Any pics of southern style smoothbores?

[Mark Nasim]

If anyone has any pics of a typical southern style smoothbores early style (pre revolutionary war,) I would be very interested in seeing some. I am currently studying up on smoothbores and I am looking to have one built in the southern fashion. I am not looking for anything fancy,I am wanting a "working mans" gun, as all my rifles are made in this fashion as well.
I would also appreciate any feedback as to what are dominate features on southern smoothbores:

Types of locks used
Furniture--brass or iron
Locks and barrels left in white or browned
Types of wood
Slings or not

 

[PvtC]

I'm sure that more erudite posts will follow this one. You would be likely to find in the pre-revolutionary south.

1. English fowling pcs. The Chambers English Fowler is a good example of architecture. The lock might not have a pan bridle however.

2. British land service military ordnance like the long land bess.

3. Trade guns identified by Hamilton as type G.

These guns of course would come from the isles.
Guns actually produced in the south would likely mimic these familiar forms.

:m2c:

 

ouch! we just had a squabble over this, so you might not get too many replies. If you google up Jim Chambers site he has nice pics of a couple of early smoothbores that he offers as kits.

Ahhh, PvtC beat me to it and his is a good answer.

 

[Mike Brooks]

Darn, I must have missed out on that squabble..... :cry:
Imported guns, mainly from England were far cheaper than anything could be made locally. English fowling guns were made in many different grades. From top end fancy to low end trade quality and every thing in between. It was just a matter of what a guy wanted to spend on a gun back then.
In Virginia ca. pre 1775 the imported english fowlers had very distinctive styling. The locks were normaly round faced , altho there were some flat locks. These were generally around 6" long and the frizzen was normally unbridled unless the gun was of high quality. These were english styled locks of course.
The mounts were brass, the high end guns could have been iron mounted. Iron mounts were more expensive.
Locks and barrels in the white. High end stuff could have fire blued barrels.
The stocks were english walnut. Some beech or birch was used on low end stuff...never curly maple.
No slings....could be an "after market" thing tho.
Oddly, and this is just an 18th century thing, even the low end guns had some decoration, Usually lock and tang mouldings and some engraving on the lock, buttplate, sideplate and trigger guard. The better the grade of gun, the higher quality the decoration was. Sadly, this detail is usually left out on modern reproductions of today.
Chambers is a good place to start looking.

[/img]

[/img]

[/img]

[/img]

[/img]
This gun has some typical features of a higher end English export gun of that time period.

 

[Mike Brooks]

Here are some links to some originals. This one is of the time period, english and a mid grade export quality. >>>>>>POKE HERE<<<<<<<<
Here's another, a little higher Quality.
>>>>>POKE HERE<<<<<<

 

Beautiful, Mike!

 

[Mark Nasim]

Would those be a little too fancy for a commoner in the backcountry/mountains of SC,NC,TN in the 1760's?

 

[Mike Brooks]

Would those be a little too fancy for a commoner in the backcountry/mountains of SC,NC,TN in the 1760's?

Probably, unless a fella saved up for a while to buy one. Those back country folks probably didn't have alot of spendable cash.
You might want to look at an english trade gun for that persona. Or what was called a "Carolina" gun. The Carolina gun offered on today's market is a far cry from the original, you're going to have to find somebody who actually knows what one is if you want one built.

 

[AZ-Robert]

Thanks for posting those pics, Mike.

A couple of questions on fowlers, if you will. You mentioned the pan-bridle might be present on a high-end model - is there a no-earlier-than date that goes with that?

On that trigger guard in the pics, I note that little triangular section at the rear of the opening. I've seen others that are just plain round. Is there a date distinction between the two styles?

Here and on another thread I've been introduced to the Type G Trade Gun / Carolina gun. Sounds interesting! Google showed me only the one ERA is offering (bottom of the page here: http://www.earlyrusticarms.com/pricesanddescriptions.htm )

And then there is this "Early English Trade Gun" offered by NorthStar West: (follow the links from this page: http://www.northstarwest.com/guncat.html)

There is some difference in the drop of the stock, but to my untrained eye, these two guns look very similar, and both resemble that English Fowler in the pics Mike posted. Am I off base here? Or are these three babies related to each other? Do these currently available "Carolina Guns" come close to the historical mark?

