British Eat India Co. Cavalry Pistol

Pukka Bundook · 8th May 2016, 03:52 PM

Good morning Rick,

I think Stu is pretty well right on this. The conversion looks a bit rough (particularly around the bolster) so may have been done in Afghanistan. The bun -nut being replaced with a nut turned to shape , or even a washer and riveted in place also says India/Afghanistan.
The stock and sideplate look right, but think converted "out there". Lock -work looks right to me, though the outside is a bit rough.

There are some very good examples on Brit. Militaria Forums, under "Guns of the EIC" forum, for comparison.
The proofs are right In Essence........but not clear enough to say if they are the real deal.
Best,
Richard.

rickystl · 11th May 2016, 01:45 AM

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

kahnjar1 · 11th May 2016, 09:19 AM

Hi Rick,
The other comment which I did not make before, and perhaps should have, relates to the lion on the lock. The wear of the lion (see your first pic of this thread) seems way out of match to the wear elsewhere. The lion is on what I would class as a "protected area" of the lock, therefore unlikely to have so much wear. Also I note from your last pic showing the lock interior, that the upside down V appears again.
I think, though could be wrong, that this lock is NOT an original EIC one.
Stu

Richard G · 11th May 2016, 02:22 PM

Rick, a couple of points about the barrel, bearing in mind I'm no expert in EIC pistols.
Looking at the pictures it seems as if the barrel and the tang are cast in one piece, I think this is not right for an EIC pistol.
Similarly It looks rather as if the nipple block is cast in one piece with the barrel, again obviously not right for a conversion.
Lastly, I think most EIC flintlock pistols I have seen have a couple of, presumably decorative, bands around the barrel near the tang.
I'm not saying this makes the barrel wrong, just me a bit suspicious; or, of course, I have misinterpreted the photo's
Regards
Richard

rickystl · 12th May 2016, 02:53 AM

Hi guys.
Well, I took the barrel off. The mystery deepend a little further. I'll post pics tomorrow morning when I have some natural light.
Rick

kahnjar1 · 12th May 2016, 09:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rickystl

Hi guys.
Well, I took the barrel off. The mystery deepend a little further. I'll post pics tomorrow morning when I have some natural light.
Rick

Hi Rick,
While you are at it could you please post some CLEAR pics of the proof marks. That should confirm if it is in fact an English barrel or one made elsewhere with "copied" marks.
Stu

rickystl · 12th May 2016, 02:18 PM

Hi Guys.
Here are some more pics of the gun dis-assembled. Cloudy and raining here this morning. So no natural light to assist. But the pics came out ok I think.
Stu: This is the best I can get of the marks on top of the barrel. No marks on the bottom.
But I have a new opinion of this gun. But I would like your additional opinions first. Thanks for looking.
Rick

Richard G · 12th May 2016, 02:29 PM

Hello Rick,
I have Harding's 'Introduction to EIC Smallarms' which I have dug out and the following is clear, much of which you have already surmised.
The oficial EIC flintlock to percussion converted lock was only for muskets. It seems the EIC did not convert pistols; they went straight from the Baker pattern flintlock to a percussion pattern in 1840. The EIC continued using flintlocks until 1852.
Harding gives the size of the official EIC converted musket lock as 6.8in by 1.25in
EIC Baker pattern flintlock pistol barrels had baluster rings at the breech and should be 9ins long and it seems, of one piece. The lock should measure 5.25in by 1in.
The barrels of the 1840 and later percussion pistols did not have baluster turns and were of one piece also, but the nipple 'lump' should be welded to the barrel. An original EIC percussion pistol barrel should have a wealth of markings beneath.
The crown over 3 is an inspection mark. The examples in Harding's book do not have the little decorative dots either side.
Hope this helps.
Richard
PS Rick, you posted while I was writing. Lets see what happens.

11th May 2016, 01:45 AM	#2
rickystl Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: St. Louis, MO area. Posts: 1,633	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 Attached Images

12th May 2016, 02:18 PM	#7
rickystl Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: St. Louis, MO area. Posts: 1,633	Hi Guys. Here are some more pics of the gun dis-assembled. Cloudy and raining here this morning. So no natural light to assist. But the pics came out ok I think. Stu: This is the best I can get of the marks on top of the barrel. No marks on the bottom. But I have a new opinion of this gun. But I would like your additional opinions first. Thanks for looking. Rick Attached Images

8th May 2016, 03:52 PM	#1
Pukka Bundook Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 803	Good morning Rick, I think Stu is pretty well right on this. The conversion looks a bit rough (particularly around the bolster) so may have been done in Afghanistan. The bun -nut being replaced with a nut turned to shape , or even a washer and riveted in place also says India/Afghanistan. The stock and sideplate look right, but think converted "out there". Lock -work looks right to me, though the outside is a bit rough. There are some very good examples on Brit. Militaria Forums, under "Guns of the EIC" forum, for comparison. The proofs are right In Essence........but not clear enough to say if they are the real deal. Best, Richard.

11th May 2016, 09:19 AM	#3
kahnjar1 Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: CHRISTCHURCH NEW ZEALAND Posts: 2,818	Hi Rick, The other comment which I did not make before, and perhaps should have, relates to the lion on the lock. The wear of the lion (see your first pic of this thread) seems way out of match to the wear elsewhere. The lion is on what I would class as a "protected area" of the lock, therefore unlikely to have so much wear. Also I note from your last pic showing the lock interior, that the upside down V appears again. I think, though could be wrong, that this lock is NOT an original EIC one. Stu

11th May 2016, 02:22 PM	#4
Richard G Member Join Date: Jan 2012 Posts: 415	Rick, a couple of points about the barrel, bearing in mind I'm no expert in EIC pistols. Looking at the pictures it seems as if the barrel and the tang are cast in one piece, I think this is not right for an EIC pistol. Similarly It looks rather as if the nipple block is cast in one piece with the barrel, again obviously not right for a conversion. Lastly, I think most EIC flintlock pistols I have seen have a couple of, presumably decorative, bands around the barrel near the tang. I'm not saying this makes the barrel wrong, just me a bit suspicious; or, of course, I have misinterpreted the photo's Regards Richard

12th May 2016, 02:53 AM	#5
rickystl Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: St. Louis, MO area. Posts: 1,633	Hi guys. Well, I took the barrel off. The mystery deepend a little further. I'll post pics tomorrow morning when I have some natural light. Rick

12th May 2016, 02:29 PM	#8
Richard G Member Join Date: Jan 2012 Posts: 415	Hello Rick, I have Harding's 'Introduction to EIC Smallarms' which I have dug out and the following is clear, much of which you have already surmised. The oficial EIC flintlock to percussion converted lock was only for muskets. It seems the EIC did not convert pistols; they went straight from the Baker pattern flintlock to a percussion pattern in 1840. The EIC continued using flintlocks until 1852. Harding gives the size of the official EIC converted musket lock as 6.8in by 1.25in EIC Baker pattern flintlock pistol barrels had baluster rings at the breech and should be 9ins long and it seems, of one piece. The lock should measure 5.25in by 1in. The barrels of the 1840 and later percussion pistols did not have baluster turns and were of one piece also, but the nipple 'lump' should be welded to the barrel. An original EIC percussion pistol barrel should have a wealth of markings beneath. The crown over 3 is an inspection mark. The examples in Harding's book do not have the little decorative dots either side. Hope this helps. Richard PS Rick, you posted while I was writing. Lets see what happens.