ANOTHER JAZAIL

mahratt · 12th August 2018, 06:39 PM

rickystl, congratulations. A beautiful jezail.

kahnjar1 · 12th August 2018, 09:31 PM

A real beauty Rick. The brass looks to be quite old...certainly not the more yellow color of modern brass.
You say that the name on the lock is HEIST??? Looks to be more letters than that from the unclear pic you have posted. If it IS HEIST then that name does not appear among those in any of the the books I have on English Gunmakers. If the lock IS genuine EIC then the makers name should also be genuine, unless of course it has been placed later....but why would you?
Stu

ariel · 12th August 2018, 10:17 PM

I remember a claim by somebody that the mere presence of brass places the entire item in the 20th century.
This seems to contradict that hypothesis, doesn't it?

rickystl · 12th August 2018, 10:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kahnjar1

A real beauty Rick. The brass looks to be quite old...certainly not the more yellow color of modern brass.
You say that the name on the lock is HEIST??? Looks to be more letters than that from the unclear pic you have posted. If it IS HEIST then that name does not appear among those in any of the the books I have on English Gunmakers. If the lock IS genuine EIC then the makers name should also be genuine, unless of course it has been placed later....but why would you?
Stu

Hi Stu

Thanks for your comments. After closer inspection, it appears to be HIRST.

Rick

kahnjar1 · 13th August 2018, 03:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rickystl

Hi Stu

Thanks for your comments. After closer inspection, it appears to be HIRST.

Rick

OK there is a Jonathan Hirst listed as working at Tower Hill, London 1760-1805. The dates are right so it could well be him.
Stu

rickystl · 13th August 2018, 11:27 AM

Hi Stu

Yes, HIRST it is.

Here is a better pic....

The lock on this gun is in heavily worn condition. I'll get it cleaned and reasonably repaired to working order. I'll re-post so that you can see how worn this lock is. Considering this, it's amazing the rest of the gun is in as good a shape as it is. This gun's seen a lot of campaigns.

Rick

kahnjar1 · 13th August 2018, 09:40 PM

It is quite likely that the gun itself is a lot younger than the lock. As we are well aware, tribal gun makers often used parts from older guns to create their items.
Stu

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

13th August 2018, 11:27 AM	#6
rickystl Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: St. Louis, MO area. Posts: 1,632	Hi Stu Yes, HIRST it is. Here is a better pic.... The lock on this gun is in heavily worn condition. I'll get it cleaned and reasonably repaired to working order. I'll re-post so that you can see how worn this lock is. Considering this, it's amazing the rest of the gun is in as good a shape as it is. This gun's seen a lot of campaigns. Rick Attached Images

12th August 2018, 06:39 PM	#1
mahratt Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Location: Russia Posts: 1,042	rickystl, congratulations. A beautiful jezail.

12th August 2018, 09:31 PM	#2
kahnjar1 Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: CHRISTCHURCH NEW ZEALAND Posts: 2,789	A real beauty Rick. The brass looks to be quite old...certainly not the more yellow color of modern brass. You say that the name on the lock is HEIST??? Looks to be more letters than that from the unclear pic you have posted. If it IS HEIST then that name does not appear among those in any of the the books I have on English Gunmakers. If the lock IS genuine EIC then the makers name should also be genuine, unless of course it has been placed later....but why would you? Stu

12th August 2018, 10:17 PM	#3
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	I remember a claim by somebody that the mere presence of brass places the entire item in the 20th century. This seems to contradict that hypothesis, doesn't it?

13th August 2018, 09:40 PM	#7
kahnjar1 Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: CHRISTCHURCH NEW ZEALAND Posts: 2,789	It is quite likely that the gun itself is a lot younger than the lock. As we are well aware, tribal gun makers often used parts from older guns to create their items. Stu

14th August 2018, 11:38 AM	#8
Richard G Member Join Date: Jan 2012 Posts: 411	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