• 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

Kibler Fowler vs Trade Gun

Muzzleloading Forum

Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Jim, is the European terminology ‘guns of the trade’, the same meaning as trade gun ? Such as a northwest trade gun?
Hi Nick,
No. Guns for, or of the trade were generic but usually well made British guns that were sold to other gun makers or retailers for final finishing, sometimes engraving and marking, and then for sale. Many mid-quality sporting guns guns labeled "London" and marketed by well known retailers were made in Birmingham for the trade. Jim's fowler could represent such a gun.

dave
 
Hi Nick,
No. Guns for, or of the trade were generic but usually well made British guns that were sold to other gun makers or retailers for final finishing, sometimes engraving and marking, and then for sale. Many mid-quality sporting guns guns labeled "London" and marketed by well known retailers were made in Birmingham for the trade. Jim's fowler could represent such a gun.

dave
Thanks Dave !
 
Jim with all due respect, better "quality" and a "better gun" how exactly? Because it it carved? Cut on a CNC machine? Is the Walnut or Maple better? Is a fowler aesthetically more pleasing? Sure, that is the case. But in this instance none of that is important to me and some others. I'm not trying to put you on blast or am I trying to down play what you do, your business, or products. I have your Woodsrunner, it is an amazing rifle and I love it very much. I also understand of course you have to defend and promote your products here and again, I'm glad you do and I'm glad you are here. You are a great benefit for this community. But I don't see how your point of being better quality or a better gun stands up here. Are Rice Barrels profiled off of an original barrel not a quality barrel? Are Chambers locks suddenly manure?
There are some key differences. One of the biggest weaknesses of other fowling piece options is the large forestock. By this I mean it's height. Original (and therefore quality contemporary) work have forestocks with a thin web resulting in the height to be a minimum. The ramrod groove / hole of these often follow the barrel profile to allow this. We take great care and pride to recreate this. When I see other offerings with the huge forestocks, it screams at me. To anyone who studies this sort of original work carefully, I suspect it does the same for them. These large forestocks are chosen for ease of manufacturing. Drilling ramrod holes with thin forestocks can be pretty difficult. We've worked hard to solve these issues.

The next point is the barrel. We've worked hard to produce barrels with a minimum wall thickness to match original work. Our 16 gauge is around 1/16" at it's thinnest point. I'm pretty sure no other manufacturers work to this thickness level. Often barrel wall thickness are excessive and result in a poor handling and heavier than necessary piece.

Since you brought up Chambers locks... I used Chambers locks for years on custom guns, and they can work well. But, this is often only after some work. Why? because the manufacturing methods. I would generally spend the better part of a day working on a lock to make it operate at a level I was pleased with. Our manufacturing methods result in much more precise and consistent products. A few other details regarding locks... We took great pains to capture the details of original English convex locks of the period. In my opinion details from other manufacturers don't stand up as well. For example, the pan on one slopes down towards the buttplate. The pan bridle is also oversized and meets the pan in an odd fashion. The pan cavity is generally mishapen. The cock is overly thick as is the plate and pan cover. The internal bridle deviates from typical English design and is kind of a mess in my view. I can say with a straight face, our locks are a step above.

Finally a point to be made is the quality of workmanship as you would receive a kit. I'm not talking about how complete it is, but rather the quality of the work. For example, inlets from other manufactures are at times oversized or not in exactly the right spot. Point is there are commonly issues (some small or some pretty big) that might have to be dealt with. Our processes and manufacturing methods help minimize these sorts of things.

The last is just the general conformation of all the many details that make up a quality English fowling piece. For example, pretty much without exception, the guard bow is generally rounded and fairly small on English work. In some offerings you see this is elongated and misshapen. Things like this scream out to someone who is well versed in English work from this period. There are other examples as well.

I hope this explains things and helps provide a better understanding.
 
