Flintlock for ID

kahnjar1 · 14th January 2018, 07:02 PM

Hi Richard and Rick,
With reference to the date, I did say that it is well worn and VERY hard to decipher. The ??57 is a pure guess from what I can see.
Yes this lock IS from a Jezail but the locally made locks that I have seen are generally not of the (better) quality of this one. This one has screw fittings rather than the peened over pegs of other locks.
Apart from comments about the lock itself I was hoping that someone could give a date range that this PARTICULAR "heart" striking was used.
Stu

Pukka Bundook · 14th January 2018, 07:55 PM

Stu,

The EIC always used a "Quartered Heart."

This one being a local copy could have been made between early 18 o00s and yesterday.

The lock "guts" although not EIC look good and the lock should work well enough if you wanted.

Very best,
Richard.

kahnjar1 · 15th January 2018, 12:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pukka Bundook

Stu,

The EIC always used a "Quartered Heart."

This one being a local copy could have been made between early 18 o00s and yesterday.

The lock "guts" although not EIC look good and the lock should work well enough if you wanted.

Very best,
Richard.

Hi Richard,
Sorry to disagree, but they did not always use what you describe as a "quartered heart". The style on my lock (whether it is genuine or a copy) is the same as that shown on Ricks lock dated 1805. The quartered version came later according to the small amount of reference I can find.
The lock itself actually sparks well, and the gun it came from has been used as a shooter in the recent past.
Stu

Pukka Bundook · 15th January 2018, 07:46 PM

You are quite right, Stu.

My mistake!

Richard.

rickystl · 14th January 2018, 07:58 PM

Hi Stu

Well, here are a couple pics of locks on two of my Jazails. One is a Barnett pattern, the other a Wilson pattern. Notice the hearts and names on different locations on the lockplates. Note the quality of the engravings/stampings.
As to when, where, etc. the different hearts ID's were used and the locations on the lockplates, you almost need Harding's book to find out. I hope another Forum member might have the reference material to give you a better idea.
But if the mark is spurios, it could have simply been crudely copied at most any point in time. And was so common on these guns.

Rick

14th January 2018, 07:58 PM	#5
rickystl Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: St. Louis, MO area. Posts: 1,632	Hi Stu Well, here are a couple pics of locks on two of my Jazails. One is a Barnett pattern, the other a Wilson pattern. Notice the hearts and names on different locations on the lockplates. Note the quality of the engravings/stampings. As to when, where, etc. the different hearts ID's were used and the locations on the lockplates, you almost need Harding's book to find out. I hope another Forum member might have the reference material to give you a better idea. But if the mark is spurios, it could have simply been crudely copied at most any point in time. And was so common on these guns. Rick Attached Images

14th January 2018, 07:02 PM	#1
kahnjar1 Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: CHRISTCHURCH NEW ZEALAND Posts: 2,789	Hi Richard and Rick, With reference to the date, I did say that it is well worn and VERY hard to decipher. The ??57 is a pure guess from what I can see. Yes this lock IS from a Jezail but the locally made locks that I have seen are generally not of the (better) quality of this one. This one has screw fittings rather than the peened over pegs of other locks. Apart from comments about the lock itself I was hoping that someone could give a date range that this PARTICULAR "heart" striking was used. Stu

14th January 2018, 07:55 PM	#2
Pukka Bundook Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 803	Stu, The EIC always used a "Quartered Heart." This one being a local copy could have been made between early 18 o00s and yesterday. The lock "guts" although not EIC look good and the lock should work well enough if you wanted. Very best, Richard.

15th January 2018, 07:46 PM	#4
Pukka Bundook Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 803	You are quite right, Stu. My mistake! Richard.