Middle eastern musket ID help

[BlacksmithingWitch]

so Belgian seems like a given, could the lock be as well and based of of french counterparts? as it does seem a dead ringer for the sort of lock on the french musket posted above. Oddly enough, the lock has a proof mark with an F and crown, the plate opposite the lock for the bolt to anchor into has one with a crown and a very obvious W. I know virtually nothing as to the anthropology of firearms but could that indicate its two different guns brought together in a new stock? As far as the date, could the CH 43 on the breech plug be referring to 1843? Im sorry for all the questions im just a bit out of my familiar zone and trying to get to the bottom of this interesting piece.

[rickystl]

OK. Since the barrel shows shallow-groove rifling (possibly 3-groove?) I stand corrected. The caliber should measure about .69 (18mm). The French and Belgium muskets of the period were very similar. Parts coming from the same arsenals.
The latter photo showing the bolster seemed to look very different than the earlier photos. I guess that was because I was looking at it with the barrel out of the stock versus in the stock. And with the additional information on the barrel being shallow rifled, I would disgard my earlier theory of the barrel, and agree with you. The barrel was designed to shoot the .69 minnie ball of the period.
So, it appears the entire service musket was utilized and re-stocked (possibly due to a broken stock?) somewhere to suit Ottoman tastes. Possibly at one of the many gun making centers in the Balkans (?). The decoration and engraving seem to be done in a generic fashion. So it's difficult to tell wheather it was made for a specific individual, or just re-stocked in a shop for resale to anyone interested. This re-use of parts was very common throughout the Empire. The gun could have been assembled in India, Afghanistan, or any number of different locations. It's almost impossible to tell for sure. And most of these guns were never marked as to their final maker. But the utilization of Europen parts would likely have put a percieved increase in value to the purchaser. This re-use of parts was very common throughout the Empire.
Again, it's a very neat gun I would not mind having in my collection.

Rick

[kahnjar1]

Originally Posted by BlacksmithingWitch

so Belgian seems like a given, could the lock be as well and based of of french counterparts? as it does seem a dead ringer for the sort of lock on the french musket posted above. Oddly enough, the lock has a proof mark with an F and crown, the plate opposite the lock for the bolt to anchor into has one with a crown and a very obvious W. I know virtually nothing as to the anthropology of firearms but could that indicate its two different guns brought together in a new stock? As far as the date, could the CH 43 on the breech plug be referring to 1843? Im sorry for all the questions im just a bit out of my familiar zone and trying to get to the bottom of this interesting piece.

No need to apologise. This is what the Forum is all about, and how we all learn about our interests.
The letters surmounted by a crown are INSPECTORS MARKS. See #10 on the chart I gave you. Different Inspectors would likely be used for different parts as per their individual expertise. Note also that this mark was used between 1853 and 1877, so now you have a date span in which this gun, or at least the parts were made.
The other numbers are unlikely to be anything to do with dates. Simply (maybe) batch numbers. Remember that we are still talking INDIVIDUAL PARTS for individual guns, hand fitted. COLT was the only maker of the period to my knowledge,who made parts which would fit all guns of the same type without any further adjustment. In other words he could be regarded as one of the first "true mass producers" of guns.
Your comment regarding similarity to French locks is well founded. The 2 countries are side by side, and in fact many French guns were proved at the Liege Proof House. This one however, was not, as the Inspector Marks are not French.
Stu

[BlacksmithingWitch]

to remove any rust inside the barrel, would a plan of first plugging the barrel and carefully filling it with a vinegar solution, then wipe down with a fine copper bore brush, neutralize and then oil it to protect it work? ive often used vinegar to remove rust on parts though I wouldnt want to be too aggressive, and I certainly wouldnt use it on the outside of the barrel out of fear id strip patina away. its just the inside hasnt seen a good cleaning in years and im concerned about letting the rust in there continue to build up, and vinegar in my experience eats it away quickly without being strong enough to seriously affect the "healthy" metal. Ive tried a "patch" of steel wool and a normal solvent for gun bores which has helped but not to much extent.

[rickystl]

I've had good luck soaking the inside of the barrel with Kroil Oil and letting it sit for a week. And won't hurt the outside of the barrel.

Rick