|
|
Post by spence on Nov 5, 2022 16:31:46 GMT -7
In 1989 I bought a flintlock long gun at an estate auction. It was offered as an Early American Fowler, seemed to be 20 gauge. It has proven not to be as advertised, but still a very interesting gun to own. When I tried 20-gauge wads they wouldn’t fit, and it turned out to be a 28 gauge smooth rifle, I guess.
The statistics: Overall length 64”, weight 6 lbs. 15 ounces. The barrel is 49 1/2”, octagon, swamped with a hook breech. The bore is 20 gauge, .61”, at the muzzle, but is coned so it reduces to .56” or 28 gauge by 2 1/2” in. It is then straight to the breech. The lock is a late style Ketland “waterproof” with a cock too modern for the gun, a roller on the frizzen spring, a stirrup between mainspring and tumbler. The vent has a bushing from the day. The trigger is single. There is a very low brass blade front sight, a barleycorn sight, set in a brass plate dovetailed into the barrel, and no rear sight. The barrel is 1.1” at the breech, tapers to .765” at 15.5” from the muzzle, then flares to .875 at the muzzle. The metal of the barrel diminishes in thickness from breech to muzzle. Herschel and Frank House disassembled the gun and pointed out that the barrel is very old, was originally forged by hand, and in their opinion by someone who knew what he was doing. The stock is of cherry, the forearm very slender, and the bottom of the barrel channel is round, not faceted like the barrel. The stock is plain, there are no inlays or engravings, and there is no cheekpiece. All furniture is brass, there is no side plate, it has brass escutcheons for the lock bolts, one round the other oval. The stock is held to the barrel by four brass keys with no heads. Length of pull is 13 1/8”, drop at heel is 4 1/4”.
I’m impressed how light and handy the gun feels, considering the very long barrel. Those old boys knew how to build a gun. It’s not what you would choose for a ruffed grouse hunt, but I’ve collected several running rabbits and a couple of bobwhite quail on surprise covey flushes, it’s that nimble.
Pictures in posts to follow.
Spence
|
|
|
|
Post by spence on Nov 5, 2022 16:46:24 GMT -7
|
|
|
|
Post by paranger on Nov 5, 2022 17:22:28 GMT -7
She's a lovely piece, Spence. Thanks for sharing.
|
|
|
|
Post by bushfire on Nov 5, 2022 19:22:11 GMT -7
That's a beautiful gun and a great piece of history.
|
|
|
|
Post by spence on Nov 5, 2022 21:30:19 GMT -7
The gun has fascinated me since I bought it, because it has some features which are unusual, and some which seem to tell a story. Over the 30+ years quite a few 'experts' have speculated on its history, and what some of the features mean. I mentioned that the bottom of the barrel channel is round, does not match the octagon shape of the barrel. That was fairly common in the day, apparently. I don't know how common the way the barrel staples were done was, and not many of the speculators seemed familiar with it. The staple was inserted into a small metal plate and secured there, then the plate with staple was attached by dovetailing it into the bottom flat. Unusually, the sides of the dovetail and the ends of the plate were not slanted, but vertical. To fasten it in, metal was moved with a hammer and chisel to lock it in. Picture...thousand words.  Spence |
|
|
|
Post by brokennock on Nov 6, 2022 5:52:11 GMT -7
I've always admired this gun since you posted it elsewhere back when...
I notice new things each time I look at the pictures. Thanks for providing the barrel staple pics, quite curious.
One thing I didn't notice before,, is there wood missing behind the lock plate, upper rear corner, behind where the cock would be at full cock? If so, does it look intentionally removed. To my morning eyes it looks different.
I do love how that cherry has mellowed, but looks in fantastic shape.
How is the pull of the single trigger? Crisp like a good rifle trigger should be or, average shotgun trigger?
Thank you as always for sharing with us.
|
|
|
|
Post by spence on Nov 6, 2022 6:20:55 GMT -7
Yes, there is wood missing in that spot. It appears to have chipped out, not to have been intentionally removed. It's about 1/4" wide. There is also a small chipped spot at the toe of the stock.
