1856 Tower Musket proof marks

[tacfoley]

Just found a similar one on gunstar, that one is a 1857 Tower so only a year difference. That too is a 0.60 caliber.

I know you said you think it was re bored but I would of thought there would be traces of the old inspection mark for the gauge if it was re proofed. So could it be that some were indeed made to 0.60 caliber from the factory? Maybe a certain unit requested this specific caliber? Either way I dont plan on shooting it anytime soon and it very much a S58 wall piece. Might be different in the future but yes, I rather like not being blown up so i would get it checked out before hand

There has never been a .60 smoothbore gun in British service. No unit would have requested a different bore or calibre arm than the rest, except the Light Division who were equipped with the Baker rifle in the late 1790's and early 1800s - and they were flintlocks.

David Minshall notes -

A government rifle will NOT carry the commercial marks of the London or Birmingham Gun Barrel Proof Houses with their usual marks and double 25 bore size marks. However these can sometimes be found IN ADDITION to the defaced original government proofs showing that the rifle has been correctly (and as required by law) submitted for proof prior to civilian sale.

[Huttles94]

There has never been a .60 smoothbore gun in British service. No unit would have requested a different bore or calibre arm than the rest, except the Light Division who were equipped with the Baker rifle in the late 1790's and early 1800s - and they were flintlocks.

David Minshall notes -

A government rifle will NOT carry the commercial marks of the London or Birmingham Gun Barrel Proof Houses with their usual marks and double 25 bore size marks. However these can sometimes be found IN ADDITION to the defaced original government proofs showing that the rifle has been correctly (and as required by law) submitted for proof prior to civilian sale.

This piece is a muzzle-loading antique - not a Section 58 which refers only to obsolete calibre cartridge-firing small arms.

That is odd since I have seen many guns sell as Section 58 that were muzzle loaders and did not fire cartridges.

[tacfoley]

That is odd since I have seen many guns sell as Section 58 that were muzzle loaders and did not fire cartridges.

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?

[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