Faking a Kibler Fowler into an earlier British import?

[Bark-eater]

The coffee can is getting close to full, and I'll be ordering a Kibler Fowler soon.

Kibler describes it as having "Styling from the 1760's - 1770's"

My interests are a bit earlier, say 1750's

I'm wondering what I can do to make the "Styling" more representative of an earlier commonly available, bog standard "Hardware store Fowler"?

A walnut stock is a definite, and I will hand scrape it, but I don't have a real feeling about what kind of stock finish to use.

I also have no idea how to approach the metal finishing. I'm assuming that browning and bluing treatments came along later, so I'm inclined to finish the barrel and lock bright, and maybe do a bit of ageing from there.

I'm also thinking about having my initials engraved on the thumb piece. I don't want to spend to much extra on engraving, but are there any engraved embellishment's that would help "Fake" an earlier origin?

Thanks, Woody

 

[dave_person]

Hi,
Jim's fowler can represent guns from the 1740s through the 1770s without any changes. It cannot represent higher end guns from the 1750s onward because it does not have a standing breech and flat barrel keys. I want to clear up some misconceptions about English guns during the 18th century. They were not made by solitary gunsmiths in small shops located in some rural corner of England. Each gun was the product of many highly skilled tradesmen all of whom had apprenticed to master tradesmen and they could produce higher quality products at much lower prices than any colonial American gunsmith. Not many colonial American gunsmiths could produce guns of even the modest quality represented by Kibler's fowler. A challenge for many modern builders is that the skills needed to actually produce a decent quality English gun from that period are great and diverse. Fortunately, Jim's machines do all the hard work for you that those highly skilled workers once did. But you still have to finish the gun. I've seen quite a few Kibler fowlers finished as someone's idea of a "plain workingman's gun" . Usually they use some sort of oil finish that is low sheen, "in the wood", and very 20th century. There was no mass market for "workingman's" guns in England. Gun ownership by working people was discouraged and hunting was a gentleman's avocation. The market hunters were not using light and lively sporting guns to mass slaughter waterfowl on the water. English gun makers made fortunes making cheap trade guns for the frontiers of North America, the African trade, and arming the East India Company but Kibler's fowler represents none of those. It is a decent English sporting gun of export quality that was commonly imported into colonial America not primarily as a trade gun (although it could be a higher quality Indian gift gun) on the frontiers but rather as a hunting gun for colonists of modest means, which meant most male Americans at least in the northern and mid-Atlantic colonies, including Virginia. As such, it would not have a "hand scraped" appearance even though scrapers were used in the finishing process. The English "setter uppers" or "screwer togethers" were far too skilled to leave rough scrape marks on the stocks. The finish would not look like someone soaked the stock in linseed oil. It would be a slightly glossy oil varnish (emphasis on varnish) that completely filled the grain of the walnut stocks. No open pores left showing just a smooth finish. The stocks would also not be all stained dark. Colors ranged from light orangey brown to reddish browns, to dark chocolate browns. Finally barrels and locks would all be polished bright but not by polishing wheels. It would be a stone, emory, and oil polish. During the very end of the period (1770s) barrels might be browned but I believe that would mostly be on higher end guns using stub twist barrels because the browning gave the twist barrels beautiful patterns of marbled brown and red.

dave

 

[CuNosecap]

Thank you for that treatise, Dave. We are so fortunate to have people like you willing to take the time to educate the masses with such a well organized "article".
Rick

 

[Brokennock]

F

Hi,
Jim's fowler can represent guns from the 1740s through the 1770s without any changes. It cannot represent higher end guns from the 1750s onward because it does not have a standing breech and flat barrel keys. I want to clear up some misconceptions about English guns during the 18th century. They were not made by solitary gunsmiths in small shops located in some rural corner of England. Each gun was the product of many highly skilled tradesmen all of whom had apprenticed to master tradesmen and they could produce higher quality products at much lower prices than any colonial American gunsmith. Not many colonial American gunsmiths could produce guns of even the modest quality represented by Kibler's fowler. A challenge for many modern builders is that the skills needed to actually produce a decent quality English gun from that period are great and diverse. Fortunately, Jim's machines do all the hard work for you that those highly skilled workers once did. But you still have to finish the gun. I've seen quite a few Kibler fowlers finished as someone's idea of a "plain workingman's gun" . Usually they use some sort of oil finish that is low sheen, "in the wood", and very 20th century. There was no mass market for "workingman's" guns in England. Gun ownership by working people was discouraged and hunting was a gentleman's avocation. The market hunters were not using light and lively sporting guns to mass slaughter waterfowl on the water. English gun makers made fortunes making cheap trade guns for the frontiers of North America, the African trade, and arming the East India Company but Kibler's fowler represents none of those. It is a decent English sporting gun of export quality that was commonly imported into colonial America not primarily as a trade gun (although it could be a higher quality Indian gift gun) on the frontiers but rather as a hunting gun for colonists of modest means, which meant most male Americans at least in the northern and mid-Atlantic colonies, including Virginia. As such, it would not have a "hand scraped" appearance even though scrapers were used in the finishing process. The English "setter uppers" or "screwer togethers" were far too skilled to leave rough scrape marks on the stocks. The finish would not look like someone soaked the stock in linseed oil. It would be a slightly glossy oil varnish (emphasis on varnish) that completely filled the grain of the walnut stocks. No open pores left showing just a smooth finish. The stocks would also not be all stained dark. Colors ranged from light orangey brown to reddish browns, to dark chocolate browns. Finally barrels and locks would all be polished bright but not by polishing wheels. It would be a stone, emory, and oil polish. During the very end of the period (1770s) barrels might be browned but I believe that would mostly be on higher end guns using stub twist barrels because the browning gave the twist barrels beautiful patterns of marbled brown and red.

dave

Fabulous information....
I really wish you would write a book.

