Indian Enfield Cavalry Carbine - Real or Repro? Help Please.

**andytee** · 11-25-2015, 02:48 PM

Good Afternoon, I recently purchased this carbine at auction. It was catalogued as 'Indian Native percussion cavalry carbine' and looks very similar to the 1867 Enfield Bengal Cavalry Carbine issued to Indian troops after the Indian Mutiny. It is a smooth bore and has no date or proof marks which make me think it is a repro or later copy, but I am not sure. Any help in identifying the piece would be much appreciated.

**lithgow** · 11-25-2015, 03:59 PM

Looks to be a modern reproduction-has no age to it and the wood is far too unmarked for an issue weapon-screws are modern as well-the Enfield lettering is poorly aligned etc etc.

**HARRY THE MOLE** · 11-25-2015, 04:17 PM

You need to check this gun and make sure that it is an inert replica. Although it is smooth-bored, it cannot be held on a shotgun cert because of the length of the barrel - it would be classed as a section 1 firearm. I am assuming that you are a UK resident?

**andytee** · 11-25-2015, 04:37 PM

Yes, UK resident. I was assured by the auction house that it does not require a license as it is a percussion piece for which the black powder required to fire it can only be bought under license itself. Is this not correct?

**andytee** · 11-25-2015, 04:59 PM

Following on from the last post. I have checked with the auction house and the piece has had the barrel drilled and as such is a de-commissioned non firing piece, so no need to worry on the licensing side. They have also said that it is a period example with some restoration and modern additions.

**MAP** · 11-25-2015, 05:12 PM

by lithgow

Looks to be a modern reproduction-has no age to it and the wood is far too unmarked for an issue weapon-screws are modern as well-the Enfield lettering is poorly aligned etc etc.

not sure why my post didn't go thru

but I agree with Lithgow. Wear and patina is not consistent with a 150 year old weapon. Especially the stock. The edge of the stock where it meets the metal parts appears to be machine cut as well. But just my opinion.

**HARRY THE MOLE** · 11-25-2015, 05:13 PM

I would hazard a guess that it is a total reproduction. The stock is far-too good for it to be a period piece. If it were an original gun it wouldn't have needed decommissioning, as it would have fallen under the Section 58 rule covering the ownership of obsolete calibre weapons. Section 58 weapons do not require a licence if the intention is to own them as a curiosity. That aside, it is still a nice copy of the carbine.

**MAP** · 11-25-2015, 05:15 PM

by andytee

Following on from the last post. I have checked with the auction house and the piece has had the barrel drilled and as such is a de-commissioned non firing piece, so no need to worry on the licensing side. They have also said that it is a period example with some restoration and modern additions.

I would see no collector value in it given the new parts and restoration. Did they disclose this before the auction? If not I think you would be in your rights to back out. Unless you are happy with it as is.

**andytee** · 11-25-2015, 05:29 PM

No it was not disclosed prior to the auction but I am happy with it as a nice curio replica. It is going on the wall in my man cave.

**HARRY THE MOLE** · 11-25-2015, 05:35 PM

All that matters is that you are happy with it. But MAP is correct, the auction house should have disclosed to you that it was a reproduction. But as long as the price reflected this you are OK.