CHAPTER XI.
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. 83⁄4 oz. in weight, so that a saving of 11⁄2 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.