My first jezail

[RDGAC]

Hi there Stu, thanks for the tipe! Mainspring vice ahoy with next month's pay packet, I should think (along with some fine files and a set of brass dentist's picks, amongst other things), and I shall be very careful indeed to avoid snapping the spring; I figure all I want to do is move it a fraction of an inch clear of the tumbler in the fired position, to allow re-assembly of the lock mechanism without having to fight (and lose to) the tension of the spring acting upon the machine. Am I correct in my thinking?

Regarding this barrel problem, such was indeed my intention. Since fouling is, as I understand it, quite hygroscopic, and since the barrel has rusted quite a bit already, I want to remove as much of the extant corrosion and fouling as I can in order to safeguard it for the future, before applying a fair bit of oil to keep it that way. This mysterious obstruction has been frustrating my attempts to get to the very bottom of the bore to clean it, hence my eagerness to remove it - not much point having a good, stable barrel if the first two inches of it are as thin as tissue paper.

While I'd dearly love, in time, to shoot a jezail, I do wonder about the wisdom of putting a piece of metalwork such as this next to one's face with a load of propellant within it. Not that I wish to cast aspersions on the fellow who made this weapon, by any means; it's simply that, without testing it at the Proofing House (which is necessary to make it legally shootable, as I understand it) there's no guarantee that the barrel will hold up - and the PH tests might well just destroy her altogether.

I think, much as I'd like to have a go with a jezail, that this one might be in for a well-earned retirement, to a place of honour on my wall

[Philip]

Stu is right about springs. No danger of over compressing a mainspring with the vise however if you don't go any further than if the hammer were at full cock. Since your lock won't hold at cock, simply tighten only as far as you need to be completely clear of the tumbler.

Coca-Cola, in its original "classic" formulation, is a wonderful solvent. When I was in high school, a gearhead buddy told me about how it ate through rust and gunk, he used it to free the frozen cylinders in a FIAT engine. And I read a report about how a testing lab found that soaking a nail in the stuff caused all the galvanizing to dissolve, and it "melted" the letter off a typewriter key that was detached from the machine and stuck in Coke for about a week or two. Think of what it does to your teeth and the lining of your GI tract! I've used it to dissolve gunk from muzzle loading barrels -- just plug the touch hole and fill 'er up.

Thinking about shooting that old gun? In a word -- DON'T! Who knows if that barrel is so corroded that it's no longer safe and serviceable? I might try it if the specimen had a tube in really sound condition, but even then I wouldn't shoulder it with a live load inside until I had it proofed.

[RDGAC]

I too have heard of the near-legendary destructive power of Coke... makes one wonder why you folks didn't weaponise it, like some latter-day mustard gas However, one concern: wouldn't putting it down the barrel leave me with a layer of sticky, hard-to-remove residue?

Regarding shooting, this is very much a vague and long-term idea. Firstly, I don't own a firearms certificate or shotgun licence; obviously, I'd need an FAC to shoot this gun. Secondly, as noted, all firearms must, in order to be legally used for shooting, be proofed at the government Proof Houses in London or Birmingham, to the best of my knowledge, and the tests are stringent (as one would hope); I doubt many (if any) antique jezails would survive the process, though I'm curious as to anecdotal evidence on the matter. And third, as noted, these are often quite badly abused and generally dodgy pieces of work. So, as I say, in the long run it remains most probable that this - and future jezails - shall retire to a life of cosseted admiration in my hands

[Jim McDougall]

Thank you for noting my post RDG!!! and you're right, when it comes to markings, Im there.
I have continued researching of course, and while you guys get the restoring and gunsmithing dilemmas sorted out, Im still busy with this lock.

As might be expected, the deeper I study, the more I find out, and the history of these balemarks is of course a bit more complex than just a simple progression in form. I had thought, per various sources, that this quite different 'flaunched' heart with the initials was an older version of the EIC heart, and that does not seem to be the case. One of the best resources I have found has to do with the coins (Olikara would be proud!!

It is quite unclear exactly when these balemarks of either kind began appearing on arms, but it seems that about the turn of the century is a good guideline. I have seen coins with the quartered balemark, dating 1780s and 90s, but not on weapons. What is curious is that the flaunched balemark appears on a copper coin minted in Calcutta in 1786...before that they were using simply a quartered initials obverse...in 1787 they were back to the quartered heart.

The suggestion is that the flaunched balemark seems to have been concurrent with the quartered heart, and appeared on dated, marked EIC locks around 1806. It remains unclear what took place before that, and with the seemingly singular appearance of the flaunced design in Calcutta in 1786.

