General discussion > Antique Gun Collecting

English Fowler?????

(1/4) > >>

Longknife:
Here are some pictures of the fowler with the proof marks I was searching for. The quality and worknanship does not meet English standards ( in my opinion) although it does have English propofs on the barrel. The engraving leaves a lot to be desired, The lock needs some major tuning to get it working right, frizzen hits hammer and will not close at 1/2 cock, frizzen is soft and will not spark at all, main spring is real weak, touch hole drilled at bottom of pan. This does not have a hooked breech. There is a major re[paired break in the fore end. The upside is I really think this gun was NEVER FIRED, how could it with a soft frizzen and weak spring? The long 43 3/4 inch 16 ga. barrel is bright and shiney inside and out!!!!Now do I keep it or send it back?????Whats it worth????

Longknife:

E.vonAschwege:
Hey! Cool!!!  I'm looking at a brother to the gun I own.  Mine is in a state of disrepair... the stock was full of dry rot when I got it, triggerguard bent and torn out of the mortice, well pitted percussion conversion, etc... BUT the engraving is identical on the triggerguard, similar on the buttplate, same lock bolt heads and washers, same architecture, etc.  Yours appears to have been nicer quality from the start.  With the lock reworked you might have a nice shooter if the bore is ok. 

There are some things that jump out to me as not being right.  I might be way off, I'm just telling what I see from the pictures, so please take this with a grain of salt.  I think it's been restored at some point, the barrel cleaned up and the lock reconverted.  The stock and brass bits look just right... they've got lots of bumps, scratches, and evidence of use (especially a broken forestock).  Stock might have been refinished, the details at the tail of the lock panels are really worn down, but have nice finish.  Likewise, I get the feeling the checkering might be newer too. 

The engraving at the tail of the lock is good, what's left of it is pretty typical of the lower to mid grade English locks of the time.  The engraving under the pan is newer, by a different and unpracticed hand.  Also like you said, it could have never been fired with such a soft frizzen and geometry like that. 

The barrel is what I realy don't get... it's beautiful.  The front sight is really nice, no evidence of pitting anywhere up and down, and still looks like a tight fit in the stock.  It appears to have the same sheen as the lock does.  I dunno!?? 

Regardless of its past, It's a very nice gun with great lines and looks.  The stock on mine is mahogany (yep!!), I can't tell what yours is.  I'll take some photos of mine for comparison.  Thanks for sharing!
-Eric

PS, does the buttstock seem heavy at all?  Mine had 1lb of lead poured into it, but I don't know if it's originl or done afterwards. 

Robert Wolfe:
I think Eric is onto it. I would guess the barrel has been heavily restored and the lock reconverted (or at least replaced a missing hammer). Sombody was looking to make a shooter out of it but did not finish the job?

mr. no gold:
Good comments fellows. My take is that the gun (somewhat used) has been treated to a process referred to as 'museum polishing' which you find amongst the Englishes. Most guns in British museums have been treated to this beautification. They don't usually touch the wood save perhaps for a coat of varnish. Just my first thoughts on looking at what is without doubt a nice single barrel fowler.
Regards-Dick

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page