British Eat India Co. Cavalry Pistol

Richard G · 13th May 2016, 01:58 PM

Well, I think I am going to go against the majority opinion and say that I think this could be a British made commercial version of the EIC Baker pattern flintlock pistol that has been susequently modified in an Indian workshop. There are caveats however.
The mark in the barrel tang groove looks as if it could be a British contractors mark.
Can I see a no 1 marked on the inside of the lock, in the barrel groove and on the barrel tang?
The barrel looks as if it might have had baluster turns that have been filed off on the top, possibly when tidying up after welding the nipple lump.
I think the arabic '83' is probably an Indian armourers or workshop mark, applied when separating the barrel from the rest of the gun so that they can be matched again. In this case there would be an obvious need if the barrels were removed and taken elswhere to have the the nipple lumps welded.
The barrel proof marks don't look too bad to me and might well have been 'refreshed' when the pistol was 'refurbished'.
The EIC lion and view mark don't look so good to me and may have been added anytime later to add value.
My main worry is that the quality of the conversion doesn't seem consistent with what would have been expected from an organised ' batch' conversion which the marking of the barrel and stock imply.
That's my tuppence's worth.
Regards
Richard

rickystl · 13th May 2016, 08:55 PM

Thank you all for the additional comments. What an interesting Thread this is turning out to be.
Richard: Your last Theory does have merit. That's another possibility. The quality of the lock inlet in the stock looks very well done. The lockplate fits it like a glove. The lock internal parts, including the screws, as well as the swival ramrod and it's parts, the quality of the barrel inlet in the stock, and the brass hardware all look very European in quality. Does not look like it was done Tribal, if you know what I mean. It's only the conversion that looks a bit sub-standard. And I'm sure it was done on the "outside" as you say. But the number 83 in Arabic showing up in three different places, leads me to believe there was some type of organization, if you will, while performing the conversion.
BARREL: I ran a wood dowel down the bore and measured it against the outside length of the outside of the barrel. There is definately a plug in the breech. But I can't figure out how the breech plug was installed. I going to take it to a place in town here and have it X-Rayed. That will tell me if the breech plug has threads, and probably answer a couple more questions. LOL
Rick

kahnjar1 · 13th May 2016, 09:27 PM

Re RichardG's comment about the same number appearing on several parts.......His comments could well be true in as much as it is there to identify parts from the same gun, BUT they don't speak Arabic in India so why would the numbers be in Arabic?
Also I do not see the point in "refreshing" the proof marks. All this would do if inspected by a competent armourer, would be to indicate that the barrel was now NOT "In Proof" and therefore not LEGALLY safe to fire. The law regarding proof marks is very strict and rigidly adhered to in England and (at the time) in what would have been one of her colonies.
Stu

Richard G · 14th May 2016, 12:41 PM

Rick,
Once again, from Harding; official musket conversions were of two types;-
1, A nipple lump or block was braised or welded to the barrel.
2, The breech of the barrel was cut of and threaded and a new 'chambered' breech with an integral tang and nipple lump screwed in. I assume by 'integral' he means one single piece of metal.
I know this may sound silly, but is there any possibility of a ball still being in there?

Stu,
Sorry, when I referred to arabic numerals I meant in terms of the form rather than the language. I believe these numerals are the same in Urdu and Persian, both associated with the Muslims of Northern India and what is now Pakistan.
Also I did not mean 'refresh' as an official process but as a spurious practice of ensuring a customer sees what he wants to see. Even today dealers in antique arms have been known to 'refresh' engravings and marks if it adds value. Also, before the Mutiny, much of EIC governed Northern India had only recently been annexed and throughout the Raj there were a large number of Princeley States which recognised EIC or British soveriegnity but had internal autonomy. I wonder how effective enforcement of British proving laws could actually be.

Regards
Richard

rickystl · 14th May 2016, 04:17 PM

Thanks Richard for the extra information. Yes, I know what they mean on conversion 2 with the one-piece breech assembly. An earlier variation of what they did with the latter P1853 Enfield muskets converting them to .577 Snider.

THE PISTOL BARREL: No, there is no ball or load in the barrel. I checked it with a good drop light. I can see there is a breech plug. And I can see that the gun has been fired in the distant past. The bore is in good shape. No real corrosion, etc. Just some dirt.
I sent photos of the barrel to a knowledgeable black powder gunsmith (while my regular gunsmith is having medical issues) to get his opinion. He is very familiar with original barrel construction. He says these barrels were made very robust. And it appears so. He says that one way or another he is convinced that it has a threaded breach plug. But an X-Ray will tell for sure. Possibly, the barrel and tang are one piece (?) with a seperate plug. He mentioned to me that he has worked on a couple original barrels that he would have almost bet his first born that there was no breech plug. But after applying the correct heat...the evidence of the plug appeared, and out it came. He said that in both cases, after the breech plug was installed, it was heated and smoothed over with a file till all the round/circular evidence of a plug had disappeared. Sounds like a lot of extra work (?). Anyway, he had already surmised that I wanted to shoot this gun, using the original barrel if possible. But I will not shoot any barrel that does not have a threaded breech plug. He said if the X-Ray shows it is a threaded plug, and everything else checks out (bore condition, bolster threads, etc) there is no reason not to shoot it with normal loads of black powder, with a new nipple. He also agreed the bolster is forge welded to the barrel and looks to be ok. But I'll have my gunsmith double check the threads in the bolster. If he thinks they are a bit weak, we can drill out the old threads (and install a coil if necessary) and re-tap and install a new nipple.
Thanks again guys for the conversation and analysis. I'll re-post with the X-Ray results.
Rick

