A Question

[Jim T]

Let me pose a question to all. 

What should constitute a true, noteworthy bullet variation for a bullet pattern? 

How much taller or shorter should an Enfield measure to be "different"?  0.05 or more?  How "different" do the grooves on a bullet have to be?  For nose cast bullets, does the final shape of a hand-trimmed bullet nose really make it a different pattern?  And on and on with other bullet characteristics.  How different does one bullet have to be from another for us to logically label it as a variant? 

I guess I'm asking because of the common "unlisted" description found on so many sites.  Without some criteria to say what makes one different from another, how can a complete (as possible) list be made? 

What are your opinions?

[tom buckley]

Jim,
There was a time when I wondered if there were any listed Enfields.
Assuming that you are referring to Enfields cast in molds, I believe that the most important features are caliber and base cavity.

[Jim T]

OK, let's start specifically with Enfield-pattern bullets.  What makes one specimen truly a "different" bullet?

DIAMETER: Assuming all measured diameters are averages, how much difference in diameter make a bullet "different"?  I'll suggest 0.1" or more.  Responses???

LENGTH: This is usually more uniform than diameter measurements.  But same question, how much longer or shorter makes it a different bullet?  Again I'll suggest 0.1" or more.  What say you all???

CAVITY: This one sounds easy.  And obvious differences (plug vs. cone vs. stampings) are simple to decern, but what about variations in (for example) a cone cavity?  I suppose depth of cavity also needs to be considered.

SKIRT: There are differences in the thickness of the skirt around the base.  What other differences do you encounter?  Do you consider what some call the "false insert" a real difference?

NOSE/PROFILE: If nose cast, the sprue is hand trimmed.  Obviously a worker with a "heavy hand" will cause a different shaped bullet than another worker will ... even though the identical bullet pattern was begun with. Should this really be considered a variation of that type of bullet?
If machine pressed, how do we address the "rings" often left in various locations on the bullet from pushing rods ... if all else about the round is the same?


Let us hear your thoughts on this.  If each of you are at a relic show, what is it about an Enfield bullet that makes you consider buying it?  How is it different than all the others in your collection.

[ETEX]

Jim, I want to jump into this thread but I will be out of town for awhile, my mother is having health issues. Will jump in when I get back.

[CarlS]

I think some of it comes from being hard core collectors we're always looking for something different to add to our collection.  It is not much fun to collect something there is one of.  And somehow we have to justify to our spouse and ourselves why we are buying another something that looks a lot like the something we already have!   

To me a variance would be one that was intended by the guy making it to be different from other ones.  If it just comes out different because of how it was handled by the person manufacturing them or because all molds don't match exactly then I feel that is what keeps them from being exact copies but doesn't really constitute a variation of a pattern.  So I guess I'm saying in my opinion that it's not determined with a caliper as much as knowing the manufacturing intent.  But as I write this I realize that it is very hard to know what the intent was mid-19th century.

Were bullets patented like artillery shells tended to be?  It would be interesting to see what their "improvements" consisted of if there were patents.

[Roy A]

As a casual bullet collector, I go by more of "it it looks different from my eyes, i'll get it". One of the reasons I don't really collect enfields is that to me aside from some of the height differences and base marks, they all look the same (as with many 3 ringers, right Jim?).  An example for me is the Marshal Texas 3-ringer and what is a "deep cavity" when identifying it?

Now I collect bayonets a little more serious and as an example, I'm trying to ID if I have a Fayetteville socket bayonet here or a Drake/Mississippi style bayonet. The difference is that the Fayetteville has a bore of .889" and the Drake/Mississippi has a bore of .918". Of course these were all hand made so measurements are all over the place to begin with but there isa  price difference of $500 between the two...

[njdigger]

I bought an Enfield bullet because of the weight of it. Picked it out of a $1 box. When I picked it up it was heavier than others by a very noticeable amount. I weighed later it and it came in at 614. It has a D. 567 and a shallow cone cavity.  Looked it up in RBRF 4 and it turns out to be #530  possible Charleston Arsenal. There is only 1 heavier enfield #535. So I would consider this one to have in a collection until I can find the heaviest one.

[misipirelichtr]

Jim, for me caliber, cavity type, cavity markings, casting (nose, side, etc), and to some degree cavity depth and overall bullet length in that order.  I pretty much ignore minor length and diameter differences.  But I'm more of a casual collector when it comes to Enfields that someone like ETEX who takes Enfield collecting to a whole another level.  So I'm awaiting his response on this question.