Stu and Richaed:
Thank you for your most interesting responses. Hmmmm.......
Stu: Very observant of you to notice the Arabic markings on the lock inlet. Thanks.
Richard: Yes, the only thing that seems a bit crude, is the bolster installation. That, along with the bun nut and the #83 in Arabic leads one to believe there was an Afghan hand involved at sometime during the conversion. Really strange. Hmmm.
However, I do not believe this pistol is an Afghan "copy". The stock and hardware, barrel, and interior quality of the lock (missing it's mainspring screw) all appear to be of authentic EIC contract hardware. And the stamps on the lockplate, while a bit faint, look legitimate EIC manufacture. Even the quality of the ramrod and holder carridge are robust made items. Much higher than any Afghan quality I've ever seen. Also, the nipple (including the threads) is the same as the British Enfields of the 1850's and a nipple wrench fits it perfectly.
So, I believe I have a legit 1820ish EIC manufactured pistol that started as flintlock. (Even the hammer tip has the well done checkering for the conversion hammer). But it does in fact appear that the conversion was done "outside" the EIC Arsenal. The hammer apperars correct, but the bolser installation and the bun nut do not equal usual Arsenal quality.
Stu: The butt cap screws look brighter in the photo than they really are. But yes, there is very little patina on them, and they match the screws on the side plate and the triggerguard. So I think they were replaced at some point. But they look correct to the pistol.
Here is a pic I found of another converted pistol with the exact lock plate marking. Interesting.
Rick
|