What say ye about this fowler?

[bluenoser]

This fowler caught my interest, the price was right and it looked to be an interesting restoration project, so it followed me home.











I am most anxious to see what our more learned members might have to say about it.
I had initially thought the stock might be English walnut and that it might be an English export-grade fowling piece that was originally a full-stock flint.  The Joseph Golcher percussion lock is an obvious replacement and the original lock had two lock nails



Upon closer examination- and especially after removing the barrel - I am pretty certain it is cherry.



At least some of the fittings appear to be re-used salvaged parts.  Note the military(?) engraving on the buttplate extension.




The lack of a relief cut in the lock mortise for the shelf on a flint hammer might suggest this was never a flinter.  I look forward to hearing what more knowledgeable members have to say.


The 41 3/4" barrel has a 0.665" bore.  The tapered octagon portion measures 1.033" at the breech and gently transitions to round.  A narrow flat sighting plane runs from the breech to the muzzle.  There are two lugs in close proximity to each other close to the breech and remnants of earlier dovetails before and between the two lugs as well as 25"-25.5" ahead of the breech.  There is also a groove 2" ahead of the breech - perhaps for a lock nail.  I suspect the barrel may have been shortened at the breech.






The tang is held in place by a wood screw and the barrel pins are forged iron.  The tang screw is shown between two modern wood screws for comparison.


One of the original lock nails - complete with a leather washer was used to secure the percussion lock.


The left side panel differs from the lock panel in the top front, and is something I had not previously seen.


During an internet search, I found one other fowler, reported to be a New England fowler, having a similarly shaped side panel.

Photo credit to Bruneau and Co. Auctioneers
https:   //bidlive.bruneauandco.com/lots/view/1-8L9AF6/new-england-style-fowling-piece
(remove the spaces after "https:" to view)
The lock nail washers (if any) also appear to be similar to what this fowler might have had.

Although the stock ahead of the wrist has a dainty appearance, the wrist and butt have, in my opinion, a decidedly beefy appearance.



In addition, the butt has an odd transition down in width to the buttplate that starts approximately 3/4" ahead of the buttplate.  The buttplate is 1.625" wide at the mid point.  The butt is 1.740" wide 1/2"-3/4" ahead of the buttplate.



The upper pipe is just under 3/8" in diameter.  The mid pipe is 5/16" and the entry pipe and RR groove are just under 5/16" (19/64").
I now believe this is likely a New England-built fowler assembled from salvaged parts and look forward to seeing what our much more knowledgeable colleagues have to say.
I would be pleased to add photos and details upon request.
Thank you for taking the time to read through this lengthy post.

[JV Puleo]

It looks to have been made up in the percussion era using at least the trigger guard and butt plate from an older, India pattern musket.

[bluenoser]

Thank you for your reply.
Fulminate pitting on the barrel above the drum suggests the drum has been on the gun significantly longer than the current lock which, I suspect, might have been installed well into the 20th century.  Based on the two holes and the current lock bolt, I believe the gun was likely built using a converted flint lock.  Alternately, it might have been built as a flint and the lock later converted to percussion, but the lack of pitting around what would have been the flash hole doesn't seem to support that.
Could you expand on the reasoning behind your comment?

[Mike Brooks]

Parts is parts.

[bluenoser]

 
Sorry Mike.  I fail to understand what you are saying.
I believe most of us strive to understand the history of pieces we own or are working on.  In this case, understanding the piece was likely built as a percussion, and was likely fitted with a converted flintlock is pretty valuable information when it comes to restoration.  There are a number of other things I need to sort out before I would do a restoration.

If you are referring to the reference to JV P's post, understanding why he believes it was made in the percussion era is an opportunity for me to learn from one of our more learned members. 

[Mike Brooks]

It was stocked up using previously used parts.

[bluenoser]

I mentioned that in the initial post.  I believe it is safe to say all of the parts are reused.

[JV Puleo]

Why do I think that it was made as percussion...the stock is a bit clumsy and of a rather late configuration. There is no notch at the top of the lock inlet for a flint cock. The butt plate is the most interesting part to me...it looks as if it may be regimentally marked but the markings are not consistent with the manner in which they were usually done. Exactly what they mean will be a mystery until an intact and similarly marked gun shows up and even that may not answer the question. The lock was always percussion and despite the fact that the inlet is poor it looks to me as if it is the original one on  the gun. The barrel was clearly reused from a previous gun and one of the ramrod pipes looks to have come from the same musket the butt plate came from. The trigger guard probably also came from that gun but it's impossible to tell from photos what the exact size is...it's an British Ordnance pattern and probably went with the butt plate.

