fusil or fowler

[Mike Brooks]

Its a question of style, and personal preference. Both guns can be well made, and great shooters. Some prefer the French style, while others prefer the balance and style of the American fowlers.

Personally, I believe those who want the French style ( fusil) are more tuned into military re-enactments( Purists) that put actual replication ahead of performance, or balance. Rarely are Fusil owners willing to remove wood or cut the barrel length to get better balance.

The American Fowler took elements from the French, English, German, Dutch, and added elements unique to the American experience to make a slightly different fowler. It may not be a better gun than the French fusil, but many prefer it.

I told you guys I'd get back to this..... :wink: It's awfully difficult to nail down the term "American Fowler". It really depends where they were built. Many of the new england fowlers are french in profile due to the heavy french influence. Fowling guns made in PA. tend to look like PA rifles with out a cheek piece of patch box. Still others look like an english fowler...then you have to consider the club butt fowlers out of Massachusetts.
Then there are the french terms..."fusil" "fuzee" cripes they go on and on...Tom Patton seems to be able to say these words even with his Tennessee accent. :wink:
I have never and I mean NEVER seen a production built fowler (ie. Caywood, Center mark etc. you name it)that was properly shaped. Wether french, english or american, there is way too much wood left on these guns. Most custom guns are left with too much wood also.
These days we start with barrels with breeches that are too small with the balance of the barrel too thick, just backwards to what the old guns had. The old guns rarely had ram rods bigger than 5/16" and the web between barrel and ram rod is always about 1/8" sometimes less. Many of our locks today have bolsters that are way to thick resulting in a fat area through the breech area.
Keep in mind, original french barrels with breeches less than 1 1/8" are unheard of. Other than one kit offered today I don't know of one french kit that has a breech over an inch...it's an important detail in how the gun handles and looks!
Anyway, back to the original question. Until we start making guns like they used to be it's really a moot point. The "fusil de chasse"(french hunting gun) looks cool, but bash me in the face. This is an architecture thing, I believe that roman nose is designed to do just as it does, bash the cheek bone. (silly french, just as long as their guns look cool that's all that counts).
Personally I shoot a gun best that has a straight upper land lower buttstock with about 2 5/8" drop at the heel and about 1 1/2" drop at the comb. I don't get bashed in the face and recoil is dispersed well.

 

[Russ T Frizzen]

And then there are all those Hudson River Valley "Dutch" fowlers. I expect there is a lot of foreign influence there.

Fusils often look like a very plain fowler with later ones sometimes having provision for a bayonet. A true military fusil built for an officer resembles a lighter and more finely made musket of the same period.

It seems to me that the term was misused early on to describe any light trade gun as well as the original military pieces--it became a somewhat generic term and lost much of its meaning as a result.

To me a fowler is a civilian smoothbore used primarily as a hunting gun, but often could serve as the owner's militia weapon too.

A fusil is a light military smoothbore usually carried by an officer.

And a trade gun or trade musket is just that: a trade gun or musket, with the exception of the fusil de chasse, which actually is more of a sporting gun anyway. And the fusil de trait--well fusil is a French word, so they can use it as they wish--but it's really just a trade gun. IMHO :rotf:

 

[tg]

"Personally, I believe those who want the French style ( fusil) are more tuned into military re-enactments( Purists) that put actual replication ahead of performance, or balance"

The French hunting guns are hardly military in nature,I have a fusil de chase .58 and it is a hunting gun and I hunt with it and it has become the best shooting, best gun to shoot I have ever had, they are lighter and of smaller bore than the military versions, and one can make one with fair balance from some of todays parts, though as Mike mentioned the barrels are wrong to start with but mine came in a little under 8 lbs with a thick walled barrel (1 1/6" at the breech same as a .62 but mine is .58 which is where a lot of my weight lies) and it handles quite well, I don't know that I would buy one of these pied de vache stocked guns off the rack so to speak, fit is pretty important with that profile. I was lucky with mine and also fitted it to shoulder and eye as I worked the wood down.

 

[Okwaho]

And then there are all those Hudson River Valley "Dutch" fowlers. I expect there is a lot of foreign influence there.

Fusils often look like a very plain fowler with later ones sometimes having provision for a bayonet. A true military fusil built for an officer resembles a lighter and more finely made musket of the same period.

It seems to me that the term was misused early on to describe any light trade gun as well as the original military pieces--it became a somewhat generic term and lost much of its meaning as a result.

To me a fowler is a civilian smoothbore used primarily as a hunting gun, but often could serve as the owner's militia weapon too.


A fusil is a light military smoothbore usually carried by an officer.

