The Afghans are long known for their "home workshop" firearms production, where they make excellent copies of commercially-made weapons that have fallen into tribal hands over the years - especially British weapons.
They are usually visually correct dimensionally (though the parts may not interchange with the original weapon copied), they usually have little signs on them that cause experienced collectors of the originals look twice - such as markings in the wrong places, markings that have reversed letters in them, or, in the base of barrel proofs - markings in the wrong order, or a mix of markings from different arsenals, etc.
There's enough of them that they're a collecting niche in and of themselves, and Joe, the recently-returned Man in the 'Stan sent home what is probably a Khyber pistol.
John Spangler, who is a reader and frequent commenter in this space (he likes to play the Whatziss') is also a collector who takes his passion so seriously that he makes a living at it (always good to go spend money with John, just click here). He also runs a question and answer board on his website.
In March of last year he got this question:
# 11744 - Afghanistan Khyber Pass "Enfield" Pepperbox Copy
3/4/2006
Carlisle, PAEnfield - .36 - 4'' - Rusty - THERE IS NO SERIAL NUMBER ON THE WEAPON. - The weapon appears to be a ''pepperbox'' style percussion cap pistol with six barrels. The caliber appears to .36 Cal. On the left side of the weapon is a crown with VR underneath the crown. Under VR is Enfield and the date 1857. The weapon was purchased in Afghanistan in the Spring 2005. I have not been able to find out any information on Enfield manufacturing a ''pepperbox'' style percussion pistol. Any information about this weapon is greatly appreciated. Thank you.
Answer:
Sir- As with many of the guns found in Afghanistan purported to be antiques, they are not always what they seem. I am not aware of Enfield making any pistols like that ever. Khyber pass guns will be found with all sorts of impossible combinations of markings. This is sort of similar to someone with a rusty 1983 Chevrolet, but putting Model T Ford, or Cadillac Escalade trim on it and hoping someone will buy it. John Spangler
Why is this of interest? Well, Joe and Jeff aren't the only Afghan hounds who hang out around here. I got this email late last week. And it concerns *exactly* the same pistol type in the question above - this one with a different date on it.
Armourer-san: Khyber Garage Camel Cavalry Speciall, sent back during last year's trip to Bagram. Pretty much the same paperwork experience as your ISAF correspondent, though I understand the rigmarole has increased here (I'm back in Bagram for a spell). Same collection of vendors at the bazaar - the guy who sold me the Beast remembers me and is trying to sell me a companion piece.
No last names or email addresses please! - my people think I play piano in a Kabul cathouse and my Employer frowns upon this type of discourse.
So, lets take a look at this thing.
Yep, that's a pepperbox pistol all right. Pretty massive one, too. Kewl.
Here's a look at it from the side. Pretty classic pepperbox styling, but there were two things that caught my attention right away. We'll come back to those.
Let's toss the markings up here.
The two visual cues that caused my warning light to start flashing was the relative crudity of workmanship - one thing the Armourers at Enfield Lock were was meticulous, with great attention to detail and generally high-quality workmanship. The two things that attracted my attention was the lack of crispness to the lines of the barrels, and the pretty flimsy looking trigger guard. But, hey, the trigger-guard might be a replacement, and the barrels have a lot of holster wear, which tends to smooth edges. But the workmanship and tool marks on the receiver are pretty suspect, too. I've not had a chance to dig out my inspector's mark reference - but *each* of those barrels should have proofs on 'em. And as near as I can tell, they don't. One reason they wouldn't is because some of those barrels aren't bored true, they're off-center. Which means they wouldn't pass an Enfield inspection, much less proofing.
But to me it's still a collectable piece, simply because of the whole story surrounding Afghanistan.
Update: Dug out the reference, The Broad Arrow, by Ian Skennerton, and the ownership mark, the crown - is actually a Georgian crown with a Victorian cypher. There were two styles of crown, one for kings and the other for queens. The orb in the crown is what points quickly to a Georgian crown, and the number of balls on the top layer of the crown points to the George III version of the Kings Crown. The V.R. matches the date, but the crown actually pre-dates the production of percussion weapons in British service. The E-crown-1 inspection mark should actually be Crown-E-1 where the Crown E represents Enfield, and the number represents an inspector (most that I have seen are two-digit, btw, which just means... that's what I've seen). If it were a weapon built under George III, but reworked under Victoria, the markings would reflect that - I have several such weapons in the collection, that jump eras between Victoria, Edward VII, Georges IV and V and Elizabeth. Oddly enough, no William IV's!
In the pics provided, there are no proofs anywhere, and the Brits were positively tenacious about proof-marks, with lots of 'em.
All that taken together - argues for forgery. But like I said, that doesn't deter me, as long as I'm not paying "original" prices!
5 Comments