RyanAK
City-dweller
Once scalped…
Posts: 973
|
Post by RyanAK on Jun 23, 2022 17:17:57 GMT -7
I do own that book and it’s a wonderful resource. I actually have it open and am making notes this very moment.
|
|
RyanAK
City-dweller
Once scalped…
Posts: 973
|
Post by RyanAK on Jun 24, 2022 17:05:18 GMT -7
I went through Flintlock Fowlers and made some notes. Just to show my level of sickness, I just did data compiling and analysis on a PART of a lock on 158 colonial-made smoothbore guns. The pan bridle thing had a hold on me. So…
Of 158 guns, 79 had pan bridles and 79 did not.
However… if we look at guns in the decade for the 1740s-1760s…
1740s - 3 WITH 6 WITHOUT 33% have a pan bridle
1750s - 2 WITH 3 WITHOUT 40% have a pan bridle
1760s - 9 WITH 13 WITHOUT 41% have a pan bridle
40s-60s guns with a pan bridle total 39%
Well then…
Of the 14 total guns with locks that have pan bridles…
2 are later replacements that don’t count. (1785 Tower and a later French lock)
3 are scavenged French military locks.
1 is a period Kings Arm lock marked Tower.
5 English round faced locks. One Wilson and one Homer.
3 are flat faced locks.
So… discount the replacement locks… 12 of 34…
35% of colonial-made smoothbores recorded in Grinslade’s book for the 30 years 1740-1769 had pan bridles.
To be very specific to the period I want to build for…
Only 1 of 7 guns from the ‘40s had a bridle. That’s a Hudson Valley gun with a flat faced lock.
🤓
I’m a nerd.
|
|
|
Post by spence on Jun 24, 2022 17:18:06 GMT -7
Obviously, but that doesn't mean you are a bad person. Spence
|
|
RyanAK
City-dweller
Once scalped…
Posts: 973
|
Post by RyanAK on Jun 24, 2022 18:11:06 GMT -7
Well thanks, Spence! I’m not sure if the is exercise assisted me in my quest or just raised more questions. Ha.
|
|
|
Post by artificer on Jun 25, 2022 9:50:02 GMT -7
Well thanks, Spence! I’m not sure if the is exercise assisted me in my quest or just raised more questions. Ha. Well, sure it helped fix the answer that to be correct for your period, your repro lock can be either a single bridle or double bridle lock. What it doesn't do is make your mind up for you. (You won't regret purchasing a double bridle lock. Grin.) Gus
|
|
RyanAK
City-dweller
Once scalped…
Posts: 973
|
Post by RyanAK on Jun 25, 2022 11:05:02 GMT -7
Well, I’ve come to these conclusions:
1. There just aren’t many relic North American guns - either import or made in the colonies - from the 1740-1750 period.
2. If I build a colonial gun, I’ll use a lock without a pan bridle.
3. If I build an English gun, I’ll use a double bridle lock.
So… yeah. 😜
Some other things of note from my marathon research session. Things as I understand them:
In the period, a fowler was a pretty specific type of gun. Long, heavy and of a larger bore. Some of the colonial guns were built for market hunting… shooting fowl off the water. And by long and heavy, we’re talking 6’+ and 20lbs. I’ll have data on that eventually.
In the period, a “fowler” was the guy with the gun and the smoothbore (“round bore”) firelock was a “fowling piece”. “Fowler” was also a job description.
Other terms for the arm include “gun”, “sporting gun”, “hunting gun”…
I’m sure Spence has advertising examples to support the various terms used.
So what I’m actually trying to build here is likely better termed a “gun” or “hunting gun”.
What I’m really trying to find now is an English smoothbore that would have been imported to North America before 1750… other than a Type G or other lower end trade gun. Something that could solidly be placed in that time. Because I have a few questions there. Like… did they consistently have hooked breaches and barrel keys for the higher grade guns, or were some pinned? That sort of thing.
There’s a fella I’m going to reach out to, but thought I’d keep things here for consistency in chaos and if anyone can offer insight.
|
|
|
Post by brokennock on Jun 25, 2022 11:08:36 GMT -7
You also won't regret a hooked breach and barrel keys. Makes cleaning easier and if looking for a gun with an upscale look, the escutcheon add a nice touch.
|
|
|
Post by artificer on Jun 25, 2022 11:32:52 GMT -7
Well, I’ve come to these conclusions: 1. There just aren’t many relic North American guns - either import or made in the colonies - from the 1740-1750 period. 2. If I build a colonial gun, I’ll use a lock without a pan bridle. 3. If I build an English gun, I’ll use a double bridle lock. So… yeah. 😜 Some other things of note from my marathon research session. Things as I understand them: In the period, a fowler was a pretty specific type of gun. Long, heavy and of a larger bore. Some of the colonial guns were built for market hunting… shooting fowl off the water. And by long and heavy, we’re talking 6’+ and 20lbs. I’ll have data on that eventually. In the period, a “fowler” was the guy with the gun and the smoothbore (“round bore”) firelock was a “fowling piece”. “Fowler” was also a job description. Other terms for the arm include “gun”, “sporting gun”, “hunting gun”… I’m sure Spence has advertising examples to support the various terms used. So what I’m actually trying to build here is likely better termed a “gun” or “hunting gun”. What I’m really trying to find now is an English smoothbore that would have been imported to North America before 1750… other than a Type G or other lower end trade gun. Something that could solidly be placed in that time. Because I have a few questions there. Like… did they consistently have hooked breaches and barrel keys for the higher grade guns, or were some pinned? That sort of thing. There’s a fella I’m going to reach out to, but thought I’d keep things here for consistency in chaos and if anyone can offer insight. Ryan, You are really beating yourself up on this. To answer most if not all of your questions, the best guy I know to read his posts and ask these questions is Dave Person on one of two other forums. Gus
|
|
RyanAK
City-dweller
Once scalped…
Posts: 973
|
Post by RyanAK on Jun 25, 2022 11:36:53 GMT -7
I know it may be hard to tell sometimes, but I really am enjoying myself. The learning is as fun as the making and use. Truly. 🤓
|
|
|
Post by artificer on Jun 25, 2022 11:39:35 GMT -7
Well, with posting the same post three times, it sure looks like you are enjoying yourself. Grin. Just kidding.