Trigger pull is very nice, light and crisp, easily controlled.
Spence
|
|
|
|
Post by hawkeyes on Nov 6, 2022 8:11:21 GMT -7
That's a beautiful piece with some true interesting history. Bet she could tell many a story of the past. Love the detailed engravings on the Ketland lock. The barrel loops for the wedge keys are a nice touch. I've seen a few done that way which requires a bit more delicate work to execute properly. I'd say whoever built this piece knew what they were doing. A gem to have it must be! I'd surely be proud of that piece.
Do you have any further information surrounding it's origin that hasn't been shared? Any proof marks on the barrel or other markings?
I'm betting that piece of wood chipped from the mortise potentially as a result of moisture swelling that area were there was grain runout. Just a tad bit of swelling when trying to remove a lock can take a piece like that with it in a hurry.
|
|
|
|
Post by spence on Nov 6, 2022 11:16:54 GMT -7
Do you have any further information surrounding it's origin that hasn't been shared? Any proof marks on the barrel or other markings? I have no further info. It was bought "as is" at an estate auction, the previous owner was dead. There are no markings on the barrel. There is interesting evidence of a probable history there, though. Unfortunately, I need to show you a photo of it to make it clear, and my image hosting site is down. If and when it comes back up I'll upload it and continue the story. Spence |
|
|
|
Post by spence on Nov 6, 2022 12:37:12 GMT -7
The consensus is that the gun was restocked 1820-ish, and the profile slimmed down to that more common at that time, instead of the more beefy one common a few years earlier, late 18th century. The House brothers speculated that the original furniture was used, but that the butt plate was trimmed down in both width and heel-toe length. They based that on the fact that there are two screws in the butt plate at the toe, for extra security.  Spence |
|
|
|
Post by spence on Nov 6, 2022 19:22:24 GMT -7
 When Herschel and Frank House disassembled the gun, I remarked how very long the barrel was. Herschel replied that, yes, it was, but it was originally longer. Asked what he meant, he said more than an inch had been cut off the breech at some time, and pointed out the two grooves filed into the bottom flat. He explained that when the gun was originally built the front lock bolt was blocked by the bottom of the barrel, so the builder filed the first groove to allow it to pass. At some time in the future, probably because of corrosion and damage to the touchhole or the breech plug, the barrel had to be cut at the breech, enough to allow a new breech plug and touch hole, When a barrel is tapered or tapered and flared, you can’t slip it backwards in the same barrel channel, so it probably had to be restocked. In doing that, the same problem arose, and the second groove, the one farther from the breech plug now, had to be filed in the flat. That might indicate the same lock was used in the restocking. And, because with the late Ketland lock now on the gun, there is no interference with the front lock bolt, no third groove had to be filed. So, this is probably the third stock the barrel has been in. Further damage to the breech plug or vent might have required the third restocking, the current one, or it could have simply been owner’s choice. Hawkeyes, as an experienced builder you are more qualified than I to judge the likelihood df all this being a good guess...whatcha think? The vent at present has been plugged and re-drilled...bushed..., and one of the knowledgeable commentators, J.V. Puelo, said about it: “The touch hole is bushed... a common repair at the time and one that is an excellent indication that the gun hasn't been reconverted. When you see a touch hole bushing that is 3/8" in diameter, it replaced a drum & nipple. When its tiny, as this one is, it is a true period repair. All it means is that the gun was used enough to wear out the original hole.“ Some fascinating possibilities for this historic old gun. Too bad it all has to be just speculation. After trying for more than 30 years to glean her secrets, I understand more fully what is meant by that oft-repeated old saw, “If only she could talk.” Spence |
|
|
|
Post by artificer on Nov 16, 2022 9:01:41 GMT -7
Hi Spence,
Not Hawkeyes, but I find the explanation of shortening the breech of your gun and subsequent re-stocks as entirely plausible.
Here's some more period info on cutting and "britching" (breeching) barrels you may find interesting.
