Building a 1750s English fowler

[dave_person]

Hi,
Some of you might like to see my progress on building an historically correct 1750s English fowler. The gun is inspired by 2 London-made originals that I own. The barrel is by Colerain, Griffin profile 20 gauge, 42", and is mounted using inlet barrel bands, a method often used by London makers when asked to stock a fine Spanish or Italian barrel. They were concerned that dovetails and brazing would ruin the shooting qualities of the fine thin-walled barrels. The lock is a Chambers round-faced English lock and the mounts are steel and fine silver. The gun will eventually have extensive silver wire inlay and silver decoration suitable for a first quality London gun at the time. The stock is a plank of figured English walnut. I have or will make the standing breech and hook, barrels bands, ramrod pipes, trigger plate, and all silver inlays. The butt plate is fashioned from the "Dubbs" long rifle plate sold by TOW and the steel trigger guard is extensively reshaped to make it more functional and historically correct.

Modifying the butt plate. Black areas show where I added weld to properly lengthen the plate. All commercially available plates are too short:

I welded the standing breech to get the proper hump shape and tapered hole for the hook. Except for TRS and Blackley's, no one makes a correct hooked breech.

Beginning to inlet the sideplate.

dave

 

[Vaino]

Dave....your choice of builds is amazing....you must get bored doing the easy ones. That blank is just beautiful and your workmanship is beyond reproach. How deep does the sideplate get inletted?

The English built very shootable guns w/ their excellent stock architecture and seeing yours is alike, should be comfortable to shoot.

Wish I could build the guns you do.......Fred

 

[MSW]

this time I was smart ... I put a towel on the keyboard to catch the drool.

 

[dave_person]

Hi Fred,
The side plate goes in about 1/16" -5/64". It is a challenge to inlet but just takes some patience. Unless I am copying a military piece that requires a lot of research, I am not much interested in making plain guns. To me they require you to do all the grunt work but never get to the challenging and fun stuff. English fowlers from the mid 18th century are difficult guns to make because the architecture and components are very sophisticated. English sporting guns also changed over the century and you often see contemporary makers mixing up parts from different periods in ways that would be like you using a trigger guard from a late Fordney on an early Bucks county gun. One is also hindered by the fact that there are few really correct parts available to build one. This current build largely matches my little English rifle as a garniture. They eventually will be cased with 2 silver mounted English pistols if I live long enough. The fowler, like my rifle, will be a fine shooter, which I intend to use a lot. Thanks for looking and commenting, Fred.

dave

 

[Artificer]

Hi Dave,

My goodness what a treat it is to see these pics!! Thank you.

Was it fairly common on English Fowlers of this period to have the hump shape on the standing breech to use as a rear sight? I ask because even though I know they did it, I don’t know how common it was.

I did not know about the little stud/block at the bottom of the face of the standing breech to help keep it locked in the stock. I found that very interesting.

Was there a practical reason for the long top tang on the buttplates in this period? Or was it just a matter of style?

Like others, I find the figure in that stock gorgeous, but I also note it has very nice grain running through the wrist for strength. That must not have been easy to find.

I salute you for the hook attachment of the trigger guard to the trigger plate! An unseen detail like that is a testament to the level of authenticity you are putting in this piece!

That wide trigger is going to make the trigger pull seem lighter than what it is and is of a lovely shape.

I am in awe of folks who can inlet a side plate like the one you are using.

I truly enjoyed looking at these pics and can’t wait to see more as you progress.

BTW, I wish you could see the Fowlers they have on display in their Arms Room at Warwick Castle in the Midlands, UK. I was amazed they had quite a few of the early/mid 18th century and most, if not all had Single Bridle locks. Yet even though yours is a double bridle lock, it would fit right in with their collection.

In 1996, I was expecting to see replicas of medieval swords/daggers/lances and hoping to see an original or two. I was delighted to see most of their edged weapons were original, but I was almost floored to see all the Flintlock English Fowlers they had on display. What an unexpected treat that turned out to be!! It was well worth a second trip to the Castle just to see them again in 1998 and I'm afraid I left nose prints on the glass display cases both times.

