ENFIELD MACHINE-MADE RIFLES.
Enfield, the seat of the Government manufacture of small arms, will
become a celebrated place in future history; its productions being now
one of the wonders of the present age. The term “Enfield Rifle” does not
denote any one improvement, but a series of improvements; Enfield being
merely the name of the place where the manufactory is situated.
The Enfield rifle differs from the original rifled musket (better known
as the Minié musket) in the fact of the bore having been reduced to
·577, and the weight of the arm to 9 lbs. The regulation Minié musket
was 10 lbs. 8-3/4 oz. in weight, so that a saving of 1-1/2 lbs. has been
effected by the adoption of the present gun. The size of the bore was
·702, and the weight of the bullet 680 grains, whilst the present
regulation musket is only ·577 bore, the bullet being 520 grains in
weight.
The model arms ordered by Lord Hardinge, the Commander-in-Chief, in
1852, of Messrs. Greener, Purday, Richards, Lancaster, and Wilkinson,
formed the base from which the Enfield was constructed. The “Sight” was
Westley Richards’ invention. The Expanding Bands for securing the stock
and barrels (without which a machine-made musket would always be an
uncertainty) are an invention of mine; several other points were also
adopted on my recommendation: as, for instance, the furniture being
case-hardened, as in the rifle-corps gun, and the fastenings of the
bayonet. These points, however, being merely suggested improvements, and
not, strictly speaking, inventions, conferred no benefit on me beyond
the compliment involved in their adoption.
It is well known that, but for my evidence before a committee of the
House of Commons in 1848, the swivel-lock would not have been so soon
adopted as it was. Thus it is evident that much of the outer form, as
well as the principle, of the present arm is due to my exertions. Much
surprise was shown by the Select Committee in 1852 that I did not give
in for trial some improvement upon my own principle (which, by the by,
they had not at that time admitted); but prudence taught me otherwise:
to have done so would have affected the soundness of my claims.
About the year 1851 it was determined to adopt some portion of the
American system of manufacturing guns by the aid of machinery. A
commission was appointed and sent out to the United States in order to
inspect the operations of their mechanism, and to ascertain the
advisability of adopting the whole, or a portion, of their machinery in
England. To the selection of the members of that commission, and to
their judgment, may be ascribed whatever is ill or good in the system;
the majority being military men connected with military matters, and the
others machinists, the bias was no doubt in favour of machinery. The
Enfield manufactory, at its starting, was intended to be a moderate
affair, I believe; but now it has expanded into such gigantic
proportions that, if it continues in action, the manufacture of military
arms must partially cease to be the trade of Birmingham: for all large
establishments of machinery must be employed, to protect them from
decay; and whatever may be the cost of production, machinery must go on,
or be entirely given up.
The extent of the Enfield manufactory may be estimated from the fact
that it now produces weekly 1,100 stand of arms complete, and employs
men and boys to the number of 1,300. At this rate of production, a very
few years will suffice to place such a stock of arms at the command of
the Government as will render the employment of foreign artisans
unnecessary. Enfield machine-made arms are undoubtedly specimens of the
highest class of that description; but whether they will be found as
durable as hand-made arms I very much doubt: time alone can decide
this.