French caplock pistol...

[The Harmonica Man]

Hello.
Once again i hope some of the people more enlightened them me can help me.

Someone near where I live is selling this caplock pistol he thinks is french (and I am inclined to agree... atleast the style is kinda french...) and thinks is from somewhere around 1820 - 1840/50. The ad also notes that the lock and trigger is working nicly and that the barrel is in a good condition, but i think it most likly will need a new nipple. He is asking for 3500 NOK (about 396 USD).

The seller cant make anything out of the worn markings that is on the barrel (and neither can I...) and he doubts that the ramrod is original.

I also find the steel nosecap kinda out of place (although I also find it cool) when the pommel and triggerguard is made of brass...
Here is also some more pictures of the gun, one of them next to a lighter for size reference.

I hope somebody of you may be able to enlighten me about this pistol and any help is deeply appriciated.
Please excuse my bad english as its not my native language.

Hans.

 

[TFoley]

Your pistol has English proof marks on it - the crossed sceptres are dated from 1813 to August 1904. The 16 refers to the bore, in this case, 16 bore. This means that sixteen balls of the same diameter as the bore of the pistol weighed one English pound [16 ounces]. That equates to a bore of .663". In metric that is almost 17mm.

It is undoubtedly a martial pistol, having a high degree of 'clunkiness' about it. It is typical of the martial-issue pistols of the early percussion era, and, as you've already figured out, dates from the 1830-50 period before revolvers became more common. Your friend is right - the ram rod is totally incorrect. If it had been used by a horseman, then it would likely have had a captive ramrod, working off a swivel. I can't see any sign of this - can you?

Your English is fine, don't worry about it.

 

[The Harmonica Man]

So its a english pistol... I figured that someone might know the country of origin of the proof marks....
Also, about the ramrod. I have trouble seeing any signs of a captive ramrod that might have been there... maybe the pistol was meant for foot soldiers?

Anyway thank you so much for the reply, getting to know the country of origin and the bore diameter is very helpful.
I guess 16mm (or maybe a bit smaller) roundball might work nicly in it if I decide to buy it.

 

[Notchy Bob]

Hans, welcome to the Muzzleloading forum, and thanks for posting photographs of this interesting weapon.

I defer to @TFoley regarding proof marks, although to me, that pistol has a more Continental "feel." I would have guessed maybe Belgium, or one of the Scandinavian counties, but it would have been just a guess. Maybe an English barrel, supplied to a gunmaker in another country?

I would agree that the ramrod looks like a replacement. I would like to see a photo of the muzzle, also showing the ramrod channel.

That pistol certainly has a military "look," yet the small size of the cone suggests a small cap, as for sporting arms, would fit best. I believe a lot of the martial pistols from that period used musket caps. I suppose the nipple may have been replaced, or even filed or turned down to accept sporting caps.

Your English is excellent!

Best regards,

Notchy Bob

 

[The Harmonica Man]

Here is the best picture from the ad showing the muzzle...
I will ask the seller to send be a better pic

 

[dragnetbill]

Here is the best picture from the ad showing the muzzle...
I will ask the seller to send be a better pic
View attachment 91513

Up front I would like to say that I am NO kind of authority on this type of arm. So, my dumb question is, could this be the result of the marriage of some handgun parts to some parts from a shoulder fired musket?

 

[The Harmonica Man]

I have no idea
but who knows...

I made this thread to maybe get some information on the weapon and I have gotten plenty.
Main reason for this is that im thinking about buying it as a weapon to shoot once in a while (but also to keep it as an "mini collecting" or atleast a start).
Thats why I got intrested in this pistol, as it seems to be in good enough shape to be shot on an unregular to semi-regular basis with reduced loads (for recreation etc...)

"Why don't i just buy a repro?" - In my country I have to jump trough quite many hoops to be allowed to own a gunpowder weapon made after the 1890's (If you ask me our system is quite good, altough it also has its flaws. But I won't start to discuss theese now). Sadly this also includes repro's of muzzleloading firearms. Also i find that quite a few repro pistols are just as, if not more expensive then originals like this one....