There are some key differences. One of the biggest weaknesses of other fowling piece options is the large forestock. By this I mean it's height. Original (and therefore quality contemporary) work have forestocks with a thin web resulting in the height to be a minimum. The ramrod groove / hole of these often follow the barrel profile to allow this. We take great care and pride to recreate this. When I see other offerings with the huge forestocks, it screams at me. To anyone who studies this sort of original work carefully, I suspect it does the same for them. These large forestocks are chosen for ease of manufacturing. Drilling ramrod holes with thin forestocks can be pretty difficult. We've worked hard to solve these issues.

The next point is the barrel. We've worked hard to produce barrels with a minimum wall thickness to match original work. Our 16 gauge is around 1/16" at it's thinnest point. I'm pretty sure no other manufacturers work to this thickness level. Often barrel wall thickness are excessive and result in a poor handling and heavier than necessary piece.

Since you brought up Chambers locks... I used Chambers locks for years on custom guns, and they can work well. But, this is often only after some work. Why? because the manufacturing methods. I would generally spend the better part of a day working on a lock to make it operate at a level I was pleased with. Our manufacturing methods result in much more precise and consistent products. A few other details regarding locks... We took great pains to capture the details of original English convex locks of the period. In my opinion details from other manufacturers don't stand up as well. For example, the pan on one slopes down towards the buttplate. The pan bridle is also oversized and meets the pan in an odd fashion. The pan cavity is generally mishapen. The cock is overly thick as is the plate and pan cover. The internal bridle deviates from typical English design and is kind of a mess in my view. I can say with a straight face, our locks are a step above.

Finally a point to be made is the quality of workmanship as you would receive a kit. I'm not talking about how complete it is, but rather the quality of the work. For example, inlets from other manufactures are at times oversized or not in exactly the right spot. Point is there are commonly issues (some small or some pretty big) that might have to be dealt with. Our processes and manufacturing methods help minimize these sorts of things.

The last is just the general conformation of all the many details that make up a quality English fowling piece. For example, pretty much without exception, the guard bow is generally rounded and fairly small on English work. In some offerings you see this is elongated and misshapen. Things like this scream out to someone who is well versed in English work from this period. There are other examples as well.

I hope this explains things and helps provide a better understanding.
Yes, Thank you for the information. That indeed explains things better and is easily understood. I'm still fairly new to this, so I go off of the information I gather here and elsewhere and it is all a learning experience for me. I hope you didn't consider my post degrading in any sorts. It was merely legitimate questions. Thank you for taking the time to do so.
 
A trade gun is going to be a better round ball gun that a fowler.

Those guns were mainly used for, no surprise, hunting waterfowl. They are not generally used or meant for firing round ball. In Jim Kibler’s videos on his fowler he mentions that they are not really meant to shoot ball. That’s fowlers in general, not just his.

A proper trade gun or fusil de chasse would have actually probably more often than not used with ball over shot. Unlike fowling pieces, they would have been used for large game hunting and self defense using ball, though shot was certainly used with them.

It sounds like the Clay Smith gun would be right up your alley. I’ve got one of his painted trade guns that I plan on moving soon.
I’m sorry but your first sentence just isn’t so. There are no differences between the barrels of the English export grade fowler and the English trade guns intended for the American and Canadian colonies. The barrels were the same barrels, they saved money on the furnishings and less carving.
 
The only thing I would add is that IN GENERAL, there is a tendency for decreased breech size as quality level decreases.

Also as to fowlers being made to shoot shot, this perspective comes from their evolution and development in England, France and the rest of Europe. This was their purpose. When they exported and sent here things changed to some degree.
 
The only thing I would add is that IN GENERAL, there is a tendency for decreased breech size as quality level decreases.

Also as to fowlers being made to shoot shot, this perspective comes from their evolution and development in England, France and the rest of Europe. This was their purpose. When they exported and sent here things changed to some degree.
And over here the fowler would by necessity double as a defense arm if needed. Smokey’s point was that the cheaper trade guns were better for ball when they were a lesser grade than the fowler. Which is incorrect.
 
