• Friends, our 2nd Amendment rights are always under attack and the NRA has been a constant for decades in helping fight that fight.

    We have partnered with the NRA to offer you a discount on membership and Muzzleloading Forum gets a small percentage too of each membership, so you are supporting both the NRA and us.

    Use this link to sign up please; https://membership.nra.org/recruiters/join/XR045103

Kibler Fowler vs Trade Gun

Muzzleloading Forum

Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Jim, is the European terminology ‘guns of the trade’, the same meaning as trade gun ? Such as a northwest trade gun?
Hi Nick,
No. Guns for, or of the trade were generic but usually well made British guns that were sold to other gun makers or retailers for final finishing, sometimes engraving and marking, and then for sale. Many mid-quality sporting guns guns labeled "London" and marketed by well known retailers were made in Birmingham for the trade. Jim's fowler could represent such a gun.

dave
 
Hi Nick,
No. Guns for, or of the trade were generic but usually well made British guns that were sold to other gun makers or retailers for final finishing, sometimes engraving and marking, and then for sale. Many mid-quality sporting guns guns labeled "London" and marketed by well known retailers were made in Birmingham for the trade. Jim's fowler could represent such a gun.

dave
Thanks Dave !
 
Jim with all due respect, better "quality" and a "better gun" how exactly? Because it it carved? Cut on a CNC machine? Is the Walnut or Maple better? Is a fowler aesthetically more pleasing? Sure, that is the case. But in this instance none of that is important to me and some others. I'm not trying to put you on blast or am I trying to down play what you do, your business, or products. I have your Woodsrunner, it is an amazing rifle and I love it very much. I also understand of course you have to defend and promote your products here and again, I'm glad you do and I'm glad you are here. You are a great benefit for this community. But I don't see how your point of being better quality or a better gun stands up here. Are Rice Barrels profiled off of an original barrel not a quality barrel? Are Chambers locks suddenly manure?
There are some key differences. One of the biggest weaknesses of other fowling piece options is the large forestock. By this I mean it's height. Original (and therefore quality contemporary) work have forestocks with a thin web resulting in the height to be a minimum. The ramrod groove / hole of these often follow the barrel profile to allow this. We take great care and pride to recreate this. When I see other offerings with the huge forestocks, it screams at me. To anyone who studies this sort of original work carefully, I suspect it does the same for them. These large forestocks are chosen for ease of manufacturing. Drilling ramrod holes with thin forestocks can be pretty difficult. We've worked hard to solve these issues.

The next point is the barrel. We've worked hard to produce barrels with a minimum wall thickness to match original work. Our 16 gauge is around 1/16" at it's thinnest point. I'm pretty sure no other manufacturers work to this thickness level. Often barrel wall thickness are excessive and result in a poor handling and heavier than necessary piece.

Since you brought up Chambers locks... I used Chambers locks for years on custom guns, and they can work well. But, this is often only after some work. Why? because the manufacturing methods. I would generally spend the better part of a day working on a lock to make it operate at a level I was pleased with. Our manufacturing methods result in much more precise and consistent products. A few other details regarding locks... We took great pains to capture the details of original English convex locks of the period. In my opinion details from other manufacturers don't stand up as well. For example, the pan on one slopes down towards the buttplate. The pan bridle is also oversized and meets the pan in an odd fashion. The pan cavity is generally mishapen. The cock is overly thick as is the plate and pan cover. The internal bridle deviates from typical English design and is kind of a mess in my view. I can say with a straight face, our locks are a step above.

Finally a point to be made is the quality of workmanship as you would receive a kit. I'm not talking about how complete it is, but rather the quality of the work. For example, inlets from other manufactures are at times oversized or not in exactly the right spot. Point is there are commonly issues (some small or some pretty big) that might have to be dealt with. Our processes and manufacturing methods help minimize these sorts of things.

The last is just the general conformation of all the many details that make up a quality English fowling piece. For example, pretty much without exception, the guard bow is generally rounded and fairly small on English work. In some offerings you see this is elongated and misshapen. Things like this scream out to someone who is well versed in English work from this period. There are other examples as well.