 

[Okwaho]

There were virtually no known 18th century fowling pieces made in the South in the 18th century.Tom Grislade in his ground breaking book on American fowlers,"Flintlock Fowlers The First Guns Made in America" doesn't show any 18th century Southern fowlers. In the 18th century the finest fowling pieces were those made in England and until the outbreak of the Revolution the English had the American market pretty well cornered especially in the South where wealthy planters purchasewd fowling pieces as well as furniture,silver and other such luxuries from abroad.There were trade guns coming over for the Indian trade and any one else who wanted one. These were the "Carolina guns"so named after their point of destination as well as a reference in the British records.Throughout the 18 th century these guns were shipped over.T M Hamilton designated them archealogically as Type G guns. Essentially they were cheap brass mounted British fowlers with nailed on butt pieces and cast guards but they were sturdy and light two qualities favored by Indians and backwoodsmen alike.The average weight was about 6 lbs.

Another trade gun was the Northwest gun such as is offered by Northstar West. These guns trace their heritage to the Hudsons Bay Guns offered by the Hudsons Bay Company in Canada,and must be considered separately from the Carolina/Type G guns.I don't know how widely the Carolina guns were used in the Southern backwoods but I suspect that quite a few were sold to Whites since unlike the French the British had very few gift guns bought through the Board of Ordnance.The number is fairly small throughout the 18th century but there were about 20,000+ from the 1813 contract which were intended as gifts to entice them to gight against the Americans in the War Of 1812. Unfortunately for the British most of the guns were not delivered until after the war was over.After the Revolution and as the frontier moved westward I'm sure there were Southern makers of fowlers but their names and products seem to be very hard to find.Some of this confusion can,I'm sure be attributed to the CW.Perhaps Gary Brumfield or Wallace Gusler can enlighten us on that point.
Tom Patton

 

[Mike Brooks]

That little triangular section is called a fillet. You'll see them round and triangular or pointed. They first started to apear on english guns in the late 1740's and early 1750's. The earlier gun had no fillet at all. Of couse there are exceptions, I've seen fillet-less enlish tiggerguards thru the 1780's on less expensive guns.
Both english and french trade guns in the 18th century are a very confusing and large subject. There is a lot of research yet to be done in this area.
English guns were sold in varying degrees of quality. What Hamilton calls a type G may have been the cheapest. It had thin sheet brass parts and a bridaless lock. Then there was something called a "3 shilling" gun, which I have examined in a private collection. It has cast brass mounts but still a bridless lock. Bothe of these guns had long 48" .62 cal. barrels and shared the same serpantine sideplate. I've heard both of these refered to as "Carolina guns". Both of these guns are quite early, possibly as early as the 1720's in my opinion.
The next step up was a basic low end british fowling piece, with typical cast brass mounts and styleing.
The type G from ERA doesn't look bad in the photo, but it's hard to see any details. If I had to pick at it I'd say The buttplate could use a little more curve in the butt, and it's a little chunky over all, and the lock is totally wrong, and it should be stocked in beech or euro walnut, but for what I can see its a pretty good representation of what Hamilton labeled a type G. There are more appropriate locks on the market.
North star's gun looks like a chiefs grade gun due to the fowler type buttplate it has. The side plate is identical to the G and the 3 shilling gun. I believe this is a little later than the G and 3 shilling gun, but I could be wrong.A little longer barrel would be nice, everything of the period I've seen that has survived intact have barrels in the vicinity of 46" to 48". There are records of guns with shorter barrels, but where they are now as evidence that they actually existed is unknown.

 

[Mark Nasim]

Well, I knew this was going to require alot of study before I put the cash down and get what I really want. I dont have a problem with that at all, because this is going to be a one time deal and thats it.
Answer me this, I have thought seriously about using an early ketland lock would that be a good fit for a smoothbore?
As for furniture type wood, what could you recommend that would fit for the time period 1750's-1760's? It look as if I will have to lean towards the English style of smoothbore,I just cant find anything on southern smoothbores of that period, and I for sure dont want a trade gun either.

 

[Mike Brooks]

If you are building an english fowler, english walnut is what you'll want. You could go with a dense piece of american black walnut too, as nobody will be able to tell the difference in the end product.The flat ketland with out a frizzen bridle is an excellent choice, as is Davis' new english export lock. The ketland will need a bevel filed around the lock plate.
Jim Chambers sells an excellent husk or torch finial trigger guard and the appropriate buttplate to go with it.

[/img]
Here's Chambers Ketland with the proper bevel filed in, otherwise it's completely flat.

 

[AZ-Robert]

Mike, Tom - you guys are great - historians and gun nuts wrapped in one package. And not everywhere do you find guys with the knowledge who are willing to share their expertise. :thanks:

Track is not yet showing on their web site Davis' English export lock (if they are, I didn't find it). But is a round-faced lock appropriate on one these early fowlers? Here is a Davis lock offered by Track that they date 1750-1780:

http://www.trackofthewolf.com/categories...tNum=LOCK-DF-FR

Does it fit for the period they describe (1750-1780)? Is there something about it that would make it not appropriate for someone aiming at a pre-1750 persona?