 

[Notchy Bob]

Hans,

Thank you for the additional photograph. I was wondering if it might have originally had a wooden ramrod, which would have been larger diameter than the iron one, but I can't tell.

That double barrel band up at the muzzle still seems odd. It is clearly of iron, although the other mountings (triggerguard, buttcap, etc) are brass, and it is most unusual to see one of these secured with a screw through the side like that. Also, the wood protruding through this band under the muzzle of the barrel looks rough and unfinished. I think that band was probably salvaged from another type of gun, and installed on this one.

This pistol has "character." I like it! If it is shootable, or can be made shootable without much effort, I think the equivalent of $396 USD is a pretty good price. In the United States, any muzzleloader, regardless of its date of manufacture, is considered an "antique" with regard to ownership and shipping. Our forum brothers from overseas have advised us that many European countries consider only the date of manufacture. In that circumstance, I can see that there would be some advantage to buying an antique. In addition, Hans is correct in that reproductions of old military arms sometimes cost as much or more than originals.

If the seller guarantees this pistol is capable of being shot, I would get it. You can then enjoy shooting it, regardless of its heritage, and take your time in finding positive identification.

I keep hoping @Rudyard will weigh in on this. He knows a lot about old guns from Europe and the UK.

Best regards,

Notchy Bob

 

[dragnetbill]

Hans,

Thank you for the additional photograph. I was wondering if it might have originally had a wooden ramrod, which would have been larger diameter than the iron one, but I can't tell.

That double barrel band up at the muzzle still seems odd. It is clearly of iron, although the other mountings (triggerguard, buttcap, etc) are brass, and it is most unusual to see one of these secured with a screw through the side like that. Also, the wood protruding through this band under the muzzle of the barrel looks rough and unfinished. I think that band was probably salvaged from another type of gun, and installed on this one.

This pistol has "character." I like it! If it is shootable, or can be made shootable without much effort, I think the equivalent of $396 USD is a pretty good price. In the United States, any muzzleloader, regardless of its date of manufacture, is considered an "antique" with regard to ownership and shipping. Our forum brothers from overseas have advised us that many European countries consider only the date of manufacture. In that circumstance, I can see that there would be some advantage to buying an antique. In addition, Hans is correct in that reproductions of old military arms sometimes cost as much or more than originals.

If the seller guarantees this pistol is capable of being shot, I would get it. You can then enjoy shooting it, regardless of its heritage, and take your time in finding positive identification.

I keep hoping @Rudyard will weigh in on this. He knows a lot about old guns from Europe and the UK.

Best regards,

Notchy Bob

The double barrel band up front looks like it came off of a Charleville Musket model of 1777??? Could be why the seller thinks its of French origin.

 

[BJamesBeck]

Looks like a French Model 1763/66 that has been converted to percussion, possibly with an English hammer judging by the engraving.

 

[The Harmonica Man]

Looks like a French Model 1763/66 that has been converted to percussion, possibly with an English hammer judging by the engraving.

Yes i kinda does, but I doubt that a little as the double barrelband is a little bit shorter and fastened with a screw.
Also the lockplate looks a lot more modern (simple) then the one on model 1763/66's and the grip angle is more like the one on the AN IX pistols.

Im starting to think that, knowing that the markings on the barrel is british marks, that it might be some kind of
tower-pistol fitted with a french-looking barrelband.

I found the picture on the internet (big suprise) and im kinda suprised at how similar the two guns look if you ignore the barrelband.

 

[BJamesBeck]

Yes i kinda does, but I doubt that a little as the double barrelband is a little bit shorter and fastened with a screw.
Also the lockplate looks a lot more modern (simple) then the one on model 1763/66's and the grip angle is more like the one on the AN IX pistols.

Im starting to think that, knowing that the markings on the barrel is british marks, that it might be some kind of
tower-pistol fitted with a french-looking barrelband.

