Fowler vs Musket

[bones92]

Alright, time to peel off another layer of my ignorance...

What is the difference between a fowler and an otherwise smoothbore musket?   I take that a fowler could be used with shot for hunting fowl, I suppose.  But I see the term fowler used a lot, and I like to understand what I'm reading about.

Perhaps it's the overall style of the gun.. a fowler made with an eye for hunting afield, whereas a musket is of a military nature, made to accept a bayonet and for skirmishing.   

I humbly welcome your guidance.

[The Rambling Historian]

A fowling piece is designed for hunting birds and are often smaller caliber than muskets. They are generally more slender in build than muskets (aids in wing shooting and carrying afield) and often have refined architecture.

A musket is designed for military use and are typically of larger bore (.69-.75 is common), more sturdily built overall to withstand combat including use of the stock as a club, and are generally adapted for use with a bayonet.

[Hungry Horse]

 Also, musket locks are in general more robust, and generally slower, than fowler locks. Which is why muskets aren't as good for wing shooting as a genuine fowler. Muskets generally have a steel ramrod, instead of a wooden one.

   Hungry Horse

[louieparker]

Bones92 I am not attempting to answer your question, but it reminded me of two old friends and their collecting interest.  I would say both were rather advanced collectors.  One collected Colonial muskets and the other fowlers. If the musket collector obtained a new "musket" and later traded it to the friend it suddenly became a fowler...

[The Rambling Historian]

Bones92 I am not attempting to answer your question, but it reminded me of two old friends and their collecting interest.  I would say both were rather advanced collectors.  One collected Colonial muskets and the other fowlers. If the musket collector obtained a new "musket" and later traded it to the friend it suddenly became a fowler...

  You have to love when people change the facts to suit their interests.

[James Rogers]

bones,

You may get differing answers as the term "fowler" is a generic modern term that is used to describe various smooth guns depending on who is using the term. Sometimes it is used just to differentiate a smooth long gun from a rifle. In 18th century terminology, I have found it only used to define a bird hunter.

As has been said, a fowling piece is a gun made with the primary intent to hunt birds and a musket is a gun made with primary intent to be a military arm and as stated usually follow a prescribed bore size.

Fowling pieces can be dainty birding pieces or heavier, shoulder fired waterfowling guns that rival or exceed muskets in bore size and weight. Many fowling pieces had relieved or roughened breeches and/or relieved muzzles but others were cylinder bored. The water gets muddy with fuzees, which may look in every way like a fowling piece but were usually always cylinder bored, and many times in some military bore configuration and with bayonet lug. To muddy the waters even more, many sporting fuzees had trap doors in the butt to keep a small bayonet. These were not military designed arms but were hunting arms.  Trade guns can fall into the fuzee categorization as well.

[The Rambling Historian]

James, correct me if I am wrong, but fuzee is just an English version of the French term "fusil" which simply refers to a gun. Isn't a fusil/fuzee usually used to refer to a multi-purpose smoothbore gun such as the fusil-de-chasse (literally a "gun of hunting") and trade guns? Today I believe the French still use the term fusil-de-chasse to refer to shotguns, but I thought I read that the term fusil comes from another French term that relates to the flintlock mechanism itself. I know that in some of the original fur trade ledgers I have seen all trade guns are just listed fusils but there were also "English rifles."

[James Rogers]

I should have clarified that I was speaking with a main focus on English terminology of the day that I have come across. Yes, it is my understanding that fuzee is from fusil. Told you the water is muddy  
Fuzee was first used to describe light fowling guns brought to England during the restoration. It was after applied to flintlocks that were neither musket or carbine but were generally smoothbored and mainly intended for ball whereas the fowling piece/shotgun was for shot.

[The Rambling Historian]

Thanks for the clarification. I figured it was something related to the general purpose use (shot or ball) vs a fowling piece (shot). I didn't realize the term had been adopted by the English that far back and actually thought it was more of a term from the colonies.

[Natureboy]

I would assume that "fusil" comes from matchlocks, but became a generic term for guns.

[The Rambling Historian]

Finally just looked it up:

FUSIL: 1670-80 French- musket, Old French fuisil, foisil steel for striking fire. Vulgar Latin focīlis, derivative of Latin focus fire.

Sounds like that definitely refers to a snaplock/flintlock not an earlier matchlock since the word it is derived from is a fire steel.

[Natureboy]

In Italian, the closest dialect from the original Latin, "fucile," pronounced foo chee lay, just means rifle.  It's easy to imagine "fuzil" coming from "fucile," just like "pasta fazul" comes from "pasta fagioli." Your derivation is very interesting, though.  Somewhere along the line the words have evolved, and it would be fun to find out when. 

