English Sea Service Pistol?

JamesKelly · 21st March 2016, 01:05 AM

This plain pistol is of large caliber, 20mm, with a 230mm long barrel. The barrel is 30.3mm dia some 9-10mm ahead of the breech. This is identical to a British Light Dragoon pistol, marked Williams, in my Accumulation. By contrast, an India pattern Brown Bess of mine measures 33.9mm dia at similar location. By these measurements I assume the pistol barrel was intended to be 20mm caliber, and not a cut-down musket barrel. No visible proof marks. The lock and breech end of the barrel have some black paint, which might be consistent with sea service except it looks to have been applied after some corrosion and pitting had already taken place. The large bore permits a standard musket ball to be used.
I will probably go through life assuming that this is an English Sea Service pistol unless you gentlemen have other ideas.

Tony PP · 21st March 2016, 01:29 PM

It might have been to sea and a British person might have fired it but I don't think this is a British Sea Service Pistol. The angle of the grip/butt looks too straight. I don't think I have seen a Sea Service without a brass butt plate of some shape. The lock does not look British and the powder pan has a very strange shape?. Never have I seen any British service flintlock without very deep stamped proof marks. Most have military or naval markings ( Not all). Your pistol has numbers but they look rather recent and too small for any service stamp. My guess is that you either have a cut down rifle /carbine of some sort or something made up from parts. When of course is the real question. Was it made to use in the distant past or was it made to deceive? I look forward to reading what others think and I might have got it all wrong.

Fernando K · 21st March 2016, 02:57 PM

Hello

Of course, it is not a service weapon, by a
absence of proof punches and other inscriptions. In addition, the auction of lated. The hammer, although legitimate, does not correspond to the time the rest of the lock

Fernando K

Pukka Bundook · 21st March 2016, 03:27 PM

It does appear old, but as already noted not Sea Service.

The lock with the faceted pan looks rather Germanic to me.

Best.
R.

corrado26 · 21st March 2016, 05:03 PM

This lock with its battery spring ending left of the screw that fixes the lock to the butt is typical Austrian: It is the lock of the ordnance pistol M 1770. But the triggerguard and sideplate are of an other unknown but certainly European origin.
corrado26

Shakethetrees · 21st March 2016, 05:07 PM

It looks old, except for the ramrod.

However the lock and trigger guard do not look like British issue.

It appears to me to have been assembled from various parts a long time ago. The stock looks like a cut down carbine or musket stock due to the profile. The lack of a buttcap also gives me pause.

It has a great patina and appears to have been legitimately used a long time ago, but any further attribution at this point (in my opinion), is strictly conjecture.

Fernando K · 21st March 2016, 10:08 PM

Hello

Numerous lock have the screw securing the lock to the stock right spring frizzen, so that is not a feature to define the origin of the lock, also other differences with the lock rise by corrado, as the auction of noticeable frizzen, a difference in the conformation of the gooseneck and the shape of "banana shape" of the plate of the lock and the pan is rounded and not facetted and depressed area at the end of the plate.

Affectionately. Fernando K

Sorry for the translator

JamesKelly · 21st March 2016, 11:03 PM

For what it's worth, the "390" is some manner of museum mark, not original to the pistol.
The pan is faceted, not round
Barrel measurements show that it is not a cut down musket. The profile is identical to a light dragoon pistol, not to a Brown Bess.
Otherwise, thank you, Gentlemen, for looking it over.

Shakethetrees · 22nd March 2016, 12:48 AM

Sometime Irish registry marks are stamped similar to this. Seeing how guns were so highly restricted there going way back, it wouldn't surprise me that it could have been put together there.

