British Eat India Co. Cavalry Pistol

kahnjar1 · 12th May 2016, 08:48 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, 01:18 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

rickystl · 12th May 2016, 01:20 PM

MORE PICS..........

rickystl · 12th May 2016, 01:22 PM

MARKS ON TOP OF BARREL............

Richard G · 12th May 2016, 01:29 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.

rickystl · 12th May 2016, 02:53 PM

Hi Richard.
Thank yo so much for this information. Most helpful.
The lockplate on this gun does in fact measure 5.25" X 1'. As well, the barrel length is 9" on the nose. Notice the barrel has NO breech plug. Is that what's meant by "one piece" ? The barrel does seem to be a forging vs a casting. But I really can't tell for sure with this one. It does seem that the bolster is welded to the barrel. Speaking of which: After removing the nipple, I noticed a typical channel you would see going into the barrel. But instead of a small hole in the barrel, there is more of a slot shape that would expose the threads of the nipple to the powder inside the barrel. Hmmm. Doesn't make sense.
Some other notes: The lock inlet was done very well. Close to Factory type work. But the left side of the stock, where the side plate is located, the carving seems a bit crude. Not to typical Factory standards. A bit too rounded.
I'm starting to think this may be an Afghan assembled copy, utilizing some original surplus parts. The threads where the mainspring screw was, are cut similar to what you would see on a Factory gun, vs an Afghan type piece.
Anyway, additional comments appreciated.
Rick.

Pukka Bundook · 12th May 2016, 03:12 PM

Rick,

I think you have arrived at the right conclusion;
Assembled in Afghanistan with some original parts.

They did get the proofs fairly close, if close counts! (Crown and 'V' stamped
separately.)
The barrel should have a separate breech plug with tang.

Harding's books is the best, but nearly unobtainable.
Thanks for showing it!

R.

kahnjar1 · 12th May 2016, 08:57 PM

Hi Rick,
I agree with Richard regarding the "proof" marks. They are close-ish, but not right IMHO.
I see that the Arabic 83 has appeared again! This time under the tang, and in the barrel channel. Well I think that the correct diagnosis has probably appeared now. As Richard also said, Afghan assembled using SOME genuine parts.
Stu

Jim McDougall · 12th May 2016, 09:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kahnjar1

Hi Rick,
I agree with Richard regarding the "proof" marks. They are close-ish, but not right IMHO.
I see that the Arabic 83 has appeared again! This time under the tang, and in the barrel channel. Well I think that the correct diagnosis has probably appeared now. As Richard also said, Afghan assembled using SOME genuine parts.
Stu

What is the Arabic '83' about? Is this something consistently found in these firearms, or on other weapons?

kahnjar1 · 13th May 2016, 11:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

What is the Arabic '83' about? Is this something consistently found in these firearms, or on other weapons?

Hi Jim,
The fact the number reads 83 in Arabic is coincidental. The point is that it is most unlikely that any British pistol would be marked with Arabic numerals of any sort, in this way, if it was the genuine British made article.
The initial purpose of this thread was to establish if this was a GENUINE EIC pistol, or a copy. The Arabic numbers are part of that evidence.
Stu

12th May 2016, 01:18 PM	#2
rickystl Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: St. Louis, MO area. Posts: 1,630	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

12th May 2016, 01:20 PM	#3
rickystl Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: St. Louis, MO area. Posts: 1,630	MORE PICS.......... Attached Images

12th May 2016, 01:22 PM	#4
rickystl Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: St. Louis, MO area. Posts: 1,630	MARKS ON TOP OF BARREL............ Attached Images

12th May 2016, 01:29 PM	#5
Richard G Member Join Date: Jan 2012 Posts: 409	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.

12th May 2016, 02:53 PM	#6
rickystl Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: St. Louis, MO area. Posts: 1,630	Hi Richard. Thank yo so much for this information. Most helpful. The lockplate on this gun does in fact measure 5.25" X 1'. As well, the barrel length is 9" on the nose. Notice the barrel has NO breech plug. Is that what's meant by "one piece" ? The barrel does seem to be a forging vs a casting. But I really can't tell for sure with this one. It does seem that the bolster is welded to the barrel. Speaking of which: After removing the nipple, I noticed a typical channel you would see going into the barrel. But instead of a small hole in the barrel, there is more of a slot shape that would expose the threads of the nipple to the powder inside the barrel. Hmmm. Doesn't make sense. Some other notes: The lock inlet was done very well. Close to Factory type work. But the left side of the stock, where the side plate is located, the carving seems a bit crude. Not to typical Factory standards. A bit too rounded. I'm starting to think this may be an Afghan assembled copy, utilizing some original surplus parts. The threads where the mainspring screw was, are cut similar to what you would see on a Factory gun, vs an Afghan type piece. Anyway, additional comments appreciated. Rick.

12th May 2016, 03:12 PM	#7
Pukka Bundook Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 803	Rick, I think you have arrived at the right conclusion; Assembled in Afghanistan with some original parts. They did get the proofs fairly close, if close counts! (Crown and 'V' stamped separately.) The barrel should have a separate breech plug with tang. Harding's books is the best, but nearly unobtainable. Thanks for showing it! R.

12th May 2016, 08:57 PM	#8
kahnjar1 Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: CHRISTCHURCH NEW ZEALAND Posts: 2,786	Hi Rick, I agree with Richard regarding the "proof" marks. They are close-ish, but not right IMHO. I see that the Arabic 83 has appeared again! This time under the tang, and in the barrel channel. Well I think that the correct diagnosis has probably appeared now. As Richard also said, Afghan assembled using SOME genuine parts. Stu