Colonial fowler barrel markings questions

[Adam Lee]

Folks, I have been carefully disassembling my 1790-1820 era fowler, and managed to download pictures of the only stampings or identification markings I could find.

I uploaded pictures of the fowler to my picasa album. Here is the direct link. I hope it works!
https://picasaweb.google.com/adam1964freeman/EarlyAmericanFlintlock?authuser=0&authkey=Gv1sRgCOXB9Iixrb3XfQ&feat=directlink





Thanks all - looking for any observations or identifications anyone may have on this old gun. It is a very fun project, just getting to know more about it! This is something that will be remaining in my family. No plans on shooting it, trading or selling - it's a part of the "clan" at this point!

V/R Adam

Basic barrel dimensions - almost 38" from breechplug to muzzle; 5/8" bore ID, barrel is octagonal to round about 15" from breechplug.

I appreciate any ideas!

Adam

[Dr. Tim-Boone]

I love that chicken stamp!!!   

[nord]

Given the rooster is a popular French symbol and that some French gold coinage is minted in honor of same, I'd tend to conclude a connection. The lock style suggests same in my opinion.

[James Rogers]

Our smart dog had this to say on another forum.....

Hi,
The hen is for Henneberg County, Germany and the SUL stamped backwards is for the city of Suhl, which is in Henneberg. I suspect the barrel is considerably older than 1790, however, that does not mean the gun was made earlier than you suggest. I do not recognize the other marks, which probably identify the barrel maker.

dave

[Adam Lee]

Our smart dog had this to say on another forum.....

Hi,
The hen is for Henneberg County, Germany and the SUL stamped backwards is for the city of Suhl, which is in Henneberg. I suspect the barrel is considerably older than 1790, however, that does not mean the gun was made earlier than you suggest. I do not recognize the other marks, which probably identify the barrel maker.

dave

Yep, I read that on the other ML forum, too. What I found on some of my brief searching was that I find the same hen and SVL (for Suhl) stamps on much older German matchlocks and early 18th century guns. I think it is truly interesting that this "amalgam" of completely unrelated pieces came together at all!

Again, thanks for your astute observations.

V/R, Adam

[dannybb55]

Any one notice the weld seam under the barrel and the way the tang is drawn out fine? The barrel's wedding bands are defined only where they are seen. Suhl made weapons since the middle ages and long after this barrel was forged.

[Adam Lee]

I love that chicken stamp!!!   

I believe that is my favorite stamp on the whole gun, too!

I've added many more pictures of the disassembled musket and bare stock. I am all ears to any observations or thoughts on this "American amalgamation"!

You will notice that what may have begun as a half-stocked blank ended up being cobbled together with two separately spliced-in extensions to the forearm. So, it looks great altogether but pretty morbid in pieces!

Here's a fresh link to my photoalbum: 
https://picasaweb.google.com/adam1964freeman/EarlyAmericanFlintlock?authuser=0&authkey=Gv1sRgCOXB9Iixrb3XfQ&feat=directlink

[The other DWS]

looks more like repairs with some sort of old glue. Looks to me like the break at the ramrod entry has a pretty good grain match with maybe a little lost in the break.  I have seen that done with with old hide furniture glue and fabric on other old guns. 

Remember that in 1876 there was a huge revival of interest in anything old, guns, furniture, spinning wheels, log cabins etc.  A lot of "old" stuff was dug out of attics and barns and "restored" by then contemporary standards.

[Adam Lee]

Friends, I snapped some pics of the "Fiddian" lock once I disassembled it recently. As I was comparing the pieces, I soon noticed that a "common marking" was shared among most of the parts.
This stamping, which looks sort of like a crow's foot pattern, looks like three lines struck in this manner: \|/

Parts that bear this marking include the lock plate on it's bottom edge, the flint cock in the inside flat area ahead of the flint, the bridle, tumbler, frizzen spring (minus roller), and sear lever.

Here are some pictures to show this:




I'd sure like to hear from anyone who might know what these markings indicate. I bet these are some sort of lockmaker's or manufacturer's acceptance stamps.
This lock is likely a Birmingham export, and with the later-version frizzen spring with roller bearing (now missing) I have been told it probably was made no earlier than 1800, maybe as late as 1820.

Thanks for any ideas!
Adam

[Eric Kettenburg]

Those are just assembly marks (i.e., three slashes = no.3); they're to ensure that the right parts all end up in the right lock (necessary in a shop making multiple locks at one time).  You can find them on most locks of this era.

[Adam Lee]

Those are just assembly marks (i.e., three slashes = no.3); they're to ensure that the right parts all end up in the right lock (necessary in a shop making multiple locks at one time).  You can find them on most locks of this era.

THANKS!

Eric, that is exactly what kind of information I was looking for. That really helps! If I understand right, this should mean that those pieces were hand-assembled for this particular lock?

I can tell that the mainspring (not shown in this set) has a different mark. Three lines, but all parallel. It is also clearly not original to the lock.

Adam

[Eric Kettenburg]

Yes, prior to interchangeable production, you would want to make certain that - for example - a tumbler you made and fitted to one particular lock didn't accidentally get stuck into another lock of the same type.  A lot of them, especially in say an English lock shop using dies for repetitive style, were probably close enough that swapped parts might function, but not necessarily well.  Also, when case hardening, I would suspect that numbers of locks were being done at once and when all dumped into the quench, the assembly marks would be required to pick the pieces out and sort everything respectively.