Again, this has been a fascinating discussion, and as a virtual novice in the field of guns, I appreciate all the input and comments. I have through the years done occasional research concerning firearms, particularly those from India and Afghanistan which often included or course British.

The more I look at this one, the more it seems put together with varied components, but the terrible engraving on the lock seems far too poor to be either Irish (as I earlier suggested) or Liege. Either of these would never have had such poor quality lettering allowed, at least as far as I would think.

One thing I recall in material I read about the 'Khyber' copies of guns is that these were commonly produced often using bonified parts and elements of other weapons. That would account for a barrel which held the authentic British proof stamps. Why in the world a DUBLIN CASTLE lock would be coped in Afghan areas is puzzling as most locks there were variants of EIC locks.
But if any of the Dublin guns found their way via the constant movement of British troops in and out of the 'Raj' (they were produced in large number c. 1770s per Brooker) then it is possible that they would be subject to copy as well.
The Herbert name and those 'chop' marks are a puzzle as well, as these kinds of notes and marks were indeed systematically placed in guns in production...…..but not likely in Afghan shops. Again, I would return to loose parts being repurposed or used as components...….could this be the case?

While all of this supposition and analysis may seem irrelevant if this is indeed a 'tourist' or 'creative antique' ….the exercise, at least for me, has been informative and interesting. I do appreciate the observations and notes from those who have long handled firearms as well as the firsthand information on Afghan gunmaking shops. That adds good perspective to what I had read on them some years ago.

Thanks very much for the pics. It would be interesting to dig thru the guns shown but not probably a safe project for now..........
Stu

Indeed ...


.

Fitting work marks show that all parts of this pistol belong together. They have been struck after dismantling the pistol for further processes and make sure that at the final assembly the right parts of a pistol find together again.

As you can see in post #24 there are different marks at the stock and the barrel, what is proof that these parts came from different pistoles, what was normal, when surpus parts have been in use to produce arms of a low quality.
corrado26

The same principle, but used in a different timeline. Before precision technology appeared, parts were marked in their original assembly as to adjust (file) them to fit each other and, at a later stage, the system was used to assure that, after being dismounted, they could be correctly remounted when picking them from among many others that were disassembled in the same session, like in barracks armor depots or in war scenes. They say that Samuel Colt took advantage of this system to help convincing American (and not only) army authorities to commission his contracts; his guns were thoroughly marked part by part. In a humoristic (realistic ?) note, soldiers in the field got drunk while cleaning their pistols and would not discern which were the parts of each either's guns.

The barrel in post #24 has nothing to do with the discussed pistol; was one of my collection to illustrate (*) how assembly marks were applied in the various gun parts, including barrels.

On a further note, suppose the barrel smiths make a series of barrels and sends them to the assembly workshop. As they have been made by hand, it is inevitable that they have millimetrical differences. So the stock smith files the wood here and there to match it with a determined barrel; and after that he marks the wood with the same mark that comes with each barrel ... and that's it.


.

Ok, sorry, I misunderstood! Than just forget my last post concerning this.
corrado26

Hello All

Well. What an interesting Thread this turned out to be. This was completely unexpected. LOL And I do appreciate everyone's comments.
Since my first post, some additional information has surfaced. The seller of the pistol actually posted this gun for comments on the British Militaria Forum back during last year. Many of the conclusions there were similar to comments here, although not as comprehensive as this Thread. But there was one comment on the lock markings that I found interesting: It was mentioned that the Dublin Castle guns seem to lack the wealth of information compared to their other British counterparts during this period. And possibly DeWitt Bailey was doing new, more comprehensive research for these guns. (?)
It was also mentioned that the lockplate engravings on the Dublin Castle locks were done in a bit more armature fashion than the earlier or later British locks.
I'll try to get a better pic of the barrel markings, but they do look genuine British. They don't seem to resemble anything Belgium. I haven't removed the barrel because the barrel band is held on with a pin that does not go all the way through the stock. But I probably will to see if there are any markings on the bottom of the barrel or stock channel.
And here's another interesting feature: The hardware, while hand formed, are all castings. Including that barrel band that looks like it might have come from a French Lebel rifle or some other later carbine (?) LOL
I'm convinced that the lock itself is genuine and not a locally made copy. Under magnification the engravings seem to have been enhanced with maybe black India ink, or something. But the lock quality, including it's internals, are fully up to European/British standards.
So where does this leave us ? Hmmmm. The lock and barrel appear to be genuine from the period. The stock, and other hardware seem to be from a later period. And assembled with economy in mind. Even though the stock is simply made, the quality of the lock mortise area - with it's assembly hash marks - may confirm Corodo's original theory of Belgium manufacture from surplus parts for the colonial/other markets.
I recall a percussion pistol I posted here a while back with similar build characteristics. I'll locate it and post it on this Thread.
Thanks again for everyone's posts. Very helpful.

Rick

See post from the European Forum.......

http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=21398

Rick

it certainly developed nicely and til now is an excellent thread well discussed... :shrug:
in support I call upon a very detailed thread by Kubur whose excellent thread can be accessed here http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showth...ns+afghanistan

It brings into question another manufacturing centre ..Persia from 1810 to 1839.

Hello

For me, it's the same gun ... the test punches, the rust marks on the barrel and on the counter-plate are the same ...

Affectionately

Yes, it is and thanks Ibrahiim we finally came to an end
corrado26 :D