Therefore my idea of an earlier EIC gun or lock does not seem valid, and the appearance of prototypes that might have been copied by this artisan, probably Afridi from Darra or Adam Khel, were likely of the guns illustrated in attached here.

Interestingly, the makers names, in this case Barnett and Leigh, appear on the lock tail. For British government locks this practice ceased in 1764, with the word TOWER replacing the makers name.

The Afridi smith, of whom many who illiterate, likely used the stamps he had available in fashioning the marks on his lock.....the I letter placed faithfully in the same curve as the TOWER marking which he had probably seen on the British government locks, in the number of 5 marks. The design of the EIC heart he had likely seen on similarly marked guns he duplicated, again using the letter I and repeating the 4.

The suggestion here would now be that the lock was probably fashioned sometime in early to mid 19th century using an amalgam of British markings as models in this grouping.

Much as I once read someone said, the thing I love best about history is that its always changing

The two locks with makers names and the 'flaunched' (semicircular heraldic design) configuration; the more familiar EIC quartered heart; and the EIC rampant lion which began use c. 1808.

Just wanted to update from 'the markings department'........back to the shop.

All the best,
Jim

[kahnjar1]

Originally Posted by RDGAC

Hi there Stu, thanks for the tipe! Mainspring vice ahoy with next month's pay packet, I should think (along with some fine files and a set of brass dentist's picks, amongst other things), and I shall be very careful indeed to avoid snapping the spring; I figure all I want to do is move it a fraction of an inch clear of the tumbler in the fired position, to allow re-assembly of the lock mechanism without having to fight (and lose to) the tension of the spring acting upon the machine. Am I correct in my thinking?

Regarding this barrel problem, such was indeed my intention. Since fouling is, as I understand it, quite hygroscopic, and since the barrel has rusted quite a bit already, I want to remove as much of the extant corrosion and fouling as I can in order to safeguard it for the future, before applying a fair bit of oil to keep it that way. This mysterious obstruction has been frustrating my attempts to get to the very bottom of the bore to clean it, hence my eagerness to remove it - not much point having a good, stable barrel if the first two inches of it are as thin as tissue paper.

While I'd dearly love, in time, to shoot a jezail, I do wonder about the wisdom of putting a piece of metalwork such as this next to one's face with a load of propellant within it. Not that I wish to cast aspersions on the fellow who made this weapon, by any means; it's simply that, without testing it at the Proofing House (which is necessary to make it legally shootable, as I understand it) there's no guarantee that the barrel will hold up - and the PH tests might well just destroy her altogether.

I think, much as I'd like to have a go with a jezail, that this one might be in for a well-earned retirement, to a place of honour on my wall

Re the spring....yes you only need to move it enough to release it from the sear. That should mean that it can be swung down (if of course you can not safely remove the retaining screw).
Regarding shooting things like this. IF you plan to shoot ANY old gun and are not sure of how sound it is, then I used to lash it to a suitable car tyre and retire a safe distance with a piece of string attached to the trigger. I can tell you that I have over the years fired some real interesting pieces even just to say that I have done so. We do not of course in this country have the requirement to have guns reproved to legally use them.
I DO think that this jezail when tidied up will look really great on the wall.
Regards Stu

[RDGAC]

Today I have begun treating the stock, applying wood wax in order to try and give it some additional lustre, as well as protect it from further damage as best possible. Prior to this I applied a layer of lemon oil, which the wood seemed to absorb (or which evaporated) with remarkable speed, and effected some improvement. While doing so, I have begun to wonder about the three curious notches, cut with precision and even spacing, present on the tumbler. Any ideas, while I continue waxing?

Edit: Just observed some corresponding notches on the cock, as well as some very nice file-marks showing exactly where they finished it off. Photo included (for real, this time! ).

[kahnjar1]

Originally Posted by RDGAC

Today I have begun treating the stock, applying wood wax in order to try and give it some additional lustre, as well as protect it from further damage as best possible. Prior to this I applied a layer of lemon oil, which the wood seemed to absorb (or which evaporated) with remarkable speed, and effected some improvement. While doing so, I have begun to wonder about the three curious notches, cut with precision and even spacing, present on the tumbler. Any ideas, while I continue waxing?

Edit: Just observed some corresponding notches on the cock, as well as some very nice file-marks showing exactly where they finished it off. Photo included (for real, this time! ).