Gus

 

[Mickc01]

WHOA! I'm impressed and I don't impress easily. Look forward to watching your progress.....Mick

 

[Kansas Jake]

Dave, I can't add to what others have said other than I am always amazed at your work. You have a gift and what is better you share it with all of us with your pictures and comments.

 

[dave_person]

Hi Gus,
Thanks for looking. The humped breech was very common before 1765-1770. It was the norm on sporting guns and allowed the sighting groove to be elevated a little above the barrel. By 1745-1750, most sporting guns had pan bridles. Bridleless locks were typically either older than 1740 or used on cheap trade and livery guns. Round-faced locks also fell out of favor after 1750 or so and were later used only on cheaper guns. The lug on the bottom of the standing breech is for a cross pin that goes through the stock and lug anchoring the bottom of the breech, a universal feature on all standing breeches at the time. The long tang on butt plates certainly protects a large portion of the comb but I am fairly certain it was just fashion. It also provided a nice large surface for engraving. I attached photos of original 1760s London-made fowlers that I own upon which I am basing a lot of my work. The first is a second quality or export grade gun made in London. It is from the 1760s but still has a round-faced lock. It is very good quality and likely spent most of its working life in America. The second is by Heylin of London, is silver mounted and represents top quality work in the 1760s. Both have humped breeches, high quality components, excellent engraving, and handle very well.

dave

 

[Pukka Bundook]

Lovely work Dave, Just lovely!

You mention a Very important point in your post above,...about mixing styles.
We see it on even high-end reproductions.
Changes could be subtle, but were changes and cannot be ignored and still "get it right".

Sorry I forget who asked about then"hump" ...and they didn't ask me, but yes, it is essential to guns of this period in nearly every case, to make them look 'right'.

Thanks for posting your build here Dave.

Richard.

 

[Artificer]

Dave,

I'm delighted to get more educated on Fowlers of this period. Your two originals are Lovely Indeed!!

OK, I just have to ask - do the "Thumb Pieces" (Military Terminology) or "wrist escutcheons"
(whatever is the correct nomenclature) on those two original Fowlers have a machine thread screw that comes up from the trigger guard tang to hold them in place, as on Military Muskets? Or are they screwed/pinned in place from the top of the wrist?

Oh, do you know if the rounded locks went out of favor because generally they were considered too large when lock plates got smaller or was it a matter that rounded plates/parts were more expensive to make?

I have seen original rounded locks that were downright tiny on some original Georgian "Muff" Pistols with barrels only two or three inches long, so I suspect it was not just because of size why they went to flat lock plates and parts.

Gus

 

[Micah Clark]

Good Golly Miss Molly, that's a nice piece of wood !!

 

[Pukka Bundook]

Artificer,

I'm not Dave and don't know his originals that well, but most escutcheons do have the screw through the wrist holding them, but are fitted under the trigger-guard, so are not seen from below.
On locks, I'd say just fashion. Like you say, there were very tiny rounded locks, but on better quality sporting arms, we do not see many rounded ones after maybe 1765. The change started a good bit before that date, but we can't go exactly by London fashions for provincial areas.
For livery pistols and such, the rounded lock -plate lasted into the late 18th century.

Best,
Richard.

 

[dave_person]

Thanks for commenting Richard,
I always appreciate your input and hope you will share your British expertise. Likewise Feltwad. We need more detailed information on these great guns because there is much interest in them but many on this side of the pond are pretty uninformed and sometimes misinformed about them.

dave

 

[Dane]

Ok Dave,
I've got a Griffin 12 ga barrel that I'm going to use on my first matchlock.
As I don't see that fad lasting too long, I'm thinking about an English fowler.
This is definitely your fault, so you should help me choose.
All that said, lock choice, ........ round face English, early Ketland??

 

[Artificer]

Artificer,

I'm not Dave and don't know his originals that well, but most escutcheons do have the screw through the wrist holding them, but are fitted under the trigger-guard, so are not seen from below.
Best,
Richard.

Ah.......... so that's why you often don't see the screw heads coming through the trigger guard tangs. VERY interesting, Thank You!

