Fowling Pieces in Military Use

[Ray-Vigo]

I've had the new Flintlock Fowlers book for awhile now and am enjoying it. For the most part it appears these are large guns that were used on water fowl and medium to larger game, especially the Hudson Valley guns. What caught my interest though was that the guns were sometimes pressed into service by militia or minutemen of some sort or another. My question is, whether it was larger waterfowling/medium game guns used primarily as emergency military pieces only, or if smaller bore guns for upland game also saw use? I was thinking in particular of the early action up north in the Revolution (1775-79 maybe?) in New England/NY/NJ/PA. Many fowlers like the ones in the book must have been around, in addition to smaller bore guns. I'd like to know if anyone has an idea as to what sorts of fowlers were going into militia/minuteman use against the British. Was it only large bore water fowl type guns or others too? The book does not really touch on the subject much, aside from a few individual gun studies.

 

[Mike Brooks]

The book does cover this. Many of the guns in the book have a rev war and sometimes an F&I history to them.

 

[Ray-Vigo]

It covers the guns listed in the book, but I'm looking for some sort of even wider examination to include guns with smaller smooth bores or smaller size (be it smooth rifles, small fowlers, etc). I guess what I'm asking is if there's some sort of even wider study of the different fowlers (including smaller upland ones) and their use as military weapons. Many of the guns in the book appear to be larger pieces for water fowl. I do see some smaller examples, but I was considering an even wider array. I do agree that the guns listed in the book and studied closely were well covered.

 

[Stumpkiller]

How do you define "military". Do you mean local militia or state militia? Both served three-month activations, and some were equipped better tham others. Professional soldiers?

Say if a homeowner pokes a gun out a window to defend against a Tory and Indian raiding party? That's a gun used in a military engagement; especially for the desendents - heck, that's an "Officers Fusil" after 50 years.

 

[tg]

Weren't the larger bores the norm for the northern areas? and even more common overall than the .62 and .66 bores we now use for fowlers when attempting reproduce them

 

[Jason Lewis]

How do you define "military". Do you mean local militia or state militia? Both served three-month activations, and some were equipped better tham others. Professional soldiers?

Say if a homeowner pokes a gun out a window to defend against a Tory and Indian raiding party? That's a gun used in a military engagement; especially for the desendents - heck, that's an "Officers Fusil" after 50 years.

i think he's refferring to the peices that had the forestock cut back and bayonet lug soldered on.

 

[Lonegun1894]

I can't speak for the book, but personally, I would use whatever the best tool that is available to me at the time, and I am sure they would have done the same. After all, the concept of using a inferior gun to take down an enemy, take his gun, and have an extra to pass to someone on your side has been documented in most conflicts, and I see no reason why they wouldn't have done so back then, especially since powder and lead were (and still are) so precious.

 

[Firelock937]

I can't remember off hand what book I read it in (possibly Bakeless), but it stated that Daniel Boone took a "large fowler" when he set off for the Battle of Blue Licks. Didn't indicate exactly what was meant by large, but he did have a suspicion that they were headed for an ambush or at least a close fight in the forest.

 

[BigDeutscher]

Flintlock Fowlers is a great book
Look for the ones cut back for Bayonet
Iron Ram rod and a few marked U.S.
All differant bores from 60 to 90 cal
I am building one for just use
French look .69 cal and will hand forge a bayonet
socket type I hate the plugs
Deutsch

 

[Ray-Vigo]

I'm going back through and looking for those in particular. I'm finding more stuff each time I go through-- good book.

I didn't have JUST the ones with the lugs in mind, but I do think they would be a useful study on their own. I found HV31 (at 163) interesting in the sense that the total length is almost 63 inches with a 47 inch barrel and it is called a "relatively short" gun that would be able to be handled even with the bayonet on there. CB 16 (at 111) also seems to follow that idea (42 inch barrel considered short compared to others in the book).

I do see NE 37 as "smaller" bore gun with bayonet lug and only .64 cal ('only' being relative).

It looks to me as if the guns meant to take a bayonet tended to be "smaller" ones (42-47 inch barrels actually being "short"), at least in the sample taken by the book. The calibers seem to be all over for the purpose-modified military ones (.64 right up to about 12 gauge). Of course the minute I write this, I see NE 19 (at 51) is a pretty big gun (56 inch barrel, 71 total) meant to take a bayonet.