Must say I am a little surprised that you are not using raw linseed oil on the stock, especially since you are in the UK which is the home of those beautiful lustrous hand ribbed shotgun and rifle stocks!
Stu

[kahnjar1]

Originally Posted by RDGAC

Today I have begun treating the stock, applying wood wax in order to try and give it some additional lustre, as well as protect it from further damage as best possible. Prior to this I applied a layer of lemon oil, which the wood seemed to absorb (or which evaporated) with remarkable speed, and effected some improvement. While doing so, I have begun to wonder about the three curious notches, cut with precision and even spacing, present on the tumbler. Any ideas, while I continue waxing?

Edit: Just observed some corresponding notches on the cock, as well as some very nice file-marks showing exactly where they finished it off. Photo included (for real, this time! ).

Must say I am a little surprised that you are not using raw linseed oil on the stock, especially since you are in the UK which is the home of those beautiful lustrous hand rubbed shotgun and rifle stocks!
Stu

[Philip]

Linseed oil is a traditional gunstock finish but it must be selected and used with care to avoid the job turning into a mess. First off, many stock makers and restorers avoid raw oil, it can be quite a bother to prevent it becoming a sticky layer. Boiled linseed is the version to use, it's a lot more manageable.

On an antique stock, whose surface has already been cleaned of dirt and accumulated gunk, you can used boiled linseed "straight" without cutting it with gum turpentine. I like to impregnate small cloth applicator rags with the oil and let them sit in the open for about 3 days to become slightly tacky (but not overly stiff and sticky) before applying generously to the wood. Wipe off the excess several hours later, and apply another, thinner layer. Wipe off the next day and repeat as necessary. Just monitor the surface, the oil shouldn't just be soaking in and disappearing, but it should appear to fill the grain. As you wipe off the excess as you go, the wood should develop more of a soft sheen. Terrycloth towel pieces, or (better yet) pieces of burlap are excellent for wiping and polishing. The idea is not to develop a glossy varnish-like surface, but rather a mellow look like old ivory. With practice you can use the linseed to create this effect without an undue amount of sweat and elboegrease. When finished, let sit for another day or two for final "hard" drying in the wood's pores as well as the surface, and then finish with a good wax.

For bringing out the nice figured grain on fine sporting gunstocks, I've found that tung oil is a good choice. Years ago someone gave me a small bottle of it, the traditional formulation from China, and although trickier to use than linseed, the final result has a slightly richer sheen because it builds up more of a layer on the surface. Each application must dry thoroughly, there is a frosty white coating that develops which must be rubbed out with very fine steel wool. The result is gorgeous on a top-grade piece of wood.

[kahnjar1]

Originally Posted by Philip

Linseed oil is a traditional gunstock finish but it must be selected and used with care to avoid the job turning into a mess. First off, many stock makers and restorers avoid raw oil, it can be quite a bother to prevent it becoming a sticky layer. Boiled linseed is the version to use, it's a lot more manageable.

On an antique stock, whose surface has already been cleaned of dirt and accumulated gunk, you can used boiled linseed "straight" without cutting it with gum turpentine. I like to impregnate small cloth applicator rags with the oil and let them sit in the open for about 3 days to become slightly tacky (but not overly stiff and sticky) before applying generously to the wood. Wipe off the excess several hours later, and apply another, thinner layer. Wipe off the next day and repeat as necessary. Just monitor the surface, the oil shouldn't just be soaking in and disappearing, but it should appear to fill the grain. As you wipe off the excess as you go, the wood should develop more of a soft sheen. Terrycloth towel pieces, or (better yet) pieces of burlap are excellent for wiping and polishing. The idea is not to develop a glossy varnish-like surface, but rather a mellow look like old ivory. With practice you can use the linseed to create this effect without an undue amount of sweat and elboegrease. When finished, let sit for another day or two for final "hard" drying in the wood's pores as well as the surface, and then finish with a good wax.

For bringing out the nice figured grain on fine sporting gunstocks, I've found that tung oil is a good choice. Years ago someone gave me a small bottle of it, the traditional formulation from China, and although trickier to use than linseed, the final result has a slightly richer sheen because it builds up more of a layer on the surface. Each application must dry thoroughly, there is a frosty white coating that develops which must be rubbed out with very fine steel wool. The result is gorgeous on a top-grade piece of wood.