[Joe S]

American made fowlers range from slender .50 caliber “Kentucky rifle” style guns to massive .80 + caliber guns with 7” long locks.  Barrels on these guns can be over 6’ long, and the butt is often over 2 ¼” thick.

Grinslade lists three characteristics to distinguish fowlers from smooth rifles; no patchbox, no spur on the trigger guard and a fowler type  return on the buttplate.  As has been said, muskets are large caliber smoothbores.  As a practical matter, there's not a whole lot of difference between a Brown Bess and some of the later Hudson Valley fowlers.  Being smoothbores, they both can shoot either ball or shot.  Bores are in the same size range too.

[Rich]

I just ordered a barrel for my next project; a smoothbore rifle. It's the last one in the Morovian book. No spur on the trigger guard, rifle type return on the butt plate, cheek piece with carving behind it, no patchbox, octagon to round barrel smoothbore barrel, the underside of the butt to the triggerguard is flat, not rounded like on a lot of fowlers. My guess is that the terminology was a lot different in the 18th century than it was today.

[nord]

Fowler vs musket is an interesting topic. Generally I agree with the above posts in that a musket is usually more bulky than a fowler, more practical or utilitarian, and often leans toward military or semi-military uses. This isn't to say that muskets haven't put food on the table or rid the homestead of unwelcome intruders.

Fowlers are generally more delicate than muskets and often are works of art in their own right. I think, though, that we need to distinguish between a classic fowler and a market gun. The former being a sporting firearm and the latter being something just short of a cannon.

Another point I've come to better understand over time is that the fowler of yesterday isn't really comparable to what we think of as a shotgun. There was a time I marveled at how anyone could accomplish a wing shot with a classic fowler. I could possibly see it in a blind or over driven game, but for upland game I could never quite wrap my mind around how it could be done. Then it came to me that hunting yesterday was not remotely the same as today. The sky today isn't filled with carrier pigeons and until recently the availability of  geese and turkey has been very limited. In other words one probably wouldn't take a fowler afield to hunt for grouse. In most upland situations a small bore rifle would have been far more practical.

Once I better understood the practices of the day, then I began to understand how a fowler was used and why. It was versatile as to what loads could be tossed. It was lighter and certainly classier than a musket of the day. Lock timing could be more precise and that long barrel could be expected to pattern better than other firearms. Our ancestors were practical people. They didn't build fowlers just for the fun of it. The fowler had a purpose and it served well until technology and the changing population of local fauna made it obsolete.

[bones92]

Thanks to all who responded.   This has been a most enlightening thread for me.

Just think, in another 8 or 10 years I'll stop asking all these newbie questions!   

[oldtravler61]

Bones92 good luck with that theory. Been doing this for alot longer than that. An I am still learning. This has been an interesting thread.

[rich pierce]

Fowling pieces which varied a lot but were designed for hunting were often converted to musket use by cutting back the fore-end and attaching a lug for a bayonet.  Then they met militia requirements, while belonging to individual civilians.

On the other hand, muskets, usually made to a pattern, being heavier in general and made for shooting round ball, could be used to shoot birds but would be pretty clunky.  Plus they belonged to the state, or colony, or crown.  Generally, military arms remained with the military.

So in general, a fowling piece could serve as a musket for a militia man, but a musket would be a poor fowling piece and civilians would not normally own one except to meet militia requirements.

Then there are trade guns, but let's lump those with fowling pieces.

[JCKelly]

Just to muddy things, antique shops, at least in Ancient Times, used to have a number of smoothbore 19th muskets were cut to half stock for use with - shot? ball?  Pretty clunky fowlers but used anyway, as absolutely nothing is more important than $$$$.

[vtbuck223]

Just to muddy things, antique shops, at least in Ancient Times, used to have a number of smoothbore 19th muskets were cut to half stock for use with - shot? ball?  Pretty clunky fowlers but used anyway, as absolutely nothing is more important than $$$$.

Usually marked "foraging gun"....

[Swab]

Fowling pieces which varied a lot but were designed for hunting were often converted to musket use by cutting back the fore-end and attaching a lug for a bayonet.  Then they met militia requirements, while belonging to individual civilians.

On the other hand, muskets, usually made to a pattern, being heavier in general and made for shooting round ball, could be used to shoot birds but would be pretty clunky.  Plus they belonged to the state, or colony, or crown.  Generally, military arms remained with the military.

So in general, a fowling piece could serve as a musket for a militia man, but a musket would be a poor fowling piece and civilians would not normally own one except to meet militia requirements.

Then there are trade guns, but let's lump those with fowling pieces.

Best description I've read.  Comparable to the difference between a ship and a boat.  While there are many definitions it can be as simple as a boat can be put on a ship but a ship can't be put on a boat.