALL muzzle-loading weapons as muskets, that isn't technically true. There are differences, though in game terms, as infantry weapons, there should be no real difference in rate of fire or effective range, except between actual muskets (smoothbore) and all others.

V/R

"So, are we talking about a 1861 Springfield or a 1863 Springfield Rifle?"

Effectively, they are the same. The principle difference is the screw hole on the side of the one which allows one to clean the breach. The reality being that the screwed breach also has to be cleaned more often so it really doesn't add any advantage.

Yup. The M1863 is basically Colt's variant adopted as the primary version. The M1864 basically added color-case hardening to the lock & hammer, and blued scr3ws, rear sight and trigger.

It was discovered that the clean-out scr3w often caused more problems with fouling the ignition channel than it solved, and it's elimination eased/simplified construction, plus removed the safety hazard of the occasional blow-out of the scr3w due to improper maintenance/cleaning, etc.

V/R