Fowlers, sights, and aging eyes....

[Rasch Chronicles]

Gents

Once again as I perused the archives, I got to thinking.

Fowlers were general purpose firearms, unlike shotguns, they would have both a front and rear sight. Now the question is what would be an era appropriate sight for a New England 10 bore smooth bored fowler? And lets take into consideration eyes that may not be as sharp as they once were!

Happy Holidays!
Best Regards,
Albert A Rasch
Albert A Rasch In Afghanistan

[bob in the woods]

In the book, "Flintlock Fowlers", there are 160 fowlers shown. Front sights- yes. Rear sights- no.
Some of the trade guns I've seen have rear sights, but that is 19th Cent.

[James Rogers]

"Fowlers" are shotguns. That is their original design purpose.

That said you will find some with rear sights. Some Euro types had a winged style sighting contraption like this:


Many of your English pieces had the same type of idea built into the standing breech starting in the mid 18th century. and they were like this example from Paul Ambrose's website:
http://www.ambroseantiques.com/images/guns/flongarms/pearman4.jpg


Many of the guns in Greenslade's were put into military type use during the wars.  The original users were not aiming single projectiles with cloth patches as is the popular method today. They were using these arms as a musket.

While the above mentioned rear "sight" designs would still make good wingshooters and probably work well for a smooth bored gun shooting ball and failing eyes, you can also put in a small rifle type sight if you are intending to shoot mostly ball.
I have seen a modern reproduction of the first winged type shown that was made from a sterling spoon. It was beautifully executed.

[G-Man]

English fowlers of the 18th century were primarily made for bird shooting for sport.   But American fowlers run the gamut as "working guns."   I have seen a number with rear sights - again these are fowlers, not what we think of as "smooth rifles" with cheekpieces etc. - indicating that they were probably intended for an all purpose gun to bring down a deer, a bear or a bird, depending on what you came across and what type of ammo you had available when out looking to put something on the table for dinner.  Same concept as the early trade guns - some of these had rear sights.  

So I think you could go either way on your New England fowler.    If you are going to shoot a patched round ball out of it, I see nothing wrong with a rear  sight, unless you are going to use it in trade gun matches that restrict it.  

Man - I'll bet that piece will pack a good kick with a PRB though...

Guy

[northmn]

I built a smooth rifle to incorporate rear sights but given the option would have went fowler with a rear sight as they are less ornate.  I use the Express sight which has no notch, just a shallow V for a rear sight and have broken clay birds with the gun.  I have taken grouse with the gun as shown but pot shot them as shooting them flying with a flintlock in the brush is a bit of a challenge.  I think your project is a good one but as stated a 10 bore will really thump you with roundball.  I had an 11 ga Bess and can state that for a fact.  The bigger bores are better for shot use and occaisional RB use, the smaller bores for more RB use.

DP

[Rasch Chronicles]

You guys are the best!

Thanks for the"insight" on Fowlers!

I have a project involving the fowler, beyond just building the fowler, and that is why I was wondering about the rear sight. I really need to do more study on the early 18th century arms, so that my questions don't sound to silly. I'm out here in Afghanistan, and though  have ordered several books, they are all sitting at home. (They would get demolished out here!)

I'm not too worried about the recoil, my "let's have fun shooting some big hogs" gun is a Ruger #1 in 458WM. I made it a point to learn to shoot it well, and that meant learning to master recoil.

Back to the subject at hand, and forgive my ignorance, but how far off would I be with an "express" style rear sight and a bead? In my mind, I had already considered an express sight with a gold line at the terminus of the V, and a hog ivory bead up front.  While I would very much like to be as close to historically correct as possible, as a hunter, I want to be certain of my sight picture for the sake of ethical shooting. That supercedes all other things. I'm a close range hunter anyway, but you can miss by quite a ways even at close range without a sight that you can work with.

Once again I appreciate your input.  I wish you all a very Merry Christmas, and a prosperous New Year! Be safe, and enjoy your family and fellowship!

Happy Holidays!
Best Regards,
Albert A Rasch
Albert A Rasch In Afghanistan

[BJH]

Of three origional flint smoothbores I have had the privelege to closely examine the rule is there is no "rules". Two were 1760 ish trade guns, they both had rear sights located aproximately even with the frizzen pivot on the breech of the barrel. A J.P.Beck smooth rifle I examined had a rear sight only 8 inches frm the breech. All were a shallow V type sight. All would have yeilded a "express" type sight picture with a wide "v". All would work nicely to my eyes with either shot or a round ball. Sure the rear sights were way too close to resolve clearly, but your eyes will still center things up regardless, Same as they do with a rear peep.

[northmn]

My front sights are now 1/16 brass bent over and formed to make a sight so that I have a 1/8 sight.  that is something I can see perched way out there on a longer barrel.  The Express sight can be camoflauged to look pretty PC.  One trick for older eyes like mine is to slit the bottom of the V with a fine saw blade or knife file to gather light.  Thsi even works on U's and V's filed into the sight the normal way.  On a fowler you want something that you aim with less for shooting moving or flying.  A 10 bore RB will whomp about anything you shoot.  Big bores are fun.
Merry Christmas to you also.  Stay safe in Afganistan.