I've poured over lists of spare parts and tools British Ordnance sent here in the FIW and AWI for use by military Artificers (Armorers) and "britching" taps or "britch" taps (for threading the cut off breech end of the barrel for the "britch" plug) were common tools in those lists, as were metal cutting hand saws to cut the barrels on either end, when needed.
The lists also have other assorted taps, but unfortunately for us, no further descriptions of what the taps were used for. The lists don't specifically mention vent plugs, but from the materials and tools that are listed, they probably could have made them for use in worn out vent holes.
There are period quotes I've seen about Artificers cutting off both ends of musket barrels for different reasons.
The interesting thing is those lists DON'T contain tools for restocking military arms and no "walnut tree plank" for making replacement stocks. Barrels on most British Arms were round, but they still had taper in them from the breech going forwards. What this strongly suggests to me is when they had to cut off the breech ends of the barrels, they didn't worry there would then be more open room between the sides of the barrel channel and the sides of the cut off rear end of the barrel. This makes sense as British Ordnance considered the "service life" of a military arm to be between only 10 to 12 years at most (and could be shorter in war time).
However, leaving that open space in the barrel channel would not have been acceptable for most civilian arms when the breech end of a swamped barrel was cut short, because as you know, the entire barrel channel would then have been different.
They could have done a "period repair" by gluing wooden shims in the barrel channel to make up for the different overall shape of a shortened swamped barrel and so retained the old stock, but I think this would have been limited to how good of condition the wood was behind the rear face of the barrel. If that wood was battered down too much, as far as I know, there was no good way to repair it and a new stock would then have been needed for a tight inlet on the rear face of the shortened breech.
Something else to consider would have been a new owner the old stock didn't fit correctly and a restock would have been done for that reason alone.
Not sure how much this may or may not help, but hopefully you will find it interesting.
Gus
|
|
|
|
Post by spence on Nov 16, 2022 12:41:52 GMT -7
Hey, Gus. Good info, and I appreciate your thoughts. Thanks.
The scenario postulated by Herschel seemed reasonable to me, but It is made more so to have someone with your experience feel the same.
There are two other aspects of this old gun which I am impressed by, I will post those a little later for those who might be interested.
Spence
|
|
|
|
Post by spence on Nov 16, 2022 18:06:09 GMT -7
I've long had the impression that the old gun builders had a more thorough and more nuanced understanding of fit, handling and beauty in a gun. Hard to put into words, but one example I notice is what we call a swamped barrel, tapered and flared. This gun demonstrates that very well. The barrel is very long, and on casual observation seems to be simply tapered. I owned it for several years before I figured out it was swamped. The barrel tapers to within 15 inches of the muzzle where the most narrow point is ~3/4 inch. It then flares to ~7/8 inch at the muzzle. The measured difference is 0.11 inches. For its extreme length the gun is impressively comfortable to handle, and I think that profile contributes a lot to it. We see modern replica guns today, but many of them have the profile exaggerated so much you can see it across the room. The result is an ugly gun, even if the handing is acceptable. You can't see the swamp in this barrel.  I first decided to try a smoothbore gun because they seemed capable of a high versatility. I had no idea. Here are two targets fired with this old gun, one with ball, the other with shot. I worked up what I thought might be a deer load using ticking patch, my home-cast ball and home-brew beeswax-lard lube. As a final 'go-no go' shot I put up a 100 yard target at 75 yards, sat down and used the gun's ramrod as a monopod, fired one shot.  Using card wads and an equal volume load I fired this pattern at 25 yards with #6 shot. I'd be happy with the result in any modern shotgun I own.  I touched the holes with a Sharpie so you can see them better. I've shot patterns equally as good using tow wadding. Versatility. Spence |
|
|
|
Post by paranger on Nov 17, 2022 3:57:39 GMT -7
Very impressive shooting!
Excellent observations, Spence - thank you for sharing.
I have often suspected that the balance and feel of modern fowling pieces was "off" - mostly due to simplified barrel profiles that are easier to machine and overly thick barrel walls to satisfy modern product liability standards.
|
|
