ANOTHER JAZAIL

Richard G · 14th August 2018, 11:38 AM

Hello,
There are a couple of anomalies I can see in this lock.
1, A lock dated 1799 should have a swan-necked cock rather than ring-necked. The EIC did use ring-necked flat locks, but on pistols rather than long arms. The ring-necked cock they brought in for long arms in about 1813 was a rounded cock.
2, It would be very unusual not to see an inspection mark under the pan.
3, The upper arm of the spring that powers the frizzen or steel should extend backwards well beyond the screw securing the lower arm of the spring. In this lock I wonder if the spring is broken because it looks almost too short to bear on the frizzen when it is brought down.
Regards
Richard

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Threaded Mode

14th August 2018, 11:38 AM	#12
Richard G Member Join Date: Jan 2012 Posts: 409	Hello, There are a couple of anomalies I can see in this lock. 1, A lock dated 1799 should have a swan-necked cock rather than ring-necked. The EIC did use ring-necked flat locks, but on pistols rather than long arms. The ring-necked cock they brought in for long arms in about 1813 was a rounded cock. 2, It would be very unusual not to see an inspection mark under the pan. 3, The upper arm of the spring that powers the frizzen or steel should extend backwards well beyond the screw securing the lower arm of the spring. In this lock I wonder if the spring is broken because it looks almost too short to bear on the frizzen when it is brought down. Regards Richard