Help IDing some British and European firearms

[RDGAC]

Salutations everyone, been a bit busy once more (hence my posts dropping off to zero) - rest assured I am still kicking around, though, and working steadily on my jezail. Anyway, I've decided (in my infinite wisdom) to help out the other side a bit by having a look at some of their firearms, about which they know very little. The more modern ones are generally quite easy (for instance, a rather nice Gras M. 1874 carbine with M.80 modifications, which I found earlier today), but the early 19th century and earlier weapons are rather less so and my available resources are rather poor. Luckily, I have this place, which very much helps in making up the deficit!

I'm currently having a look at two pistols which have lain, evidently unlooked-at for some while, in their case; rather pretty specimens they are, too. However, I've hit a snag: I have nearly no information on English gunsmiths (it being safe to assume that these pieces are English/British, it seems) and am trying to identify the makers in order to establish the age of both. One I would tentatively place in the early 19th Century (Napoleonic period at a guess) and seems to bear the name "Richards" on its lockplate; the other look (to my ill-educated eye at least) to be older, perhaps 18th century, and carries the faded but still visible name "Bayley". I'd appreciate any handy suggestions for reference books!

[fernando]

Any pictures?

[RDGAC]

Not as yet, Fernando. Gonna get some done tomorrow, but for now I was more seeking literary recommendations from you disgustingly knowledgeable chaps.

[RDGAC]

Righto, some pictures for your collective pleasure, so to speak. The upper pistol is the one I suppose to be the elder. Overall length 14.5in (approx); 10in barrel of .625in bore at muzzle, severe wear on lower right quadrant of the barrel wall (looking from the muzzle) which suggests that this may have been closer to .60 when made; has a foresight, with backsight channel cut into the tang.

Fully stocked in dark wood (age patination?), possibly walnut/hazelnut (don't know my woods), carved extensively including beneath barrel and on grip; some cracks present on several areas. Large, scroll-tipped trigger offset to the right, apparently intentionally as its slot has also been carved right of centre; large trigger guard with extensions to end of lock bolster forward and ~0.4in short of the large, rounded butt with metal cap, the langets of which extend to ~0.5in short of the lockplate tail. Ornamental scrollwork on the upper part of the grip and the reverse of the lock area.

Flintlock with etched border on plate and cock, all parts present externally except upper jaw of cock. Remains of upper jaw screw now within threaded part of the cock itself; frizzen spring is also very loose with 5-10 degrees of rotation clear of the lockplate possible about its screw. Mechanical condition unknown, as the lockplate screws are very stiff and I don't want to damage them, which prevents any inspection.

[fernando]

Hi RDGAC. Are these the initials for "Research & Development Grants Advisory Committee" ? ... just kidding .

Very nice pistols.

Well, the only Bayley i find in comprehensive Boothroyds revised directory (ISBN 1-57157-157-4) can't be the one, as he has been in business between 1873-1898 (Thomas Bayley - Birmingham). This appears to be a bit late for flintlocks production and yours has indeed all signs to be late 18th/early 19th centuries... in my humble opinion.
Concerning the other name, the earliest Richard in this directory is Wiliam Richard, who founded his firm 1801 in London. This could (could) be your man.
Let's see if other members have further data on those two gunsmiths.
And by the way, try and make a close up picture of both lock plates, even if faded. I notice that the name "Bayley" has more letters (Bayleys Co?); these little details are often important to distinguish things.
Check also for proof marks on the barrels, near their breeches; British guns practicaly always have proof marks ...Birmingham, London, even both; this helps dating and confirms their origin. But i bet you know all about this .

[Matchlock]

Hi RDGAC,

The one signed Baily can be closely dated to the last decade of the 18th c.; according to my records, only two London gunmakers are in close selection:

- Isaac (most probably), Whitechapel Rd., 1783-91
- James, Mansell St 1804, 1790-1810

The Richards pistol is of earlier date, 1760's, and seems to have been made for hunting (saddle pistol). The fore end cap is missing (originally probably of horn).

There are many Richards listed in the most comprehensive reference work on Gunmakers: Eugen Heer, Der neue Stockel, 3 vols., Schwäbisch Hall, Germany, 1979; vol. 2., pp. 1039f. The two in the inner circle are

- John, London, 1760-1821
- Thomas, Birmingham, 1747-1779+, who is also recorded for his silver
mounts

Please look for silver hallmarks and proof marks.

Best,
Michael

[RDGAC]

Egad, replies! Well, without further ado, the second pistol and the smaller of the two; some close-ups for you chaps. Plus, a new and better photo of the upper pistol's lockplate, which I read as saying "Bayley & Co.", and anm illustration of the barrel toward the breech end. I can find no proof marks at all, but haven't yet pulled the barrel on this weapon (or indeed either of them), so hidden marks might yet await us.

