British Eat India Co. Cavalry Pistol

[rickystl]

Hello all. This is a new addition to the family. When I first saw the seller's photos I thought this was a Model 1840 percussion pistol. But the hammer screw looked wrong. I new it was not the latter Model 1843. So now that I have it, it appears to be a Model 1820 with an Arsenal conversion to percussion. Do you think my analysis is correct ? It's in really nice condition. Caliber comes out to about .68. I tried to photo the barrel markings, but the patina is too dark. The only mark on the inside of the lock appears to be a broad arrow (?) But some cleaning may prove me wrong. Looks to be some Navel rack numbers on the butt cap. Thanks for looking. Picture heavy.
Rick.

[rickystl]

SOME MORE PICS.........

[rickystl]

LAST ONES...........

[kahnjar1]

Hi Rick,
Another interesting piece... Some observations which may or may not be correct. The lock shows the typical Lion and Crown motif of the East India Company, though a bit rough if I may say so, and to me the "proof marks" do not look right for English proof which one would have thought they should be if this is indeed an English pistol.
The other outstanding anomaly is the Arabic numbers stamped into the wood under the lock plate. The upside down V is the number 8 and the upside down L is the number 3, so 83 is the translation.
I suspect that this could well be an Afghan copy, perhaps using some original parts.
The other thing is that the exterior screw slots, apart from those on the butt plate, look very clean compared with the interior ones. IF the pistol is of the age indicated I would have expected some wear on the exterior slots also.
It will be interesting to see what others think here.
Stu

[fernando]

Reasonable reasoning, Stu !

[Pukka Bundook]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[rickystl]

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

[Richard G]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[Richard G]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by kahnjar1

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

Hi Stu,
Thanks for the response. I agree, it is unlikely that any pistol made in England would be unlikely to have Arabic characters. However, if in fact reworked or altered by EIC oriented shops in India, it seems quite possible that such marks may have been added.
While Arabic itself is not one of the many languages or dialects predominant in the Subcontinent, it would have been in use in Arab populated regional situations, much in the way French is used in parts of Eastern Canada.
With the alphabetic or numeric nature of characters, the commonality between dialects and languages in certain examples are sometimes indiscernible in degree.

I think that it what is so confusing about analysis of the hybridization of many Indian weapons, there are many qualifying factors especially with EIC .

I was surprised to even find that even Liege comes into play with a marking of the rampant lion very similar to the EIC (post 1808) type, even the line underneath the feet, but the lion faces right and is not holding crown etc.
I have never seen one of these, but found it in a drawing in Gardiner's compendium of small arms makers.

Best regards
Jim

[kahnjar1]

Hi Jim,
Yes you are correct in that there is a Liege mark incorporating the lion but it is not a solo mark. It is part of the PV (Nitro Proof) mark. Shown on the right below.
Also I have added a pic of the CORRECT English marks which have IMHO been copied on Rick's pistol. You will note that the correct marks are a "one stop shop" and not in 2 parts which they appear to be on Rick's barrel.....(the crown is NOT off line with the letters), but is exactly placed above as it should be. There would only be one stamp used rather than a separate crown. Numbers 2 & 3 are the marks copied.
Stu

[Jim McDougall]

Thanks Stu, that was the one I saw, did not notice the nitro thing.