1856 Tower Musket proof marks

[Huttles94]

I've just checked. You are correct. Since you already seem to know the answers to your questions, so why are you asking them here?

I was not asking whether the gun is S58 or not since as you pointed out I already know.

I was simply asking about the proof/makers marks, Thank you for telling me what the 21 mark is, I was just wondering if some were made to that caliber from new since I have seen a few on the internet (ones saying that they are .600 caliber ect even some being 0.650). And the fact that I cant see any remains of another gauge mark just made me think that maybe there were a very small number made to that specification, either for the British army or the US (Both the Union and Confederates used the 1853 enfield musket/rifles but mainly the Confederates since they did not have steady access to the springfield rifles used by the north). I would of thought there would be some remains of an older mark if it was re bored. But again I am no expert.

As far as I can also tell, it is a smooth bore but I know that when these were rifled later on, sometimes the rifling would be very thin and might have been worn away due to heavy usage (not checked too far down the barrel, only near the muzzle)

[tacfoley]

I was not asking whether the gun is S58 or not since as you pointed out I already know.

I was simply asking about the proof/makers marks, Thank you for telling me what the 21 mark is, I was just wondering if some were made to that caliber from new since I have seen a few on the internet (ones saying that they are .600 caliber ect even some being 0.650). And the fact that I cant see any remains of another gauge mark just made me think that maybe there were a very small number made to that specification, either for the British army or the US (Both the Union and Confederates used the 1853 enfield musket/rifles but mainly the Confederates since they did not have steady access to the springfield rifles used by the north). I would of thought there would be some remains of an older mark if it was re bored. But again I am no expert.

As far as I can also tell, it is a smooth bore but I know that when these were rifled later on, sometimes the rifling would be very thin and might have been worn away due to heavy usage (not checked too far down the barrel, only near the muzzle)

The British Army and Navy Enfield rifles were bored to .577". The British did not use either shotguns or oversized-bore rifles after the introduction of the .577cal P53 in 1854. As I mentioned, your piece is now a bored-out shotgun, a fate that overtook about 50% of all the similar arms - both North and South, after the surrender. Many of these guns went to Japan, and were used in the various uprisings before the fall of the Tokugawa Shogunate, and the installation of the Maeiji emperor, but I think it's unlikely that your was one of those, as you live in England [?]. In the USA in 1903, Sears were selling shotguns like yours for $2.50. There were tens of thousands of P53s here in UK, too. they were either converted to the Snider breechloader, or sold off, like yours was [from the SOOS stamps] for conversion to a cheap and cheerful farmer's woking gun.

As for wearing away the rifling and leaving a smooth bore, that is unlikely in the extreme. I have Snider rifles, upgraded from P53 rifled muskets, that were in almost continual use in one way or another from 1863 to the early 1900's by both regular and volunteer Militia units of the Canadian Defence Force, who missed out on the Martini and went straight from the Snider to the Lee-Metford/Enfield. Their rifling is as near prefect as can possibly be imagined, and, in any case, to do such a thing would also leave evidence of loading damage at the muzzle, where less-than-careful use of the loading rod would have worn a a groove or grooves.

[Huttles94]

I forgot to ask about these markings as well

https://i.imgur.com/yIS4xE7.jpg

I read somewhere that the markings on the brass butt plate at the top correspond to what regiment it was issued to, but dont know if this is true?

Cheers

[loiner1965]

I forgot to ask about these markings as well

https://i.imgur.com/yIS4xE7.jpg

I read somewhere that the markings on the brass butt plate at the top correspond to what regiment it was issued to, but dont know if this is true?

Cheers

yes its the regiment.....i forward the pic to more experienced than i whom might have more info etc

[loiner1965]

i have been informed it is this......35th Battalion Kent Volunteers, formed at Westerham in 1860

[tacfoley]

i have been informed it is this......35th Battalion Kent Volunteers, formed at Westerham in 1860

Beat me! Well done that man!!

[loiner1965]

Beat me! Well done that man!!

cheers tac but i cannot take the credit as i asked others on another forum.
it as been comfirmed by the most knowledgeble man on this planet......the master himself....bill curtiss

[enfield2band]

i have been informed it is this......35th Battalion Kent Volunteers, formed at Westerham in 1860

Thats interesting. I wonder if it was one intended for Indian troops, or, from after, the Indian Mutiny?

The British only issued smoothbores to the Indian Regimnets after the mutiny.

[tacfoley]

After the change to the short-lived Snider had taken place, there were still tens of thousands of P53 in armouries all over the British Isles. Many of them were sold out of service, as the one belonging to Mr Huttles was - hence the SOOS - 'sold out of service' stamp I noted in one of my earlier posts here - post #3. I don't think that this one ever went to India...

[tacfoley]

Can't help you much, except to say that the first line V indicates that the arm was originally issued to a Volunteer unit - K35. I'm doing a bit of digging for that one, but it clearly shows that this arm was ORIGINALLY a .58" cal arm that was bored out to the new dimension as a shotgun. The '25' is the rack number in the armoury.