Red Hill wrote:
"Number 1 Enfields with interchangeable parts" made with machine manufacture to guaged standards? An article by Tony Beck, Coastal Rifles, that I found on the internet at www.ezboard.com, states the quality of the Number 2s were dependent on the individual maker and hence the name of John Marson is important. Beck states that the name of the higher quality makers appears on the butt instead of the Enfield acceptance stamp. Apparently both the North and South used large numbers of Number 2 rifles. Beck also states that most of the Number 1s were refurbished at Springfield and were sold back to Europe after the War of Northern Aggression to help pay the crushing war debt of the Federal Government. Therefore, Number 1s are very rare."

Huh? I haven't read Tony Beck's article (not that one, anyway), but some of this doesn't make sense to me. I have found over the years that there is no all-or-none in Enfield research, but as general rules -

No maker's name will appear on a P53 Enfield that has ENFIELD marks - that is, that was made at the Royal Small Arms Factory at Enfield Lock. These guns were mass-produced by machinery (and thus had interchangeable parts) - they will bear individual RSAF inspector's marks, but not names.

Commercial makers, both in London and Birmingham, often (but not always) put their names on their guns (but these guns won't say ENFIELD). On London Enfields, the name often appeared on the lockplate, while Birmingham makers often put their name along the bottom of the stock. In my experience (hundreds of original Enfields examined in some 30 years of research), the quality of the gun didn't matter much as to whether it had a name on it or not. (This didn't apply to the products of the London Armoury Co. Ltd., which also made mass-produced interchangeable Enfields by machine, and marked their guns in several places.)

These mass-produced machine-made Enfields were the "Number 1" Enfields. Those made at the RSAF were issued to British units or held in store and later converted to Snider breech-loaders, and thus not used in the WBTS. Some L.A.Co. guns were imported by both sides, however. So the vast majority of WBTS-used Enfields were the commercially-made "Number 2 Quality" guns. BTW, this doesn't necessarily mean they were actually of poorer quality; in many cases, it just meant that their parts were not interchangeable (since each part had been made and finished by hand).

I am not aware of ANY "Number 1" Enfield being refurbished at Springfield after the war, and resold to Europe. Indeed, MANY of the surplus Enfields that had been used in the war WERE refurbished at Springfield (and some were later sold to European purchasers), but these were the commercially-made "Number 2 Quality" guns. Of course, some L.A.Co. guns (Number 1) *could* have been refurbished at Springfield after the war, but since these were uncommon in the WBTS in the first place, refurbished ones would have been uncommon as well.

It *is* rare to find a "Number 1" P53 Enfield as a muzzle-loader today, because most (some say all) of those made at the RSAF were not issued, but converted to breech-loaders starting in 1866. These were the so-called 4th Model P53s. Of course, you can find L.A.Co. P53s of "Number 1" status, which are still muzzle-loaders. However, the L.A.Co. sold not only to agents for both North and South, but also to the British Government and private purchasers in England, so it can be pretty hard to say for sure exactly *who* used most surviving L.A.Co. guns.

BTW, the BURR marking on your gun was the barrel maker - one of the Burr family of barrel makers located in Hales-Owen and Rowley Regis, in Staffordshire.

John Marson's name does not appear in the listings of the Birmingham Small Arms Trade.

Hope this helps clarify some points,

Geoff Walden