I think they are referring to enlarging from the muzzle itself down a few inches like we would think of the inside of a blunderbuss.
According to J.N. George concerning smooth bores in the early 18th century in "English Guns and Rifles"... "The fowling piece proper was, moreover, distinguished from the "fusil" by the form of it's barrel, which was not only considerably lighter than that of the ball gun, but was flared or enlarged at the muzzle, instead of being bored in true cylinder.... "
Keep in mind that I directly quoted a book published in 1718, that was said by the translator and editor to have been in the works for many years prior, and the book, in turn, quoted another named book from the late 1600s for the proposition that hail-shot patterns could be enhanced by the barrel maker. My point was (and is) that the manipulation of the bore diameter somewhere near the muzzle to produce a close shooting scatter gun was practiced long before Fred Kimble (with the help of Charles Askins and Wm. Hazelton) decided in about 1910 that he had invented the procedure in 1868.
A modern 12-bore restricted to 16-bore is full choke; a 17th century 12-bore fowling piece relieved to 10-bore is hardly a blunderbuss. It is not perfectly clear whether the author advised the barrel maker to relieve at 2 or 3 fingers behind the muzzle (thus allowing for a slight constriction at the muzzle), or to relieve starting at the muzzle in to 2 or 3 fingers deep. The point, however, was (and is) that the hail-shot patterns could be enhanced by manipulation of bore diameter somewhere near the muzzle.
As to "J. N. George," no such person is named in my bibliographic references of British or American gunning books from the beginning of time through 1950. When I spout off I quote original sources, and let the reader decide for himself. I have read the English scatter-gun-related books starting with Blome's
Gentlemans Recreation starting in 1686, and have photocopies of most everything pre-WWI that I do not actually own as an original or reprint. But as to English books pre-dating Col. Hawker in 1818, almost all are acknowledged to be heavily sourced to foreign gunning literature, mostly French. And much of it was not very time sensitive, given the necessary translation.
The earliest reference to what one might call "choke boring" that I can find in the English language literature of our sport is Col. Hawker's
Instructions to Young Sportsmen first published ca.1818 (I do not have the 1818 first ed. but do have the 1833 7th edition and 1846 American version of his 9th ed.). According to Hawker in 1833 (and possibly prior), a common 14-gauge double gun by Lancaster was bored cylinder for 21 inches from the breech, then "relief" for 6 inches, then "tight behind" for the remaining 6 inches to the muzzle. Hawker distinguished the boring of flint and percussion; the advent of percussion was in the 1820s (albeit invented in 1807), so the reference to "tight behind" was probably not in his first edition in 1818. But the relieving of the cylinder bore forward of the breech and then constricting the relief at the muzzle probably pre-dates the 1833 7the edition. Investigation continues.
Hawker let the choke-boring cat out of the bag as early as 1833, but going back to my English research documents of the 1600s and 1700s, I can find no rational discussion of manipulating the barrel bores to create close shooting. I believe it is a fact, however, that the English relied heavily on foreign makers and imported barrels until the days of Joe Manton (ca.1800 et seq). This is apparent in
The Art of Shooting Flying by Thomas Page (London 1766) where the entire 12-page dialogue upon barrels relates to length versus pattern and credits the Spanish:
"[Are]...Spanish barrels really better than the English ones of the same weight...?" asks Friendly (the student/customer).
Aimwell (the teacher/gun maker) answers: "The repute of the Spanish barrels arose chiefly of their lengths...[yet]...the foreigners have found our foible in that if they are far fetched and dear bought, they are sure to please."
Friendly concludes that Spanish barrels are best by virtue of length and weight and strength, after shooting
fifteen different guns with various loads at 20-, 30-, 40-, and 50-yards at a "large brown sheet of paper" and afterward counting shot holes. Never once is the manipulation of bore-size mentioned in this extensive source of ca.1766 British shotgun ballistics.
John Acton in his
Essay on Shooting (London 1789-1791) has a number of chapters on forging, boring and dressing of barrels, and Chapter IX is titled: "Of the Means Which Have Been Employed to Improve the Shot of Fowling-pieces." Unfortunately I don't have a copy of this chapter in my file, but given that Hawker seemed to associate choke boring by relief and/or restricting) with the advent of percussion, it is probable that the English language books of the 1700s would not mention that which began this thread: The Portuguese gun maker's procedure of going in two or three fingers from the muzzle of a 12-bore and relieving it to 10-bore. And by the way, The Perfect Gun mentioned the intentional roughness of the barrel bore as affecting close shooting.
In conclusion, any conclusion by J. N. George in some latter-day book about early 18th century English scatter guns would be in the context of guns made in whole or in part on the continent. The English lagged the continental makers until Joe Manton and his contemporaries in England finally got up to speed ca.1800 et seq. All the barrels that struck the British fancy were sourced from Spain and Portugal (and other continental barrel makers), starting in the 1500s through , say, 1766 (so says Thomas Page of Norwich, England).
The book I cited--
The Perfect Gun (Lisbon 1718)--is a worthwhile read if you can find a copy. Investigation continues. EDM
