O.K. Chris here goes,I obtained it from the estate of a collector, I bought it from his son who was clearing his fathers effects and had little interest in antique firearms. His father had had a largish collection which he'd sold in the years leading up to his demise. But he kept back two of the weapons from his collection to pass on to his heirs. One was a flintlock Kentucky rifle signed Peter Brong....(beautiful) the other was this. He didn't leave any details about provenance, but he did leave a massive pile of books, so I think it reasonable to assume he had knowledge. Now you know what I know. As to what it is..I don't know, and neither do the experts, that's why I'm here,maybe I can learn something useful,maybe others can learn from what I learn, which is also why I'm here. If we don't question and accept the Status Quo how will we ever find things out? Karl made a good point when he pointed out a reason why there are so many wierd and wonderfull matchlocks and wheel locks around, because they were to wierd and wonderful to be of any real use on the battlefiels or too highly prized to be risked and didn't end up trampled in the mud and rusting away, that's not to say there weren't any 'ordinary' wheel lock pistols,but it might account for there not being any around. We don't know, so the accepted position is they did not exist. Accepted positions are quite often misleading as history proves. What do the experts say? I quote; " My initial impression is that the overall style is intended to be pre-1690; more English Civil War in fact with that butt. We have lots of late matchlock muskets with similar locks that we presume were intended for the ”˜Dad’s Army’ of the day, colonials etc! It can’t be military, I don’t think ”“ we’d have some evidence or other surviving example if so much as a trial had taken place. It could be a piece made by or for a civilian for range use at around that time. But to me it seems most likely to be an c1820 impression of what a c1690 m/l pistol might have looked like. The profile and length of the barrel and the manner of fore-stocking are more like a late flintlock, though the lock might well be an older carbine lock and the butt is similar to ECW era English, German, and Dutch styles. By the 1680s, pistols were pretty well exclusively club-butted (usually the spurred butt-cap).
In any case, a fascinating and antique piece in its own right ”“ if only we knew more about it! I take it there are no markings anywhere on the piece?
(hope that comes out OK it's copied and pasted from an e.mail I received from the Royal Armouries) Anyway, I still have my reservations as I've previously noted. I have the benefit of holding and studying this pistol at close quarters, I haven't disassembled it because until I've exhausted all other avenues of research I don't want to disturb anything. As to the sheet metal nature of the fittings, I'll post a couple of more detailed snaps, see what you think. One other thing which is slightly off topic which the moderator might hopefully allow me is a further example of why we shouldn't necessarily accept the standard view of things, I also own a tap action side by side single hammer,single trigger percussion pocket pistol by Bentley. No biggie I hear you say?... There are numerous eamples of s/s and o/u tap action flint pistols,with three and four barrels. There are four barrel tap action percussion,(double trigger of course) I've even managed to find a tap action o/u percussion pocket pistol, two in fact, but pretty much all side by side percussion pistols for reasons which are quite obvious are double trigger,double hammer. I have a little challenge for you, you've got all the books and have visited all the museums,..find me another.(Don't bother checking the Royal Armouries,they haven't got one either
