Hi,
I got a lot of work done on the fowler. As Jim Chambers commented on this thread, British guns are sophisticated compared to concurrent American-made guns. However, based on my research and experience, much of that sophistication actually made these guns easier to produce. British makers in the mid-18th century did not fuss overly about lock moldings, symmetry with respect to lock panels, moldings along ramrod grooves, or muzzles. The gun stockers seemed to have a basic formula that they adhered to and that formula was well developed, elegant, and easy to reproduce if you understand it. Those are a combination of features that should appeal to the heart of a private businessman seeking profit. They appealed to the fashions of men who were not living by the fruits of their guns unless they were soldiers. The maker had a general formula for a gun. If the client wanted something different or more ornate, the gun maker simply farmed out the decorative work to the silversmith, wire inlayer, and engraver. The maker was more of a general contractor than a working gunsmith. This is born out by a legal case brought by John Hirst in 1747 against proscriptions by the gunmaker's guild of London. Borrowing from Blackmore:
"Matters came to a head in 1747 when the Company brought John Hirst before the court of King's Bench for using the art, mystery, and manual occupation of a gun-maker contrary to the terms of the Elizabethan statute (defining a guild supported by 7-year apprenticeships and other restrictions in London). Hirst argued before the court saying, the Gun-Makers business in and about London was now divided into 21 different branches and looked upon as so many distinct trades; barrel forger, breech forger, barrel filer, barrel polisher, barrel loopmaker, lock forger, lock filer, lock polisher, lock hardener, trigger and nail forger, trigger and nail filer, stock maker, furniture forger or founder, furniture filer and cutter, tip and pipe maker, side piece and thumb piece repairer and polisher, engraver, bluer, stick maker, flint maker, and mounter or screwer together. John Hirst then asserted that the Master Gunmakers in London after they receive the several parts of the gun from the respective makers, only screw those parts together."
Hirst, who eventually was very successful in the business, then produced a fine gun which he forged, filed, stocked, and completed himself from beginning to end, proving his qualifications and challenging his London colleagues to do the same. Needless to say, he won his case.
Panels or moldings surrounding locks on British guns during the mid-18th century were narrow. They were almost vanishingly small if a large round-faced lock was used. The flats generally were a little larger if the lock was flat-faced but that was usually because the lock dimensions were a little smaller. The edges of the moldings outline the beaver tails and often most of the rest of the panels but they do not necessarily go all the way around the panels. In my case, I cut the moldings to encompass most of the panels but they fade out on the bottom before reaching the front curves of the panels. That is how my original brass mounted fowler was done. On my Heylin fowler, the edge of the molding only outlines the beaver tails and extend just a little forward before fading out. Occasionally, you will find a British fowler with carved moldings, perhaps even with some volutes or leaves incorporated in the design. On some there are also the aprons or shields surrounding the front of the panel like we find on many German and American rifles. However, in most cases, the moldings appear to be pretty simple and the gun stockers did not fuss a lot in carving them. Typically, the moldings are small and slightly concave, flat or slightly rounded over. On my gun I cut them a little larger than they will likely be when finished. There will eventually be almost no flats showing around the lock except at the front and rear. Another detail to understand is that that British makers were not fussy about making the side plate panel be the symmetric mirror image of the lock side panel. They shaped the panels to fit the object encompassed so that my side plate panel is shaped to fit the side plate, not to match the lock side, and the side plate really fills up the space. Even solid side plates tended to fill the space.
After shaping the lock panel moldings, my next job was to carve the rococo shell around the standing breech tang. If you viewed 100 British fowlers from this period, probably 75 would have some sort of shell carving around the tang. This was usually the only location on the gun with carving although there certainly are exceptions, and the British did not seem to be a very creative lot because the carvings generally follow a few formulas. The Griffins usually carved a weird folded shell, which I don't find particularly appealing. Some carved shells that looped or folded in from one side or the other, and then there was the classic symmetrical shell, that looked like a shell with flowing tendrils bordering the sides of the tang. This is the design I use and I am copying the tang carving on my English rifle. After drawing the design on the wood, I use my micro chisels to stab in the outline and then use my palm chisels to relieve the background. I won't carve the details yet until after I finish the final shaping and scraping of the rest of the stock. That final detail is one of the last tasks I will do before applying stain and finish.
I wet the wood again to see the figure. The gun is starting to look like something now.
More to come.
dave