I don't think the shape of the pommel, length of the grip and lack of a buttcap make this a candidate to be a light Dragoon pistol!

corrado26 · 22nd March 2016, 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fernando K

Hello

Numerous lock have the screw securing the lock to the stock right spring frizzen, so that is not a feature to define the origin of the lock,

So please be so kind and show me other locks with a flat plate and a flat swanneck cock that have this situation of the battery spring.
regards
corrado26

Fernando K · 22nd March 2016, 04:15 PM

Fernando K

corrado26 · 22nd March 2016, 05:06 PM

Ok, thank you, I forgot the Spanish flintlocks, but the lock of the pistol is certainly not a Spanish one
Regards
corrado26

Fernando K · 22nd March 2016, 11:03 PM

Hello

If, of course, the lock is not Spanish. Only me just say that the flat shape of the plate, the hammer-shaped gooseneck, the bowl round. the auction of frizzen, and the front screw lock are numerous and do not serve to ensure the origin. Subi image of Spanish solamentre lock as an example

Affectionately. Fernando K

JamesKelly · 23rd March 2016, 01:53 AM

OK, to clarify. It is the outside dimensions of the BARREL that are about the same as my light dragoon pistol. Not the stock, not the hardware.
I noted this to confirm that, whatever is this pistol, it is NOT a cut down musket or carbine. At least, when I hold it in front of a Long Land and an India pattern Brown Bess it is clear that this pistol could not come out of that pattern wood, likewise the breech diameter of the musket is quite a bit larger..
The sideplate of the pistol in service is stamped 94, which corresponds to the 94 (not shown) stamped deeply into the wood, right side of grip. I might guess that this stood for 1794, much as 08 on a long dragoon pistol meant, I dare say, 1808. With quite a bit of imagination one might discern English proof marks near the breech. It was a kindness of someone to paint it black, as corrosion has taken its toll.
I have had the impression that the British used simpler, or older, patterns for the Sea Service. I suppose I got this from Battle Weapons of the American Revolution, George C. Neumann, ©1998. Specific examples that have features somewhat like my pistol are: page 34 (5) Circa 1750-1780, flat sea service lock . . . frizzen often squared; page 77 27.MM English Sea Service , . . the lock and furniture continued to follow early Queen Anne period styling . . . a rounded trigger guard front terminal. . .
You gentlemen have inspired me to do the homework I should have earlier. I really don't know much about English Sea Service firearms. I would be thankful if someone would point me to an appropriate reference book other than Neumann.

NeilUK · 23rd March 2016, 06:23 PM

Hi James,
If you can find it you could try:
R.Brooker, British Military Pistols 1603-1888, pub.1978 by American Soc. of Arms Collectors; or
D.W.Bailey, Small Arms of the British Forces in America 1664-1815, pub. 2009 by Mowbray (in USA)

Both of these have info on the pistols you want, incl. Sea Service.

Hope this helps,
Neil

Tony PP · 24th March 2016, 12:03 AM

It would be interesting to see the inside of the lock. From the pictures the trigger screw can be seen but not any sign of a sear spring screw. Not an English lock type i have ever seen. Can you also show what you think might be some proof marks ?

You said it could not be a cut down because the barrel of the Brown Bess was larger. That's assuming it was a military cut down but sporting rifle were changed at times. I had in the past a cut down rifle that was made into a pistol of a similar shape that had been used in the British penal system. In the early 18 hundreds the prisons were busy and not well funded so any weapon was made use of.

Anyway, Its old ,it's yours and a bit of interesting history. Have Fun

JamesKelly · 24th March 2016, 02:07 AM

NeilUK it is embarrassing to say, but though my library catalog says I have this DeWitt Bailey book I cannot find it tonight. Neither can I locate my rather expensive copy of R. Brooker's work 1603 - 1888 pistols. Hopefully they are in the attic with a few other books I've not seen since my last move. Thank you for the references, now I must find them somewhere in storage. Somewhere.

With respect to the sear spring screw, it exists but is hidden by the cock. On Brown Bess muskets, for example, that long sear spring was used in the pattern 1756 lock. The pattern 1777 lock (terminology from Goldstein & Mowbray, The Brown Bess) used the shorter sear spring, and the screw does show in the lockplate behind the cock.