Yes, you could shoot a ball out of our fowler, I'd just suggest a 20 gauge would be a better choice. As to comparison with other offerings, all I can say is there really isn't any. Just being honest. Not just cosmetics... Better architecture (thinner web and appropriate forestock), better lock, overall better historical correctness, fit, finish, completeness etc.
Thanks for the information Jim. It is truly appreciated when the manufacturer tell us about his product and stands up for it.
 
Hello All,
Well my next adventure is going to be a smooth bore. I'm having a hard time choosing between a Kibler Fowler (20 ga) and a Trade gun kit from Clay Smith. I know the Kibler is gonna edge out a trade gun in cosmetics. But I'm after a do it all gun, ball, buck and ball, and shot. The fowlers are made to be just that and I can respect that. I know Jim said the 20 ga can fire a round ball. Are the trade guns better equipped to be the blunder buss of long guns? And I'm a hunter so that big ole trigger guard has its advantages too. If you had to choose between the two, what would be your choice and why?
Thanks for your thoughts in advance.
From a guy that owns both northwest trade gun and a Kibler fowler here my advice. The Kibler is much more enjoyable to shoot especially with heavier loads. The NW Trade gun has a defined 90 degree design in the check well area. With me it leads to a sharp smack to the face and not much fun. The Kibler doesn't have this. Its more of a rifle type feel to the stock. See pics below of the trade gun and you can see the sharp design on the shape of stock. Hope this helps. Kibler 20 is my preferred choice now.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_5657.jpeg
    IMG_5657.jpeg
    1.7 MB
  • IMG_5655.png
    IMG_5655.png
    8 MB
  • IMG_5656.png
    IMG_5656.png
    8.8 MB
Last edited:
I sure love N.W. Trade guns :)
I have not had the pleasure of shooting one of your NWT guns yet but hear great things about your builds. I love mine to its light weight and has 36" barrel but man my cheek bone hates the stock design. But it does its job when it comes to getting meat for the table.
 
I have not had the pleasure of shooting one of your NWT guns yet but hear great things about your builds. I love mine to its light weight and has 36" barrel but man my cheek bone hates the stock design. But it does its job when it comes to getting meat for the table.
Thanks for the kind words ... Huh ?! ... Man , I'm sure sorry your gettin popped in the face like that ! Weird ..I.ve never had that experience with a NW gun ....a Fusil de Chasse I have but not a NW gun . Was it really heavy charged shots ? Just curious . I had a fellow send back a Fusil.de Chasse I made for him.because he shot someone else's F.D.C . at rendezvous and it popped him in the face when he fired it . The fellow that got it in Louisiana , how appropriate ! , never mentioned such a thing and he loves it . I guess everyone's different . I had one fella tell me he was concerned about getting popped in the jaw in recoil so I told him to go with a Barnett style , more rounded comb , instead of a 90 degree comb on the Whately style . ...but ive never been popped in the jaw by a NW gun , any NW gun ! ... . I figured it was because of the straight stock style ....and because I dont shoot 100 gr. loads in a 5.5 pd. trade gun either ! LOL ! To each their own !. If any of you fellers dont like the large bowed trigger guard , NW guns had small bowed trigger guards too . Good example in pics .
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the kind words ... Huh ?! ... Man , I'm sure sorry your gettin popped in the face like that ! Weird ..I.ve never had that experience with a NW gun ....a Fusil de Chasse I have but not a NW gun . Was it really heavy charged shots ? Just curious . I had a fellow send back a Fusil.de Chasse I made for him.because he shot someone else's F.D.C . at rendezvous and it popped him in the face when he fired it . The fellow that got it in Louisiana , how appropriate ! , never mentioned such a thing and he loves it . I guess everyone's different . I had one fella tell me he was concerned about getting popped in the jaw in recoil so I told him to go with a Barnett style , more rounded comb , instead of a 90 degree comb on the Whately style . ...but ive never been popped in the jaw by a NW gun , and NW gun... . I figured it was because of the straight stock style ....and because I dont shoot 100 gr. loads in a 5.5 pd. trade gun either ! LOL ! To reach their own . If any of you fellers dont like the large bowed trigger guard , NW guns had small bowed trigger guards too . Good example in pics .
My Turkey load is 80 grains 2f with 1.5 oz shot. My round ball load is 75 grains 2f .600 rb, using a .015 patch.
 
