Check out This Historic Civil War P53 Enfield Rifle

John Russell is a Civil War Historian and Collector who brought a historic Enfield rifle to show off at a Texas Independence Day Party in late February. This Confederate Enfield has been authenticated by Russell who pointed out the marks of authenticity. The most important marking can be found on the stock of the rifle. The “SC” marking indicates that this rifle was purchased from England for use in the South Carolina militia.
On the lock plate of the gun you can see “Barnett London” still clearly visible. On the butt of the gun you will find the shipping number, this rifle happens to be number 415 of the lot. Russell assumes that this rifle saw a lot of heavy wartime action during its lifetime. His assumptions seem to be based on solid evidence though simply by looking at the marks and usage of the gun.
For starters, the ramrod is a replacement signifying that this rifle was heavily used. It’s also missing both its rear sight and sling swivel. Russell points to both of these as markings of a heavily used rifle as well.
One of the fascinating markings on the gun is that a solider carved his initials into the stock of the gun. “J.B.L.” is clearly visible along with a date “Apr 29 1865” right below the initials. This roughly corresponds to Confederate General Joseph E. Johnston’s surrender to Union General William T. Sherman at Bennett Place. This is culturally and historically significant as this is seen as the last major surrender of Confederate troops, effectively ending the war.
Though the date is significant we don’t understand the significance of the marking. It could be a Yankee took the gun and put his initials on it as a war prize, or perhaps a southerner wanted to leave a lasting impression on the gun. Some details of the rifle will never be known, but that’s the fun in collecting.
Looking for your own collectible gun? Check out the Guns.com Collectors Corner to own a piece of history today.

[@briankerr4512]

Guess what is going to happen again real soon

[@SlickSixguns]

Brian Kerr I disagree we may see more civil disobedience far more often than anything that resorts to violence and even war. We love our comforts and living in austerity is not something that many Americans are used to anymore. Those who say they can I’d love to see how quickly they give up their bravado at their first contact. There may be a few that can do that, but I’ll be the first to tell you living outside, with little to no pay, little to no supplies for long periods of time away from family and comfort against a well supplied enemy who can do that won’t end well the south lost for many reasons lack of supplies being one of them. Our army more than likely would refuse to fire on or invade people’s personal property as they too are very similar to those they are fighting which northerners and southerners back then really weren’t as interconnected as we are now. Based on a historical and social perspective a civil war will not happen at least to the level or duration as the first one. We may see outbreaks of violence in isolated incidents that may increase, but war I’ll bet my bottom dollar that won’t happen.

[@bosse641]

It's a beauty.

[@adammarchand1487]

All J.B.L. initials on the data base on show up as confederate S.C 3rd battalion

[@Gunscom]

Thanks for letting us know Adam. Very interesting.

[@worldtravel101]

Love it

[@themechanic1867]

The war of northern Aggression. God bless the south

[@axelpatrickb.pingol3228]

Yeah... Like Fort Sumter wasn't shot by Rebel batteries for... Delivering food to the citadel...

[@christianlight8511]

​@@axelpatrickb.pingol3228 Fort Sumter was within the territory of South Carolina and thus after South Carolina's secession from the union Fort Sumter was South Carolina property and no longer belonged to the union. The Confederacy peacefully informed Lincoln multiple times that Fort Sumter was now Confederate property and that the union soldiers there be vacated. Lincoln not only refused but sent even more troops and supplies to the Fort. The Confederacy had every right to fire on the fort and so they did. Lincoln wanted war and he got it. Do you also believe the propaganda nonsense that the war was about slavery too? Lincoln was a tyrant and a racist that didn't give two shits about the slaves. They were nothing more than political pawns in his ridiculous war to "save the union."

[@themechanic1867]

Christian Light I’m glad I not the only person that knows this. 👍