• 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

Who Used Fowlers?

Muzzleloading Forum

Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
I hate to be a grammar nerd, but it's hard for me to ignore. :) You used a singular possessive of the word "fowler." The apostrophe plus "s" denotes possession by the singular subject. In other words, it was cut off: "fowler's... what? fowler's fowler? fowler's hat?" I'm dying to know! ;) If we're being super precise, the whole title of this post would be a bit confusing. "Who used fowlers?" In a literal sense, we're asking, "who used people who hunt fowl." We should be asking, "who used fowling pieces." There. It's out of my system. 😃
My education was very poor.
So I should of wrote or written;

Fowlers are used by fowler's to shoot fowl. Is that correct?
 
Great data. Amazing number of buccaneer guns there. Hyde county is coastal; am wondering if that played into the prevalence of buccaneer guns, often associated with ships.
Fortress Louisbourg was sieged and defeated twice in the e 1700s. From the colonies along the coast. I believe, as others. These arms made thier way into the new England colonies. Along with their Influence of arms being produced in later years
 
Fortress Louisbourg was sieged and defeated twice in the e 1700s. From the colonies along the coast. I believe, as others. These arms made thier way into the new England colonies. Along with their Influence of arms being produced in later years
Alexander, I think most folks familiar with those particular weapons aren't surprised (and actually expect) their use in NE. The conjecture above is in response to the post James Rogers made which lists itemized arms from Hyde Co. North Carolina militia which includes a bunch of "buccaneer" guns. Actually, rereading your post, there may be something missing between, "From the colonies along the coast. I believe, as others." Maybe I'm missing something or I'm just dense (could be the latter.) It's surprising to see those guns in the hands of militia so far south.
 
...Sorry for hijacking your thread...when you guys started talking about early English & French guns I couldn't help myself!...
Toklo Etee and Bob McBride,

Now that this thread has been hijacked, let's turn it into a show of Jack Brooks Type G's.

This is one of Jack's early guns. It has one of his hand made locks that he cast from the original. This gun has seen a lot of use by an active re-enactor back in the 1990's and 2000's. It's acquiring a natural patina on what was originally a bright barrel and lock.

Jack stocked this gun in English walnut. He probably put a little stain on it and then his standard homemade varnish. This one he finished plain--no paint or vines.

IMG-2628-adj.jpg

IMG-2631-adj.jpg

IMG-2635-crop.jpg


The original owner changed out the trigger, probably to give it an easier trigger pull. He hand forged the new trigger, and it looks like something a frontier gunsmith would make. He may have put on additional coats of oil or varnish, possibly to add more protection for the wood where he had worn off the original finish.
IMG-2636.jpg

IMG-2649.jpg

IMG-2645.jpg


Jack's Type G is a copy of an original Richard Wilson gun that was in Jim Dresslar's collection. Back in the 1980's and early 90's, they held some Western Kentucky Rifle Rendezvous shows (kind of a Western KRA) out here in the Rocky Mountain Region. The show was held in various locations such as Denver, the Museum of the Fur Trade in Chadron, NE, Bent's Fort in SE Colorado, Jim Gordon's dude ranch near Baily, CO, and private facilities near Salida, CO to name a few. The show often had a Western theme and some focused on trade guns and trade rifles. Dresslar had his Wilson Type G at one of these shows and allowed Brooks to take extensive measurements and make rubber molds of the lock and other parts with plans to make a copy. The plans started to take shape in July of 1991 when Jack proposed building one for one of his clients. Due to a personal tragedy and delays in getting a custom barrel made to the original dimensions, Jack didn't finish his first Type G until July 1992.

When Jack was planning his Type G, the only published information on them was in T.M. Hamilton's Colonial Frontier Guns. Interestingly, as Jack was planning his copy and lining up a client for the first one, Lee Burke was working on his paper on the Type G, "18th Century English Trade Guns in the South, or The Carolina Gun and It’s Time and Place in History", that was presented at the Fall, 1991 meeting of the American Society of Arms Collectors. You can see a copy of Burke's paper here. (A note about Burke's paper: he makes reference to a Bumford gun and includes pictures where he compares his TR Type G to the Bumford gun. This is a different Bumford gun than the one in the Colonial Williamsburg collection. I had them confused as one and the same until I more closely read his description of it and looked at the photos.)

When his first Type G was finished, Jack had it professionally photographed for a article that his friend Bob Lienemann was writing about the Type G and Jack's copy of the gun. Lienemann's article was published in the October 1994 issue of Muzzle Blasts. A copy of Lienemann's article can be found on Jack Brooks website or on the NMLRA archived issues of the magazine if you are a member.

Lee Burke, Jack Brooks, and Bob Lienemann spurred the current interest in the Type G trade gun with their articles and Jack's copy of an original.
 
