• This community needs YOUR help today. We rely 100% on Supporting Memberships to fund our efforts. With the ever increasing fees of everything, we need help. We need more Supporting Members, today. Please invest back into this community. I will ship a few decals too in addition to all the account perks you get.



    Sign up here: https://www.muzzleloadingforum.com/account/upgrades
  • 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

Differences Between a Fowler and a Fusil?

muzzle loading side side shotguns
L & R
Muzzleloading Forum

Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Some interesting personal theories presented after gentleman who are well researched in the subject matter have given us excellent and concise answers. Answers that include citations to how these guns were described in period advertising and other publications. I wish people with personal theories/beliefs would elaborate more on the reasoning behind these beliefs or theories.
 
Hi Brokennock,
My descriptions of fusils and fowlers come directly from Bailey's "Small Arms of British Forces in North America", Didier Bianchi's " French Military Small Arms", Rene Chartrand's "French Military Arms and Armor in North America", and John George's "English Guns and Rifles". It is not my personal speculation. The term "fusil" actually goes back to the 13th century and meant a device for making sparks with steel and flint. It was later applied to any gun using a rock to create spark for ignition including wheelocks, snaplocks, snaphaunces, and flintlocks. In 1671, it was applied to the flintlock arms of the "Fusiliers du Roi" who guarded artillery and powder magazines.

dave
 
Last edited:
Iā€™m guessing the responses that say, ā€œIā€™ve shot both and fusils have more of a Roman nose shape and are uncomfortable to shootā€ are comparing generic fusil de chasse contemporary reproductions with something Jim Chambers provides. Iā€™m other words, ready to shoot guns easily found in the marketplace. As Brokennock suggested, it can be helpful to the reader if those posting provide their points of reference.
 
dave_person said:
Hi Brokennock,
My descriptions of fusils and fowlers come directly from Bailey's "Small Arms of British Forces in North America", Didier Bianchi's " French Military Small Arms", Rene Chartrand's "French Military Arms and Armor in North America", and John George's "English Guns and Rifles". It is not my personal speculation. The term "fusil" actually goes back to the 13th century and meant a device for making sparks with steel and flint. It was later applied to any gun using a rock to create spark for ignition including wheelocks, snaplocks, snaphaunces, and flintlocks. In 1671, it was applied to the flintlock arms of the "Fusiliers du Roi" who guarded artillery and powder magazines.

dave
Click to expand...
Lol.
I certainly was not referring to your reply as speculation. The replies from yourself, Grenadier1758 , Rich Pierce, and Capt Jas. are the ones I was referring to as well researched and including references.
Following those came a bunch of, "I think," "I believe," and other such unsupported "theory." Which I don't understand. If I one has a belief or theory and then someone who has done the homework, such as yourself, throws down some educated wisdom, one should maybe alter their theory. Or, if they feel it is a worthy idea still, express that theory with supporting evidence.
 
dave_person said:
Hi Brokennock,
My descriptions of fusils and fowlers come directly from Bailey's "Small Arms of British Forces in North America", Didier Bianchi's " French Military Small Arms", Rene Chartrand's "French Military Arms and Armor in North America", and John George's "English Guns and Rifles". It is not my personal speculation. The term "fusil" actually goes back to the 13th century and meant a device for making sparks with steel and flint. It was later applied to any gun using a rock to create spark for ignition including wheelocks, snaplocks, snaphaunces, and flintlocks. In 1671, it was applied to the flintlock arms of the "Fusiliers du Roi" who guarded artillery and powder magazines.

dave
Click to expand...
Just an aside; the word "fusil" in modern French translates as "rifle." The words "fusil de chasse" translate to "shotgun" according to Google translation. Carry on.
 
Grenadier1758 said:
In the period, the smooth bored gun used for hunting birds was probably called a fusil or fuzee and I recall seeing in the reproduction ads that fusils were available.

Let's not overwork this terminology as there is mostly the difference in the name.
Click to expand...

The smaller calibre (eg 20 gauge) shorter and lighter versions of the Brown Bess were commonly called Fusils, or Officers Fusil in British Army parlance.
 
Mayne1713 said:
Apples and oranges.

Musket Bore- 12 guage and up
Bastard Bore- 16 bore
Fusil 20 bore

Fowler: civilian smoothbore for fowling.

Terminology is important.
Click to expand...
You are correct that terminology is important.
So is support for one's statements, when stated as being irrefutable. So citation of the source of information is important.

Where do you get you get your definitions?
 
My American Fowler is essentially a 20 gauge smoothbore on an early Virginia stock. It shoots RBs with authorityā€¦much nicer to shoot than the Fusil.
80C4F85A-984D-4BFF-98E3-158F4F1F7FC6.jpeg
 
Rock Home Isle said:
My American Fowler is essentially a 20 gauge smoothbore on an early Virginia stock. It shoots RBs with authorityā€¦much nicer to shoot than the Fusil.
View attachment 154066
Click to expand...
Lots of folks would call that a smooth rifle. I guess this thread just proves different folks use the same word for different things, and different words for the same things.

My smoothbores
I have a New England fowler I built based on a restock of a 1728 French fusil ordinaire.

I have an early English trade gun I built based on a Wilson ordered by Sir William Johnson to give to Native American allies of the Crown.

I have an original 1700s Germanic boar gun which has straight rifling.

I have an original Lancaster smooth rifle probably made 1790-1810.

My next smoothbore will be an early 12 ga Hudson Valley fowler with a 54ā€ barrel.

After that I will build a 20 gauge club butt fowler.

See how easy that was? If youā€™ve spent decades studying originals in depth, you have a clear idea in your mind of each of these guns. If not, you know how to search to see what each may look like. I didnā€™t simply call any of them a fowler or a fusil, because those definitions are extremely broad unless one operates in a very narrow universe (English-speaking military in the 18th century).
 
A smooth rifle will look like a rifle. It will have a rifle like curved butt plate. It will have a more ornate trigger guard. It will have rifle front and rear sights. Most likely it will have a raised cheek piece. It will have a slightly shorter length of pull than a sporting gun. It may have set triggers, often double set triggers. It's not until you get a good look at the barrel and see the octagon to round transition and the muzzle to verify no rifling can It be unmistakably a smooth bored gun.

As @rich pierce observes, it's not really all that simple to point out smooth rifles and the differences to the sporting guns.
 
Brokennock said:
You are correct that terminology is important.
So is support for one's statements, when stated as being irrefutable. So citation of the source of information is important.

Where do you get you get your definitions?
Click to expand...
I have absolutely no source for my statement. I have no documentation to back my statment up. It is what I was taught by my companions of 45 years. Primarily my close friend Jeffery Miller. I am willing to bet that it is covered in a back issue of "The Pine Tree Shilling". Jeff is the historian extraordinaire and I trust him implicitly. On the other hand I will add that there were laws here in New England wherein it was illegal to sell firelocks of musket bore to the Indians.
 
Brokennock said:
You are correct that terminology is important.
So is support for one's statements, when stated as being irrefutable. So citation of the source of information is important.

Where do you get you get your definitions?
Click to expand...

1693 Mass. Acts 48, An Act for Regulating of the Militia, ch. 3, Ā§Ā§ 1, 5 for real quick starters.​

 

Similar threads

crowbarforge
WANTED Seeking a recommendation for builder/maker of French Fusil long gun.
Replies
14
Views
532
Togo
Togo
CS
Weight of Military heritage fusil & northwest trade guns
Replies
6
Views
480
CS
CS
C
Fowler
Replies
8
Views
431
rich pierce
R
CyrusP
M. Avance Fowler 20 gauge
Replies
16
Views
691
CyrusP
CyrusP
David Veale
Difference in patterning between lead and bismuth/tin shot?
Replies
12
Views
679
morb
M

Latest posts

Back
Top