Author Topic: x (Read 4595 times)

Carl Young · « **Reply #1 on:** June 11, 2020, 11:53:01 PM »

Kent, thank you and your friend for this. I have admired Turvey's work for many years, and this will certainly add to my knowledge of british fowlers.
I hope all is well with you and yours.
Carl

Bob McBride · « **Reply #2 on:** June 12, 2020, 03:48:43 AM »

Wow! My kindof gal. Thanks for sharing!

WESTbury · « **Reply #3 on:** June 12, 2020, 04:01:43 AM »

I knew you would like it Bob, I watched your You Tube shows. An .80 Cal lead ball would definitely put a sizable dent in some of your metal targets. "Aim center mass." as our DI's told us.

Kent

Bob McBride · « **Reply #4 on:** June 12, 2020, 04:15:06 AM »

Quote from: WESTbury on June 12, 2020, 04:01:43 AM

I knew you would like it Bob, I watched your You Tube shows. An .80 Cal lead ball would definitely put a sizable dent in some of your metal targets. "Aim center mass." as our DI's told us.

Kent

Oh, yea, she's a beaut. I'd love to hear that .80 hit my .5" AR500 full size torso target from 25y. Talk about 'gong'! I'm actually super close to commissioning an English Fowler very similar to this one....

"Center Mass"....I still remember my 'Heavy' DI's name. Sgt. Pitts.... Boy did I ever eat sand for that Devildog......

Bob McBride · « **Reply #5 on:** June 12, 2020, 06:07:33 AM »

Quote from: WESTbury on June 12, 2020, 04:44:22 AM

If you need any photos, etc when you do the build let me know.

Kent

Will do. Thanks Kent.

smart dog · « **Reply #6 on:** June 12, 2020, 01:32:07 PM »

Hi Kent,
There is something odd about the gun. William Turvey died in 1745 and his business was taken over by Jonathan Stanton. The acorn finial trigger guard on that fowler was not used until the 1770s. There is a younger William Turvey who started his career in 1750 but I cannot find any further information about him and how long he worked. I wonder if the fowler was restocked in the 1770s using older parts salvaged from a Turvey gun. I would say that nothing on the gun is out of style for guns by William Turvey (the elder) except that guard.

dave

WESTbury · « **Reply #7 on:** June 12, 2020, 02:49:05 PM »

Dave,

Thanks for your insight, appreciate it.

I know less than zilch about English civilian firearms so I'm no help on this fowler. I've never owned one or studied them. My friend thought that all of you would like to see it.

Over my 40 year plus collecting period I've observed that many civilian antique arms have been restocked, reworked, or restored including many of the rifles, etc. posted here. That is why, except for my two flint rifles I've posted on this forum, I steer clear of them.

Kent

Mike Brooks · « **Reply #8 on:** June 12, 2020, 02:50:19 PM »

That's a wonderful gun. I'll bet it's pretty large in person. That is for sure a 1770's gun, all the mounts date that way as does the lock and architecture. The only thing that is possibly older are the pipes. That particular gun is what they referred to as a "Wild fowling gun" and was owned by some guy with some money as it's really well executed. Very nice. Sure with the KRA would do a few discs on these english guns.

Pukka Bundook · « **Reply #9 on:** June 12, 2020, 04:06:24 PM »

As Smart Dog and Mike say above.

A lovely gun, but not 1740's.

I'd like to see the whole lock square -on, as it May be that age, but can't tell from the present photos.

These bank guns were sometimes called "bumpers" are were fired from a rest at wildfowl.

again West, a Lovely gun!!

James Rogers · « **Reply #10 on:** June 12, 2020, 05:25:33 PM »

I believe the lock, barrel and pipes are Turvey and the gun was restocked circa 1770s or 80s.
The pipe engraving is different from the other pieces of hardware. It has acanthus design while the other pieces are en suite with a floral motif. Jonathan Stanton was the nephew of William Turvey and he and William's son Edward apprenticed to William in the late 1730s. Stanton officially took over William's business not until 1754.
A wonderful piece.

