Unknown percussion musket without markings.

[LommelyktNO]

Hello. I have this old percussion musket and that's basically all I know about it. I think it looks British, it has many similarities with British muskets. But without markings and Im not an expert its hard to say. Here is some pictures off it, a Norwegian 1769/1841 with missing dog lock for comparission. Since it has no markings I was thinking that this might be homemade, a few places it has some "bad" craftmanship on it, nothing serious, but I doubt a serious weapon producer would allow that. Anyways, I have no idea. Thanks for answears!

 

[hawkeye2]

Photos?

 

[LommelyktNO]

Yes, I was little late to add them. Here is a few more:

 

[LommelyktNO]

Maybe it's a "Khyber Pass" production off a British musket? As I said above, it looks very British and they was/are known to reproduce weapons off all kinds there. Just sometimes without markings. But if this is a "Khyber Pass", how on earth did it end up in northern Norway...? I still think this musket maybe is British, at least based on a British one. Maybe a "Tower". The question still, is this smoothbored musket real or did some civilian/local gunsmith make it? I know that Norwegian hunters and gunsmiths back in the old days made their own flintlock and percussion weapons. But this musket looks military, British as I said, so they would have had access to an original one in able to make this. Or maybe this is an original military musket from some country...It is functional and works, I just want to know where it comes from. It also looks like this was originally a flintlock and later converted to percussion.

 

[hawkeye2]

No matter what its history it was never a flintlock.

 

[Grenadier1758]

If it was British made, there would be British inspection and proof marks stamped on the barrel.

 

[TFoley]

If it was British made, there would be British inspection and proof marks stamped on the barrel.

Also, there would be some kind of inscription on the lock, which, incidentally, has a passing resemblance to an Enfield pattern, as does the trigger guard. However, the banding on the breech suggests something other than any British piece.

 

[Grayrock Volunteer]

It is an Afghan or Indian made copy of the British P1842 Musket, or one of the shorter versions of that family of arms, like the P1845 Extra Service Musket.

 

[LommelyktNO]

It is an Afghan or Indian made copy of the British P1842 Musket, or one of the shorter versions of that family of arms, like the P1845 Extra Service Musket.

Thank you all for the answears, it was helpful! That was what I also was thinking, that it probably was a Middle Eastern or Asian copy of a British one. How much may this be worth? I guess the value is less than an original one. I paid around 200 dollars for this.
One last question, would you consider this safe to shoot? I have tried it a few times, but only with weak loads.

 

[TFoley]

Thank you all for the answears, it was helpful! That was what I also was thinking, that it probably was a Middle Eastern or Asian copy of a British one. How much may this be worth? I guess the value is less than an original one. I paid around 200 dollars for this.
One last question, would you consider this safe to shoot? I have tried it a few times, but only with weak loads.

Well, you've proved to yourself that it works, albeit with what you call 'weak loads'. Me, I'd stop right there, before I was tempted to progress to not-so-weak loads.

 

[Throwdown58]

Well I usually tie it to a tire...

 

[rickystl]

Interesting find. Basically, for the moment, I agree with Greylock in Post #8 above. Looks like it started life as a British EIC musket Model 1840 or later since the trigger guard looks 1842 or latter. Note the dovetail cut near the breech area for a fixed rear sight as used on the EIC 1840 and later muskets. Any British barrel markings could have been worn off or intentionally removed back in the period. The lock does look pattern 1840's. The EIC locks used 2/3 hammer styles but all looked similar. Some had the standard type hammer screw, while others used the bun nut. What is unusual is the existence of a brass side plate. But here's a question: Is the side plate actually inlet into the stock ? Or is it just a flat brass piece sitting on the wood ?

Rick

 

[eggwelder]

looks like a lot of the antiques and nondescript muskets found around here, and in better condition

 

[zimmerstutzen]

It is not one of the Nepalese GOVT Enfield copies. A large cache of them were sold to the west about 20 years ago. IIRC, They had brass trigger guards, but iron barrel bands. There was another similar lock and bolster used on some of the Lorenz Muskets from Austro-Hungary. (model 1854) but the furniture was all different

note the differences in location of the lock screw holes to the rear of the hammer from the true Enfield and the pattern enfields.

It does more closely resemble the 1840 pattern East India Muskets. And may well be one, except for the lack of markings. and the remnants of a wedding ring on the barrel. A number of them seized from Indian Troops by Nepal in 1857 are available for sale from IMA

Maybe a Frankin-gun, made up of parts.

I'd go with a Khyber pass special except that there are some odd differences. Khyber junk is usually stamped with fake letters and numbers, even fake proof marks. (Even spelling Enfield incorrectly some times)

 

[JCKelly]

Best not to shoot it. Might be someone's odd trade musket.

 

[Sam squanch]

I think an old gunsmith up in Norway put it together. Cartridge guns were expensive to feed up there, I read. The Swedish or Norwegian government ( I forget) sold old rolling blocks to hunters, then there was some fight with the fishermen over something or other. Then the government took them back. So muzzleloaders were used up into the 1940’s in some regions. And I read a few British guns were imported too to sell.