With respect to being a cut-down musket, they would have had to turn the breech smaller in diameter, while retaining the same design of rings on it. The pistol might be something inexpensive for prison guards, but I cannot see how it could be cut down from anything. I still guess at 1794, given the "94" stampings on sideplate and stock, as well as the short 230mm (9" to those less fond of that French system) barrel.

This pistol is keeping me busier than I had anticipated.

Pukka Bundook · 24th March 2016, 03:27 AM

Just to confirm James' post above, the long scear spring was used in English locks until roughly 1765, then replaced by the shorter style.

This is just a generalization, as there was no immediate change over.

Having said that, the faceted pan is not seen usually on English locks and I still think the lock in question has a Germanic look to it, But, Germanic locks often had the pan screwed to the plate & a screw showed on the lock face between the breast of the cock and the pan.
We see no evidence of this on the lock in question.

Such screws can be seen above in poste 5 & 11.

Best regards,
Richard.

M ELEY · 24th March 2016, 05:11 AM

Gilkerson's "Boarders Away II" is an excellent resource for sea service pistols as well. Every naval enthusiast should have a copy.

Cathey · 25th March 2016, 04:31 AM

Hi Guys

I agree that the pistol featured in this post is not a sea service. We have three of the long Sea Service pistols in our collection and they are very distinctive in design. The one I have included in this post is Circa 1800.

Dimensions: Overall 49.2 cm, 19.6 inches, Barrel 30.7 cm, 12 inches
Marks, etc.: George III cypher over "TOWER.", The stock behind the lock appears to be branded "1800" under a crown. There are additional issues stamps in the stock and under the ram rod including TP 4 GR. Belt hook has crown & 7.

Description
Sea service pistol with lock bearing the standard George III cypher over "TOWER." The .56-caliber barrel is 12" and marked at the breech with government view and proof stamps. The stock behind the lock appears to be branded "1800" under a crown. There are additional issues stamps in the stock and under the ram rod including TP 4 GR. The later style lock and a thicker stock immediately distinguish this early 19th-century pistol from the earlier 18th-century examples. Again, the overall length is 19" and it has a steel belt hook.

General Remarks
This basic form was adopted by the British Navy as its Patterns 1756. This example is Pattern 1756/1777 having an improved lock added at the later date (that is two screw ends visible behind the cock and no date below “TOWER” on the tail), plus a new rounded pan. The basic characteristics however remain the same as the original 1718 version of this design: a 12” pinned barrel (0.56 calibre); a flat lock with a ring cock; a narrow pan (no fence); the absence of both bridles; a single cast rammer pipe (wooden rod); the land service-type hazelnut trigger guard that adds a rear spur in the bow; a walnut stock providing beaver-tail carving at the barrel tang; a simple butt cap; and no nose band. A hole visible in the typical flat side plate tail anchored a stud on the belt hook’s base – held, in turn, by a lengthened rear side plate screw. A top screw secures the barrel tang; there is not trigger plate. Tower proofs are struck into the breach, while both “TOWER” and “crown/GR/broad arrow” are on the lock. These plain but sturdy pistols were often thrown or used as clubs after firing during close deck action.

References:
GILKERSON, William BOARDERS AWAY II: FIREARMS OF THE AGE OF FIGHTING SAIL pp248
HAWKINS, Peter THE PRICE GUIDE TO ANTIQUE GUNS & PISTOLS Pp238
MILLER, Martin THE COLLECTOR'S ILLUSTRATED GUIDE TO FIREARMS Pp92-93
NEUMANN, George G. BATTLE WEAPONS OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION Pp249
WILKINSON, Frederick SMALL ARMS 256p