[RDGAC]

And the Bayley gun. Michael, if you can see any traces of the hypothesised horn end cap in the two photos above of the Richards pistol's muzzle, please point them out. Part of the deal here is that I get both the pleasure of handling these weapons and the chance to learn more about them.

[Matchlock]

Proof and hallmarks are never inside or on the underside of anywhere.

I marked both the Birmingham proof mark in its pre-1813 version and the place of the missing fore end cap.

m

[RDGAC]

Originally Posted by Matchlock

Proof and hallmarks are never inside or on the underside of anywhere.

I marked both the Birmingham proof mark in its pre-1813 version and the place of the missing fore end cap.

m

Indeed, I have never known a mark designed to be seen by the user to be hidden; nonetheless, when uncertain I find it sensible not to discount possibilities based only on what I know. Not a few times have I been caught out by that habit. The supposition may appear foolish but is generally the result of my desire to eliminate it. Cautious should be my middle name...

Anyway, thanks for marking the two things you did. Oddly I can't see much in the way of physical evidence for an end cap, save a very small protrusion just forward of the stock and ever so slightly proud of the barrel surface. Anything in particular to look for?

[Matchlock]

The wooden fore end has broken off along with the cap. Those pistols always were fully stocked. Just look at the other specimen which too is fully stocked but, as it is much later, never had a cap.

m

[Matchlock]

See?

[RDGAC]

Indeed I do see, Michael. Thank you for pointing that out. Since these two have to go back into their display case soon, I just want to clear one thing more up: am I correct in thinking there were no issued, Pattern pistols for British Army infantry officers at this point in time, i.e. the late 18th-early 19th centuries?

[RDGAC]

Next up, what I am fairly sure is an M1874 "Montenegrin" Gasser revolver, though I can't as yet find out who made it. Reasonable condition, but reluctant to dry fire; the hammer cocks smoothly but the trigger doesn't appear to break. Some slight pressure on the hammer spur will, however, release the hammer. Sadly de-activated; I say sadly because I can't imagine that an 11.2mm black powder cartridge not used since the Great War could not be on the obsolete calibres list.

[RDGAC]

And now a bit of a puzzler, at least to me. What looks like an ordinary enough flintlock musket, but seems a bit weird to my ignorant eyes.

Firstly, although it bears a very clear maker's mark and date (which is nice, though I know nothing about Corson (and?) Carr), the crown stamp, though positioned where you'd expect it to be, doesn't have any lettering to accompany it. The crown itself also looks a little roughly done, even for the 1750s.

Second, its proportions are odd. I've done a little digging and it seems most likely to be a 1756 Short Land Pattern, but the barrel's too short (39.75in), and more importantly, the bore's too small - .62-.65 (measuring roughly with a ruler), rather than the .79 or so I'd have expected. Even if the barrel has been, at some stage, cut down, it is still under-bored.

Thirdly, the proof marks. They're incredibly small (useful, that ), but I think I can make out a single "Viewed" mark - and two Black Powder proof marks. Of course, I may be wrong, and hopefully the photo provided is useful, but my first thought was that the barrel has been reproofed at some point in its life. However, if that is the case, one wonders what precisely led to its needing reproofing.

Anyway, herewith some piccies. Sorry if I'm asking stupid questions; I fully admit, and abhor, my ignorance. But I think a great man once said that, "To ask may be a moment's shame; not to ask, and to remain ignorant, is a lifetime's shame".

While waiting for these to upload, meanwhile, I took a look at the lock. The workmanship's a world away from that of my old jezail, and the lock is in very good condition - except that the sear's missing! And it's covered in a strange, greenish-yellow, sticky goo, which I assume was once oil or tallow of some kind...

[Matchlock]

I think nobody struggling for serious study can ask stupid questions; it's the answers that can be stupid.

This is a real riddle piece indeed. Though, as you noted, it looks much like a regular military musket at first sight, some details do not seem to match, e.g. the stylized flower engraving on the rear end of the barrel. Unfortunately, neither could I find a certain Corson (or Carson) Carr in any of my records, nor have I been able to identify the marks.

All we can do is hope to find someone here who has specialized in British and colonial American flintlock muskets.

Best,
Michael

[Matchlock]

A characteristic British flintlock mechanism, signed by Grice and dated 1762/9?.

You were absolutely right in pointing out the difference between the crown on your gun and on this lock bearing the typical initials GR, for George (or Georgius) Rex.

m