If the marking is for the 9th Foot (and that is problematical at best) they surrendered at Saratoga and were interned as part of the convention army. All of their arms were captured and we can presume were reused by the Continental Army so there is good reason to think bits and pieces of them would be circulating 40 or 50 years later.

[Mike Brooks]

I mentioned that in the initial post.  I believe it is safe to say all of the parts are reused.

And that's why I said parts is parts.

[Jennison]

Hi:  I just noticed this post.  What I think you have is a 20th century “Blue Point Special.”   That’s an archaic, mildly pejorative term for parts guns made on Blue Point, Long Island by the Bannerman family. A friend of mine had one years ago that looked quite similar to yours, especially the ponderous stock Joe mentioned (his had a Spanish barrel band if I remember and not wire).  I wouldn’t fret though, even if it has little collector value as a whole gun, because Bannerman’s is now part of American mercantilistic history; it is indeed an interesting piece!  You might even have some collectible British martial parts.  In fact, if you were to ask a Bannerman’s salesman in 1925 whether the gun was a collector piece, you would have received a Brooksian answer:  “parts is parts.”  I don’t know where you found your piece, but for some reason Bannerman guns were popular in Eastern Canada into the 1950s, at least that’s what I was told. Perhaps because of firearms laws?  I don’t know.  Cherish it!

[bluenoser]

JV P,
Thank you for taking the time to put together that explanation.  Understand WHY a piece dates to a certain era, as opposed to simply KNOWING it dates to the era, will help in future.  It is akin to teaching a man to fish rather than simply giving him a fish.
I believe the lock is unlikely to be the original for the following reasons:
Although it is a remarkably close fit, the lock is smaller than the inlet in all directions, and particularly at the nose.  Small nails have been put all around the perimeter of the inlet to keep the lock from falling in;
It seems obvious two lock bolts were once used, while this lock never had a second bolt;
The bolt that held the lock on appears much older than the lock, and it fits the holes in the stock.  It has a coarse tapered thread that was wedged into the finer threaded hole in the lock.
If my reasoning is flawed, I would appreciate understanding why.






The second big question I have about this piece is whether or not it was once full stocked.  At the moment, I am firmly on the fence, but leaning toward full stock primarily due to the location of the two lower barrel pins.  They appear to be too far toward the breech to be the only pins.  There is no evidence of a pin having been in the vicinity of the middle pipe.  The two pins in such close proximity to each other is quite puzzling.

Jennison,
That is an interesting observation, but I do not believe this is a Bannerman Special.  All considered, I doubt it was assembled in the 20th century.  I am familiar with Bannerman's, and have two other pieces I suspect might have come from there.  Neither of those is a Bannerman Special, but I have seen others I believed to be.
This piece was found along the South shore of Nova Scotia and there is a good reason so many "Bannerman guns" show up in the area.  There was a flourishing coastal trade between Nova Scotia, Southern New Brunswick and the North Eastern seaboard of the US in the 19th and early 20th centuries.  I am sure many a seaman visited Bannerman's while docked in New York.

[JV Puleo]

I missed the two lock bolts. I'm sure you are correct in that it is a replacement.
That said, I suspect the switch was made when the gun was in everyday use. Trade locks were made in vast quantities by specialized lo0ck makers. It would be impossible to make that many if they were each "one of a kind." In period, when the hardware dealer may have had a gross of locks it would have been much easier to find one that was very close in size to the original, especially if they came from the same manufacturer. This was also true earlier, with trade quality flintlocks.

[bluenoser]

Based on the crudeness of the work and the condition of the hammer nose, I believe the switch was likely made at the tail end of the gun's useful life.  I believe the original lock was likely a converted flint trade lock.  The surviving lock bolt would seem to suggest the original lock was an older reused item - which would be in keeping with the other components.  Finding a suitable replacement will likely be a challenge.

The remaining big question is - was it originally a full stock or a 3/4 stock.  I am leaning toward full stock, but am not entirely off the fence and would like to see what others might think.