Printable View
Good day all. I've picked up an early Snider Enfield conversion that has me a little puzzled. It has no unit or Canadian markings but it has what appears to be a U.S. style inspector's stamp in the wood on the left side of the butt. It's hard to make out, but it seems to be a decorative lozenge with some initials or numbers. Does anyone know if Snider Enfields saw civil war service due to the scarcity of domestic arms? Can anyone recognize the stamp? Thank you all.
That's a Dominion of Canada Cartouche, DC Snider Enfields were post civil war
It's not a DC stamp. I've seen lots of them and this isn't it. It could be an EE or a 33, I'm just not sure. If you look at the pic, poor as it is, there's almost a double lozenge.Quote:
Originally Posted by #1oilman
Lawrence n: Looks like "DC" to me but possibly stamped over something (or overstamped by something)? The Snider, as #1oilman says, was certainly never used in the Civil War or by the USA at any time. Many ex-Canadian Sniders have no surviving unit markings- just the DC on the wood. What version is it and have you had it apart to see if there is a conversion date stamped on the underside of the barrel? I believe the very earliest examples are dated 09/66 and some of the earliest conversions were sent directly to Canada.
Ridolpho
Put a piece of paper on it and lightly and gently rub it with a soft pencil.
There's a really good picture of the DC stamp here. Doesn't look like that one.
Snider Enfield MKII ** Canadian Issue
The one here, also a good picture, does though. The 1860 date is wrong. The Snider wasn't issued in 1860.
Snider Enfield MK III 577 snider
Thanks all but another guy nailed it (I think). It is indeed the DC stamp but it was double struck! Given the fading and age, it was hard to make out, as you see in the pics. When a tracing was done of the rhomboids, it became more clear. With the D overlapping the D and the C doing the same, you can see where it would get confusing. I'll probably put it up on the table at Jerseyville on the 13th. I picked up the socket bayonet for it at an estate sale, sadly with no scabbard, but it does look nice on the rifle. Once again, thanks all.
Which 'Nother guy? #2 or #4 post?Quote:
Originally Posted by lawrence_n
No it's not. Read the original text carefully - it does not claim that the rifle was manufactured in 1860.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sunray
It states:
"The lock is correct and original dated 1860 with muted color."
1860 is the version date of the lock, NOT the date of manufacture of the rifle. The locks were originally manufactured for the Enfield muzzleloader rifles. Many of those rifles were later converted to Snider pattern, and the same components were used for new Sniders. I have one such P53 3-band Enfield converted to a Snider III,
https://www.milsurps.com/showthread....ghlight=Snider
which had me just as puzzled at first, and I recommend the booklet "Small Arms Identification Series No. 20" by Ian Skennerton if you require further clarification.
The booklet shows, in condensed form, that there were many more variants of the "2-band" and "3-band" Enfields than most people realize. The Sniders were in effect mostly "bitsas".
Unlike the purist collector's idealized world, where all rifles of date X:X:X have a unique, so-called "correct" configuration with all components being of date X:X:X, real factories - especially where products are being modified - simply use up remaining stocks of component version N before using new stocks of version N+1, and thus one sees a large number of what might be termed transitional models. Or "mixmasters" or "bitsas".
I have several 2- and 3-band Enfields. In general, the tolerance of Enfield lockwork is so good that you can often swap the locks about without being able to detect a mismatch in the result.
Off topic of the thread but to my knowledge all Mk III Long and Short rifles were new manufacture- including the locks which will generally have dates from 1869 to 1872. East India Govt and Portugese contract rifles will have even later dates. Locks do get switched around, of course, as the guns are repaired in service.
Ridolpho
I beg to disagree with you Ridolpho. Please read this thread, especially the comments by Bill Curtis, who is truly expert on 19th. c. British firearms.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ridolpho
Untouched Snider III - British Militaria Forums
I have learnt over the years that in such matters it is advisable to avoid using extreme words like "always" or "never".
---------- Post added at 08:01 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:53 PM ----------
Lawrence - as you can see from the thread linked above, if you remove the barrelled action from the stock, you will probably find a lot of informative stamps on the barrel and shoe of your rifle
Patrick: If you read that thread right through to the end you will see opinions expressed that that barreled action may have been dropped into another stock, possibly with it's original lock. You will also see that I said in my post that "to my knowledge" all Mk III...were new manufacture. Anything is possible but I am a specialized Snider collector and, in my research, haven't come across any info that would support your assertion. Snider collecting is different from many other more modern types of rifles. Even on the BMF forum you rarely see talk about how to determine originality of individual Sniders. The fact is that most ordnance issue Sniders have either serial numbers or assembly numbers stamped on many parts at the factory and certainly didn't originate as "mixmasters". My own large-ish Snider collection includes examples that can be demonstrated to be probably all original and others that clearly had replacement parts installed during or post service. With a fairly small number of individuals collecting Sniders (and many of those not disassembling their examples) there is a lot of info that has yet to be published about them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick Chadwick
Ridolpho
Ridolpho, please don't get me wrong. I have no Snider exertise myself, just one beautiful example. I don't recall asserting anything, merely inviting you (and anyone else following this discussion) to look at a thread where others more knowledgeable than myself expressed their opinions. It is certainly very difficult today to tell whether a part that does not seem to fit the general pattern was fitted at the factory or swapped out later.
I thus completely agree with your formulation "examples that can be demonstrated to be probably all original and others that clearly had replacement parts installed during or post service" and in particular with the use of the cautionary word "probably". We are not in disagreement, just looking at the same problem from different viewpoints.
And may I congratulate you on your good fortune in having a number of these rifles to study!
I only have an overview of the Sniders, but I must admit, I always considered that the MkIII examples were manufactured as Breech loaders with new steel barrels?
Always something to learn....
Skennerton indicates that some 400 Mk III long rifles were equipped with iron barrels (from Enfield only). He doesn't elaborate about what other differences these had from the normal Mk III 3-band rifles or whether they were conversions of existing muzzleloaders or simply all new rifles with unused iron barrels. 400 out of >150,000 Mk III's produced at Enfield is a pretty small number and any example should have a conversion date in 1869.Quote:
Originally Posted by mrclark303
Ridolpho