Afghan Pistol
 

Hello All. Here is a new addition. I believe this pistol was an Afghan bring-back at some point. But is more interesting than most I have seen. It's plain, robust, and undecorated. And made to be a working gun versus a tourist item.
At first, I thought the markings on the lock plate might be spurious judging from the original photos. But after receiving the pistol, I'm confident it's a genuine lock from a British Light Dragoon pistol from the early 19th Century. The lock and markings match exactly. And works/sparks perfectly. The barrel is .57 caliber, 9" long (possibly shortened during the period) and has British proof marks. But I can't make out the marks. The bore is in very good shape with just a partial coating of light rust. No corrosion. The vent hole in the barrel lines up perfectly with the pan. The barrel band, butt cap, trigger guard, and side plate are all hand made. The lock plate screws are genuine Military with good European cut threads. So I believe the screws are genuine with the lock plate. The stock is also hand made locally but with much better lock inletting than you normally see on these guns. But inside the lock mortise there is a stamp marked HERBERT in perfect English letters. Hmmmm. Curious. Don't have a clue what the connection would be (?) Maybe someone on the European Forum might know ?
A Google search turned up something interesting. This exact pistol was sold at Rock Island Auction, along with two other flintlock pistols on June 25, 2016, Lot # 2190. I bought it from a shooter/hobbiest on another forum.
So my impression is that this is an Afghan made pistol utilizing an original lock and barrel. And a good example of their custom of making guns with what ever combination of surplus parts were available, and hand making the rest. :)
I just wish I knew what the connection of the HERBERT stamp means ? Anyway picture heavy. Any comments most welcome. Thanks for looking.
Rick

MORE PICS.........

STILL MORE.........

I beliefe that this pistol has been made in another country!
In the second half of the 19th century Liège gunmakers tried to buy as much as possible surplus muzzleloader weapons or their single parts in all countries of Europe. These mostly percussion arms have been retransfered to flintlocks and sold into the colonies and lots of still undevellopped countries in the middle east or South - Amerika. A huge deal with lots of money to make!! The French call these weapons "Armes de Traite" .
Your pistol is certainly and without no doubt made at Liège under use of an original British lock and barrel but got a complete new stock. The name HERBERT is surely not the name of an Afghani but of the Belgian who made this stock for your pistol.
corrado26

Hi Rick,
Very nice pistol but I do have some observations. Although the lock itself may possibly be an original, I do not believe that the Crown and GR look to be the quality of English engraving. Also the word DUBLIN?? and whatever is underneath it do not look right to me.
Re the Proof marks....if you can post a clear pic of these I should be able to help. Certainly the crowned V is a view mark used by English Proof Houses. The others are not clear enough to identify.
Stu

Liege fantasy ? ;).

While firearms are surely not my typical field of study, and I do not at all discount the observations thus far, I am under the impression this very interesting pistol is a version of the 'late dragoon' type....but legitimately produced. I do not personally think it a Liege example, though this center certainly produced huge volumes of copied and repurposed arms as described.

Neither do I believe this is an Afghan copy of same, though the rather crude engraving does parallel the often remarkably faithful copies of British guns produced in the Khyber regions (Northwest Frontier agency).

In both these cases, it does not seem that the name stamp inside the stock behind the lock would be present, though of course in actual British context it would be placed by assemblers in accord with that practice.

In "British Military Pistols 1603-1888" R.E. Brooker, (1978, p.45) example #40 shows one of these dragoon pistols from DUBLIN CASTLE, and the crown over GR (George III, 1760-1820) . On the example illustrated the markings are remarkably similar, and the surround border on the Dublin Castle is correct. While the lock seems correct, the other furnishings seem varied, such as the side mount serpentine not at all similar.

Brooker notes that during the Revolutionary War these pistols were assembled in Ireland in large volume as the local military forces were increased to 50,000 men. With this ersatz production volume it seems logical that established makers as well as sub contract workers were employed in this production. As such, it seems possible that quality as well as consistency was wanting,and as Brooker suggests, the numerous 'variations' presumed by collectors.