I found the picture on the internet (big suprise) and im kinda suprised at how similar the two guns look if you ignore the barrelband.

View attachment 91719View attachment 91720

Yeah, you're right it is shorter, I had only given it a quick glance. Think you might be onto something there with the mix and match of parts theory.

 

[Notchy Bob]

Yes i kinda does, but I doubt that a little as the double barrelband is a little bit shorter and fastened with a screw.
Also the lockplate looks a lot more modern (simple) then the one on model 1763/66's and the grip angle is more like the one on the AN IX pistols.

Im starting to think that, knowing that the markings on the barrel is british marks, that it might be some kind of
tower-pistol fitted with a french-looking barrelband.

I found the picture on the internet (big suprise) and im kinda suprised at how similar the two guns look if you ignore the barrelband.

View attachment 91719View attachment 91720

I'm inclined to agree with Hans.

I think the subject pistol is most likely original percussion, rather than a conversion. The "snail" bolster looks original, to me. There were a variety of ways to effect a percussion conversion, including welding a oldster on the side of the barrel, but most of those are rather crude, and looked different from this one. The bolster on the subject pistol is of a type favored by the British gunmakers, somewhat similar to the Enfield shape.

Have you bought it yet, Hans?

Notchy Bob

 

[The Harmonica Man]

I haven't bought it yet... waiting for my payday...

But I realy feel that if it can be shot, its gonna be worth the money

 

[appalichian hunter]

When you get the gun re-fashion a wooden rammer such as the one posted bye harmonica man,from your photo I would bet one would fit also it will make loading easier.

 

[toot]

Here is the best picture from the ad showing the muzzle...
I will ask the seller to send be a better pic
View attachment 91513

I don't see where a capturing swivel loading rod was attached? some times as the HUNGARIANS, showed on the CAP & BALL site, the rod was carried separately in a leather sling on the troopers side. this may have been the case?

 

[toot]

Yes i kinda does, but I doubt that a little as the double barrelband is a little bit shorter and fastened with a screw.
Also the lockplate looks a lot more modern (simple) then the one on model 1763/66's and the grip angle is more like the one on the AN IX pistols.

Im starting to think that, knowing that the markings on the barrel is british marks, that it might be some kind of
tower-pistol fitted with a french-looking barrelband.

I found the picture on the internet (big suprise) and im kinda suprised at how similar the two guns look if you ignore the barrelband.

View attachment 91719View attachment 91720

yes very simular!

 

[toot]

Welcome aboard.

 

[TFoley]

So its a english pistol... I figured that someone might know the country of origin of the proof marks....
Also, about the ramrod. I have trouble seeing any signs of a captive ramrod that might have been there... maybe the pistol was meant for foot soldiers?

Anyway thank you so much for the reply, getting to know the country of origin and the bore diameter is very helpful.
I guess 16mm (or maybe a bit smaller) roundball might work nicly in it if I decide to buy it.

Foot soldiers did not, as a general rule, carry ANY kind of pistol in the Georgian and Victorian armies of the era we talk about here. Pistols were for officers, or mounted troops - cavalry - lancers or dragoons. The main difference is that cavalry used sabres, lancers used lances with pistols in saddle holsters - usually in pairs - and dragoons were infantry that rode their horse into battle, then dismounted to fight. Carabiniers, as the name implies, carried shot carbines and often, liked my late grandfather in WW1, heavy straight swords.

Lancers certainly had pistols like this, with captive ramrods that you couldn't drop and lose in combat, or as we used to call it in the old days, battle.

 

[TFoley]

I don't see where a capturing swivel loading rod was attached? some times as the HUNGARIANS, showed on the CAP & BALL site, the rod was carried separately in a leather sling on the troopers side. this may have been the case?

Toot, that was an Austro-Hungarian thing. Western armies like ours used the captive ramrod. Imagine having that thing dangling around all the other stuff you were wearing on horseback!