Alexander, I think most folks familiar with those particular weapons aren't surprised (and actually expect) their use in NE. The conjecture above is in response to the post James Rogers made which lists itemized arms from Hyde Co. North Carolina militia which includes a bunch of "buccaneer" guns. Actually, rereading your post, there may be something missing between, "From the colonies along the coast. I believe, as others." Maybe I'm missing something or I'm just dense (could be the latter.) It's surprising to see those guns in the hands of militia so far south.
Actually I missed the SC part somehow.
Things moved around more than people know.
France had its interests all over. Not uncommon to see enemy weapons in the king's stores. On both sides.That being said,I cannot
recall an abundance of English arm in the
militia related items of new France. But I'm
kinda biased...
 
A few things that seem to distinguish the Carolina pattern from the NWTG are:
Butt stock architecture- they both had the plate nailed on but the Carolina gun butt plate was more ornate with some floral engraving. It seems the comb of the NWTG was very straight in relation to the barrel. Carolina guns tended to have a little more drop(had a chance to examine an original butt plate back in November....very thin brass)

Stock treatment- I am not aware of any NWTG that were listed as being 'painted" The Carolina guns were primarily stocked in beech. There are descriptions of the stocks being painted Blue, red, Yellow & "spotted" I wonder if the Bumford fell in that category?

Side plates- the typical Carolina serpent side plate was engraved flat brass that was inletted into the stock....The latter NWTG side plates were still serpents but cast with more 3 D details

Barrel- The extant Bumford & TR gun have 46 inch barrels. One detail particular to the Carolina guns is the brass rear sight. I have not had the opportunity to look at any original NWTG....The pictures I've seen seem to be devoid of a factory rear sight. I have often thought the rear sight was an indicator that these guns were being used primarily like deer hunting slug guns with the ability to use shot for small game.

As I stated before....if the builder uses a correct barrel profile.....these things are light. At 5 1/2# it is an easy gun to carry around. When you compare the assault weapon of the time...1st model Brown Bess.....the Carolina guns weight almost half. In Alabama the Carolina gun parts are scattered everywhere....I've seen found parts form north, south east & west..... looking at the map Mr. Burke included in his article.....these things must have been imported in astronomical numbers & then used into Oblivion
I can truly say I do not regret the kidney I had to sell to buy mine built by the late Dave Wagner.....it is a great shooter!
David
Clay Smith (Williamsburg trained.) sells these as well in two models. They are available finished or in a complete kit form. He also sells the brass furniture.
 
Alexander, I think most folks familiar with those particular weapons aren't surprised (and actually expect) their use in NE. The conjecture above is in response to the post James Rogers made which lists itemized arms from Hyde Co. North Carolina militia which includes a bunch of "buccaneer" guns. Actually, rereading your post, there may be something missing between, "From the colonies along the coast. I believe, as others." Maybe I'm missing something or I'm just dense (could be the latter.) It's surprising to see those guns in the hands of militia so far south.
Of course the French, navy did have a presence in the Caribbean and since buccaneer muskets were carried on most every ship, as well as being a trade item, they no doubt found their way to our Southern colonies via that route, also.
The Pirate Museum in Nassau has an original buccaneer musket on display along with some 17th / 18th century sidearms. The museum is really well done with life sized and colorful action displays of historic pirate events.
 
Smokey..... my personal opinion....I think Jack Brooks & Mike Brooks & Micheal Sidelman are building guns that are closer to the originals. I've seen Clay's website and guns & one thing I have an issue with is barrel length . At one time he was using 42' barrels. I realize that most production barrels are 42" but both the TR & Bumford gun have 46" barrels minimum. I know to some that may not seem like a big deal but with this gun(as many others) the barrel profile & length is going to effect the finished weight of the gun. It takes the right profile to get the gun down to 5 1/2 pounds. I don't know what Mike uses for a barrel but Jack was using a thin profile getz in an even .60 Cal. I know Micheal Sidelman was filing his barrels to get the profile and weight down. My brother owns two Sidelman guns...one in .54 the other in .58......At one time he had a third built by Benny Google.....I told him I was going to start calling him "The gun Merchant"
For me.....if I'm going to pay around $2000 for a gun......I want it to be as close to the extant guns as possible.
For some folks the 4" of barrel length isn't a big deal.
David

Just my thoughts
David
 
Smokey..... my personal opinion....I think Jack Brooks & Mike Brooks & Micheal Sidelman are building guns that are closer to the originals. I've seen Clay's website and guns & one thing I have an issue with is barrel length . At one time he was using 42' barrels. I realize that most production barrels are 42" but both the TR & Bumford gun have 46" barrels minimum. I know to some that may not seem like a big deal but with this gun(as many others) the barrel profile & length is going to effect the finished weight of the gun. It takes the right profile to get the gun down to 5 1/2 pounds. I don't know what Mike uses for a barrel but Jack was using a thin profile getz in an even .60 Cal. I know Micheal Sidelman was filing his barrels to get the profile and weight down. My brother owns two Sidelman guns...one in .54 the other in .58......At one time he had a third built by Benny Google.....I told him I was going to start calling him "The gun Merchant"
For me.....if I'm going to pay around $2000 for a gun......I want it to be as close to the extant guns as possible.
For some folks the 4" of barrel length isn't a big deal.
David

