A fowler by any other name....

[George]

.... would smell as sweet. :grin:

In our discussions of smooth bored sporting guns, we very frequently use the terms fowler and smoothbore. In all my reading of early sources I’ve never run across either of the two terms used in the way we do. They said fowler, alright, but it meant a man who hunted fowl, with a gun, or, as frequently, with a net or trap. If he used a gun it was called a fowling piece. So, a fowler used a fowling piece to do his fowling, not a fowler. They also never used the term smoothbore as we do, as a name for a particular type of gun. With them, it was a descriptive term, two words, as in “smooth bored gun” or a gun “with a smooth bore”.

The term fowling piece meant a gun used for fowling, obviously. But, I’ve run across a few other types which raise interesting questions. I’ve found:

cocking pieces

birding pieces

squirrel pieces

Squirrel pieces are obvious, it would seem, and cocking pieces are apparently for shooting woodcock, but I wonder what a birding piece was used for? I’ve never run across the terms ducking pieces or goosing pieces but have seen “duck-gun”. Usually, though, they just use more generic terms, something like “large Guns fit for killing Wild-Fowl.”

But, what were the differences in the guns which made them particularly appropriate for certain game?

Spence

 

[Stumpkiller]

You're correct. A fowler is one who hunts fowl.

With a gun, usually. As opposed to a rifle; or rifled-gun. A gun being a civilian version of a lightened musket or fusil/fusee. Or was a musket a heavy version of a civilian gun? I'm not too sure.

 

[F.G. Ford]

We modern shooters often refer to our smooth bored 28 & 20 gauge guns as fowlers, but many early fowlers were 12 ga. and larger.
In some cases 4ga. was considered ok (NOT Me !)
A 16 GA. was regarded as somewhat light.
We know that a .62 smooth gun is a very versatile gun. Ball for deer, and shot for squirrels and birds.
So today a 20 ga (.62 ) makes a fine "gentleman's"
sporting fowler.
So in retrospect, perhaps a true fowler should be in the range of 8 to 10 gauge.
I still prefer a light and well balanced 20 - 28 ga.
I wouldn't like to even think of squeezing the trigger on a fully loaded 8 gauge, not to mention a 4 ga. :youcrazy:
Old Ford

 

[roundball]

As always, very interesting food for thought Spence...

:thumbsup:

 

[Rifleman1776]

We got into a similar word hassle over the term "jaeger". Some say a "Jaeger" is one who hunts. Others refer to the a certain style of rifle used for hunting as a "Jaeger".
BTW, I have gun called a "Spencer" it is used on those who deliberately like to :stir:

 

[George]

We got into a similar word hassle over the term "jaeger". Some say a "Jaeger" is one who hunts. Others refer to the a certain style of rifle used for hunting as a "Jaeger"

At least some in the 18th century thought it referred to the men:

THE VIRGINIA GAZETTE
May 25, 1776
LONDON, January 10.
THE following intelligence was communicated by an officer of rank in the army: "Government have sent over to Germany to engage 1000 men, called Jagers , people brought up to the use of the rifle barrel guns in boar hunting. They are amazingly expert. Every petty Prince who hath forests, keeps a number of them, and they are allowed to take apprentices, by which means they are a numerous body of people. These men are intended to act in the next campaign in America, and our Ministry plume themselves much in the thought of their being a complete match for the American rifle-men."

On the other hand, the term "smooth rifle" seems to have been used in a similar way in the 18th century as now:

The Pennsylvania Gazette
September 20, 1739
RUN away on the 6th Inst. from Thomas Rees, of Heydelburg Township, Lancaster County, ...Took with him a smooth Rifle Gun.

On the other hand, that bag we carry over our shoulder to keep our shooting supplies in is called everything under the sun, today, but never what was used in the day. I've never found anything used back then except "shot pouch" or "shot bag".

Spence

 

On the other hand, that bag we carry over our shoulder to keep our shooting supplies in is called everything under the sun, today, but never what was used in the day. I've never found anything used back then except "shot pouch" or "shot bag".

Is the point of all this to try and encourage people to use what some think are "historical" terms or does it matter what we call things as long as we agree what the terms mean?