13th May 2016, 01:58 PM	#1
Richard G Member Join Date: Jan 2012 Posts: 413	Well, I think I am going to go against the majority opinion and say that I think this could be a British made commercial version of the EIC Baker pattern flintlock pistol that has been susequently modified in an Indian workshop. There are caveats however. The mark in the barrel tang groove looks as if it could be a British contractors mark. Can I see a no 1 marked on the inside of the lock, in the barrel groove and on the barrel tang? The barrel looks as if it might have had baluster turns that have been filed off on the top, possibly when tidying up after welding the nipple lump. I think the arabic '83' is probably an Indian armourers or workshop mark, applied when separating the barrel from the rest of the gun so that they can be matched again. In this case there would be an obvious need if the barrels were removed and taken elswhere to have the the nipple lumps welded. The barrel proof marks don't look too bad to me and might well have been 'refreshed' when the pistol was 'refurbished'. The EIC lion and view mark don't look so good to me and may have been added anytime later to add value. My main worry is that the quality of the conversion doesn't seem consistent with what would have been expected from an organised ' batch' conversion which the marking of the barrel and stock imply. That's my tuppence's worth. Regards Richard

13th May 2016, 08:55 PM	#2
rickystl Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: St. Louis, MO area. Posts: 1,633	Thank you all for the additional comments. What an interesting Thread this is turning out to be. Richard: Your last Theory does have merit. That's another possibility. The quality of the lock inlet in the stock looks very well done. The lockplate fits it like a glove. The lock internal parts, including the screws, as well as the swival ramrod and it's parts, the quality of the barrel inlet in the stock, and the brass hardware all look very European in quality. Does not look like it was done Tribal, if you know what I mean. It's only the conversion that looks a bit sub-standard. And I'm sure it was done on the "outside" as you say. But the number 83 in Arabic showing up in three different places, leads me to believe there was some type of organization, if you will, while performing the conversion. BARREL: I ran a wood dowel down the bore and measured it against the outside length of the outside of the barrel. There is definately a plug in the breech. But I can't figure out how the breech plug was installed. I going to take it to a place in town here and have it X-Rayed. That will tell me if the breech plug has threads, and probably answer a couple more questions. LOL Rick

13th May 2016, 09:27 PM	#3
kahnjar1 Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: CHRISTCHURCH NEW ZEALAND Posts: 2,800	Re RichardG's comment about the same number appearing on several parts.......His comments could well be true in as much as it is there to identify parts from the same gun, BUT they don't speak Arabic in India so why would the numbers be in Arabic? Also I do not see the point in "refreshing" the proof marks. All this would do if inspected by a competent armourer, would be to indicate that the barrel was now NOT "In Proof" and therefore not LEGALLY safe to fire. The law regarding proof marks is very strict and rigidly adhered to in England and (at the time) in what would have been one of her colonies. Stu

14th May 2016, 12:41 PM	#4
Richard G Member Join Date: Jan 2012 Posts: 413	Rick, Once again, from Harding; official musket conversions were of two types;- 1, A nipple lump or block was braised or welded to the barrel. 2, The breech of the barrel was cut of and threaded and a new 'chambered' breech with an integral tang and nipple lump screwed in. I assume by 'integral' he means one single piece of metal. I know this may sound silly, but is there any possibility of a ball still being in there? Stu, Sorry, when I referred to arabic numerals I meant in terms of the form rather than the language. I believe these numerals are the same in Urdu and Persian, both associated with the Muslims of Northern India and what is now Pakistan. Also I did not mean 'refresh' as an official process but as a spurious practice of ensuring a customer sees what he wants to see. Even today dealers in antique arms have been known to 'refresh' engravings and marks if it adds value. Also, before the Mutiny, much of EIC governed Northern India had only recently been annexed and throughout the Raj there were a large number of Princeley States which recognised EIC or British soveriegnity but had internal autonomy. I wonder how effective enforcement of British proving laws could actually be. Regards Richard

14th May 2016, 04:17 PM	#5
rickystl Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: St. Louis, MO area. Posts: 1,633	Thanks Richard for the extra information. Yes, I know what they mean on conversion 2 with the one-piece breech assembly. An earlier variation of what they did with the latter P1853 Enfield muskets converting them to .577 Snider. THE PISTOL BARREL: No, there is no ball or load in the barrel. I checked it with a good drop light. I can see there is a breech plug. And I can see that the gun has been fired in the distant past. The bore is in good shape. No real corrosion, etc. Just some dirt. I sent photos of the barrel to a knowledgeable black powder gunsmith (while my regular gunsmith is having medical issues) to get his opinion. He is very familiar with original barrel construction. He says these barrels were made very robust. And it appears so. He says that one way or another he is convinced that it has a threaded breach plug. But an X-Ray will tell for sure. Possibly, the barrel and tang are one piece (?) with a seperate plug. He mentioned to me that he has worked on a couple original barrels that he would have almost bet his first born that there was no breech plug. But after applying the correct heat...the evidence of the plug appeared, and out it came. He said that in both cases, after the breech plug was installed, it was heated and smoothed over with a file till all the round/circular evidence of a plug had disappeared. Sounds like a lot of extra work (?). Anyway, he had already surmised that I wanted to shoot this gun, using the original barrel if possible. But I will not shoot any barrel that does not have a threaded breech plug. He said if the X-Ray shows it is a threaded plug, and everything else checks out (bore condition, bolster threads, etc) there is no reason not to shoot it with normal loads of black powder, with a new nipple. He also agreed the bolster is forge welded to the barrel and looks to be ok. But I'll have my gunsmith double check the threads in the bolster. If he thinks they are a bit weak, we can drill out the old threads (and install a coil if necessary) and re-tap and install a new nipple. Thanks again guys for the conversation and analysis. I'll re-post with the X-Ray results. Rick