• Friends, our 2nd Amendment rights are always under attack and the NRA has been a constant for decades in helping fight that fight.

    We have partnered with the NRA to offer you a discount on membership and Muzzleloading Forum gets a small percentage too of each membership, so you are supporting both the NRA and us.

    Use this link to sign up please; https://membership.nra.org/recruiters/join/XR045103

Traditional M/L Guns from India

Muzzleloading Forum

Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Rick,
The Sindh gun is a smooth bore.
If I remember right, about .45 cal.
I enjoyed our visit when you were up here Rick!
Now retired, it may be a while before we see you!
OK. Thanks. Most of the percussion Sindh shoulder guns I've seen have rifled barrels. But an occasional smooth bore shows up every once in a while. And they usually show up in smaller calibers like about .36-.45 They often have cool looking barrels. Anyway, it was neat to watch your buddy shoot one.
Email your shooter friend and tell him you know a guy in the States that has a Sindh rifle in shooting condition. Mine's a .41 caliber and takes a .400 ball. And tell him the trigger/guard on mine is in the "right" place. LOL !!!

Rick

Sind Rifle 001 (Medium).jpg
Sind Rifle 003 (Medium).jpg
Sind Rifle 008 (Medium).jpg
Sind Rifle 007 (Medium).jpg
 
Hi Mr. T

Good job. Regular gun oil and 0000 steel wool often does wonders for old iron. The barrel bands may be old leather or rattan. That would also be common. Brass and iron were also used. Maybe one day you will decide to make a shooter with it. LOL From the photos you provided, it appears you may have a barrel that has a bore that is more traditional cylinder bore from muzzle to breach (?) And not the often encountered so-called anti-chamber. This would be worth investigating if you decide to shoot the gun.

Rick
Hi Rick. I've had a bore light and the ramrod down the barrel. I can confirm that mine is the common anti-chamber type, rather than the cylinder bore type. I'll chuck some semolina (wheat middlings) down it at some point to get an idea of chamber volume.

As far as bore size goes, it won't quite accept a .69 ball which is annoying as I have a 69 mold. As far as measuring bore size goes, I was thinking I could drill out a .69 ball, put in on some threaded rod and gently hammer it down the barrel a ways before withdrawing it and getting the calipers round this bore sized slug. I've never done it before and if anyone will tell me it's a bad idea I'll take that advice.

I may shoot it, but I have a slightly plainer and smaller toradar that I'm restoring already. That one's a bit knocked about and I'd rather shoot the tired gun than put wear on the nice gun
 
Here is an interesting Torador musket - with a back-action percussion lock. First I remember seeing. Would be considered rare among other Torador muskets. There is an 1833 date (?) on the butt stock. But not sure if this is actually the date the musket was made. Back-action percussion locks didn't really come into vogue till sometime in the 1840's. In any case, this one appears to have been made as a percussion arm. The patina on all the iron parts appear to match. Also note, the hammer screw uses the so-called bun-nut style that was used on some 3rd Model EIC British muskets, and shows up on a number of Afghan Jazails. And the barrel appears to be tapered and flared full octagon. If I were still buying, I would have bid on this one.

Rick

https://www.invaluable.com/auction-lot/a-fine-mughal-toradar-musket-4714219aa0
 
Rick
Lovely gun!
The trigger placement on Jason's
Gun feels real crippled to me!
I can't think what possessed anyone to place it like they did!
Hi Pukka

That rear trigger placement seems to be a carry-over from the matchlocks of Eastern origins. My guess is that it was simply a combination of owner and builder preference. I would have a hard time getting use to it.

Rick
 
Hi Rick. I've had a bore light and the ramrod down the barrel. I can confirm that mine is the common anti-chamber type, rather than the cylinder bore type. I'll chuck some semolina (wheat middlings) down it at some point to get an idea of chamber volume.

As far as bore size goes, it won't quite accept a .69 ball which is annoying as I have a 69 mold. As far as measuring bore size goes, I was thinking I could drill out a .69 ball, put in on some threaded rod and gently hammer it down the barrel a ways before withdrawing it and getting the calipers round this bore sized slug. I've never done it before and if anyone will tell me it's a bad idea I'll take that advice.