Cheers Cathey and Rex

21st March 2016, 01:05 AM	#1
JamesKelly Member Join Date: Aug 2013 Location: Michigan, U.S.A. Posts: 108	English Sea Service Pistol? This plain pistol is of large caliber, 20mm, with a 230mm long barrel. The barrel is 30.3mm dia some 9-10mm ahead of the breech. This is identical to a British Light Dragoon pistol, marked Williams, in my Accumulation. By contrast, an India pattern Brown Bess of mine measures 33.9mm dia at similar location. By these measurements I assume the pistol barrel was intended to be 20mm caliber, and not a cut-down musket barrel. No visible proof marks. The lock and breech end of the barrel have some black paint, which might be consistent with sea service except it looks to have been applied after some corrosion and pitting had already taken place. The large bore permits a standard musket ball to be used. I will probably go through life assuming that this is an English Sea Service pistol unless you gentlemen have other ideas. Attached Images

21st March 2016, 01:29 PM	#2
Tony PP Member Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 26	Sea Service Pistol ? It might have been to sea and a British person might have fired it but I don't think this is a British Sea Service Pistol. The angle of the grip/butt looks too straight. I don't think I have seen a Sea Service without a brass butt plate of some shape. The lock does not look British and the powder pan has a very strange shape?. Never have I seen any British service flintlock without very deep stamped proof marks. Most have military or naval markings ( Not all). Your pistol has numbers but they look rather recent and too small for any service stamp. My guess is that you either have a cut down rifle /carbine of some sort or something made up from parts. When of course is the real question. Was it made to use in the distant past or was it made to deceive? I look forward to reading what others think and I might have got it all wrong.

21st March 2016, 05:03 PM	#5
corrado26 Member Join Date: Dec 2014 Location: Black Forest, Germany Posts: 1,204	This lock with its battery spring ending left of the screw that fixes the lock to the butt is typical Austrian: It is the lock of the ordnance pistol M 1770. But the triggerguard and sideplate are of an other unknown but certainly European origin. corrado26 Attached Images

22nd March 2016, 04:15 PM	#11
Fernando K Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 669	Lock Fernando K Attached Images

23rd March 2016, 01:53 AM	#14
JamesKelly Member Join Date: Aug 2013 Location: Michigan, U.S.A. Posts: 108	OK, to clarify. It is the outside dimensions of the BARREL that are about the same as my light dragoon pistol. Not the stock, not the hardware. I noted this to confirm that, whatever is this pistol, it is NOT a cut down musket or carbine. At least, when I hold it in front of a Long Land and an India pattern Brown Bess it is clear that this pistol could not come out of that pattern wood, likewise the breech diameter of the musket is quite a bit larger.. The sideplate of the pistol in service is stamped 94, which corresponds to the 94 (not shown) stamped deeply into the wood, right side of grip. I might guess that this stood for 1794, much as 08 on a long dragoon pistol meant, I dare say, 1808. With quite a bit of imagination one might discern English proof marks near the breech. It was a kindness of someone to paint it black, as corrosion has taken its toll. I have had the impression that the British used simpler, or older, patterns for the Sea Service. I suppose I got this from Battle Weapons of the American Revolution, George C. Neumann, ©1998. Specific examples that have features somewhat like my pistol are: page 34 (5) Circa 1750-1780, flat sea service lock . . . frizzen often squared; page 77 27.MM English Sea Service , . . the lock and furniture continued to follow early Queen Anne period styling . . . a rounded trigger guard front terminal. . . You gentlemen have inspired me to do the homework I should have earlier. I really don't know much about English Sea Service firearms. I would be thankful if someone would point me to an appropriate reference book other than Neumann. Attached Images

21st March 2016, 02:57 PM	#3
Fernando K Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 669	Hello Of course, it is not a service weapon, by a absence of proof punches and other inscriptions. In addition, the auction of lated. The hammer, although legitimate, does not correspond to the time the rest of the lock Fernando K

21st March 2016, 03:27 PM	#4
Pukka Bundook Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 803	It does appear old, but as already noted not Sea Service. The lock with the faceted pan looks rather Germanic to me. Best. R.

21st March 2016, 05:07 PM	#6
Shakethetrees Member Join Date: Apr 2014 Location: Louisiana Posts: 363	It looks old, except for the ramrod. However the lock and trigger guard do not look like British issue. It appears to me to have been assembled from various parts a long time ago. The stock looks like a cut down carbine or musket stock due to the profile. The lack of a buttcap also gives me pause. It has a great patina and appears to have been legitimately used a long time ago, but any further attribution at this point (in my opinion), is strictly conjecture.