And a trade gun or trade musket is just that: a trade gun or musket, with the exception of the fusil de chasse, which actually is more of a sporting gun anyway. And the fusil de trait--well fusil is a French word, so they can use it as they wish--but it's really just a trade gun. IMHO :rotf:

The term Fusil came abut during the early 18th century in France where the true flintlock was invented Ca. 1620-30. Other guns seen in that early period were the matchlock,snaphaunce and wheelock. The French term Fusil pronounced Fusee/Fuzee was used to denote any long arm other than a matchlock.The wheelock and snaphaunce were fairly scarce and were used primarily by civilians. The military preferred the matchlock and it was used until the early 18th century. It was usually referred to by the French as a Mousquet.The term "Doglock" appeared around the early 17th century and was almost never seen outside of England,it was, contrary to popular opinion, never an ignition system but rather was used when applied as a "dog catch" serving as a safety on snaphaunce conversions to flintlock where there was no half cock notch on the tumbler.In the mid 17th century the "English Lock" appeared in response to the French true flintlock.The English lock appeared in three forms; 1. as a snaphaunce converted to flint,2.a flintlock constructed using a blank snaphaunce plate and 3.in the same basic form as the French true flintlock.Many English gunsmiths were reluctant to abandon the horizontal sear of the snaphaunce and preferred not to use a half cock notch on the tumbler. Their solution was retaining the dog catch as a safety.The dog catch remained in use on some English guns until about 1680 when the Samuel Oakes pattern flintlock began to be found on Hudson's Bay trade guns. S.James Gooding,"trade Guns of the Hudson's Bay Company 1670-1970",PP.38-43. The Oakes pattern gun was probably the embryonic North West gun and signaled the emergence of the true flintlock on British guns.The English, ever emulating the French, began to use the French term,"fusil" to denote a scaled down or lightened version of an infantry musket as well as using it to denote a fowling piece.

The French retained the term "Fusil" much as the British used the term Musket.thus a Fusil de chasse means a musket for hunting and a Fusil de grenadier means a musket for a Grenadier as opposed to a Fusil ordinaire or common musket Both of these last two are Marine muskets used by the French Companies de Franche incorrectly called the French Marines.
I hope I haven't muddied the waters too much.
Tom Patton.

 

[Okwaho]

Please note the error in my above post.

In line 8 the words "the term doglock appeared" should have read "The use of trhe dog catch appeared"
Sorry about that
Tom Patton :bow: :v

 

[Mike Brooks]

Thanks Tom. So, the terms "fusil and Fuzzee" are the same thing and basically mean musket or gun... :hmm: I guess I have always referred to anything that was intended to kill birds a fowler....I'm SOOOO Anglo... :haha:

 

[Stophel]

I've seen a restocked early French (probably late 17th century) "trade gun". Done in the early 19th century, probably New England, with an early 19th century lock. Iron hardware with big, bulbous shaped finials. The barrel had a massive breech, an inch and a quarter at least. DEEP square proof/maker mark on the left oblique flat at the breech.

R.E. Davis sells a barrel this big (and 48" long). I keep intending upon getting one (but not to do a French gun), but haven't gotten around to it yet.

 

[Russ T Frizzen]

Mike-you can also call your fowler a birding piece if you like. I've always thought it has a nice, archaeic ring to it! :thumbsup:

 

[Russ T Frizzen]

Tom-I've sometimes wondered if the English did refer to locks with dog-catch safeties as dog locks. I suppose we'll never know, but to my mind the dog-catch is one of the best safeties ever devised for a muzzleloader. I'd really like to see a fancy, high end one, but all I've ever seen are military locks and some very basic fowlers.

Dan

 

[Okwaho]

Tom-I've sometimes wondered if the English did refer to locks with dog-catch safeties as dog locks. I suppose we'll never know, but to my mind the dog-catch is one of the best safeties ever devised for a muzzleloader. I'd really like to see a fancy, high end one, but all I've ever seen are military locks and some very basic fowlers.

Dan, the reason one doesn't see many dog catches on high art guns is that its use seems to have been largely confined to English guns.and then you find the dog catch primarily on converted snaphaunces, snaphaunce lock plates used with English lock internals and externals,and finally on pure early "English locks" which were common from about 1650-1684 when they began to be supplanted by the Samuel Oakes pattern locks,{see Gooding in previous post}I don't have much material on mid 17th century English guns but Beverly Straub who may still be associated with Historic Jamestown has done some great research on the "English lock" and its relationship with the snaphaunce and related material.
Tom Patton

 

[Russ T Frizzen]

It just strikes me that a very pretty lock could result from a bit of creative thinking. One of the nice things about the flintlock is its very "mechanicalness" and the visual interest it provides. If the dog-catch and all the other parts were given graceful shapes and a good polish a handsome sporting lock that wouldn't look out of place on a fine early fowler might be the end result--much in the way that the Italians produced some snaphaunces that were supremely elegant--so much so that it is hard to believe that they began with the same concept that created the common military snaphaunce. It's fun to think about anyway.

 

[Okwaho]

In "American Military Shoulder Arms" Vol. I,Colonial and Revolutionary Arms PP.62-64 by George D.Moller,there is shown a British "fowler-musket" apparently assembled in America using British military musket metal components. In reality it does not carry British Board of Ordnance markings but the barrel carries London Gunmaker's Company proof marks.The barrel and lock were made by Thomas Green who worked in London in the second decade of the 18th century.The gun is equipped with a three screw flat faced lock and a flat surfaced gooseneck cock which has a back-catch or safety dog. The stock is cherry wood which suggests New England and more specifically Connecticut construction.