Perhaps this scenario may apply here, though the case for the Belgian or Afghan productions are entirely plausible.

Thank you Jim for deciphering the word under DUBLIN. I could not make it out. I note your comments but wonder at the engraving of the words which do not seem to quite fit the space without squeezing up the letters. Not what I would have expected from English engravers..............
Now to the "Liege connection". I am familiar with Leige made copies, but have never seen one WITHOUT the correct Liege Proofs. Remember that Proof is and was governed by Law, and any LEGAL production would have had to abide by the Proof Laws of the time, and carry the relevant stamps.
Stu

Totally agree Stu, this engraving really is substandard for British work, and also agree that Liege work characteristically does carry proof marks. I am not sure how much this was enforced with Liege arms in the 18th century, but 19th century items seem always to have these marks someplace.

As I mentioned, what puzzles me is if this were Afghan, or for that matter to add impetus to the Liege question, is why would that assemblers name be behind the lock? I will say that the terrible execution of letters/serifs and the crowding in the 'CASTLE' word does suggest something like the Khyber work.

Again, it would seem if there were a sudden push to arm all these local volunteers during the Revolution, and the notable volume of pistols being probably farmed out in Ireland for finishing.....the quality of many of these may well have suffered. In the images in Brooker, the DUBLIN CASTLE were in the same configuration, and the crown and GR were positioned the same, partially obscured by the cock.
I agree, the letters are clumsy, and the line seems to be equally clumsy in execution, but work is only as good as the skill of the engraver. It does seem there are required proofs on the barrel here, which suggests that while not prettily done, it was likely functional enough.

While it seems to me virtually all Afghan guns are focused toward copying East India Company arms, and in my admittedly not comprehensive familiarity with these, what I have seen never included these kinds of apparently ersatz weapons. Brooker claims these 'Irish' examples are considered common, so reproductions or possible fakes seem unlikely.

These are just my observations based on references I have, and look forward to other perspectives as I hope to learn more on these firearms. Im glad we seem to be in accord regarding the Liege question, and the notes on the proof situation there, thank you.

I have in my now more than 55 years of collecting of firearms of the 16th to the 19th century seen lots of pistols and guns made at Liège that have no ELG mark on their barrels.
Here you see two pistols made in the Dublin Castle out of the huge collection of my friend Bob Brooker. As you can see the signatures are the same. So at least the lock of the pistol in question and maybe the barrel has been made in Dublin. But all the rest, the stock, the barrel ring, first of all the eventually French or Belgium sideplate and the far later industrially produced stock are additions of Liège gunmakers.
corrado26

Hi,
I vote for the English/Irish connections...
Direct trade and copies from English productions are very well known for the khyber pass. Plus Liege as far I know produced guns for the Meditterranean and African markets, as it was said armes de traite or levantines.

Rick, is your barrel the same thickness?
One photo at the muzzle seems to indicate that the barrel might be local...
Kubur

Stu, Liege proof marks with the configuration/s in we usually discuss them, were only implemented with the Napoleonic occupation. The best of Liege (i.e. XVIII century) was not under such compliance ... am i right ?

Udo, is it my (and others) eyes or the Dublin Castle and the King's Crest in the discussed pistol are way to far from the genuine stamps :o .

There are clear differences between the crowns and DUBLIN CASTLE signatures on the original pistol of the BROOKER collection and the pistol in question. See the fotos and decide for yourself. Very remarkable is the missing of the Broad Arrow on the llock of the "remake".
corrado26

Bur, that is precisely what i was suggesting; maybe i didn't make it clear ...

Why should this barrel be local? As far as I can see there are the British proofmarks on it!
corrado26

This has been a great insight into this pistol, thank you guys for your patient explanations. I agree on the Liege notes, the ELG proof marks do not seem implemented on pre Napoleonic period weapons as Fernando has suggested, and I would ask as well if that is correct.

While the horrible execution of the crowned GR and DUBLIN CASTLE very much make me think of Khyber as suggested by Stu the more I think of it....that front piece (holding ramrod and absent on British models) is very French/Belgian, and as Corrado notes points to the Liege theory.

