Ray, the owner of the fowler, has requested that I post this for him.
Hello to all of you contributors to the Forum in response to the Fort Fowler, now Thomas Fowler. I’m Ray, the long absent owner of this lovely and very interesting mid-eighteenth century gun. I’m a convert to your collective opinions as to the gun’s age! I want to thank you all for your contributions to the discussion, it has helped immensely in our efforts to learn more about the fowler. Jim K, you commented that the owner “knows nothing about 17th and 18th century fowlers”. It doesn’t upset me because you’re 90% correct. Brief background: I am the son of a gun collector who had started collecting before WW II and bought me my first gun when I was 10, a little 20 ga.. So I have been collecting for 70 yrs. At first, with Dad, a very eclectic approach, then a growing focus on British Military Weapons, that fascination lasted for 50 years, until finally I decided to change focus. I gradually divested myself of all the British military stuff and began to collect double barrel, flint and percussion shotguns. I now have a modest collection of doubles with a number of fowlers to boot. None of these match the age or quality of the Thomas fowler. You can see that, although I’ve been around guns for, literally all my 80 yrs, my fowling gun experience is very limited, so again thank you all and a special thanks to my friend, Bluenoser, who encouraged me to let him put the gun on the American Long Rifle Forum because he considers it an interesting piece worthy of discussion. I agreed. We began with some assumptions as you know and he took some tough remarks, but stuck to the objective. We have been rewarded with some excellent info and theories.
Here’s what I believe we now know:
The gun is mid 18th century by all evidence, except the barrel.
The barrel is likely some 50 yrs earlier and was either a reused or unused barrel that came into that later maker’s hands. It was probably altered at the breech to accommodate a hooked breech and proved at that time with the maker’s mark: crown over HT
The gun is of mid to high quality, based on its silver side plate, the silver spider foresight, its silver wire inletting around the breech tang and its silver escutcheon which contains the initials in script “R W” and above that a lion wearing a crown. This has long been a symbol of nobility. Illustration, #196 in Neal & Back’s book( yes, I bought it! Ouch!), shows an elaborate escutcheon with a crown and what looks like a lion above it. Also #344 & 445 with the crown above the lion. #348, I can’t tell what is on the oval of it but the eagle on top pretty much matches the on on the Thomas. These guns were all owned by members of the aristocracy. Were it still flint and in better condition, it wouldn’t look out of place beside these guns in my opinion. I would certainly love to know who R W was!
What is unknown or theorized about the gun:
There is a pin securing the bottom of the standing breech, I suppose to add further strength. I know that John Manton used a much stronger system where the lock bolt actually went through the standing breech, but I’m wondering if this earlier feature was a common feature and when it might have been introduced. I have not seen it in later period fowlers
Is it unusual to see an iron ramrod? I believe it is original to the gun for a few reasons: it shows the same amount of wear, excluding the silver furniture, the rest of the furniture is iron, the ramrod pipes are all damaged around the ends and I doubt a brass-tipped wooden rammer would have caused that much damage, also the pipes seem too small to accommodate a wooden rammer. The ramrod has a forged screw at the end, although the tip is broken off, and it is the correct length for the barrel. We know the barrel is very close to original 1770s length because of the spider foresight.
It looks like it may have had a nose cap originally and the stock does not go right to the muzzle. The barrel may have been shortened, perhaps at the time of the conversion of the barrel to accommodate the hooked breech. When the new stock was built around the older barrel, the maker may have decided to drop the stock back a bit from the muzzle and add a nose cap.
Does this seem like a normal procedure for the mid 18th century? There is no hole to indicate a small retention screw or rivet. Could it have been a wrapped sheet metal, iron or silver, as I have seen on some muskets around that same period?
The lock is quite unique with the split sear mechanism. The stirruped main spring is also an innovation of the period. Do you agree that the lock is original to the gun? The name on the lock appears to be “Thomas” in script. The initials on the barrel are HT. We have found 3 guns so far from the mid to late 18th century with Thomas on the lock, one ascribed to a Henry Thomas, there are several features on the lock plates that line up with our Thomas lock, however, all 3 have the signature in block letters rather than in script. The “PRO”, “VED” marks on the barrel would indicate a Birmingham proved barrel. Blackmore, in “Gunmakers of London”, lists quite a few Thomas’s, but the info on Provincial makers is far less thorough. Can anyone shed further light on Thomas’s of provincial origin? Show further examples of Thomas labelled guns?
I have rattled on far too long and hope I haven’t bored you to death. I should probably join the Forum but will have to wait until the New Year as I am very busy right now. Please let us know if I have mis-stated anything or if you have anything further to add to the conversation.
Again many thanks to you all!
Ray
