Caywood Flintlock

Status
Not open for further replies.

gizamo

Member
Joined
Dec 26, 2007
Messages
440
Danny Caywood is the maker of fine semi-custom guns. Frankly, they are built the same as a custom gun would be done...just in multiples. His workmanship is really first rate.

This is in a Flintlock English Fowler pattern and in 20 Gauge. I have a similiar percussion Caywood that is made to represent a Flintlock conversion from the 1820's. Both guns are light and lively even with their 42 inch barrels.

The first thing you'll notice is how incredibly light these guns are. Despite their lengthy, 41 1/2-inch barrels, they weigh only about six pounds.

The reason for this is twofold. First, the barrel is made heavy and strong where it needs to be, but light elsewhere (as were best-grade originals).

The barrel's breech is octagonal, tapering to a point 13 inches up the tube where it transitions to round with an attractive "wedding ring" design. The barrel's round section is not uniform in diameter, but tapers to a waist about a foot from the muzzle, after which it flares slightly. This puts a little extra weight at the muzzle, making it more durable and giving a better feel in offhand shooting.

The second reason these guns are so light is because they are built correctly. That's to say they carry no excess wood at all. The entire stock is delicately shaped, with the long forend especially light and slim.
Caywood003.jpg

The problem with posting pictures of these guns ...is the fact that they truly are long guns. The barrel on this one measures near 42 inches by itself. What you learn over the years is that you pay for what the maker takes away ;)

To get such a gun to weigh just 6 pounds, yet have a full-stock is an artform unto itself. No modern guns have swamped barrels, yet the older makers understood the need for such.

Guess my point is, that in order to show the whole gun in a picture, you lose much of the amazing detail that is a part of the whole....

Caywood005-1.jpg


Caywood.jpg
 
That is a beautiful gun, gizamo!

I like the rear sight. Most fowlers I see do not have them, but I always thought that if I had a choice, I would add one. I am always told that they are not historically accurate, and that I should be able to aim without one......

Again, what a beauty!

Bob
 
Who thinks a rear sight is not 'historically accurate'? That's a sign of great ignorance. SOME antique long arms had none, and SOME modern replications of antique rear sights are not accurate, but to say that as a class antique long arms had none, well, like many such generalizations, that's a bit over the top.
 
I'm sorry if I was not clear. I only meant that I was told that rear sights are not historically accurate on fowlers, not all long arms.

Bob
 
Last edited:
Mykeal
"Who thinks a rear sight is not 'historically accurate'? That's a sign of great ignorance."



Mykeal....Frankly, that is more then overbearing. I'm taken aback by your attitude lately. That kind of crap doesn't belong in this forum. When did you self-appoint yourself into a position to take a newer member and treat him like that! Just who do you think you are?

If that is the best you have to offer, stay out of this thread....



And for Bob,

Don't worry about your meaning. I know many experts that have argued this point over the years. Some would point to the rear sights being added to the gun after manufacture.

Truth be told, there are many examples of Fowlers with the addtition of rear sights.....

And here's something I can relate to. Some of them have multiple rear sight locations starting at the octagonal part of the barrel and then extending forward to past the transition to round....

As eyes age, so does the position of advantage on how far forward the rear sight might be set...

Ask me how I know...LOL!

giz
 
Last edited:
I saw a similar but probably earlier period light fowler built by the late Ron Ehlert. He also had along the original light fowler he had modeled it after. The owner was about 6'4", had hunted with the original, and wanted a gun stocked to suit him, so he had it reproduced with a longer stock.

I thought that was quite the nicest muzzleloader I had ever seen. Had I lived back then, that would have been my gun. Partly because it is a lot lighter to carry than the crowbar of a Pensy rifle, but also because I can't see well enough without Mr Franklin's spectacles to get much use out of a rifle.
 
Dave...thanks.

The latter iteration of the same gun would have happened in the 1820's and shown signs of a percussion conversion from a Flintlock. Basically, all things being the same ~ except the conversion...

That would make an interesting gun! Think that the Brits started this in about 1820 and it was the mid twenties before the Colonies started to see such conversions....

giz
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top