Also, Corrado, I cannot find more on the placing of assembler (?) name behind lock as the 'HERBERT' in this example. If this was an Afghan copy, it does not seem they would include such an obscured detail . ,,,by the same token, in Liege it does not seem they would use that either. However if this was the same of the maker in Liege as suggested it would make sense.


As I have noted, this is far outside my field, but it is great to learn more through this discussion. Also, I have few references on British guns, but Mr. Brooker's reference is outstanding with wonderful details and most helpful, so Corrado, please extend my thanks and compliments to him!! Its so much easier to read than others I have looked through.

I'd really extend your thanks and compliments to Bob Brooker, but as far as I know he is rather ill and do not know wether my email will reach him or not. I have to thank him too very much because I got from him the fotos of a very big part of his collection of pistols of many countries. This is an inestimable treasure and advantage which helps a lot in identifying unknown military pistols.
corrado26

Resuming ...
 

I just didn't want to previously enter in such an categorical tone; but here you go:
Liege (much before Belgium) had armor builders since the XIII-XIV century. Circa 1700 was one of the more important world centers in relation with firearms. Political turbulence in the end of the XVIII century and beginning of the XIX, disorganized the profession of gunsmith, corporate regime was suppressed, markets were closed due a state of war, followed by the establishment of a State monopoly on military materials, determining an important crisis in the industry and trade of arms. That is when Monsieur Bonaparte broke in, reestablishing the Proof house, restoring its force of law; and that is as from when 'modern' Liege marks appeared.
Still i am only the piano player ;).

Liege Proof Marks
 

Though not directly on the subject of Rick's pistol, here are the Liege Proof Marks discussed above, and details/dates when used.
As an aside, I personally do not believe that the word HERBERT inside the lock mortice has anything to do with Liege, or is in fact a "makers" name, so it remains a mystery.
Stu

Thanks very much Stu, I couldn't find any useful list of these marks as my gun resources are limited. Very much appreciated.
Perhaps you are right on the HERBERT name inside, it probably has nothing to do with Liege......I think we are all agreed this is far too crudely marked for any possible Irish (British) production...….and for that matter, Liege work is far crisper etc.

The lettering on this is so clumsy, and as Corrado has noted, the broad arrow is absent. With the British proof marks, Afghans often used old components so it could be authentic old barrel.


It really is hard to determine composite weapons as not only were they refurbished during working lives, ersatz weapons in time of trouble but even more confounding is that innovative modern dealers and commercial interests do the same thing with parts.

The pistol is from Afghanistan. it is a copy >>>This is WHAT THEY TERM AN APPRENTICE PIECE DONE FOR THE TOURIST MARKET WHICH OTHER THAN SOME MILITARY PERSONNEL IS NON EXISTANT... IN KABUL SOUK YOU CAN SEE HUNDREDS OF THESE AND SIMILAR>>>FOR SOME REASON THEY ALWAYS MESS UP THE SPELLING AND BALANCE OF THE WORDS. :shrug:

.........and you really belief that this "HERBERT" written in a letter type like Times New Roman has been made in an Afghan backyard shop?
corrado26

.......so what is your explanation of the genuine English Proof marks on the barrel? I find it hard to believe that anyone making pistols for the "Tourist" market would bother to try and fake these.
As a matter of general interest, and to add to library pics, could you please post some pics of the Kabul souk showing these "hundreds" of pistols. I'm sure that others here would be very interested to see these.
Stu

It is well known that the different parts of firearms were made by different specialized smiths, in their own shops and then sent to assembly.
Before mechanization systems were implemented, manual output had (slight) measurement variations, the various parts of an assembly having to be "fine tuned", i.e., adjusted to accomodate their specific partner. It is expectable that the stock, being the softer part, had to be adjusted to its barrel ... and lock. This system is evidentiated by the cuts we can see in this stock mortise; it would be no surprise to find the same number of cuts underneath its chosen barrel*, if still being the case ... as also inside the lock plate.
I do not see why Mr. Herbert was not the head of the Liegeoise workshop where this stock came from

*As per illustrated example.


.