Yes I agree that boiled linseed is fine, but so is raw. I am talking HAND rubbed here, and not slopped on with a rag. With the old method of handrubbing, there was some friction heat generated which "spread" the oil and avoided the congealing effect. As you have also stated there are many proprietry products on the market, but the old method IMHO is still the best for refurbishing NICE stocks. Try it sometime and see what you think. It takes time, but the results I believe are worth it.
Stu

[RDGAC]

... and yet again, more information. I will here hold up my hands and say that I have pretty much no idea of how to care for wood, let alone antique wood that's seen a lot of hard work in dry climates; this is very much a steep learning curve for me. I intend to try some linseed oil, although I'm not sure whether I should use the "more manageable" boiled stuff or the more traditional (and well-proven) pure variety; as a total novice, still learning the ropes, I don't want to make a horrible mess of things, but on the other hand, if I start off with the best method I'll eventually grasp how to use it, without picking up bad habits en route. Decisions, decisions... anyway, tomorrow's job (day off) is to buy a steel pipe and work out how to cut my serrations into its rim. From there I'll need a good drill bit and some thinner rod, but I reckon I can just about cope with that.

The results will, no doubt, be rough-and-ready; I can't help but think that that's the most appropriate sort of kit, in a way, to work on such a rough-and-ready (but still very potent) gun.

[RDGAC]

Hello again fellas, been quiet for the past month owing to cash shortages and work taking up rather a lot of time. My unblocking device is coming on apace, and although rough it seems it might do the trick. Currently the plan is to stick some boiling water down to help loosen anything in there, pour some of it out, get the rod (galvanised steel with some rather crude teeth) and get cracking. The only possibility that worries me is that it might not be hard enough to cut either hard, glazed fouling or a large mass of corroded steel, but we shall have to see. If the worst comes to the worst, there's a firm not far from where I live that can probably make me a rod with a hardened steel crown saw on its end.

While reading Elgood's excellent Firearms of the Islamic World, I've had some thoughts about jezails in general. Specifically, what made them so effective in irregular combat?

The old tale is simply that jezails had long, long barrels, giving improved muzzle velocity and accuracy compared to European service muskets (most famously the Brown Bess, especially the 39-inch Pattern III). Yet both of the weapons I've had personal acquaintance with are scarcely any different; my jezail's barrel is exactly 39in, although the Museum's weapon is rifled (which obviously would allow much improved accuracy at range), albeit with a 43.25in barrel. LPCA's page on IDing weapons from the area shows a jezail with a abrrel of 117cm (or 46.8in, in old money), while Bluelake's jezail has a barrel of 58in, much more what I had expected for these weapons.

Without wishing to teach my grandmother(s) to suck eggs, I'll go on further. Elgood discusses the muskets of Sind, and shows three examples; he adds that:

The evidence of travellers like Burnes, Pottinger and Elphinstone makes it clear than Sindi culture is essentially Afghan, as might be expected from their geographical position and trade pattern. The jezail used in Sind, with its distinctive butt, is in fact the chosen form of firearm used over a large area of Afghanistan... The question arises as to how to distinguish between the firearms of Sind and Afghanistan and whether the shape of the butt varied on a tribal or regional basis... A French officer who travelled through kandahar in 1826 described the local infantry as being with 'sword and matchlock, long but of small bore', a description which matches the Sindi barrels.

His illustration of three Sindi pieces in the Tareq Rajab collection is, happily, accompanied by dimensions, indicating that one (rifled) is of 42in, one of 49in, and one of 42.8in, the latter pair being smoothbores. This is curious; my first acquaintance with the jezail was as a sort of semi-legendary weapon, a giant musket of six feet or more in the barrel that could kill at three or four hundred yards, and against which European service weapons were profoundly inadequate, mostly due to their short barrels. Yet my own jezail is of 39in; there seem moreover to be many Sindi and Afghan guns that are scarcely any longer and, indeed, in the same place from which I acquired my jezail there was .a weapon which looked, even by Western standards, almost carbine-sized. This was also, quite clearly, a jezail-type weapon of some kind; perhaps made for a boy?

At any rate, I find all this very interesting and it leads me to a couple of questions. Firstly, just what are the average proportions for these weapons? Were they really that much longer in the barrel than their European counterparts? If not, what gave them the edge they have long been reputed to possess? Were they loaded differently, for example - using a tight-fitting ball and leather patch, a measured power charge and so forth? It's all very puzzling indeed.

As an aside, can anyone recommend some more books on the subject of firearms in the Afghanistan-Northern Indian region?

[ikzelf]

Hello, guys, About a month ago, I bought two rifles from an old guy, from Gent(Belgium).
They have a lot of characteristics of jezail guns, but the stocks are not like the normal stocks for a Jezail or any other rifle from that area.

The locks work, there are a lot of silver decorations, and the inlay is bone,
I think, the coloring is to dark to be ivory(Again I think)

If any of You guys have info on these guns, please let me know.
Greetz,

John.