21st March 2016, 10:08 PM	#7
Fernando K Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 669	Hello Numerous lock have the screw securing the lock to the stock right spring frizzen, so that is not a feature to define the origin of the lock, also other differences with the lock rise by corrado, as the auction of noticeable frizzen, a difference in the conformation of the gooseneck and the shape of "banana shape" of the plate of the lock and the pan is rounded and not facetted and depressed area at the end of the plate. Affectionately. Fernando K Sorry for the translator

21st March 2016, 11:03 PM	#8
JamesKelly Member Join Date: Aug 2013 Location: Michigan, U.S.A. Posts: 108	For what it's worth, the "390" is some manner of museum mark, not original to the pistol. The pan is faceted, not round Barrel measurements show that it is not a cut down musket. The profile is identical to a light dragoon pistol, not to a Brown Bess. Otherwise, thank you, Gentlemen, for looking it over.

22nd March 2016, 12:48 AM	#9
Shakethetrees Member Join Date: Apr 2014 Location: Louisiana Posts: 363	Sometime Irish registry marks are stamped similar to this. Seeing how guns were so highly restricted there going way back, it wouldn't surprise me that it could have been put together there. I don't think the shape of the pommel, length of the grip and lack of a buttcap make this a candidate to be a light Dragoon pistol!

22nd March 2016, 05:06 PM	#12
corrado26 Member Join Date: Dec 2014 Location: Black Forest, Germany Posts: 1,204	Ok, thank you, I forgot the Spanish flintlocks, but the lock of the pistol is certainly not a Spanish one Regards corrado26

22nd March 2016, 11:03 PM	#13
Fernando K Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 669	Hello If, of course, the lock is not Spanish. Only me just say that the flat shape of the plate, the hammer-shaped gooseneck, the bowl round. the auction of frizzen, and the front screw lock are numerous and do not serve to ensure the origin. Subi image of Spanish solamentre lock as an example Affectionately. Fernando K

23rd March 2016, 06:23 PM	#15
NeilUK Member Join Date: Dec 2014 Location: Scotland Posts: 125	Hi James, If you can find it you could try: R.Brooker, British Military Pistols 1603-1888, pub.1978 by American Soc. of Arms Collectors; or D.W.Bailey, Small Arms of the British Forces in America 1664-1815, pub. 2009 by Mowbray (in USA) Both of these have info on the pistols you want, incl. Sea Service. Hope this helps, Neil

24th March 2016, 12:03 AM	#16
Tony PP Member Join Date: Oct 2012 Posts: 26	Sea Service ? It would be interesting to see the inside of the lock. From the pictures the trigger screw can be seen but not any sign of a sear spring screw. Not an English lock type i have ever seen. Can you also show what you think might be some proof marks ? You said it could not be a cut down because the barrel of the Brown Bess was larger. That's assuming it was a military cut down but sporting rifle were changed at times. I had in the past a cut down rifle that was made into a pistol of a similar shape that had been used in the British penal system. In the early 18 hundreds the prisons were busy and not well funded so any weapon was made use of. Anyway, Its old ,it's yours and a bit of interesting history. Have Fun

24th March 2016, 02:07 AM	#17
JamesKelly Member Join Date: Aug 2013 Location: Michigan, U.S.A. Posts: 108	NeilUK it is embarrassing to say, but though my library catalog says I have this DeWitt Bailey book I cannot find it tonight. Neither can I locate my rather expensive copy of R. Brooker's work 1603 - 1888 pistols. Hopefully they are in the attic with a few other books I've not seen since my last move. Thank you for the references, now I must find them somewhere in storage. Somewhere. With respect to the sear spring screw, it exists but is hidden by the cock. On Brown Bess muskets, for example, that long sear spring was used in the pattern 1756 lock. The pattern 1777 lock (terminology from Goldstein & Mowbray, The Brown Bess) used the shorter sear spring, and the screw does show in the lockplate behind the cock. With respect to being a cut-down musket, they would have had to turn the breech smaller in diameter, while retaining the same design of rings on it. The pistol might be something inexpensive for prison guards, but I cannot see how it could be cut down from anything. I still guess at 1794, given the "94" stampings on sideplate and stock, as well as the short 230mm (9" to those less fond of that French system) barrel. This pistol is keeping me busier than I had anticipated.