As we may see Stu, the only existing mark before Napoleon was the Tower symbol, which he abolished, only being restored in 1853; notwithstanding that, as i have once read, the guns trade in such earlier period not being strictly controlled, many smiths didn't care to send their pieces for approval;whether because of proof testing costs or other reasons, i don't recall. But i certainly know that many a gun made in Liege in the XVIII century, had no marks at all, as per this fine example i once owned.

.

Yes I do believe it because I've seen it. I can show you a video of exactly the detailed expertise from the weapon making centres but for modern weapons … and actually there is a workshop near me making wooden parts for guns...artisans from Afghanistan. I wish I had taken pictures in Kabul but maybe I can get my friends there to take a few of them. They use all the old stamping kit including getting the letters with the little tails on them but quite often spell the name with letters reversed probably by mistake... and especially on Martini Henrys and pistols.

As I wrote in post #10 I think that the stock and the iron mounts are totally new, to produce such items it needs heavy machinery and I have my severe doubts wether such machinery could have been in use in Afghanistan during the second half of the 19th century.

But if it is true what is written by Ibrahiim al Balooshi, that this is an "APPRENTICE PIECE DONE FOR THE TOURIST MARKET WHICH OTHER THAN SOME MILITARY PERSONNEL IS NON EXISTANT... IN KABUL SOUK YOU CAN SEE HUNDREDS OF THESE AND SIMILAR", than this means that the pistol is a very modern tourist item made during the last decades and has nothing to do with an antique pistol. Then it is probably worthless to have long discussions about it!
corrado26

Well I don't know if it is worth discussing but I would suggest if you look at the end of the 19thC you will find that the Kabul National weapons making arsenal not only leaked like a sieve but that quite accurate weapons making machinery mysteriously vanished and resurfaced in what we would term back street workshops which to thus day turn out reasonable modern copies. I recall a good discussion on the Machin Khana factory on library some time ago.
khanjar1 poses a question looking for picture evidence in Kabul chicken street main souk of evidence of the hundreds of old style pistols I claim to have seen there a few years ago...which if you know the place you would certainly not want to be seen taking photographs down there. However I found various clues on the web and one in particular from just one small shop in the same souk complex with a lot of weapons in it... there are hundreds of such shops in chicken street just like this ...I also show guns from Darra down the Khyber on the Pakistan side.
The Martini Henry pistol is interesting and a good explanation sits at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zTvxFNRLbiw :shrug:

Hello

To more of everything that has been written here, the cap of the stock is of modern weapon, and it is not seen which is the method of fastening Is it a screw? Normally it is held by a spring. In addition, the wood is simply fitted and not dug.

affectionately

As far as I can see, all pistols in the fotos above are made in a typical British style of the East India Company and like these originals have their mounts made of cast brass which are much easierly to produce than iron mounts that have to be forged.
Quite obviously the pistol in question has except the lock and the barrel nothing British, neither the stock nor the mounts, so - and this is my last reply- why should this piece have been made in Afghanistan? :confused: :rolleyes:
corrado26

Again, this has been a fascinating discussion, and as a virtual novice in the field of guns, I appreciate all the input and comments. I have through the years done occasional research concerning firearms, particularly those from India and Afghanistan which often included or course British.

The more I look at this one, the more it seems put together with varied components, but the terrible engraving on the lock seems far too poor to be either Irish (as I earlier suggested) or Liege. Either of these would never have had such poor quality lettering allowed, at least as far as I would think.

One thing I recall in material I read about the 'Khyber' copies of guns is that these were commonly produced often using bonified parts and elements of other weapons. That would account for a barrel which held the authentic British proof stamps. Why in the world a DUBLIN CASTLE lock would be coped in Afghan areas is puzzling as most locks there were variants of EIC locks.
But if any of the Dublin guns found their way via the constant movement of British troops in and out of the 'Raj' (they were produced in large number c. 1770s per Brooker) then it is possible that they would be subject to copy as well.
The Herbert name and those 'chop' marks are a puzzle as well, as these kinds of notes and marks were indeed systematically placed in guns in production...…..but not likely in Afghan shops. Again, I would return to loose parts being repurposed or used as components...….could this be the case?