I hope this explains things and helps provide a better understanding.
 
There are some key differences. One of the biggest weaknesses of other fowling piece options is the large forestock. By this I mean it's height. Original (and therefore quality contemporary) work have forestocks with a thin web resulting in the height to be a minimum. The ramrod groove / hole of these often follow the barrel profile to allow this. We take great care and pride to recreate this. When I see other offerings with the huge forestocks, it screams at me. To anyone who studies this sort of original work carefully, I suspect it does the same for them. These large forestocks are chosen for ease of manufacturing. Drilling ramrod holes with thin forestocks can be pretty difficult. We've worked hard to solve these issues.

The next point is the barrel. We've worked hard to produce barrels with a minimum wall thickness to match original work. Our 16 gauge is around 1/16" at it's thinnest point. I'm pretty sure no other manufacturers work to this thickness level. Often barrel wall thickness are excessive and result in a poor handling and heavier than necessary piece.

Since you brought up Chambers locks... I used Chambers locks for years on custom guns, and they can work well. But, this is often only after some work. Why? because the manufacturing methods. I would generally spend the better part of a day working on a lock to make it operate at a level I was pleased with. Our manufacturing methods result in much more precise and consistent products. A few other details regarding locks... We took great pains to capture the details of original English convex locks of the period. In my opinion details from other manufacturers don't stand up as well. For example, the pan on one slopes down towards the buttplate. The pan bridle is also oversized and meets the pan in an odd fashion. The pan cavity is generally mishapen. The cock is overly thick as is the plate and pan cover. The internal bridle deviates from typical English design and is kind of a mess in my view. I can say with a straight face, our locks are a step above.

Finally a point to be made is the quality of workmanship as you would receive a kit. I'm not talking about how complete it is, but rather the quality of the work. For example, inlets from other manufactures are at times oversized or not in exactly the right spot. Point is there are commonly issues (some small or some pretty big) that might have to be dealt with. Our processes and manufacturing methods help minimize these sorts of things.

The last is just the general conformation of all the many details that make up a quality English fowling piece. For example, pretty much without exception, the guard bow is generally rounded and fairly small on English work. In some offerings you see this is elongated and misshapen. Things like this scream out to someone who is well versed in English work from this period. There are other examples as well.

I hope this explains things and helps provide a better understanding.
Yes, Thank you for the information. That indeed explains things better and is easily understood. I'm still fairly new to this, so I go off of the information I gather here and elsewhere and it is all a learning experience for me. I hope you didn't consider my post degrading in any sorts. It was merely legitimate questions. Thank you for taking the time to do so.
 
A trade gun is going to be a better round ball gun that a fowler.

Those guns were mainly used for, no surprise, hunting waterfowl. They are not generally used or meant for firing round ball. In Jim Kibler’s videos on his fowler he mentions that they are not really meant to shoot ball. That’s fowlers in general, not just his.

A proper trade gun or fusil de chasse would have actually probably more often than not used with ball over shot. Unlike fowling pieces, they would have been used for large game hunting and self defense using ball, though shot was certainly used with them.

It sounds like the Clay Smith gun would be right up your alley. I’ve got one of his painted trade guns that I plan on moving soon.
I’m sorry but your first sentence just isn’t so. There are no differences between the barrels of the English export grade fowler and the English trade guns intended for the American and Canadian colonies. The barrels were the same barrels, they saved money on the furnishings and less carving.
 
The only thing I would add is that IN GENERAL, there is a tendency for decreased breech size as quality level decreases.

Also as to fowlers being made to shoot shot, this perspective comes from their evolution and development in England, France and the rest of Europe. This was their purpose. When they exported and sent here things changed to some degree.
 
The only thing I would add is that IN GENERAL, there is a tendency for decreased breech size as quality level decreases.

Also as to fowlers being made to shoot shot, this perspective comes from their evolution and development in England, France and the rest of Europe. This was their purpose. When they exported and sent here things changed to some degree.
And over here the fowler would by necessity double as a defense arm if needed. Smokey’s point was that the cheaper trade guns were better for ball when they were a lesser grade than the fowler. Which is incorrect.
 
Back
Top