Finally fired one of the reproduction Civil War rifle-muskets

[varsity07840]

The Enfield stock is straighter, and fits the shooter differently than does the Springfield.

You might want to shoulder both before you decide.

On original Springfields the bore diameter (grooves) tapered down from larger at the breech to tighter at the muzzle, for accuracy. Modern rifle-muskets have, I believe, uniform diameter bores (or at least they are supposed to be so)

The Italian Reproductions of the British Enfields have progressive depth rifling.  It is .003" at the muzzle, but .008" deeper at the breech.  This is the same as the original .58 Springfields and also the same as the original .69 cal. rifled muskets.

I beg to differ. The only repo Enfields with progressive depth rifling are those that were manufactured by Parker Hale in England.
Italian Enfields and Springfields do not have PDR because it's too expensive. Hoyt and Whitacre make replacement barrels and do relines
on import barrels with PDR, as  well as for originals.

Because my Italian model 1861 Musketoon has progressive depth rifling, I figured they all did, thus my statement.
 It does have an undersized .574" bore, however it has 5-groove, .003" deep rifling at the muzzle and .011" rifling at the breech, which follows the .008" deeper  breech rifling that it is supposed to have.

Don't believe I said the Italian Springfields had progressive depth rifling- if so - I screwed up as I am quite sure they do not, only the originals did.

I forgot to note that Euroarms early on did use Parker Hale barrels for some Enfields, of which yours is probably one. My bad. I was just noting that if someone has a repro Springfield, PDR replacement barrels are available.

[JBJ]

Bones,
Funny that you should mention the sliding plate as I originally did that very thing with a spare ladder that I had available. I reduced the thickness of the notch "lump" and made an "L" shaped plate with a slot in the base to allow the base to be shifted left and right for windage. I opened up the area where the old notch was to create a wider window to view the plate notch. I used a tiny 1-56 screw to attach the sliding plate to the ladder. Worked fine and allowed me to determine exactly where I wanted the notch cut in the new ladder that I made. The new ladder looks "as issued" except that the notch is slightly off center. I'm too computer challenged to post a pic but can emaill a pic of what I did.
J.B.

[Daryl]

Varsity- I was not aware of that- interesting. Mine is progressive- ArmSanPolo stamped on the side of the barrel. With round balls, I managed a 3" group off the bags using 75g.r 2F and a patched .575" round ball - that ball was .001" larger than the bore.  I was using a .022" patch as well. Yeah- a bit tight. I now use a .562" ball with the same patch.

[deepcreekdale]

Thanks Clark, that is what I had done on my first Repro Enfield which I used for serious target shooting, and is by far the best solution as the original sight is far more precise and well made. I was able to use the sight from my Great grandfathers gun which was a cool experience.  For my last Pedersoli Enfield which is just for fun,( I can't shoot that well any more) it only took a second to dovetail and solder a piece of brass and reshape it. Cheap too and works fine for 100-200 yard shooting. The gun is accurate even if I am not.
I fully agree any shooting would have been volley fire at that range but there was still an element of at least rudimentary aiming.  I wish I could find that article which described the training the British Army used back then, it was interesting. They had very high standards, most soldiers were career professionals.  You are also correct that using mass formation from the smooth bore musket days carried over into the days of the rifled musket. Just like is the case today, soldiers die from West Point tactics which are always based on the last war.