Scottish Pistol Pair

fernando · 2nd May 2022, 11:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tordenskiold1721

The only small stamp that this photo magnefies on the inside of rusty greasy barrels are number 4 as seen on this photo. This apears to be assemply numbers:

Yes, an assembly number, most certainly. Could you check if the other pistol also has a number in the same place (barrel tang) ?

Tordenskiold1721 · 2nd May 2022, 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fernando

Yes, an assembly number, most certainly. Could you check if the other pistol also has a number in the same place (barrel tang) ?

The photos of several Scottish pistols shows various locking solutions in half cocked and fully cocked position. Thank you for pointing out this variations. I simply found a photo that better ilustrated a pair without any of the locking systems. Anyway the aforementioned is besides the point

Assemply number 4 with a five above:

Raf · 2nd May 2022, 01:32 PM

Surprisingly no one has pointed out that the lock internals show a remarkable similarity to a 53 Enfield. Note the swivel link to mainspring and the wedged mainspring attachment . Features that become more common in the percussion period arguing a date more towards the 1840s. The fact that they seem to have avoided proof is worrying but what is more concerning is the lack of a bolster to the barrel tang. Meaning that there is no effective way of screwing in the breech plug. If there is no evidence of a screwed in breech plug the barrels have to have been machined from the solid which is obviously completely contrary to functional firearms practice , at least in this period. Having said that I still don't think they are copies , reproductions , Indian or otherwise. I know its clutching at straws but I am beginning to wonder if they were made as non functional regalia in the early Victorian period. Congratulations on the fine pairs of pistols you posted.

Tordenskiold1721 · 2nd May 2022, 02:05 PM

Yes both locks has springs and screws but also some differences.

The lock is fasted with the main screw from the belt hock and a screw in the front as I have seen is done on most Scottish pistols:

Raf · 2nd May 2022, 03:56 PM

Looking at the new photographs of the internals Im sorry to say this just does not look credible as a period lock . Well at least we tried .Please ignore my comments about the barrel bolster . I simply misread the photographs.

Tordenskiold1721 · 2nd May 2022, 05:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Raf

Looking at the new photographs of the internals Im sorry to say this just does not look credible as a period lock . Well at least we tried .Please ignore my comments about the barrel bolster . I simply misread the photographs.

I took one of my louse locks from Danish M/1794 musket to compare. The only difference is were the main spring connects. Otherwise no period-development difference. Photo below. I respect detailed information and refernces to literature with a photo or that somone show their own Scottish pistols as an example using it to explain a point.

Its a lot of statments but very little examples nor anything specific other than, Indian copy, Victorian Copy, looks like a springfiield lock, not period.

All of this comments could be right but most has been proven wrong such as Udo's idea about the screws and others on how the barrels are connected etc. So I apologize to the forum if I don't put any more energy into the next one that says "Chinese copy". Unless it is backed up with something credible.

fernando · 2nd May 2022, 07:38 PM

No hard feelings, Tordenskiold. Given that your pistols don't have any characteristics that link them to a determined pattern, like a certain decoration, simple or complex, or the signature of a known smith, more or less famous, it is not surprising that members give a try and suggest they have this or that provenance. No bad intent in that.

2nd May 2022, 01:32 PM	#3
Raf Member Join Date: Nov 2013 Posts: 238	Surprisingly no one has pointed out that the lock internals show a remarkable similarity to a 53 Enfield. Note the swivel link to mainspring and the wedged mainspring attachment . Features that become more common in the percussion period arguing a date more towards the 1840s. The fact that they seem to have avoided proof is worrying but what is more concerning is the lack of a bolster to the barrel tang. Meaning that there is no effective way of screwing in the breech plug. If there is no evidence of a screwed in breech plug the barrels have to have been machined from the solid which is obviously completely contrary to functional firearms practice , at least in this period. Having said that I still don't think they are copies , reproductions , Indian or otherwise. I know its clutching at straws but I am beginning to wonder if they were made as non functional regalia in the early Victorian period. Congratulations on the fine pairs of pistols you posted. Attached Images

2nd May 2022, 02:05 PM	#4
Tordenskiold1721 Member Join Date: Dec 2015 Posts: 59	Yes both locks has springs and screws but also some differences. The lock is fasted with the main screw from the belt hock and a screw in the front as I have seen is done on most Scottish pistols: Attached Images Last edited by Tordenskiold1721; 2nd May 2022 at 02:11 PM. Reason: Typo

2nd May 2022, 03:56 PM	#5
Raf Member Join Date: Nov 2013 Posts: 238	Looking at the new photographs of the internals Im sorry to say this just does not look credible as a period lock . Well at least we tried .Please ignore my comments about the barrel bolster . I simply misread the photographs. Last edited by Raf; 2nd May 2022 at 04:25 PM.

2nd May 2022, 07:38 PM	#7
fernando Lead Moderator European Armoury Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Portugal Posts: 9,647	No hard feelings, Tordenskiold. Given that your pistols don't have any characteristics that link them to a determined pattern, like a certain decoration, simple or complex, or the signature of a known smith, more or less famous, it is not surprising that members give a try and suggest they have this or that provenance. No bad intent in that.