Just my thoughts
David

I agree. Mike Brooks is the epitome of an old time gunmaker. He makes them according to school AND has a style so distinctive that you know he built it (and he has a 12 pack of Miller Lite under his table at CLA) Most old masters were just that way. Jack Brook’s bench copies are fantastic. His custom Type G’s are down to the last detail correct, and, you can’t say this about most builders, no corners cut. I know custom gunmakers and if I find a detail where they went the easy route I won’t own their gun. I want a guy who has to make a living, and yet, won’t put out anything that’s not right. Add Allen Martin, Ian Pratt, and Ken Gahagan to that list. If a builder’s ever said, “that oughtta work”, don’t buy from them.

....and if those guys put out a kit, you know they’ve poured something into it besides dreams of making a lick on you.
 
Last edited:
Smokey..... my personal opinion....I think Jack Brooks & Mike Brooks & Micheal Sidelman are building guns that are closer to the originals. I've seen Clay's website and guns & one thing I have an issue with is barrel length . At one time he was using 42' barrels. I realize that most production barrels are 42" but both the TR & Bumford gun have 46" barrels minimum. I know to some that may not seem like a big deal but with this gun(as many others) the barrel profile & length is going to effect the finished weight of the gun. It takes the right profile to get the gun down to 5 1/2 pounds. I don't know what Mike uses for a barrel but Jack was using a thin profile getz in an even .60 Cal. I know Micheal Sidelman was filing his barrels to get the profile and weight down. My brother owns two Sidelman guns...one in .54 the other in .58......At one time he had a third built by Benny Google.....I told him I was going to start calling him "The gun Merchant"
For me.....if I'm going to pay around $2000 for a gun......I want it to be as close to the extant guns as possible.
For some folks the 4" of barrel length isn't a big deal.
David

Just my thoughts
David

Agree, though Clay does make Bumford guns with a 47" barrel. I'm not even sure Mike Brooks is doing commission work anymore. I think he builds what he wants and then sells. If he is still doing commission work, his wait list is years long. Maybe it's different for the Carolina guns since they are a simpler build. His website says call for availability, so it's definitely worth giving him a call. The price he used to sell these at was a steal. I'm not familiar with Micheal Sidelman.
 
No offense to our friends on the other side of the pond...

A fowler is a person hunting fowl. A fowling piece is usually a nicer smooth bore made for that purpose.

If we're being super precise, the whole title of this post would be a bit confusing. "Who used fowlers?" In a literal sense, we're asking, "who used people who hunt fowl." We should be asking, "who used fowling pieces." There. It's out of my system.


I wouldn't be too concerned about it.

IIRC, "fowling piece" is an English term. They have funny names for things.

They call these chips...
42cf6882-832a-480c-8734-8e45985e44dd-blacklock.jpg


...and they call these things crisps...
1280px-Potato-Chips.jpg


...this is a boot...
Saab-Open-Trunk.jpg


...and this is a pigeon hole...

1280px-Glove-box.jpg


They don't have these vehicles over there, but if they did, they would probably call this a Cowboy Boot.
1532542186238.jpg



Here in America, I think it's all right to call that smoothbore gun a fowler.
 
There is an interesting and detailed discussion of smoothbores in The New England Gun, by Merrill Lindsay, who, incidentally, used the word "fowler" in reference to the firearm rather than the shooter.

The original question posted on this thread was "Who used fowlers?" Lindsay suggested that in colonial New England, it was pretty much everybody: "They [the earliest settlers] brought club butt and splayfooted muskets and fowlers to ward off savages and shoot shore and water birds. Soon the governors of the new settlements were advising future settlers to bring long-barreled guns with them to provide food for themselves,"

He also wrote, "In the hilly, wooded terrain of New England, a target presented itself within forty or fifty yards. If the game was farther away, it was on the other side of the hill. Hunting for small game, birds, squirrels, or rabbits, and hoping for a shot at a deer or bear, required a gun with versatility of charges. The Germans solved this problem with their flintlock zweillings and drillings, two- and three barrel guns with both smooth and rifled barrels. The New England solution was the buck-and-ball gun with a heavy enough barrel to withstand the pressures generated by a large amount of lead to be pushed out of the barrel. The hunter with a single shot could dispose of any kind of game that presented itself. Ideally, this would be a moose surrounded with pigeons."

Notchy Bob
 
@jbwilliams3 is that article saved in a format that you could p.m. or email me the file? .

Brokennock,

I'm pretty sure the article to which Mr. Williams was referring was this one: 18th Century English Trade Guns in the South, or Carolina Guns, by Lee Burke. It is in a printable format, or I think you could probably download it.

For comparison there is also this one about Northwest guns in the same collection of monographs: Indian Trade Guns, by Charles Hanson.

Best regards,

Notchy Bob
 
Back
Top