I may shoot it, but I have a slightly plainer and smaller toradar that I'm restoring already. That one's a bit knocked about and I'd rather shoot the tired gun than put wear on the nice gun
Hi Mr. T

OK. so you were able to confirm the barrel is of the anti-chamber variety. That is the most common type we encounter with these barrels. Especially if determined they are from Central to Northern India.
Another option to measure the nominal bore size would be to purchase a plain "long arm" inside caliper. These can be bought online very inexpensive. (no gauge). Then take that result and measure with a standard caliber if you already have one. You want the plain caliper to reach at least 6 inches (15+cm) into the bore. The "swell" at the muzzle is probably only about 1 inch or so.

Cream-of-Wheat cerial also works well for checking the volume. Let us know what you find out.

Rick
 
OK. Thanks. Most of the percussion Sindh shoulder guns I've seen have rifled barrels. But an occasional smooth bore shows up every once in a while. And they usually show up in smaller calibers like about .36-.45 They often have cool looking barrels. Anyway, it was neat to watch your buddy shoot one.
Email your shooter friend and tell him you know a guy in the States that has a Sindh rifle in shooting condition. Mine's a .41 caliber and takes a .400 ball. And tell him the trigger/guard on mine is in the "right" place. LOL !!!

Rick

View attachment 304906View attachment 304907View attachment 304909View attachment 304911
This one has a pistol grip to scare the libs.
 
Here are some images I found online of "kamr" belts. These are firearms accessory belts for Indian muzzleloaders, worn around the waist. They contained all the maintenance tools and accessories for loading. This could include a powder flask/priming flask, storage pouches/boxes, and powder chargers. There was no standardization, so the contents depended on personal preference and regional style. The accessories that others showed in this thread were probably attached to a kamr.

Some of you (especially rickystl) will be familiar with the ones that come from Afghanistan. The first picture mentions that one came from Afghanistan, and another from Persia.

The word "kamr" is related to the Hindustani (Hindi/Urdu) word "kamarband". According to wikipedia, "kamar" means "waist", and "band" means "to fasten", and this is where the English word "cummerbund" comes from.

Here's a link to the Google book where I found the first picture:
https://www.google.com/books/edition/A_Glossary_of_the_Construction_Decoratio/chVfUm2Hz3MC?hl=en

The second picture I found just by googling "Indian kamr" and going to images. It states that the belt holds "cartridges" but I think this just refers to what I called "powder chargers", which is just a tube of gunpowder. In my mind, "cartridge" means "paper cartridge", but I have not found any evidence that paper cartridges were used with traditional Indian muzzleloaders.

Indian Kamr belts.png
Rajput soldier.jpg
 
Here are some images I found online of "kamr" belts. These are firearms accessory belts for Indian muzzleloaders, worn around the waist. They contained all the maintenance tools and accessories for loading. This could include a powder flask/priming flask, storage pouches/boxes, and powder chargers. There was no standardization, so the contents depended on personal preference and regional style. The accessories that others showed in this thread were probably attached to a kamr.

Some of you (especially rickystl) will be familiar with the ones that come from Afghanistan. The first picture mentions that one came from Afghanistan, and another from Persia.

The word "kamr" is related to the Hindustani (Hindi/Urdu) word "kamarband". According to wikipedia, "kamar" means "waist", and "band" means "to fasten", and this is where the English word "cummerbund" comes from.

Here's a link to the Google book where I found the first picture:
https://www.google.com/books/edition/A_Glossary_of_the_Construction_Decoratio/chVfUm2Hz3MC?hl=en

The second picture I found just by googling "Indian kamr" and going to images. It states that the belt holds "cartridges" but I think this just refers to what I called "powder chargers", which is just a tube of gunpowder. In my mind, "cartridge" means "paper cartridge", but I have not found any evidence that paper cartridges were used with traditional Indian muzzleloaders.

View attachment 363157View attachment 363158
The last image is interesting. Some sources claim that guns ended the use of chainmail in Europe (but not other armor types!). However, it’s does not look like India, the ottomans, and the rest of the near east considered that a problem.
 