We all know a "shooter" is a person, but can we not say "That rifle is a real shooter". Since I use a "fowling piece" to shoot fowl, can I not call it my "fowler"? I think so.

Some people affectionately call their Harleys "scooters". Obviously they aren't, but no one has a problem with it.

 

[George]

Since I use a "fowling piece" to shoot fowl, can I not call it my "fowler"? I think so.

You can call anything whatever you want, Jack. I post these little tidbits for the 3-4 guys on the forum who are interested in the history. I understand not everyone appreciates them, but, if you don't, then they aren't directed at you, so I don't see the problem.

Spence

 

[rabjr]

You just keep right on posting these tidbits Spence, they are appreciated. :thumbsup:

 

[Rev_William]

Spence I don't always respond but I ALWAYS appreciate what you post keep it up! :hatsoff:

 

[asbrown]

OK Spence, they called it a shot bag/pouch. So have you found what was commonly carried in it? Was it different for a day hunt as opposed to a long hunt? What tools/accesories were most common? This may be a question for a whole new thread somewhere else, but I've seen paintings or drawings of two bags, one small one carried with the horn under one arm, and another larger one worn on the opposite side. What were the differences?

 

[Cheyenne]

Keep 'em coming Spence....interesting stuff! :hatsoff:

 

[stone knife]

Good point

 

[jbrowngunmaker]

Dr. Spencer is probably the best educated muzzleloading historian extant.

 

[George]

Nothing about bags or powderhorns is written in stone, but I've come to have a strong impression about them. It seems that, in general, 18th century bags were smaller and horns larger, with the two on separate straps. Sometime around the beginning of the 19th century that began to reverse, the bags got bigger, the horns smaller, and the horn and bag were more commonly on the same strap.

As for the contents of the bags/pouches, in the 18th century I've never found a single reference about anything being in them other the ammunition, usually balls, sometimes balls and swan shot. I see advertisements for gun hammers, turnscrews, gun worms, etc., for sale, I see advice that these should be carried, but never yet have found an unequivocal statement that any of these were in the shot bag/pouch. I also have the impression that the balls were not carried in another bag inside the main shot pouch, because they are sometimes described as falling out and scattering. I do have a reference from 1822 stating that "bullets and wadding" were in the bag of riflemen.

i think we still have things to learn about how the shooters of the day used their gear.

Spence

 

[roundball]

Dr. Spencer is probably the best educated muzzleloading historian extant.

And that excellent observation is exceeded only by Spencer's unselfish willingness to share what he's learned / experienced...like his website...a wealth of information.
:thumbsup:

 

[Woodbutcher]

Dear Spence:
When I see that you've written something, I go there first, because it's the best. Please continue. Thank you very much, Woodbutcher.

 

[CrackStock]

Is the point of all this to try and encourage people to use what some think are "historical" terms or does it matter what we call things as long as we agree what the terms mean?

Jack,

Many muzzleloader students and shooters also have a particular interest in history. Some give presentations, create displays or conduct demonstrations. Others go into the woods and re-live the experiences. In doing so, we like to be accurate. Having greater access to primary source documentation is helpful. Having friends who condense some of this for us is also helpful.

Nobody is telling anyone what they can say, but some are trying to understand what was actually used and said during the times that we study.

CS

 

[Lonegun1894]

Spence,
Please keep it up. I think there's quite a few of us who appreciate it and listen to you and learn from you but don't know enough to post much about it. It's just that the ones who don't care seem to be more vocal about it. Personally, you're on a short list of "most knowledgeable" people here, so dont let a few loudmouths ruin it for you--and us. Here is the way I see it. Historically speaking, you're one of the most learned people here. There's several here who dont seem to care about the history, just the aspect of actually using these old tools, and I appreciate and learn from them too, but it's on a different level. I wish the two sides wouldn't butt heads, but since we can't seem to accomplish that, well, let each side post their views but maybe on separate threads so they dont turn heated like this one.

Ok, so what are ya gonna teach us next, Spence?

 

[hunts4deer]

You are very wrong Spence... There are far more that 3-4 guys interested in what you write. Count me among them, too. Keep them coming. please.