• 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

How to Load a Fowling-Piece

Muzzleloading Forum

Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

dlemaster

45 Cal.
Joined
Feb 28, 2005
Messages
678
Reaction score
2
Almost everyone will acknowledge that the use of fowlers had developed to its peak in England by the end of the 18th century.
I thought some may find it interesting to read the instructions on how to load a fowling piece from an 18th century English source.
This is from "An Essay On Shooting" published in London in 1789, pages 192-196.

CHAP. XIII.

Method of Loading a Fowling-Piece.

Some attention is requisite in loading a piece; the powder should be only slightly rammed down, for which purpose, it is sufficient to press the ramrod two or three times on the wadding, and not (as the usual practice is) to ram down the wadding by main force, by drawing up the ramrod, and then returning it into the barrel with a jerk of the arm, many successive times. For, by compressing the powder in this violent manner, some of the grains will necessarily be bruised, whilst the explosion will not be so quick, and the shot will be spread wider.
In pouring the charge of powder into the barrel, care should be taken, to hold the measure as much as possible in a perpendicular line, that the powder may be the more readily fall to the bottom. It is even of service to strike the butt end of the gun on the ground, in order to detach those grains of powder, which, in falling down, adhere to the side of the barrel.
The shot should never be rammed down tight; after having given a stroke on the ground with the butt end of the gun, in order to settle it, the same as for the powder, the wadding should then be gently put down, but much less close than that of the powder; for when the shot is wadded too tight, it spreads wide, and the piece will recoil.
In this, therefore, as well as in every other mode of loading, the sportsman should never carry his gun under his arm, with thw muzzle inclined to the ground; that practice, at all times loosens the wadding and charge too much, and sometimes produces the loss of the shot.
When the piece is fired, it should be re-loaded immediately, whilst the barrel is warm, lest by delaying it, a certain moisture should be formed in the barrel, which would retain a part of the powder when pouring in the charge, and hinder it from falling to the bottom.
Powder, also, as already mentioned, will imbibe moisture from the air, and therefore it is of additional advantage, to load the piece whilst the barrel is warm, because some part of the moisture will be thereby evaporated.
For the same reasons, the sportsman should fire off a little powder before he loads the first time, for it has been found, even in the driest seasons, that tha coldness of the barrel, and perhaps some little moisture condensed in its cavity, has sensibly diminished the force of the powder, in the first shot.
Some sportsman prime before they load; this may be proper when the touch-hole is enlarged, and hath but little thickness at the breech, because, in that case, if the piece is not primed, it will in loading prime itself, which diminishes the charge; but when the touch-hole is of its proper size, the piece should never be primed until after it is loaded; for then it will be known from the few grains of powder which usually make their way into the pan, that the touch-hole is clear and unobstructed; and on the contrary, if no grains come through, that it will be proper to strike the butt end of the gun smartly with the hand, and prick the touch-hole until they appear.
But, whether the practice is to prime before or after loading the piece, it is highly proper, after every discharge, to prick the touch-hole, and what is still better, to guard against all remains of fuze or squib, by inserting into the touch-hole the feather of a partridge's wing, which will not only clear it of these dangerous remains, but, if the piece is delayed to be re-charged, will take away all humidity that may be contracted there.


If there is any further interest there is an interesting chapter on the selection of powder, wadding, and shot that I would be happy to post.

Regards, Dave
 
Remember that in those days, the powder they would be using would be closer to our 1Fg powder, very coarse, and not very reliable, or powerful. The bores on the fowling pieces were huge by today's standard, with a one inch tube not being unusual at all. The obvious did not have the cleaning jags that we do today to dry a barrel out, and pull out the gunk that forms when the gun is fired on a damp overcast day.

I was amused to read the line about not packing the shot tight, as it would create recoil! A total lack of understanding of the basic laws of physics is shown by that statement, as it is the total weight of the charge of shot that determines the felt recoil. ( For every action, there muwt be and equal and opposite reaction.) How it is packed has absolutely nothing to do with recoil, much less pattern density down range. By packing it " loose " , it allows the OP wads to move forward in the barrel on ignition, increasing the length of the powder chamber and reducing the velocity of the shot. Now, that will reduce the felt recoil, but you could not pack ( or not pack) the shot consistently enough to shoot any kind of pattern with such loading techniques. I can't imagine such loading practice could ever produce a load that sent shot out the barrel above the speed of sound( 1100fps).

Nice look back at history, Dave.
 
Paul
Yes, reading some of that old stuff is amusing, and in a couple of cases I found that they came to the same conclusions as we have with modern science but not for the right reasons.

