Unit Marked Matchlock ??

Rikkn · 11th January 2010, 10:17 PM

It looks like I found the forum for info on my latest acquisitions !! I recently bought several pieces from a gentleman who move to the US from England several years ago. It had seven military rifles from the 1870's to early 1900's, all in great original condition, a number of swords ( 5 Wilkinsons, 3 others ), 2 aircanes, and three real oddities, a very massive snaphaunce (?), one unknown, and the one that is the subject of this post. It is in great shape, seems to bear military unit markings, looks a lot like a military version of one I found on the collector firearms website. Here are some pictures of it. I would appreciate any info on it, age, origin, value, etc. The others I will post over the next few days as I take pictures of them.

kahnjar1 · 12th January 2010, 02:38 AM

Hi Rikkn and welcome to the Forum.
Your gun is not a Snaphaunce, but is a matchlock and most probably of Indian origin. The marks shown are likely to be armory marks. Can you please post a clearer pic of these? Other Members will no doubt expand on, or correct my comments.

Regards Stuart
Sorry Rikkn, I misread your text regarding this being a Snaphaunce.

Would like to see pics of that one though when you get a moment.
Regards S

Rikkn · 14th January 2010, 11:24 AM

Better picture coming this morning. Any opinion of value ?

kahnjar1 · 15th January 2010, 04:38 AM

No, and anyway its not the function of this Forum to give values. Be careful of the rules Rikkn.
Regards Stu

Atlantia · 16th January 2010, 03:46 PM

Hi Rikkn

I have a similarly marked matchlock that needs a rebuild.

I always assumed that these stamps were added by the British making an inventory and recording the contents of the local armouries.
Mine is marked SLK 126 with a reversed swastika above

BTW, Should really be in the ethno forum. Might get more replies there too.

kahnjar1 · 16th January 2010, 06:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Atlantia

Hi Rikkn

I have a similarly marked matchlock that needs a rebuild.

I always assumed that these stamps were added by the British making an inventory and recording the contents of the local armouries.
Mine is marked SLK 126 with a reversed swastika above

BTW, Should really be in the ethno forum. Might get more replies there too.

Hi Gene,
I agree on Armoury mark rather than unit mark. The Brits were (usually) orderly thinkers!
Stu
P.S.Any comment on those other marks sent by email?

Rick · 16th January 2010, 08:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rikkn

Better picture coming this morning. Any opinion of value ?

We don't give values here .
Appraisers are for that .

Rikkn · 24th February 2010, 11:14 PM

Kahnjar, what do you know about yours ? I have found out very little about mine so far. Sure would be nice to know what the SLK stands for.

Rikkn · 2nd January 2011, 10:31 PM

Finally narrowing this one down, see if you guys agree with either of these opinions I have received.

1. From the Kingdom of Mysore, likely used during the Anglo-Mysore Wars, possibly British capture, marked, then re=issued.

2. Ottoman Janisarry use, 17th / 18th century.

Opinions ??

Anandalal N. · 3rd January 2011, 03:29 AM

Look under Indian Toradar.

Regards.

Matchlock · 3rd January 2011, 07:38 PM

Exactly, Anandalal,

And nice to hear from you again.

This indeed is an Indian torador or toradar, 18th century. The style of course was copied from German predecessor Landsknecht arquebuses of the early 16th c.

Best,
Michael

Rikkn · 4th January 2011, 12:46 AM

What do you make of the unit marks ?

Atlantia · 4th January 2011, 12:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rikkn

What do you make of the unit marks ?

I have no idea what the SLK marks are on my gun. I always assumed that they were the British counting guns in native armouries. I just don't know which one.
BTW, yours is a rather good example. Congratulations.

Matchlock · 4th January 2011, 07:04 PM

Similar Indian armory marks can be found on many matchlock guns on the market, many of them said to come from the arsenal of Raipur. Gene is probably right in assuming that they were struck by the British.