DP

[Captchee]

to add to James Rogers post , here are some more

In the book, "Flintlock Fowlers", there are 160 fowlers shown. Front sights- yes. Rear sights- no

  sorry bob   but thats just not  the case

 there are many .  if not most all . but if we just  count sights that are above the plain of the barrel

page 34 . NewEngland fowler  c 1737. 
page 56 . New England fowler  c1775
Page 77  . new england fowler c 1790
page 84. new england fowler  c 1800
 page 156 . hudson valley Fowler  c 1760
page 160. hudson valley  Fowler  c 1770
page 162 hudson vally fowler c 1770
page 164 Hudson Valley fowler c 1785
 every fowler minus 2  starting at page 200  through 221and again on 226, 235.

so unless i missed a couple  31 with  sights above the plain of the barrel

 now if we go back and count those with  such sights as James showed in his link   or  filings center of the barrel .  we would have to list most every one that i can see.
sure there are a few that dont but  most all have some type of rear reference  , thats  used for a rear sight.
 speaking only of those  fowlers  showcased in Flintlock fowlers 

 
even today many dedicated  shotguns carry rear sights . IE double beads , raised ribs with double beads  or a rear bead and a front  tube

[northmn]

The whole rear sight thing likely came from the military mid that did not want deliberate aiming of the fire arm.  Even so some of the older military guns had groooves in the breech.  Any gun used for practical purposes is better with some form of rear aiming reference.  While we do not need Redfield peeps on smoothbores, the rear sights as shown are obviously PC.

DP

[smallpatch]

I built 2 Chamber's NE Fowlers last year.  Both were jug choked without sights

Shot like champs with both shot and ball.  Great turkey gun 2 bagged first season.  Pretty easy to do with the jug choke.  Test targets showed 19 pellets in kill area @ 40 yards, on a standard turkey head target.
Shot ball quite well as well.
Recoil with ball is no where near as hard kicking as a shot load!!

[Dan'l 1946]

   My 10 bore fowler is a joy to shoot with either shot or ball. It weighs in right at eight pounds and even with a 1 3/8 ounce shot load recoil is moderate.
   It doesn't have an actual rear sight, but the tang bolt slot is aligned with the barrel and does the same job. With a bit of practice even this rudimentary sight isn't really needed especially on a 48" barrel. My eyes will be 65 years old in February--along with the rest of me.
                                             Dan

[smylee grouch]

http://www2.snapfish.com/snapfish/slideshow/AlbumID=2991363022/PictureID=109214182022/a=2275883022_2275883022/

OK this is another try at posting pics to see if I can actualy get tyhis to work.   Gary

[Rasch Chronicles]

Hello Gary!
I thought I would post that picture for you!


Thanks for all the help. I feel much better with my choice of the Colonial Fowler.

NorthMn, thank you for the idea. I am going to give that a try.

Again I am much obliged to you all for your help and information!

Here is wishing you all the very Merriest of Christmas, and the Happiest of New Years!

Happy Holidays!
Best Regards,
Albert A Rasch
Albert A Rasch In Afghanistan

[northmn]

I built 2 Chamber's NE Fowlers last year.  Both were jug choked without sights

Recoil with ball is no where near as hard kicking as a shot load!!

Coming from a turkey hunter I can believe that, but comparing to normal shot loads and getting around ball to move at a decent velocity I ahve seen rb offer a bit of recoil.  Depends on how they are loaded.  I used 90-100 grains of powder behind a 11 bore ball in my Bess. 

DP

[Leatherbelly]

   Al,
    I hate to be the harbinger of negativity but...if you put a rear sight on your smoothie, you're going to miss out on a lot of fun smoothbore competitions.Tradegun/fowler matches are away to much fun to miss out on.
   If you are just going to hunt with it,put it on.
   Single sighted smooth guns are a whole new ballgame from smooth rifles and rifles.I like the challenge of a single sight. And, the smoothbore crowd around here are a blast to shoot with, much more relaxed then the rifle shooters.( all them low down riflemen want to do is win!,lol)
 Maybe build two? One with sights (plural) and one with just a front sight!

Stay safe over there!
added: missed the part about 10 gauge. ouch!

[Cory Joe Stewart]

I have been a fowler shooter for a while, in fact never owned a rifle.  I have one with a rear sight and it really does not change the accuracy much. 

I just got a copy of Flintlok Fowlers and there are a couple of New England Fowlers with a rear sight.  It is a small raised sight either on the tang or at the very breech of the barrel.

Coryjoe

[nchunter]

I built a 20 ga smoothbore that I (so far) only shoot with patched round ball.  I have no rear sight, and was surprised to find that - shooting offhand -  I can hold a group the size and shape of a football held vertically at 60 yards (i.e. without a rear sight there is more vertical error than horizontal error).  That's plenty good enough for deer hunting in woods at the 20-50 yard range.  I shot a deer this year offhand at 25 yards and hit right where I was pointing.

The other thing I discovered with my flintlock RIFLE is that if you're over 45 you can't see that rear sight in low light anyway!

[Rasch Chronicles]

NCHunter,

Good one! I had forgotten that the rear sight tends to become hard to aquire!

I once wrote a post on making your shots count, and this reminds me that if you can shoot minute of deer at 50 yards, then that's as far as you should be shooting anyway, period. I've always considered a three inch group to be the minimum standard for taking game, whether at 50 meters or three hundred.

This fowler is a starter piece for me to learn from. I really am more concerned and somewhat nervous about fitting all the hardware, and doing a credible, and somewhat presentable job of it. I think the rear sight will be the least of my worries compared to properly finishing the inletting of the lock, tang, and trigger guard!

Again, I want to thank all of you for sharing your thoughts on this.

Best Regards,
Albert A Rasch
Albert A Rasch In Afghanistan