While all of this supposition and analysis may seem irrelevant if this is indeed a 'tourist' or 'creative antique' ….the exercise, at least for me, has been informative and interesting. I do appreciate the observations and notes from those who have long handled firearms as well as the firsthand information on Afghan gunmaking shops. That adds good perspective to what I had read on them some years ago.

Thanks very much for the pics. It would be interesting to dig thru the guns shown but not probably a safe project for now..........
Stu

Indeed ...


.

Fitting work marks show that all parts of this pistol belong together. They have been struck after dismantling the pistol for further processes and make sure that at the final assembly the right parts of a pistol find together again.

As you can see in post #24 there are different marks at the stock and the barrel, what is proof that these parts came from different pistoles, what was normal, when surpus parts have been in use to produce arms of a low quality.
corrado26

The same principle, but used in a different timeline. Before precision technology appeared, parts were marked in their original assembly as to adjust (file) them to fit each other and, at a later stage, the system was used to assure that, after being dismounted, they could be correctly remounted when picking them from among many others that were disassembled in the same session, like in barracks armor depots or in war scenes. They say that Samuel Colt took advantage of this system to help convincing American (and not only) army authorities to commission his contracts; his guns were thoroughly marked part by part. In a humoristic (realistic ?) note, soldiers in the field got drunk while cleaning their pistols and would not discern which were the parts of each either's guns.

The barrel in post #24 has nothing to do with the discussed pistol; was one of my collection to illustrate (*) how assembly marks were applied in the various gun parts, including barrels.

On a further note, suppose the barrel smiths make a series of barrels and sends them to the assembly workshop. As they have been made by hand, it is inevitable that they have millimetrical differences. So the stock smith files the wood here and there to match it with a determined barrel; and after that he marks the wood with the same mark that comes with each barrel ... and that's it.


.

Ok, sorry, I misunderstood! Than just forget my last post concerning this.
corrado26

Hello All

Well. What an interesting Thread this turned out to be. This was completely unexpected. LOL And I do appreciate everyone's comments.
Since my first post, some additional information has surfaced. The seller of the pistol actually posted this gun for comments on the British Militaria Forum back during last year. Many of the conclusions there were similar to comments here, although not as comprehensive as this Thread. But there was one comment on the lock markings that I found interesting: It was mentioned that the Dublin Castle guns seem to lack the wealth of information compared to their other British counterparts during this period. And possibly DeWitt Bailey was doing new, more comprehensive research for these guns. (?)
It was also mentioned that the lockplate engravings on the Dublin Castle locks were done in a bit more armature fashion than the earlier or later British locks.
I'll try to get a better pic of the barrel markings, but they do look genuine British. They don't seem to resemble anything Belgium. I haven't removed the barrel because the barrel band is held on with a pin that does not go all the way through the stock. But I probably will to see if there are any markings on the bottom of the barrel or stock channel.
And here's another interesting feature: The hardware, while hand formed, are all castings. Including that barrel band that looks like it might have come from a French Lebel rifle or some other later carbine (?) LOL
I'm convinced that the lock itself is genuine and not a locally made copy. Under magnification the engravings seem to have been enhanced with maybe black India ink, or something. But the lock quality, including it's internals, are fully up to European/British standards.
So where does this leave us ? Hmmmm. The lock and barrel appear to be genuine from the period. The stock, and other hardware seem to be from a later period. And assembled with economy in mind. Even though the stock is simply made, the quality of the lock mortise area - with it's assembly hash marks - may confirm Corodo's original theory of Belgium manufacture from surplus parts for the colonial/other markets.
I recall a percussion pistol I posted here a while back with similar build characteristics. I'll locate it and post it on this Thread.
Thanks again for everyone's posts. Very helpful.

Rick

See post from the European Forum.......

http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=21398

Rick

it certainly developed nicely and til now is an excellent thread well discussed... :shrug:
in support I call upon a very detailed thread by Kubur whose excellent thread can be accessed here http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showth...ns+afghanistan

It brings into question another manufacturing centre ..Persia from 1810 to 1839.