 

[Mike Brooks]

That's one of the locks I was refering to. It is correct for the period. In fact it will go into the 1740's as well. I'm designing a Birmingham export fowler kit around one of those locks as we speak.

 

[AZ-Robert]

Just now thinking about barrels! Looking at the websites of a couple of builders of historical reproductions, I see the barrels on the fowlers they are offering are octagon to round. I see that is also what Track and Jim Chambers offer as their standard option. I take it that was pretty much the standard barrel on these guns.

The Chambers gun has a 46" barrel, and I know Mike likes that long barrel, but I see them offered in sizes ranging as short as 36". How short is too short on one of these guns to be accurate to the period (say, 1740 - 1780)?

 

[AZ-Robert]

If anyone has any pics of a typical southern style smoothbores early style (pre revolutionary war,) I would be very interested in seeing some. I am currently studying up on smoothbores and I am looking to have one built in the southern fashion. I am not looking for anything fancy,I am wanting a "working mans" gun, as all my rifles are made in this fashion as well.
I would also appreciate any feedback as to what are dominate features on southern smoothbores:

Types of locks used
Furniture--brass or iron
Locks and barrels left in white or browned
Types of wood
Slings or not

We've been talking about fowlers and the Type G trade guns, but what about this "Colonial Smoothbore" (smoothrifle) ERA is offering?

http://www.earlyrusticarms.com/pricesanddescriptions.htm

Does it fit the bill for a gun in the period and place Brownbess is looking at?

 

[Mike Brooks]

If we're talking english or french fowling guns I wouldn't go with anything shorter than 42".

 

[Mike Brooks]

If anyone has any pics of a typical southern style smoothbores early style (pre revolutionary war,) I would be very interested in seeing some. I am currently studying up on smoothbores and I am looking to have one built in the southern fashion. I am not looking for anything fancy,I am wanting a "working mans" gun, as all my rifles are made in this fashion as well.
I would also appreciate any feedback as to what are dominate features on southern smoothbores:

Types of locks used
Furniture--brass or iron
Locks and barrels left in white or browned
Types of wood
Slings or not

We've been talking about fowlers and the Type G trade guns, but what about this "Colonial Smoothbore" (smoothrifle) ERA is offering?

http://www.earlyrusticarms.com/pricesanddescriptions.htm

Does it fit the bill for a gun in the period and place Brownbess is looking at?

We have no idea what a colonial rilfe built gun looks like before about 1760. We have some educated guesses, but that's it.
You're going to get me in trouble giving out my opinions on ERA guns!
:nono:
The gun , as pictured looks ok for a 1750's time period. 1730 is really optimistic it in my opinion. I definately wouldn't go with the Queen anne lock, as it is not a pre 1750's lock you would have seen commonly in colonial america at that time. That little french trade gun lock they have pictured is a much better choice.

 

[Okwaho]

Let me echo Mike on these locks and especially the new fowling gun lock. which looks good.I'd like to throw out some random thoughts in this general area for your consideration.
First,look at The Rifle Shoppe catalogue No.613 p.71. This is a nice little Ketland & Co fowler lock which Jess describes as "Ca.1750-1770 by William Ketland" This lock is bridled in and out and the dimensions are 5 1/2" X 1"I have this lock in a Southern{possibly Virginia}smoothrifle with typical mid 18th century English fowler guard and butt piece.The lock in my gun has been shortened to 4 3/4" but I think it's the same lock.Mine is marked "W Ketland.This is an interesting lock for future consideration.
Also look at George Shumway,"Rifles of Colonial Americ" Vol II, Rifles of The South. There are several early English export locks shown in this section and one of the earliest if not the earliest guns is No.118.With its very early Baroque carving reminiscent of early tidewater furniture and a 6 3/16" English lock,this gun could eassily date in the 1740-1760 period.Another very early rifle fom about the same period is the Faber gun, No.117 which has an unmarked English lock 5 7/8" long. Still another fine early gun is the No.124 gun probably from the Valley of Virginia. It has an English lock 5 5/16 lock marked simply"Ketland".

One should also consider early New England fowlers and these early English export locks are present on a number of early fowlers especially from New England. I recommend most highly Tom Grinslade's new groundbreaking book,"Flintlock Fowlers, The First Guns Made in America". At $75.00 it's worth twice the price for anyone interested in Fowlers made and/or used in America.It's available from Scurlock Publishing Co. Texarkana,Texas

I don't mean to imply that these locks are peculiar to either rifle or fowling guns but rather that in considering mid 18th English export locks that one should look at early rifles particularly Southern guns for more information as well as New England fowlers.I hope I haven't confused you too much but just thought I'd sweeten the pot a little.
Cheers
Tom Patton :thumbsup: