Help Identifying Percussion Pistol

[Dan01.wilson]

View attachment 70429
I was able to get the stock off. Can anyone identify these proof marks? I attached two pictures of the same thing, with different lighting.

Thanks very much for your shared expertise.

 

[user 48679]

This Rigby pistol from Dublin, Ireland is the only one where the screws in the lockplate are spaced exactly like on my pistol. But my barrel is inscribed "London" ?? I think Rigby had a presence in London, but it was later, maybe 1860s.
View attachment 69402

IMO, it looks like a Birmingham proof mark, used from 1868-1925; but the barrel proof marks could also be private Tower proof marks done in London and later (ca. 1796)

 

[Auldjin]

They are not the best struck marks, but I think I see the letters "B,P and C" and "V" between the crossed sceptres making them Birmingham post 1813. The Tower private marks had just the crown and sceptres without the letters

 

[Dan01.wilson]

They are not the best struck marks, but I think I see the letters "B,P and C" and "V" between the crossed sceptres making them Birmingham post 1813. The Tower private marks had just the crown and sceptres without the letters

Thanks very much. Could the maker have Rigby of Dublin? Their lockplate is the only one whose screw layout and spacing exactly matches those of my pistol.

 

[Dan01.wilson]

Thanks very much. Could the maker have Rigby of Dublin? Their lockplate is the only one whose screw layout and spacing exactly matches those of my pistol.

"have been"

 

[Auldjin]

This is outside my expertise but I wonder if this might be relevant: "The prestigious William & John Rigby and Trulock & Son were making their own barrels commercially by 1830, and prior to this Rigby had developed the deeply etched damascus barrel by the year before his death in 1818. All these noted barrels never show proof marks, merely the manufacturers name either on the barrel, lock or "Dublin" to the top flat." from Gun Barrel Proof in Ireland. Dublin 1712.

 

[Dan01.wilson]

This is outside my expertise but I wonder if this might be relevant: "The prestigious William & John Rigby and Trulock & Son were making their own barrels commercially by 1830, and prior to this Rigby had developed the deeply etched damascus barrel by the year before his death in 1818. All these noted barrels never show proof marks, merely the manufacturers name either on the barrel, lock or "Dublin" to the top flat." from Gun Barrel Proof in Ireland. Dublin 1712.

Thanks for the information. Fascinating reference.

 

[Dan01.wilson]

Thanks very much. Could the maker have Rigby of Dublin? Their lockplate is the only one whose screw layout and spacing exactly matches those of my pistol.

Why do you think my marks were so carelessly struck?

 

[user 48679]

Hasty processing due to pressure from higher up in the proof house; worn stamps, or just plain carelessness - who knows ?

 

[Hawken]

Definitely a percussion pistol.

 

[rickystl]

Hi Dan

Interesting pistol. While I can't help with the markings, the pistol does have a definite English flavor to it. The general architecture of the pistol with it's checkered stock and back action percussion lock are common features of many English made pistols sold to private individuals in the 1840-60 period. But the captive ramrod was more in use with the military. And the overall size of the pistol appears a bit large for a belt type pistol of the same style (along with pocket pistols) that were very popular with civilians in Europe during this same period. So, this leads me to believe this pistol may have been made for a British officer under private contract for his personal horse pistol. Which the Military apparently allowed officers to for over a century. It's like a combination of civilian and military features.

Rick

 

[Dan01.wilson]

Hi Dan

Interesting pistol. While I can't help with the markings, the pistol does have a definite English flavor to it. The general architecture of the pistol with it's checkered stock and back action percussion lock are common features of many English made pistols sold to private individuals in the 1840-60 period. But the captive ramrod was more in use with the military. And the overall size of the pistol appears a bit large for a belt type pistol of the same style (along with pocket pistols) that were very popular with civilians in Europe during this same period. So, this leads me to believe this pistol may have been made for a British officer under private contract for his personal horse pistol. Which the Military apparently allowed officers to for over a century. It's like a combination of civilian and military features.

Rick

Thanks for the info. I guess smoothbores were employed up until the Civil War??

 

[rickystl]

Thanks for the info. I guess smoothbores were employed up until the Civil War??

I believe late, flintlock horse pistols were used in the early days of the CW due to the shortage of arms.

Rick

 

[bpd303]

Why do you think my marks were so carelessly struck?

May not have been struck like that. No telling what work may have been done on it over the century + of use. Kinda looks like someone may have draw filed it a little.

 

[Auldjin]

But the captive ramrod was more in use with the military.

I don't have any military percussion pistols, but three of my pistols have rammers (the others are turn-off or don't have a rammer) and two of those have a stirrup (not a large sample I know). The single barrel piece is by Beckhuson of Oxford the other by Lancaster of London.

 

[coloradoclyde]

Looks like an English horse pistol to me.

 

[Notchy Bob]

I can't help with identification, but if you paid $250 for that little gem, you got a really good deal! Especially if it is shootable.

It looks like original percussion to me, with the original back-action lock and the patent breech with snail.

I do not remember seeing a civilian pistol with a captured ramrod like that, but clearly they existed.

Thank you for showing it!

Notchy Bob

 

[Auldjin]

I was looking at the name on the lock and trying to pick out letters. I thought I could see "D.EGG". Almost certainly too good to be true but I wonder what other people think they can see.

 

[TFoley]

Hi Dan

Interesting pistol. While I can't help with the markings, the pistol does have a definite English flavor to it. The general architecture of the pistol with it's checkered stock and back action percussion lock are common features of many English made pistols sold to private individuals in the 1840-60 period. But the captive ramrod was more in use with the military. And the overall size of the pistol appears a bit large for a belt type pistol of the same style (along with pocket pistols) that were very popular with civilians in Europe during this same period. So, this leads me to believe this pistol may have been made for a British officer under private contract for his personal horse pistol. Which the Military apparently allowed officers to for over a century. It's like a combination of civilian and military features.

Rick

Post #3 refers - '...large-calibre travelling pistol suitable for a horsed gentleman, rather than a martial pistol like that issue to a lancer or dragoon of the day.'

And BTW, the British Army required its officers to purchase their own pistols/revolvers untilat least the first workd war - 1914 -18

 

[TFoley]

I was looking at the name on the lock and trying to pick out letters. I thought I could see "D.EGG". Almost certainly too good to be true but I wonder what other people think they can see.

I agree 100%.

Here's another, known D EGG -