Here is something else you may enjoy;

Pg 113
Another opinion pretty generally established among sportsmen, and upon which we shall decide much in the same way we have done upon the former, is, that barrels of a small caliber throw their shot more closely than those of a wider one do. That the same number of grains spread over two unequal surfaces, and flying off from thence with equal degrees of divergency, will be found more widely seperated in the one case than in the other at any assigned distance, is a circumstance mathematically true; but the difference in this case will never be greater than that of the respective surfaces from which they diverged. Now the difference between the areas of the largest and smallest calibers ever employed is less than the error in the measurement of this divergence would be at ten yards from the muzzle; so that the greater or less diameter of the bore cannot produce ant sensible difference in the closeness or wideness with which the shot is thrown, provided the charge be the same in both pieces. We have subjected this matter to the test of experiment, and the result has accordingly been, that a barrel of 22 or 24, which is the largest caliber usually employed in fowling pieces, threw its shot as closely as one of the smallest caliber viz. of 30 or 32.

Note that he says a 22 or 24 bore is the largest usually in use and 30 to 32 the smallest. It looks to me like they were usually using smaller bore guns in 1789 than are generally being used today.
So Mike Brooks shooting his small bore fowler is right in step with what was used in the late 18th century. LOL
But I'm still not going to give up my 20 bore :)
It looks like they were arguing over some of the same things we do today. :rotf:

Regards, Dave
 
FOR ALL THE READERS LOOKING FOR A TRANSLATION, a 22 bore would be .596 in diameter; a 24 bore is .579" in diameter. A 30 bore is .537" in diameter; and the 32 bore is .526 " in diameter. We have generally settled on 20 gauge( or bore) which is 5/8 in diameter, or .625, simply as a matter of convenience in manufacturing. Or 24 gauge, , or .579", which is generally considered a .58 caliber barrel, and 28 gauge, or .550" in diameter.

The 24 is not common today, but was common 100 years ago. It was found, particularly after the advent of breechloading cartridges, using smokeless powder that there was almost nothing that a 24 bore could do that could not be done by the 20 bore, better. And even the 28 gauge would pretty well do anything the 24 bore can do. And, for reasons never explained, it became apparent that the 28 bore throw nice round patterns. bettern than the 24 bore. I suspect this is a fluke, and related to who spent more time developing loads with which gauge, and that a 24 bore gun can fire just as nice patterns as the 28 does, with the right loads.

In todays cartridges, the 16 gauge is suffering much the same fate as the 24 bore guns of yesterday. 20 gauge magnums can duplicate 16 gauge loads, and the 12 gauge in light loads produces better patterns. So, the 16 gauge has experienced an ignoble dying to a fine shotgun cartridge. That does not mean that someone with a 16 should not shoot it, and use it, and maintain the gun. Its worth reloading, and buying components in bulk when you can do so, to keep the prices down, but also to maintain a source of these components. Finding commercial shells on a store shelf has become more difficult as the years go by, but in some parts of the country, the 16 is still popular enough to provide quantity sales to keep the ammunition makers making the cartridges. Its not dead, yet. But it has taken a severe beating. A 16 bore is .662 in diameter, BTW, compared to the 12 bore, which is .729" . I have never met anyone who shoots the 16 gauge gun in the field who thinks he is undergunned when hunting upland game, or deer with slugs. And none of them wanted to trade those 16 gauge guns in on a 12.
 
Paul
Amen to your thoughts on the 16 gauge.
I generally use a Browning A-5 12 gauge for deer and turkey hunting, but I also have Browning A-5 Sweet Sixteen with a 26" barrel and interchangable chokes, it is just the ticket when I'm wading flooded timber for Wood Ducks or hunting other small game.

Regards, Dave
 
Remember that in those days, the powder they would be using would be closer to our 1Fg powder, very coarse, and not very reliable, or powerful. The bores on the fowling pieces were huge by today's standard, with a one inch tube not being unusual at all. The obvious did not have the cleaning jags that we do today to dry a barrel out, and pull out the gunk that forms when the gun is fired on a damp overcast day.
You may know something about cartridge guns, but the above statement suggests you have little understanding of fowling guns from the flint period.
 
YOu are right and wrong I was thinking of the much older, longer, and larger gauged guns of the earler period, and not the fowling guns he refers to in his next post about 32 and 24 bore guns. That is why I came back and offered the translations. The smaller guaged guns were popular when grades of powder were the thing of the day, and they were using better powder close to our FFg powders in those small bore fowlers. I have seen originals in museums, and read up on them, but have never had an chance to fire one. That would be a nice experience.
 
Back
Top