I have often wondered about the British practice of using "Thumb Pieces" or "Wrist Plates" with bolts going though the wrists of the stocks in the 18th century. Did they believe the "Wrist Plates" strengthened the wrists or was it just fashion? Oh, and did they elongate the holes going through the wood of the wrist, forward and backward a bit to accommodate wood swelling and shrinking? This so the bolt body would not cause more pressure on the stock and therefore the likelihood of cracking the wrists?

Gus

 

[dave_person]

Hi Gus,
No special treatment. The fit of the bolt in the hole is not excessively tight but the hole is not oversized, just sufficient for easy clearance. I don't think wood swelling and shrinkage poses a real problem in the wrist. Consider how Hawken rifles were made. I don't think the Hawken brothers worried about their 2 bolt holes in the wrist. I don't think the wrist plate attachment was anything other than convenience on many guns. For example, on my Heylin fowler, the thin cast silver plate would not offer much strengthening to the wrist.

dave

 

[dave_person]

Hi Dane,
Have fun with it. It will be a challenge. Much depends on the time period and kind of gun you want to portray. Both the Chambers early Ketland (with bridle) and round-faced English locks are very good locks and of a quality equal to the originals they represent. They are head and shoulders better than any other maker's locks that represent the same period. The round-faced lock could be used on any quality level of British fowler from the 1730s-1760. During the 1750's they fell out of fashion for better quality guns but were retained on cheaper military, livery, and some trade guns. Don't use a bridless lock unless you want the gun to be from the 1700-1730 or so, or a cheap trade gun from later. The early Ketland lock (with pan bridle)is fine as is for an early period of transition to flat-faced locks (1750s-1760s). Often the plates were clean, with heavy bevels and no tail molding. You can also give the plate a slight curved surface and inlet it flush with the wood and retain the flat flint cock. Further in to the 1760s and later, thinner flat-faced locks dominated and the better ones had moldings cut into the edges of the plate and flint cock. It usually is a 2-step molding that is not too hard to cut. The plates were usually thinner and the bevels not as high. Often they had a tail molding edge behind which the plate was filed flat and flush with the wood. On almost all of these locks up to the 1770s, you will not see the end of the screw for the sear spring on the outside of the plate unless it has a sliding safety bolt. After 1770 or so a shorter sear spring was usually used, which resulted in the bolt showing. However, you will almost never see the rear lock bolt drilled through the plate except on military and cheap guns. The rear hole is almost always a blind hole. The Davis Twigg and L&R Durs Egg locks are from the late 1770s to 1800 or so. They would be used on better quality guns although neither of those locks compares even remotely with the quality of the original locks they are supposed to represent.

dave

 

[Staggerwing]

Dave,
That's a beautiful piece of work. God has blessed you with a true gift of skill and patience!

 

[Col. Batguano]

Did you get the wood from Dunlap's? It's hard to find a long piece of really really good English walnut for a full length stock like that.

It seems the truly great pieces get chopped in to sizes more appropriate for more modern sporting gun actions, and of course, the premium gun makers are all competing for them. In the scheme of things, a $2000 blank isn't much on a gun that sells for north of $100,000. But you could NEVER get that much for the finished product without that level of wood on it.

So basically you are "sculpting" the left side plate, as one would do a raised carving? Chisels, files, scrapers, sand paper? Basically, it's very very high relief engraving. Am I seeing that correctly? I'm assuming you are using cast fine or sterling silver for that? It seems pretty neat to do, and would obviously dress up the finished piece too. I don't know anything about the techniques involved in doing it. It looks fun though.

 

[dave_person]

Hi Dave,
The wood is from Gobi Walnut in Portland, Oregon. They are a great company to deal with. When I want nice English or black walnut, I go to them. The silver mounts are cast using the Delft clay method, which is basically like sand casting but with a fine clay rather than sand. The fine clay holds better details. However, no casting method can preserve really sharp crisp edges so after casting, the piece is cut with die sinker's chisels and gravers to clean up the casting and crisp up all the details. Then once cleaned up, including the edges, and polished, it is inlet into the wood. I do not use sandpaper only stones, scrapers, and polishing grits like pumice and rottenstone. The metal is fine silver, which I choose because it does not tarnish as fast as sterling. Sterling would be fine as well.

dave