19th Century East India British Trading Company Flintlock ID?
 

Good morning all,

I have recently purchased this pistol but don't know very much about it. I have taken it to three different experts and have been told three different things.

The lock plate is stamped "1806" with what appears to be a British East India Trading Company Lion Logo. The barrel is engraved with a sprial pattern but has no actual identifying markers. The rest of the gun is elaborately decorated with mother of pearl and other materials. The handle butt is flat with a saddle ring on the end. I have been told by several people that military pistols from the early 19th century did not have flat butts. Is this true? I have also been told that this pistol was likely a late 19th century percussion pistol that was "re-built" with other parts. Does anybody have any information or opinions on what this pistol really is?

I've also seen informaiton regarding "Khyber Pass" pistols. Could this be one?

Any assistance is appreciated.

Hi,
Your pistol appears to be a East India Company pattern modeled after the British New Land Pattern calvary pistol that was in widespread production by 1802. The flat butt plate and lanyard ring were unique to the East India Company pattern. Armories in India and other colonial holdings of Great Britain were contracted to manufacture these pistols to satisfy local military demand of either British troops, native troops under British control or mercenaries of the British East India Company. I have included some pictures of similar pistols. The decorations on the stock leads me to believe that the pistol came into possession of a native mercenary or fell into private hands resulting in the embellishments. My guess is the pistol might well be original. Could it have been used by an Indian rebel during the Sepoy Mutiny and subsequent rebellion of 1857? Who knows...but if it could talk it probably would have an interesting story to tell!
Hope this helps!
Best,
P

While better photos would be helpful, I believe based on what is shown that the lock is not an original Birmingham-made East India Company lock, but rather a Khyber Pass copy. The lockplate is made of flat stock, rather than having the gracefully rounded edges of an original. The date is stamped with poorly spaced numerals in a modern sans serif font. The protruding screw heads of the internal lock mechanism are nothing like the smoothly finished originals.

Good catch! :)

From a British service blunderbuss:

I think PClemente's observations may be quite well placed, and that Berkeley is right in this being most likely a 'Khyber' produced interpretation of these early flintlocks. In these rugged regions of the Northwest Frontier, much as in many remote colonial regions, the flintlock remained in favor as it was far easier to keep them servicable and supplied than trying to find percussion caps and or cartridges.

While these reproduced examples of British firearms have been made in these regions into present times, I am inclined to think this is an earlier product which is quite likely of 19th century as the MOP motif is consistant with similar on some camel guns (jezails) of possible mid to latter 19th century. The rampant lion EIC logo did not begin use until around 1808 and not in degree until the 1820s in my understanding. The date stamp is however consistant with location of those of the period, though as noted the irregular arrangement of the numbers is revealing. In 1806 prevalent makers were Leigh and Barnett, and these used the EIC balemark with flaunched heart, the '4' and VEIC initials.

Very nice example with good potential if close examination supports the period estimate, but visually and 'by the numbers' looks good for an earlier Khyber product. I would base that on closer adherence to the locks present in the region on those earlier times and during transition.

I agree the lock is not an EIC, as they were made to even higher standards in Birmingham than British ordinance arms.
I don't think the EIC ever had locks made outside the country, but am not sure.
This one looks to me a nice though comparatively new one with a rather bad lock.

Hello Jim!,
Re. the use of flintlocks for longer periods "up North" in the khyber area, as they were easier to keep running than finding percussion caps;

I'm not sure that this was the case, as I have heard that the reason the Matchlock was used so long in that part of the world, was because no suitable spark-producing stones were to be found in the area.
Now, I have never been there,....and cant say which is right!.....but I don't thing both theories can be!
Any more light on this?

All the best,
Richard.

Hi Richard,
Its really good to see you posting!!! especially on this subject as this is definitely your field. Very good point on the reasons concerning flintlocks as pertains to Khyber regions, and I had forgotten about the number of matchlock jezails. Actually my comment was likely more concerning the prolonged use of flintlocks on the frontiers here, and inadvertantly misplaced presuming the same circumstances there. I think Elgood noted the extended use of matchlocks in Arabia, even into 20th century, for likely same reasons.

Im not sure that EIC locks were ever made anywhere else, though they certainly ended up travelling far in some cases. England was long a prolific supplier of arms and materials to America's 'wild west', and swords, guns and particularly Bowie knives were in constant trade here. Many of these 'Bowies' were Sheffield, and many English pistols were used, even by some of the fabled gunfighters (shootists).

At the time of the Alamo, the Mexican army was virtually entirely equipped with British muskets, I think many came from a large dispersement of EIC arms as changes were being made in supply and providers. Im not sure that may of the locks had EIC stamps but they were EIC models.

All the best,
Jim

Hello Jim,

I don't mean to Not post!......just life gets in the way ever so often!
Pistol for a start;
The decoration says to me more Turkish than khyber, as it is very nicely done. It could be someone had a lock made up, the original being lost. Just one theory though...

Muskets;
I believe the muskets sold to Mexico were as you say, the "India Pattern", or Third Model, "brown Bess" These were Government contract arms though, and did not bear the markings of the HEIC. (As far as I am aware, at any rate!)
Again you are spot on, that many Birmingham/Wolverhampton locks wound up in the States, on varying arms, and "Out here" it was infinitley simpler to keep a flintlock running than having to scrounge up caps, or even cartridge cases in later years.

Very best wishes,
Richard.

Thanks very much Richard! and good point on the 'Ottoman' gestalt to the decorative motif. I agree that the style of the gun, as noted by Clemente, seems to resemble the later percussion style guns with the lanyard butt cap etc. I think that Ottoman styling probably well influenced same in areas in India as it did in Arabia and North Africa, simply by the nature of trade and diffusion. The lock seems to be a Khyber product as they were keen on EIC markings, while as far as I know these balemarks were not reproduced much elsewhere. The locks certainly could have moved toward trade entrepots entering various other spheres, but as noted I have seen photos of jezails with this type MOP motif as well.

Interesting note on Indian pistols though with British native cavalry, in the 1880s into 1900s the crossbelt buckles for officers often had prickers styled as arrows incorporated into the ornamentation. I have seen one of the 13th Bengal lancers with this feature, and it seems others as well. Whether simply traditional or functional unsure, but interesting in any case.
All the best,
Jim

Response..
 

Thank you all for your informative responses. I've enjoyed the research that I've been able to gather thus far on this weapon. I see what everybody means by poor quality of the lockplate. Since reading this post, I've been able to examine several original pistols from this period and have noted many differences.