After a couple of acknowledgements and the interest generated in the Ottoman Guns Thread, I thought I would start a new Thread here on the locally made/used Indian guns during the Ottoman Empire era.
They are unique in their stock design and barrel making techniques.
The most common and best known example is what is commonly referred to as the Indian Torador musket. It's amazing these muskets were still in use by the locals and irregulars till at least about 1880. The fact that they were made and used for this long of a period is the likely reason there are so many original specimens still available today. The matchlock mechanism is a simple lever-type that would date back to the 16th Century. The stocks were typically made in two pieces and spliced together about the middle of the fore stock. The long, square shape of the butt stocks has always been a curiosity. It's my opinion that the long butt stocks were designed to be positioned under the arm pit while firing. And it does help to balance the long, heavy barrel. You do indeed get a sight picture holding the gun this way.
I've never found any historical evidence to prove this, but it's the only theory that makes sense. The barrels were typically tapered and flared round in figured Damascus forged around a mandrel. A simple brass bead front sight and a simple slotted rear sight that was forged to the breech of the barrel or to the breech plug itself. The breech plug was forged welded in place versus threaded. In fact, the entire gun was made without a single threaded screw. The overall design of the gun was so simple that there was really nothing to break or go wrong while in the field. I've read that the locals became so expert with these matchlocks that they insisted on using them even if a more modern gun was offered. But, as with many of the Eastern guns, there is little historical written information on their design and use, other than study of the guns themselves. I do have in my library an actual period witness account of how the barrels were made for these Torador muskets. It's so different (even compared to other Ottoman period barrels) that it's almost worth a separate Thread on it's own. And as with other Ottoman period guns, the Toradors would be built from very plain to highly decorated, and all points in between.

Here are some pics of my only Indian Torador musket in my collection. This one is a good, solid, middle of the road munitions grade musket that sports a Hoyt barrel liner and is now a .62 caliber smooth, standard cylinder bore. It has a new pan cover (original broken and missing) and a new, taller brass front bead sight. Besides the liner, Bobby had to drill out the original forged in breech plug and make a special sleeve and threaded plug. So it now has a removable, threaded breech plug. I'll explain the reason for this in a later post.

RickView attachment 182716View attachment 182717View attachment 182718View attachment 182719View attachment 182720View attachment 182721View attachment 182722View attachment 182723View attachment 182724
No wonder that swords & knives stayed in the mix!!
 
Hi Conrad

Thanks for the post. The leather/fabric belts with pouches that can be traced to India for use with their matchlocks, seldom come up for sale at auctions. I can't remember even seeing any examples for sale. I have maybe three belts with accessories from Afghanistan, one from I believe Algeria, and two powder charger bandoliers, one Ottoman and the other from Oman. But no leather/belt accessories for India. Which is surprising that nothings turned up considering all the matchlocks and powder flasks available. Curious. Of course, as you mentioned, there was nothing "standardized" for carrying shooting accessories for their matchlocks. So accessory carry was a matter of personalized taste. Again, thanks for posting.

Rick
 
The last image is interesting. Some sources claim that guns ended the use of chainmail in Europe (but not other armor types!). However, it’s does not look like India, the ottomans, and the rest of the near east considered that a problem.
The continued use of chainmail is especially curious in latter times. Especially in the Caucasus. There are plenty of original photos from the 1870's showing Caucasian warriors wearing chainmail, helmets, shields, etc. And the continued use of the bow in India for a long time.

Rick
 
The continued use of chainmail is especially curious in latter times. Especially in the Caucasus. There are plenty of original photos from the 1870's showing Caucasian warriors wearing chainmail, helmets, shields, etc. And the continued use of the bow in India for a long time.

Rick
@cyten posted a photo somewhere of Caucasian soldiers recruited to fight in ww1, still wearing their chainmail!

It seems so incredibly labor intensive to make, which makes its continued use particularly strange. The only benefit i can think of is that it’s much more accommodating for difference sizes of wearer, potentially allowing it to be passed down.
 
@cyten posted a photo somewhere of Caucasian soldiers recruited to fight in ww1, still wearing their chainmail!

It seems so incredibly labor intensive to make, which makes its continued use particularly strange. The only benefit i can think of is that it’s much more accommodating for difference sizes of wearer, potentially allowing it to be passed down.
The Khevsur people of Georgia were famous for their late use of chainmail. Here's the photo in question of Khevsur men who volunteered to fight in 1918
149046-1918tbilisi.jpg


Tradition plays a huge role in its use, I imagine, similar to the wearing of the Jambiya even today in Yemen, or the Khanjar in Oman
 
Last edited:
Back
Top