Original Fowler

[BCarp]

I am purchasing this fowler at what I think is a good price. I don't have it in hand yet, as I'm making lay-away payments, but do have some detailed photos:
http://smg.photobucket.com/user/BCarp/library/Original Fowler

This is the seller's description:
"American Flintlock fowler, Lock marked 'RE' with plain walnut half-stock 57” overall and 37” inch .70 caliber round smoothbore barrel of twisted or Damascus steel. Has a prominent cheek piece on left side of stock, the breech has 2 gold bands. Hardware is iron with an engraved pineapple finial in front of the trigger guard, German silver escutcheon on stock wrist. Brass-tipped oak ramrod. Although plainly made the gun exhibits fine design and workmanship and a nice clean look and lines. Circa 1810-20."

I know little about guns of that period, but this screams English to me, though I suppose Americans built in a similar style. The "RE" on the lock appears to be part of a maker's name, the remainder worn away.

Anyways, comments please...!

 

[Rifleman1776]

Looks mighty fine. I love the lock even though the cock appears to be a replacement to me as does the screw holding it.

 

[jdkerstetter]

I agree, in fact it's looks like a reconversion to me.....and, in that case, not a shooter. Fine looking weapon though. Enjoy, J.D.

 

[BCarp]

I agree, in fact it's looks like a reconversion to me.....and, in that case, not a shooter. Fine looking weapon though. Enjoy, J.D.

Really? I thought it looked un-converted. What would make it unsafe to shoot (if it was a re-conversion)?

 

[bpd303]

My question as well.What would make it a non-shooter? BTW I think it is a fine looking piece and if as described I would be proud to own it.

 

[jdkerstetter]

What makes me think it is a reconversion? The amount of corrosion on the lock plate under the pan and on the barrel in the breech area vs. the lack of it on the pan, frizzen and hammer.

Most flint arms don't corrode like this during their useful life....especially the lock plate under the pan. What is observed here is the corrosion and errosion resulting from firing fulminated mercury percussion caps repeatedly. And then there's that vent with the screwdriver slot. :shake:

What makes it unsafe, in my opinion? The barrel is obviously damascus that has been degraded extensively at the breech. See the washboarding and pitting?

Then there is the fact that it is very likely that during the reconversion process somebody did some welding in the breech area, as is common. Not knowing who did it or how leaves the safety of the arm very questionable.

Just my educated opinion. Still a very nice looking, and otherwise quality gun. Enjoy, J.D.

 

[BCarp]

That all makes sense. So, do you think the re-conversion was modern? When did slotted vent liners appear?

What makes me think it is a reconversion? The amount of corrosion on the lock plate under the pan and on the barrel in the breech area vs. the lack of it on the pan, frizzen and hammer.

Most flint arms don't corrode like this during their useful life....especially the lock plate under the pan. What is observed here is the corrosion and errosion resulting from firing fulminated mercury percussion caps repeatedly. And then there's that vent with the screwdriver slot. :shake:

What makes it unsafe, in my opinion? The barrel is obviously damascus that has been degraded extensively at the breech. See the washboarding and pitting?

Then there is the fact that it is very likely that during the reconversion process somebody did some welding in the breech area, as is common. Not knowing who did it or how leaves the safety of the arm very questionable.

Just my educated opinion. Still a very nice looking, and otherwise quality gun. Enjoy, J.D.

 

[jdkerstetter]

You'd have to define "modern". It was probably converted to percussion in the mid 19th century as was common. When it was reconverted could have been at any point since the mid 20th century.

The slotted liner is not necessarily an indicator as it could have been put in anytime during or since reconversion.

As far as safety, even it has been fired frequently since it was retrofitted, it doesn't mean it won't fail next time, or the next, etc. That would be a shame, as it is a fine looking piece, abeit not all that uncommon.

Enjoy, J.D.

 

[Okwaho]

I agree with J D here and would add that I can't recall ever seeing a hammer like this one with the exaggerated breast like this one and I agree as to the welding of the breech and what appears to be screwdriver slot for a plug rather than a probable drilling of the touch hole.The frizzen spring has a weird bend BUT if one checks TOW cat.18.P.188 there is one there in the replacement lock for a Thompson Center.And lastly I wonder about the gun having one only lock bolt rather than two as would be more expected for a flint lock of the early 19th century. This of course raises the issue of whether the gun was even a flint originally.The guard and cheek piece make me wonder as to the gun's earliness.
As always I welcome responsible opposing comment
:hmm: :v
Tom Patton

 

[rich pierce]

It appears the pan assembly is added. one can see earlier file lines where it did have a waterproof pan originally that was removed when percussed. Nice job on the reconversion. I am not ready to call it unshootable because I have Damascus barreled guns I shoot. But until "proven" otherwise I'd proceed with caution. A barrel replacement would make it eminently shootable of course.

 

[Stumpkiller]

Howdy Brian!

Sure looks English Half-stock to me. Here's a Manton with a somilar lock.

As far as shootability - boy - that's the age old double-edged sword. A 98% original would be too precious to risk while at some point the past history of use can make the shootable ones risky.

 

[Razor62]

Beautiful gun at any rate. I'm sure that you'll take pride in owning it.

 

[jdkerstetter]

I agree with J D here and would add that I can't recall ever seeing a hammer like this one....

The shape of the hammer doesn't bother me much but the lack of any decorative engraving does. I think it unusual for English work with this much engraving on the lock plate to lack any on the hammer.