I don't see very many truly "small" guns (at least what we would call "small" today for reproductions). That means either this survey is meant to encompass the larger waterfowling guns only and I'm missing some population of small, upland guns, or the reproductions today are pretty small on the whole in terms of barrel and this study is truly representative of the wide range of fowlers.

The point someone made about state vs local vs minutemen would be worth exploring, but would be tough research I'd think. I guess a modification to bayonet suggests some sort of more organized use than just "grab and go" off the wall. Interesting stuff, considering how much attention rifled guns garner when they were really a pretty small portion of the military gun population, even among irregular troops. I do think between the book and the knowledge of the collective community here, there's a lot to be learned. I'm liking the journey.

 

[smoothy]

I don't have the book your are talking about. But here is an article that discusses fowlers and muskets of the Revolutionary War. http://www.11thpa.org/neumann.html

 

[Stumpkiller]

Interesting that the first two are not cut back for a bayonet. (25% of the sample population).

 

[rich pierce]

I don't see very many truly "small" guns (at least what we would call "small" today for reproductions). That means either this survey is meant to encompass the larger waterfowling guns only and I'm missing some population of small, upland guns, or the reproductions today are pretty small on the whole in terms of barrel and this study is truly representative of the wide range of fowlers.

I think that upland game shooting was a relatively limited activity in the colonies compared to waterfowling, and that shooting sitting ducks was considered efficient.

 

[Ray-Vigo]

It's a pretty small sample, but then again these relics are not exactly common either. The first gun is interesting in that there seems to be some proof it was actually carried and used. The second one looks like he's using it as an example more than something that was itself carried. Their dimensions are in keeping with the Fowlers book too, though even these appear to be on the small side compared to many in the book. Nice find.

The first gun in that article is also interesting to me in the sense that it has almost a hybrid appearance mixing fowler and military musket designs. You'd think it would be cut for bayonet--it has a stout sort of shape like a musket almost, at least compared to many of the new england fowlers in the book and the French-type fusil gun in the article later on. I wonder if the thinking with those re-cut for bayonet was that there was little to be lost and much to be gained by the modification.

Would it not be true that a re-cut gun with a lug would shoot fowl just as well as before, except now it can take a bayonet too? Or is something lost by doing it in terms of its hunting use?

 

[Stumpkiller]

Certainly it doesn't harm the gun's qualities.

I would note that when Colt revolvers became collectable and those cut for a shoulder-stock were found to be rare that many more "originals" cut for shoulder stock started to appear in the 1950's than ever existed before.

Point being - it is difficult to tell when a firearm was modified.

 

[smoothy]

The guns in the Neumann article do seem like a mix bag of parts. Re-used parts and rough handmade sheet brass parts without filed flats, rings, etc. English, German, French, and Dutch combination of parts on one gun. A fowler I built years ago has a Germanic wide/flat buttplate with octogonal flats on the comb, French style s-type side plate, and English lock. My skill of putting it together with the right lines was not done well. But looking at original examples, some of them didn't quite look the way we demand ours to look today. Not to say that there wasn't exquisit looking fowlers in the day, but some were not more than functional and not much put into aesthetics.

 

[Ray-Vigo]

I wonder if there was a disproportionate survival of "fancy" guns because they were more likely to become heirlooms than plain guns. The plain ones may have been more subjected to harsh environments and heavy modifications, making them last not as long as ones cherished because they were expensive and intricate.

 

[smoothy]

Oh...oh. You just opened up Pandora's box of naysayers that do not subscribe to the theory of plain guns not surviving as well as the pretty ones. I'm with you. But, others only want positive proof and surviving specimens of plain guns to be able to say that they existed. Some of the longest threads are discussing this very topic. You may be able to entertain yourself by going back to read one of them. I do believe that there is a possibility that military guns during the Revolution were hastily built in order to provide quantities required to support rebelious colonists and were thus rather plain.
After proofreading the above post, it is obvious that I had a long week at the tire factory.

 

[tg]

I see no real shortage of what I think would have been plain guns of the time, the standards were different than than we try to apply to any carving and engraving, most of the guns folks have built or build now do not even have the basic almost universal moulding lines at the forestock and buttstock, they are plain by our standrds but would be considerd unfinished in the past

 

[smoothy]

See? I wasn't kidding was I? :wink: