Advice on a French Fowler

[Mike Brooks]

Dad Gum Cooner, that sure is a nice gun! :hatsoff: :bow:
I'm getting a bad case of gun envy..... :redface:

 

[fvigo]

Wow! I am overwhlemed by all the responses I received on the topic. I was leaning toward not buying it and now know for sure to keep looking. I also learned a lot of information regarding French guns.

Thanks, John

 

[Okwaho]

The hardware on this gun is from The Rifle Shoppe (number 654), the lock is their number 562. For this basic style of stock, I usually think 1750-1770's. I don't know how far back it really goes. (I've seen plenty of French guns that use the wrap-around buttplate even into the early 1800's). The builder took the advice given in the TRS catalog, and built this gun with this lock, which was not good advice. Lock aside, I don't see a gun with this type of fancy hardware making it into North America, except perhaps as being bought by a wealthy Frenchman and brought here.

The original gun, by the way, is by "Brifaud" at Paris, ca. 1770. (according to Lenk)

I agree with Chris here and in addition to the gun illustrated by Lenk {Pl.97:3,P.116}dated by him Ca.1770, there are several other similar guns shown.I still think also that there is way too much wood left particularly on the lock and sideplate panels. I also don't know where the guard came from. It looks awfully English to me.I can't tell from the pics but I believe the original and other guns shown with it have chiseled iron mounts since Lenk doesn't refer to the contrary.The builder apparently used a different lock attempting to achieve a much earlier look but the lower butt line is concave as in the Ca. 1700 and later pied de vache style as is found on the later iron mounted fusil de chasse guns.I guess I would call this gun a composite example although with a great deal of work it could be made to look earlier although with the brass mounts it would still look strange.

As to the gun illustrated by Don, everything I could see from the pics looked good AND like Chris I too have grown weary of the R E Davis Jaeger locks on French fusils fin{Hamilton's Types C and D} and some times I really doubt most reenactors know the difference or care.
C'est la vie
Tom Patton

 

Dad Gum Cooner, that sure is a nice gun! :hatsoff: :bow:
I'm getting a bad case of gun envy..... :redface:

:rotf: Yeah right, Mike! If I could build a Buccaneer like you can I would feel like I really done something. Thanks for the compliment though.

Henry, the impression I have had is that the type D furniture was used from about 1730's to 60's in either brass or iron. (Hamilton) What source are you using for the iron only being early and brass real late after the F&I. Or am I misreading your post? Please clarify.
Thanks,
Don

 

[tg]

Bouchard mentions hunting guns with brass or iron mounts in 1729, and Buccaneer guns mounted in brass earlier, so one would think that brass was not an oddity during the first quarter of the 18th century.Most of the C and D parts are not identified as to being either in his book, the condition some are in looks more likely to be brass than iron.

 

[robinghewitt]

I think they just thought brass looked cheap and while okay for a soldier's gun looked out of place on everything else. It scuffs easily, reacts badly with wet powder residue and fine engraving will soon polish out if you try to keep it clean.

An apprentice served gun smith didn't have any problem working iron.

 

[tg]

An interesting idea but in 1716 I think it is Bouchard being quotes by Hamilton that shows the preice of an iron mounted hunting gun as 17 Livres and a brass mounted one at 22 Livres, he also mentions the higher quality/priced gift guns for chiefs as having siler or brass mountings, there is pretty good evidence that both were used depending on the particular gun.

 

Hamilton shows photos of furniture from various Archeo sites that are both iron and brass BP, TG, and SP of Type D furniture. The brass peices still have the engraving in tact. The iron pieces are iffy though.

 

[Henry]

Brass vs iron is one subject that I do not dare
to address , I leave it to the experts.

Very roughly , according to prices :
I) The lowest grade of trade guns were iron mounted ( average price : 10 " livres ")
" fusils de Liège " and similar production .
Generally no side plate present .
II) Next come the cheap brass mounted trade stuff
all in the show , little in the quality .
You will not find 50" barrels in that group.
III) Moderately priced iron mounted hunting guns,
the Tulle factory production should be in that price range .( around 17 " livres " )
IV ) Same quality as III but brass mounted ,
most of the " fusil de chef" should be in that range ( 20 "livres "). Archéological finds in Québec city show that brass side plates and trigger guards were imported , wrapped together by the dozen , probably to
upgrade Tulles guns into the next catégory .
( or type I into type II ?)

V) Genuine chief's guns " with better quality
lock and barrels , brass mounted . Often long barrelled . Labelled " fusils très fin "
( extra fine guns , over 30 " livres )

VI ) Luxury guns , with engraved steel
mountings , sometime more expensive than ....

VII ) Luxury guns with silver/ gold / mounts .
no price limit .

Steel has to be engraved , silver can be
cast .

Trying to guess if a gun was type IV or V
250 years later , from a small photo is
way out of my capacity . Especially if
the gun has been re-stocked once or twice .
For a repro , just forget it .

These categories are my own theory ,
I may be absolutely wrong , just show me where .


Henry