There are some key differences. One of the biggest weaknesses of other fowling piece options is the large forestock. By this I mean it's height. Original (and therefore quality contemporary) work have forestocks with a thin web resulting in the height to be a minimum. The ramrod groove / hole of these often follow the barrel profile to allow this. We take great care and pride to recreate this. When I see other offerings with the huge forestocks, it screams at me. To anyone who studies this sort of original work carefully, I suspect it does the same for them. These large forestocks are chosen for ease of manufacturing. Drilling ramrod holes with thin forestocks can be pretty difficult. We've worked hard to solve these issues.

The next point is the barrel. We've worked hard to produce barrels with a minimum wall thickness to match original work. Our 16 gauge is around 1/16" at it's thinnest point. I'm pretty sure no other manufacturers work to this thickness level. Often barrel wall thickness are excessive and result in a poor handling and heavier than necessary piece.

Since you brought up Chambers locks... I used Chambers locks for years on custom guns, and they can work well. But, this is often only after some work. Why? because the manufacturing methods. I would generally spend the better part of a day working on a lock to make it operate at a level I was pleased with. Our manufacturing methods result in much more precise and consistent products. A few other details regarding locks... We took great pains to capture the details of original English convex locks of the period. In my opinion details from other manufacturers don't stand up as well. For example, the pan on one slopes down towards the buttplate. The pan bridle is also oversized and meets the pan in an odd fashion. The pan cavity is generally mishapen. The cock is overly thick as is the plate and pan cover. The internal bridle deviates from typical English design and is kind of a mess in my view. I can say with a straight face, our locks are a step above.

Finally a point to be made is the quality of workmanship as you would receive a kit. I'm not talking about how complete it is, but rather the quality of the work. For example, inlets from other manufactures are at times oversized or not in exactly the right spot. Point is there are commonly issues (some small or some pretty big) that might have to be dealt with. Our processes and manufacturing methods help minimize these sorts of things.

The last is just the general conformation of all the many details that make up a quality English fowling piece. For example, pretty much without exception, the guard bow is generally rounded and fairly small on English work. In some offerings you see this is elongated and misshapen. Things like this scream out to someone who is well versed in English work from this period. There are other examples as well.

I hope this explains things and helps provide a better understanding.
Lots of good points " pointed out " here ! The one that really gets me though ... That often seen oversized forestock ! GEESH !! That web between the barrel and the ramrod hole in the forearm . On kits and on folks guns they've built ... Sometimes those forearms look THICK ! Its just horrible , makes ya cringe seeing it . I strive for the 3/16 " thick web each build and sometimes it doesnt fight me and turns out just right , other times that ole drill bit just wants out ! Out the bottom of that forearm and you gotta fight it ! LOL ... Ive had a few , very few , try to go up toward the barrel channel but thats rare for me , they want to go down . To get that fine slim look you gotta keep that web thin . Ive seen Ken Netting purposely take that long drill bit into the barrel channel ! , near the end of course . He doesnt like that front lock bolt so he doesnt care about that web being thick enough at the front of the lock . His flintlocks are always so thin and well balanced ....
 
I might add that if you intend to shoot flying game with shot, the 16 ga. fowler will be a much better choice. It has a larger shot load and a shorter shot string than a 20 gauge. These are important things when wing shooting.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top