Djezail With East India company lock

[RDGAC]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

It certainly does seem possible that actual stamps used by these contractors might have ended up with some of these makers in Afghan regions, or may have been well duplicated.

I had a thought a couple of weeks ago, regarding how that might have happened; namely, that when the Crown took over/absorbed the UEIC following the Mutiny, all EIC stamps, dies etc were pretty much obsolete as of that moment; the former EIC gun foundries, small-arms works, lock-makers et al now came under the auspices of the Crown, and would be stamped accordingly. I wonder if, once they were useless, any EIC stamps extant in British India at that point (and there might have been a few - I was under the impression the EIC did some gun-making in India) would be throw in the skip, or words to that effect. Perhaps, in such a scenario, a wandering Afghan comes to town, has a rummage, and thinks, "those'll look nice on my locks!"

[Cerjak]

A LOCK FROM HIRST

[RDGAC]

Well, IMO the "Hirst" lock is far the better of the two. Its markings are still spurious, but it's not a badly made lock, I'd say; the fit of the parts and overall quality of manufacture all seem consistent with other Afghan locks I've seen, and the lack of patina suggests it's all pretty new. How strong is the mainspring, and do you have any flints with which to test its ability to throw a spark?

The second one, the "Ioder" lock, is pretty bad, I must say. I've not yet seen a flintlock without a tumbler bridle. It seems that the end of the tumbler square has been peened over on the outside of the cock, which is a common enough method of holding it all in place, but the square of the shaft has been peened over on the inside of the lock; to what end I have no idea. Perhaps the square isn't actually attached to the tumbler at all, and this is an unusually sophisticated, "floating-square" flintlock! The whole thing looks extremely crude; I'm surprised if the sear nose will actually engage any of the notches. Actually, I'd be quite surprised if it works at all.

What gun is that other "Hirst" lock, in your most recent post, installed in?

Best,

Meredydd

[Cerjak]

Meredydd

Thank you for your comments ,yes for me too the first one seems good and in working condition but I still not test it with a flint ,I always afraid to damage a old gun !
I don't think that the second one will stay in my collection you are right too crude !
Regards

Cerjak

[Cerjak]

Originally Posted by RDGAC

Well, IMO the "Hirst" lock is far the better of the two. Its markings are still spurious, but it's not a badly made lock, I'd say; the fit of the parts and overall quality of manufacture all seem consistent with other Afghan locks I've seen, and the lack of patina suggests it's all pretty new. How strong is the mainspring, and do you have any flints with which to test its ability to throw a spark?

The second one, the "Ioder" lock, is pretty bad, I must say. I've not yet seen a flintlock without a tumbler bridle. It seems that the end of the tumbler square has been peened over on the outside of the cock, which is a common enough method of holding it all in place, but the square of the shaft has been peened over on the inside of the lock; to what end I have no idea. Perhaps the square isn't actually attached to the tumbler at all, and this is an unusually sophisticated, "floating-square" flintlock! The whole thing looks extremely crude; I'm surprised if the sear nose will actually engage any of the notches. Actually, I'd be quite surprised if it works at all.

What gun is that other "Hirst" lock, in your most recent post, installed in?

Best,

Meredydd

This pic is not from me I found it when I was looking for information about HIRST