Ethnographic Arms & Armour
 

Go Back   Ethnographic Arms & Armour > Discussion Forums > European Armoury
FAQ Calendar Today's Posts Search

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
Old 26th March 2018, 03:20 PM   #6
Fernando K
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 669
Default

Hello

I differ with the above. If it were a regulation weapon, manufactured in Belgium, and imported for the military forces of the Empire, it would have the legitimate proofs, the authentic "broad arrow".

It is well known that England imported the lock and the barrel, which were tested in the Tower, and they were stamped with the test punch, two scepters crossed and crowned, and the stock was built in England, in the Minories.

This specimen was acquired in some time by Argentina, and in other museums there are other specimens, of different models, for direct purchases or contraband.

Here it has been mentioned that the inscriptions in the lock seem stamped later, I do not believe it, because the keys, in any case, were bought stamped, and the only thing that was added was the property punch of the Crown, once the lock had been acquired

Affectionately.
Fernando K is offline   Reply With Quote
 


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:04 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Posts are regarded as being copyrighted by their authors and the act of posting material is deemed to be a granting of an irrevocable nonexclusive license for display here.