Ethnographic Arms & Armour - View Single Post

Fernando K · 26th March 2018, 03:20 PM

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.

26th March 2018, 03:20 PM	#6
Fernando K Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 663	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.