British Eat India Co. Cavalry Pistol

Richard G · 12th May 2016, 01:29 PM

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 · 12th May 2016, 02:53 PM

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 · 12th May 2016, 03:12 PM

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 · 12th May 2016, 08:57 PM

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 · 12th May 2016, 09:43 PM

Quote:

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 · 13th May 2016, 11:37 AM

Quote:

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 · 13th May 2016, 01:58 PM

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

Jim McDougall · 16th May 2016, 05:07 PM

Quote:

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

12th May 2016, 01:29 PM	#1
Richard G Member Join Date: Jan 2012 Posts: 411	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.

12th May 2016, 02:53 PM	#2
rickystl Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: St. Louis, MO area. Posts: 1,632	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.

12th May 2016, 03:12 PM	#3
Pukka Bundook Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 803	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.

12th May 2016, 08:57 PM	#4
kahnjar1 Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: CHRISTCHURCH NEW ZEALAND Posts: 2,789	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

13th May 2016, 01:58 PM	#7
Richard G Member Join Date: Jan 2012 Posts: 411	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