WESTbury · « **Reply #11 on:** June 12, 2020, 05:50:19 PM »

From what I know about the Long Land and Short Land muskets, a lock from 1740's would not have a relatively straight bottom. As we know, early British Land Pattern muskets had the famous "banana" shaped locks.

smart dog · « **Reply #12 on:** June 12, 2020, 06:42:10 PM »

Hi Kent,
Many early 18th century round-faced locks used on sporting guns had fairly straight bottom edges. I believe the gun was restocked in the 1770s but I don't believe the lock, barrel,, and pipes were from that period. They could easily be the work of the elder William Turvey just reused. Note, the lock just has the head of the sear screw showing behind the flintcock. That means it has a long sear spring, which is usually an early feature of those locks. That is not definitive and the lock could be later than 1745 but look at the lock on the Turvey rifle in RCA 1. It is a pretty close match except for the frizzen spring.

dave

Mike Brooks · « **Reply #13 on:** June 12, 2020, 06:47:17 PM »

Quote from: James Rogers on June 12, 2020, 05:25:33 PM

I believe the lock, barrel and pipes are Turvey and the gun was restocked circa 1770s or 80s.
The pipe engraving is different from the other pieces of hardware. It has acanthus design while the other pieces are en suite with a floral motif. Jonathan Stanton was the nephew of William Turvey and he and William's son Edward apprenticed to William in the late 1730s. Stanton officially took over William's business not until 1754.
A wonderful piece.

It wasn't unusual to use more archaic or out of style locks on these big guns.

WESTbury · « **Reply #14 on:** June 12, 2020, 06:52:55 PM »

Thanks to all of you who responded with great info and insight. One of the great bennies of this Forum is a chance to learn.

Kent

James Rogers · « **Reply #15 on:** June 13, 2020, 01:16:10 AM »

Quote from: Mike Brooks on June 12, 2020, 06:47:17 PM

Quote from: James Rogers on June 12, 2020, 05:25:33 PM
I believe the lock, barrel and pipes are Turvey and the gun was restocked circa 1770s or 80s.
The pipe engraving is different from the other pieces of hardware. It has acanthus design while the other pieces are en suite with a floral motif. Jonathan Stanton was the nephew of William Turvey and he and William's son Edward apprenticed to William in the late 1730s. Stanton officially took over William's business not until 1754.
A wonderful piece.
It wasn't unusual to use more archaic or out of style locks on these big guns.

I almost added that myself Mike. I have observed that many of the long, waterfowling bored guns frequently utilized more old stock styles of parts especially barrels and locks. They didn't seem to need to meet the racy state of the art requirements the gentry preferred in their lighter birding pieces. Similarly the guns for export also made use of more out of style hardware.

Mike Brooks · « **Reply #16 on:** June 13, 2020, 01:36:17 PM »

Quote from: James Rogers on June 13, 2020, 01:16:10 AM

Quote from: Mike Brooks on June 12, 2020, 06:47:17 PM
Quote from: James Rogers on June 12, 2020, 05:25:33 PM
I believe the lock, barrel and pipes are Turvey and the gun was restocked circa 1770s or 80s.
The pipe engraving is different from the other pieces of hardware. It has acanthus design while the other pieces are en suite with a floral motif. Jonathan Stanton was the nephew of William Turvey and he and William's son Edward apprenticed to William in the late 1730s. Stanton officially took over William's business not until 1754.
A wonderful piece.
It wasn't unusual to use more archaic or out of style locks on these big guns.

I almost added that myself Mike. I have observed that many of the long, waterfowling bored guns frequently utilized more old stock styles of parts especially barrels and locks. They didn't seem to need to meet the racy state of the art requirements the gentry preferred in their lighter birding pieces. Similarly the guns for export also made use of more out of style hardware.

DITTO. If you remember the big blaster "Smith" gun in great British gun makers , it had a big flat archaic lock on it. All of the style rules didn't apply to these big guns even though they went to well to do sporting type gunners....don't know why. Also, the export gun's mounts could be way out of what was currently in style in england. Take the "Duncan" gun In Colonial Frontier arms. At first glance you would assume 1750-60, but its actually 1790-maybe as late as 1810.

WESTbury · « **Reply #17 on:** June 13, 2020, 03:04:13 PM »

I wonder if the turbulent times during which some of these civilian firearms were assembled had anything at all to do with the the re-use of older components. For the Brits, the 1750's through the early 18 teens were very busy from a military aspect. Some of the gunsmiths were on the Ordnance System and therefore I would think that arms for the military, and by extension their metal components, would have priority. When the Brits were not fighting the French, they were at war with Americans, Spaniards, etc, etc.

At times they were fighting all at once. I read years ago, that during the Rev War, there were more British Regiments fighting in the Carribean (spice trade) than there were in North American.

Feltwad · « **Reply #18 on:** June 13, 2020, 10:19:41 PM »

Not a Turvey fowler but a English fowler from that period
Feltwad

WESTbury · « **Reply #19 on:** June 14, 2020, 12:04:24 AM »

Nice.

Any photos of the lock, etc, etc you can share?

Feltwad · « **Reply #20 on:** June 14, 2020, 01:07:58 PM »

Enclosed is one photo of the lock not a good one but enlarge for more detail
Feltwad

News:

Author Topic: x (Read 4595 times)