....what appears to be screwdriver slot for a plug rather than a probable drilling of the touch hole.

A vent liner (as opposed to a simple vent hole) on original English work wouldn't bother me in the least, but the screw-slot does.

.....I wonder about the gun having one only lock bolt rather than two as would be more expected for a flint lock of the early 19th century.

This is not at all uncommon on English work of the period.

I am not ready to call it unshootable because I have Damascus barreled guns I shoot.

I did not mean to infer that this gun was unshootable because it is Damascus, I question it's safety because of the amount of the corrosion damage and possible welding at the breech. Without extensive examination and NDT there is no way to confirm if corrosion has worked its way into the layers of steel....and even then there remain the question of whether or not the welding changed the qualities of the steel.

I wouldn't risk it. Enjoy, J.D.

 

[BCarp]

I am ignorant about conversions/re-conversions. What breech-area welding would be required when removing the drum and nipple set-up of a percussion gun? Wouldn't you simply thread the resulting hole and install a vent liner? What needs to be welded?

 

[Dave K]

I shoot ALLOT of originals that have been reconverted. The lock appears to me to be an L&R or at least L&R frizzen and cock. The vent looks like a Chambers White Lightning vent. I would naturally inspect it very well and then enjoy the daylights out of it. It appears to me to be a reconversion and as I have said, I shoot allot of them and I have NO problem doing so. The lock plate may very well have been modified to fit the lock mortice as I do this all the time also. Tig weld the lock plate, then reshape it to fit the mortice while lining up the vent/pan and the sear. I am not giving a blessing to all Damascus/Twist barrels, but after a good study, test it or proof it and be happy. Here are 3 that I reconverted. The last one shows the original locks, but it now wears new locks that were altered to fit the gun. The gun was not altered to fit the locks. I had a friend on one of the guns make vents for me as they had a real odd thread and I didn't want to alter the gun. These guns were all purchased by me as percussion, though originally flint, as they are now. You can usually see as one of the others posters said, that a gun that was once percussion, will usually have pitting created by the perc. caps that priming powder on a flint, rarely ever gives that kind of pitting. I really like that fowler you have. Hope it checks out good and go enjoy it! Too valuable to shoot? You ever price an original to a new well made gun?

[/img]

[/img]

[/img]

 

[jdkerstetter]

Tom, I was addressing your issues one by one in the above post.....I forgot to address your issue with the frizzen spring! What bothers me about the frizzen and spring is that there is no roller. Again, a suspicious thing for English work in this period.

Enjoy, J.D.

 

[jdkerstetter]

....What breech-area welding would be required when removing the drum and nipple set-up of a percussion gun?

Today that's true with modern production guns. Back in the day threads weren't standarized and it's highly unlikely you would get a proper fit just threading in a modern liner.

And that's assuming the percussion conversion was done by simply drilling a hole in the barrel and threading in a drum. It could have been any number of ways back in the day to include forge-welding.

As far as proofing, that speaks for itself. If one is determined to shoot it then I also would recommend proofing it....but that comes with risk unto itself.

Dave, Nice work on those guns of yours. They must be a joy.

The liner doesn't appear White Lightning to me with the screwdriver slot. Could be the installer did it after it was in, but I find that unlikely.

Enjoy, J.D.

 

[Dave K]

Yes,you are right about the slot in the liner. I had forgotten that you cut that part off once installed.

Also, look at the water proof pan, the frizzen and the cock. The cock looks to have been massaged some compared to the L&R Ketland. The frizzen and it's pivot appears to be the very same as the L&R Ketland. The water proof pan, looks like the L&R Ketland, like the rest of the parts. This is NOT a bad thing at all, but a guy who knew what he was doing, when he did it. IMHO. The frizzen spring though is kind of a mystery to me, but it appears to fit up good. I guy that is good with a tig welder can do some very incredible work.

Again, a very nice gun that you will enjoy owning!

 

[Okwaho]

Tom, I was addressing your issues one by one in the above post.....I forgot to address your issue with the frizzen spring! What bothers me about the frizzen and spring is that there is no roller. Again, a suspicious thing for English work in this period.

Enjoy, J.D.

J.D. Thanks for addressing the issues I raised although I still don't understand the seemingly "bent" frizzen spring but as I said check out the spring shown on P. 188 of TOW.

Another point that apparently has not been addressed is the seller's description wherein what is apparently an English fowling piece with a reconverted lock is seemingly being described as an American gun with,unless I missed it,no mention of its being a reconversion.I understand the term,CAVEAT EMPTOR but I would have have preferred being provided more details.
As always I welcome responsible opposing comment. :hmm: :v
Tom Patton

 

[jdkerstetter]

What's even more remarkable is that maybe this work was done before TIG machines became common place and was done by other means.

It really appears to be a well done reconversion. I just wish he went the extra mile and incorperated a roller.

That funky bend you are referring to Tom is likely a tuning measure taken to make up for the lack of a roller and the challenge of using old holes and new springs. Likely the geometry was off enough to make tuning the externals real fun.

Sorry I don't have a current copy of Tracks catalog....mine are years old. Likely I should order another. If you can identify the spring on their site or give me an item number I'll take a peek.

Oh, and it's likely the seller may not even know what he has here. It is well done and often if one isn't looking they don't even see. :wink:

Enjoy, J.D.