24th March 2016, 03:27 AM	#18
Pukka Bundook Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 803	Just to confirm James' post above, the long scear spring was used in English locks until roughly 1765, then replaced by the shorter style. This is just a generalization, as there was no immediate change over. Having said that, the faceted pan is not seen usually on English locks and I still think the lock in question has a Germanic look to it, But, Germanic locks often had the pan screwed to the plate & a screw showed on the lock face between the breast of the cock and the pan. We see no evidence of this on the lock in question. Such screws can be seen above in poste 5 & 11. Best regards, Richard.

24th March 2016, 05:11 AM	#19
M ELEY Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: NC, U.S.A. Posts: 2,097	Gilkerson's "Boarders Away II" is an excellent resource for sea service pistols as well. Every naval enthusiast should have a copy.

25th March 2016, 04:31 AM	#20
Cathey Member Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: adelaide south australia Posts: 282	LONG SEA SERVICE PISTOL Hi Guys I agree that the pistol featured in this post is not a sea service. We have three of the long Sea Service pistols in our collection and they are very distinctive in design. The one I have included in this post is Circa 1800. Dimensions: Overall 49.2 cm, 19.6 inches, Barrel 30.7 cm, 12 inches Marks, etc.: George III cypher over "TOWER.", The stock behind the lock appears to be branded "1800" under a crown. There are additional issues stamps in the stock and under the ram rod including TP 4 GR. Belt hook has crown & 7. Description Sea service pistol with lock bearing the standard George III cypher over "TOWER." The .56-caliber barrel is 12" and marked at the breech with government view and proof stamps. The stock behind the lock appears to be branded "1800" under a crown. There are additional issues stamps in the stock and under the ram rod including TP 4 GR. The later style lock and a thicker stock immediately distinguish this early 19th-century pistol from the earlier 18th-century examples. Again, the overall length is 19" and it has a steel belt hook. General Remarks This basic form was adopted by the British Navy as its Patterns 1756. This example is Pattern 1756/1777 having an improved lock added at the later date (that is two screw ends visible behind the cock and no date below “TOWER” on the tail), plus a new rounded pan. The basic characteristics however remain the same as the original 1718 version of this design: a 12” pinned barrel (0.56 calibre); a flat lock with a ring cock; a narrow pan (no fence); the absence of both bridles; a single cast rammer pipe (wooden rod); the land service-type hazelnut trigger guard that adds a rear spur in the bow; a walnut stock providing beaver-tail carving at the barrel tang; a simple butt cap; and no nose band. A hole visible in the typical flat side plate tail anchored a stud on the belt hook’s base – held, in turn, by a lengthened rear side plate screw. A top screw secures the barrel tang; there is not trigger plate. Tower proofs are struck into the breach, while both “TOWER” and “crown/GR/broad arrow” are on the lock. These plain but sturdy pistols were often thrown or used as clubs after firing during close deck action. References: GILKERSON, William BOARDERS AWAY II: FIREARMS OF THE AGE OF FIGHTING SAIL pp248 HAWKINS, Peter THE PRICE GUIDE TO ANTIQUE GUNS & PISTOLS Pp238 MILLER, Martin THE COLLECTOR'S ILLUSTRATED GUIDE TO FIREARMS Pp92-93 NEUMANN, George G. BATTLE WEAPONS OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION Pp249 WILKINSON, Frederick SMALL ARMS 256p Cheers Cathey and Rex Attached Images