Gus
|
|
|
Post by hawkeyes on Jun 26, 2022 4:23:20 GMT -7
Well, I’ve come to these conclusions: 1. There just aren’t many relic North American guns - either import or made in the colonies - from the 1740-1750 period. 2. If I build a colonial gun, I’ll use a lock without a pan bridle. 3. If I build an English gun, I’ll use a double bridle lock. So… yeah. 😜 Some other things of note from my marathon research session. Things as I understand them: In the period, a fowler was a pretty specific type of gun. Long, heavy and of a larger bore. Some of the colonial guns were built for market hunting… shooting fowl off the water. And by long and heavy, we’re talking 6’+ and 20lbs. I’ll have data on that eventually. In the period, a “fowler” was the guy with the gun and the smoothbore (“round bore”) firelock was a “fowling piece”. “Fowler” was also a job description. Other terms for the arm include “gun”, “sporting gun”, “hunting gun”… I’m sure Spence has advertising examples to support the various terms used. So what I’m actually trying to build here is likely better termed a “gun” or “hunting gun”. What I’m really trying to find now is an English smoothbore that would have been imported to North America before 1750… other than a Type G or other lower end trade gun. Something that could solidly be placed in that time. Because I have a few questions there. Like… did they consistently have hooked breaches and barrel keys for the higher grade guns, or were some pinned? That sort of thing. There’s a fella I’m going to reach out to, but thought I’d keep things here for consistency in chaos and if anyone can offer insight. Ryan, You are really beating yourself up on this. To answer most if not all of your questions, the best guy I know to read his posts and ask these questions is Dave Person on one of two other forums. Gus Dido, Dave is an unbelievable builder and a true craftsman with the knowledge to share. I still feel for your persona a simple well stocked import piece would be perfect.
|
|
RyanAK
City-dweller
Once scalped…
Posts: 973
|
Post by RyanAK on Jun 26, 2022 11:09:03 GMT -7
I did send Dave a message but haven’t heard back yet. I’ve been reading his posts off and on for years over there. Along with some guy named ‘Gus’. Lots of valuable information I’ve gleamed from them and it usually sparks my descent into a research abyss. Ha.
I’m leaning import. If I can find a good period gun built here or imported in the late 1740s or early 1750s, I’ll move forward quickly.
Promise. 😎
|
|
|
Post by spence on Jun 26, 2022 13:46:10 GMT -7
Since yo are interested in a persona with some kind of Germanic backstory, have you checked out Caspar Wistar? I have this note about his importing German rifles in the period you are interested in.
“Caspar Wistar imported German rifles in the 1730s and 1740s, asking his supplier to tailor them for the American market, where consumers prefer rifles with barrels that are three feet and three to four inches long….”
Caspar Wistar to Georg Friederich Hölzer, October 1, 1737, in Rosalind Beiler, Immigrant and Entrepreneur: The Atlantic World of Caspar Wistar, 1650-1750 (University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2008), 145-146.
Spence
|
|
RyanAK
City-dweller
Once scalped…
Posts: 973
|
Post by RyanAK on Jun 26, 2022 14:34:24 GMT -7
When I decide to build an early rifle, I plan on digging into everything I can find on Caspar Wistar, what barrels and rifles he was importing, who he was selling to… I have grand plans for the research and study before I do that build. I’m passionate about discovering all I can about the guns that were on the Susquehanna frontier, including rifles that were either made here or imported. I’m especially curious about rifles imported for the Indian trade.
But that’s for another day.
New insights… By the early 1750s, almost all but the lower end English guns being imported were of the standing-breach-and-keys type. A gun from the 1740s could be either pinned or keyed. I’m set up with a barrel without a hooked breech, so I’ll aim for a mid-1740s gun with pins if I build an English import fowler.
Colonial-built guns were likely mostly pinned in my timeframe.
My barrel is .62, light, octagon-to-round and 46”. Right in the sweet spot for either an English or colonial gun. The barrel has the flats milled, but no wedding band, so I have options on how to treat the transition to round.
This is fun. Truly.
|
|
|
Post by brokennock on Jun 26, 2022 17:10:57 GMT -7
Judging from a couple of the posts from Dave Persons, both his own builds and advice on someone else's recently, turning a standard breach into a hooked, or standing, breach isn't that hard.
|
|