Best,
Michael

11th January 2010, 10:17 PM	#1
Rikkn Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Ormond by the Sea, Fl Posts: 50	Unit Marked Matchlock ?? It looks like I found the forum for info on my latest acquisitions !! I recently bought several pieces from a gentleman who move to the US from England several years ago. It had seven military rifles from the 1870's to early 1900's, all in great original condition, a number of swords ( 5 Wilkinsons, 3 others ), 2 aircanes, and three real oddities, a very massive snaphaunce (?), one unknown, and the one that is the subject of this post. It is in great shape, seems to bear military unit markings, looks a lot like a military version of one I found on the collector firearms website. Here are some pictures of it. I would appreciate any info on it, age, origin, value, etc. The others I will post over the next few days as I take pictures of them. Attached Images

12th January 2010, 02:38 AM	#2
kahnjar1 Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: CHRISTCHURCH NEW ZEALAND Posts: 2,772	Hi Rikkn and welcome to the Forum. Your gun is not a Snaphaunce, but is a matchlock and most probably of Indian origin. The marks shown are likely to be armory marks. Can you please post a clearer pic of these? Other Members will no doubt expand on, or correct my comments. Regards Stuart Sorry Rikkn, I misread your text regarding this being a Snaphaunce. Would like to see pics of that one though when you get a moment. Regards S Last edited by kahnjar1; 12th January 2010 at 06:14 AM.

16th January 2010, 03:46 PM	#5
Atlantia Member Join Date: Jun 2008 Location: The Sharp end Posts: 2,928	Hi Rikkn I have a similarly marked matchlock that needs a rebuild. I always assumed that these stamps were added by the British making an inventory and recording the contents of the local armouries. Mine is marked SLK 126 with a reversed swastika above BTW, Should really be in the ethno forum. Might get more replies there too. Last edited by Atlantia; 16th January 2010 at 06:09 PM.

3rd January 2011, 07:38 PM	#11
Matchlock (deceased) Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Bavaria, Germany - the center of 15th and 16th century gunmaking Posts: 4,310	Exactly, Anandalal, And nice to hear from you again. This indeed is an Indian torador or toradar, 18th century. The style of course was copied from German predecessor Landsknecht arquebuses of the early 16th c. Best, Michael Last edited by Matchlock; 3rd January 2011 at 08:02 PM.

14th January 2010, 11:24 AM	#3
Rikkn Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Ormond by the Sea, Fl Posts: 50	Better picture coming this morning. Any opinion of value ?

15th January 2010, 04:38 AM	#4
kahnjar1 Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: CHRISTCHURCH NEW ZEALAND Posts: 2,772	No, and anyway its not the function of this Forum to give values. Be careful of the rules Rikkn. Regards Stu

24th February 2010, 11:14 PM	#8
Rikkn Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Ormond by the Sea, Fl Posts: 50	Kahnjar, what do you know about yours ? I have found out very little about mine so far. Sure would be nice to know what the SLK stands for.

2nd January 2011, 10:31 PM	#9
Rikkn Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Ormond by the Sea, Fl Posts: 50	Finally narrowing this one down, see if you guys agree with either of these opinions I have received. 1. From the Kingdom of Mysore, likely used during the Anglo-Mysore Wars, possibly British capture, marked, then re=issued. 2. Ottoman Janisarry use, 17th / 18th century. Opinions ??

3rd January 2011, 03:29 AM	#10
Anandalal N. Member Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 84	Look under Indian Toradar. Regards.

4th January 2011, 12:46 AM	#12
Rikkn Member Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Ormond by the Sea, Fl Posts: 50	What do you make of the unit marks ?

4th January 2011, 07:04 PM	#14
Matchlock (deceased) Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Bavaria, Germany - the center of 15th and 16th century gunmaking Posts: 4,310	Similar Indian armory marks can be found on many matchlock guns on the market, many of them said to come from the arsenal of Raipur. Gene is probably right in assuming that they were struck by the British. Best, Michael