I saw this gun in Salem,Mass. several years ago and had to go to the basement to see and handle it.This is the only dog catch equipped flintlock of this type with which I am familiar.I wasn't able to disassemble the gun to see the lock internals but am satisfied that it had the typical internals including s vertical sear.I agree that the dog-catch or back catch is a perfectly sound safety feature but with emergence of the half cock tumbler notch it became obsolete.
Tom Patton

 

[Stophel]

The Russians, and also the Swedes, I think, maintained use of a dog catch well into the 18th century for military muskets.

 

[Dphar]

The majority of american guns carried by militiamen in the Rev War were fowlers. I like a fowler myself because
A) The frenchies were the bad guys back then
B) the frenchies are idiots today!
C) the frenchies ain't ever won a war that mattered!
I could go on, but you get my point! :haha:

No offense, but the French were far more instrumental in winning the First World War than the Americans.

If you mean they fought longer you might be right.
The French have had their bright points and may have saved the American Revolution. But the British were getting pretty sick of the American War.
But without the Americans joining in WW-I would likely have been a stalemate at best. The antagonists had pretty well played themselves out. They had damned near killed off a whole generation of young men. The German Army did not consider itself as beaten.

After WW-I France, as a *nation*, was largely impotent and was virtually harmless in WW-II. The French have lost more than they have won at least since the discovery of North America.
They did kill off some Somali pirates the other day so I give them high marks for this.

So far as a fowler I would chose an English/American style. The French stuff often has some buttstock designs I don't have to shoot to not want to shoot.
Dan

 

[Va.Manuf.06]

The Russians, and also the Swedes, I think, maintained use of a dog catch well into the 18th century for military muskets.

Chris, don't forget the Norwegians, a number of mid-19th Century military firearms, both new (example: the M1843/60 Infantry musket) and modified from earlier weapons (the M1825/41 Kongsberg Infantry musket and others) are illustrated here:
http://www.geocities.com/norskevaapen/

 

[Va.Manuf.06]

The majority of american guns carried by militiamen in the Rev War were fowlers. I like a fowler myself because
A) The frenchies were the bad guys back then
B) the frenchies are idiots today!
C) the frenchies ain't ever won a war that mattered!
I could go on, but you get my point! :haha:

No offense, but the French were far more instrumental in winning the First World War than the Americans.

If you mean they fought longer you might be right.
The French have had their bright points and may have saved the American Revolution. But the British were getting pretty sick of the American War.
But without the Americans joining in WW-I would likely have been a stalemate at best. The antagonists had pretty well played themselves out. They had damned near killed off a whole generation of young men. The German Army did not consider itself as beaten.

After WW-I France, as a *nation*, was largely impotent and was virtually harmless in WW-II. The French have lost more than they have won at least since the discovery of North America.
They did kill off some Somali pirates the other day so I give them high marks for this.

So far as a fowler I would chose an English/American style. The French stuff often has some buttstock designs I don't have to shoot to not want to shoot.
Dan

Dan, sorry, I'll keep this short since you went off topic showing your lack of knowledge, but the French suffered under bad leadership as did every other nation involved in fighting the Great War of 1914 - 1918 and that includes the US - Pershing was very near to a nervous breakdown by the end. When US troops were being trained for the fighting in Europe, they were taught by well qualified French and English combat veterans and by the time they went to Europe, the French and English generals were appalled by the massive numbers of US casualties since they had been trained to avoid severe losses. Also, keep in mind that the German Kaiserslacht, the great German spring offensive of 1918 that was meant to win the War while the Germans still held a short-lived numerical superiority over the Allies after Russia pulled out was based entirely on French tactics. While the US, British, French, Italian, German, Austrian etc., etc. commanders were slaughtering their own men trying to figure out a way to overcome the stalemate, the average soldier fought on bravely, even after hope of survival seemed lost and the French were at the top of the list when it came to bravery, tenacity and innovation in tactics. Oh, I am far from a lover of the French nation, but but I am a great admirer of the average soldier of all nations of the First World War and you were simply inaccurate in your statements concerning World War 1. Moderators, I apologize, this post can be removed with my blessing if you feel it necessary.

 

[Greenmtnboy]

well said,
My Great grand father had to fight with french Canadians before the U.S. got involved.
He told my great uncles and grandmother that the French from Canada as well as their French brethern were bad ass and fearless in the trenches.
And to stay on topic I still think a Tulle Fin is one of the finest looking smoothbores ever made.

 

[gabrielguitars]

I agree. I am currently building a French fusil fin in the Tulle style, in 16 bore. This will be the second Tulle musket I've built. The buttstock style is very odd, but it holds and shoots extremely well. Without wading into the whole French war machine discussion, I will agree, the French and French Canadians were seriously tough. I am in Western Canada, and hate the French Canucks myself, but truth is truth.