 

[Cruzatte]

F

Fabulous information....
I really wish you would write a book.

I second that. I'd buy it.

 

[James Kibler]

Thanks for the nice description, Dave.

 

[longcruise]

Would probably need a dolly to move that book around.

 

[dave_person]

Hi,
Thanks guys. I am flattered. The truth is Maria and I are working on two books. One will be about the King's musket and how to build Brown Besses and the other about the history and making 18th century single barreled British sporting guns. That will include rifles. I think we will try and finish the Brown Bess work first to take advantage of the 250th anniversary bump. Maria may also write a journal article on our deep dive into the Eliott carbine.

dave

 

[Bark-eater]

Hi,
Jim's fowler can represent guns from the 1740s through the 1770s without any changes. It cannot represent higher end guns from the 1750s onward because it does not have a standing breech and flat barrel keys. I want to clear up some misconceptions about English guns during the 18th century. They were not made by solitary gunsmiths in small shops located in some rural corner of England. Each gun was the product of many highly skilled tradesmen all of whom had apprenticed to master tradesmen and they could produce higher quality products at much lower prices than any colonial American gunsmith. Not many colonial American gunsmiths could produce guns of even the modest quality represented by Kibler's fowler. A challenge for many modern builders is that the skills needed to actually produce a decent quality English gun from that period are great and diverse. Fortunately, Jim's machines do all the hard work for you that those highly skilled workers once did. But you still have to finish the gun. I've seen quite a few Kibler fowlers finished as someone's idea of a "plain workingman's gun" . Usually they use some sort of oil finish that is low sheen, "in the wood", and very 20th century. There was no mass market for "workingman's" guns in England. Gun ownership by working people was discouraged and hunting was a gentleman's avocation. The market hunters were not using light and lively sporting guns to mass slaughter waterfowl on the water. English gun makers made fortunes making cheap trade guns for the frontiers of North America, the African trade, and arming the East India Company but Kibler's fowler represents none of those. It is a decent English sporting gun of export quality that was commonly imported into colonial America not primarily as a trade gun (although it could be a higher quality Indian gift gun) on the frontiers but rather as a hunting gun for colonists of modest means, which meant most male Americans at least in the northern and mid-Atlantic colonies, including Virginia. As such, it would not have a "hand scraped" appearance even though scrapers were used in the finishing process. The English "setter uppers" or "screwer togethers" were far too skilled to leave rough scrape marks on the stocks. The finish would not look like someone soaked the stock in linseed oil. It would be a slightly glossy oil varnish (emphasis on varnish) that completely filled the grain of the walnut stocks. No open pores left showing just a smooth finish. The stocks would also not be all stained dark. Colors ranged from light orangey brown to reddish browns, to dark chocolate browns. Finally barrels and locks would all be polished bright but not by polishing wheels. It would be a stone, emory, and oil polish. During the very end of the period (1770s) barrels might be browned but I believe that would mostly be on higher end guns using stub twist barrels because the browning gave the twist barrels beautiful patterns of marbled brown and red.

dave

Hi Dave, thanks for the detailed response. I've got a couple follow up thoughts.

For the stock work, my suggestion of using a scraper is based on a skill I had 30 years ago working as finisher for various custom furnisher makers. I would use a hand scraper from mill work to 220 or 320 grit to even out the surface, (particularly on table tops), depending on finish was being applied. On a rifle stock I would assume scraper to burnishing would be the way to go. How ever if the actual guns in 1740 where sanded that's what I will do. Being that the the stock will be varnished that might be a good idea to add some "tooth" for better adhesion.

The stock will be American walnut. Do you think that I would want to add any tint or stain before varnish? Can you recommend a varnish? I would be inclined to use one of the "tried and true" products.

As far as the metal work, I was going to use files then abrasives, assuming that the difference be stones and sand paper would not show in the final product. I have seen references to using brick dust as a polish and would be interested in learning more about that process.

Thoughts?

Thanks, Woody

 

[dave_person]

Hi Woody,
By the 1740s, English stock finishers had access to sandpaper made from either crushed glass or garnets. I don't know how widespread the use was but it was advertised and even imported into the American colonies. They were also masters at using fine files the way we might use 120 grit sand paper. Burnishing would also be in order but the wood surface should be very smooth without any evidence of washboard from scraping. I've posted how to make black walnut look like English walnut many times on this forum. Give the wood a wash in pure yellow water based dye. I use water soluble aniline dye. That kills the cold purple brown common in black walnut. Then, depending on the color of the wood and my objectives, I may stain the wood with red alkanet root infused in turpentine. Again, depending on results and my objectives, I may also tint the finish with stain, usually a few drops of Laurel Mountain Forge's walnut stain. I use Sutherland-Welles polymerized tung oil (emphasis on "polymerized) in medium sheen. It is not pure tung oil, rather tung oil that is heat treated and then mixed with solvents so it dries quickly. I prefer it to all other finishes and I have experience with a lot of finishes. I can reproduce the look of almost any original finish from the soft satin gloss seen on most 18th century British sporting guns, to the glossier and more brittle looking varnishes applied to military guns, to the glass smooth gloss found on the best British sporting guns from the early 19th century. I also often seal the wood during finishing by applying the first coat of finish with 220 sandpaper and creating a slurry of finish and sawdust on the surface of the wood. I let that dry, and then sand off the slurry which leaves the grain filled. Sometimes I lose a little of the stained color during that process so I usually tint subsequent coats of finish. Here are examples finished with some mix of the methods I described. Some of the stocks are English walnut and some are American black walnut.

In this photo, the 2 guns on the left were made by me and the two on the right are 18th century originals.

dave