Post by: rldarmstr on February 07, 2015, 10:18:27 AM
Now that I am retired and have an assemblage of parts lingering in my workshop I thought I would build a few more to use up the parts and pass the time. My question then is this: I have seen many rifles and smooth bore muskets (non-military) with the barrel and many times also the lock left in the white. A smattering of irregular and spotty rust or stains typical of an older firearm that had accumulated moisture and left standing for awhile, appear to have been created on the metal surfaces. How is this done? Is it as simple as placing the barrel in a moist environment and then leaving to rust or is there a treatment that creates this effect?
Also is there a rhyme or reason to what period or type muzzleloader that this effect is specific to? I have seen pictures of flint rifles, flint muskets, and even a half stock percussion original, that had a barrel in the white with random staining.
Enlightenment is always appreciated.
Robert
Post by: Hanshi on February 07, 2015, 03:27:03 PM
Post by: Stormrider51 on February 07, 2015, 08:50:22 PM
Storm
Post by: Rocklock on February 07, 2015, 10:27:33 PM
Post by: RobD on February 08, 2015, 05:51:58 AM
Post by: Kermit on February 08, 2015, 01:18:24 PM
AmericanLongRifles Forums - Index (http://www.americanlongrifles.org/forum/)
Post by: Hanshi on February 08, 2015, 01:53:30 PM
Post by: RobD on February 08, 2015, 03:42:43 PM
Post by: Stormrider51 on February 09, 2015, 12:30:47 AM
Storm
Post by: RobD on February 09, 2015, 05:32:49 AM
Quote
The average colonist, if they could afford a firearm at all, wanted something plain but functional. Parts scavenged from a military musket would do. (I'm reminded of all the military Mausers and Springfields I saw over the years that were "sporterized" by the owner. This often amounted to shortening the military stock.) Wealthier colonists could afford more expensive arms and the degree of fit and finish no doubt reflected this. When it came to finish, almost anything is HC.spot on - amen and thank ye, brother storm.
Post by: Captchee on February 11, 2015, 08:27:54 AM
Quote
lemme ask - does anyone, anywhere, know for sure just went down with all the folks of that 18th century era?
I cant see how any one would be able to claim to say that RFD .
For the most part what I have found through the years is that unless your recreating an exact copy of a documented piece , you follow what can be most commonly documented ..
In some cases like with Trade guns and military muskets , we do run across description telling us what was accepted and what was not in the for of correspondences .
In the case of rifles , we don’t often see those writings .
Thus folks look to other sources like advertising to see what may have been popular for a given item or time .
Does that mean it’s the only way , no not at all . One should never say never .
But just like today , fads come and go , things change.
Today I do as much French grey as I do brown . Not much call for fire or charcoal blues , but there is some .
To get the finish being ask about the easiest way is to just leave the barrel in the bright and let it age naturally. If that’s not an option , then when cleaning it wipe the barrel down with a dirty cleaning patch . Then let it set . Keep an eye on it and when you reach the desired color , clean it and oil it .
Past that there is all manor of ways to achieve the aged look to a gun from stains , dies , vinegar , Clorox treatments down to just letting someone with sweaty hands tough the gun .
Post by: RobD on February 11, 2015, 08:38:49 AM
Quote from: "Captchee"
Quotelemme ask - does anyone, anywhere, know for sure just went down with all the folks of that 18th century era?
I cant see how any one would be able to claim to say that RFD .
For the most part what I have found through the years is that unless your recreating an exact copy of a documented piece , you follow what can be most commonly documented ..
In some cases like with Trade guns and military muskets , we do run across description telling us what was accepted and what was not in the for of correspondences .
In the case of rifles , we don’t often see those writings .
Thus folks look to other sources like advertising to see what may have been popular for a given item or time .
Does that mean it’s the only way , no not at all . One should never say never .
But just like today , fads come and go , things change.
Today I do as much French grey as I do brown . Not much call for fire or charcoal blues , but there is some .
To get the finish being ask about the easiest way is to just leave the barrel in the bright and let it age naturally. If that’s not an option , then when cleaning it wipe the barrel down with a dirty cleaning patch . Then let it set . Keep an eye on it and when you reach the desired color , clean it and oil it .
Past that there is all manor of ways to achieve the aged look to a gun from stains , dies , vinegar , Clorox treatments down to just letting someone with sweaty hands tough the gun .
iow, from an 18th century perspective, anything goes and anything went, so many choices, so many results.
Post by: Eric Krewson on February 11, 2015, 05:59:34 PM
(http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v181/ekrewson/English%20Fowler/rearsight001_zpsa93c84d8.jpg) (http://http)
Post by: Captchee on February 11, 2015, 07:34:28 PM
Both are 18th century but both would be wrong for the place .
Or for a more recent , example lets use the current AR faze .
The ones I carried while in the service , look nothing like the ones you see today
The stock was all plastic and the color was powder coat black . But today they range from Remington green , to tan to black to even grey . Not to mention having all manor of aluminum, carbon fiber ……..
If someone were to ask 100 years from now what an AR15 looked like in the 21st century should we say .
“From a 21st century perspective, anything goes and anything went, so many choices, so many resultsâ€
We could if we wanted to be generic . But would that be doing justice to what was actually happening or what was going on that caused the start of the change and then further validate it by when the fad died down .
So while I understand what your saying . I think it all really depends on what one is trying to do or wants to do . If not , could we then not say a Flintlock TC hawkens was 18th century ?
After all it does look somewhat like a European sporting rifle .
So myself , I think if someone is just doing a generic from no real maker from the later 18th century . Then yep , brown , fire blue , charcoal blue , Rust blue or black , French grey… all would be acceptable .
But if your really going to get to the nuts and bolts and recreate an actual piece then one should do what can be documented as being done by the maker.
If that’s not important , then run with it . After all it’s a persons gun and they should be free to do as they like .
I actually saw a Lancaster long rifle , in flint , stocked with a blue laminated stock .
Seemed rather odd while at the same time interesting . 18th century MMMM IMO no . but then , at the same time the history of laminated wood goes by to the Pharos of Egypt so who is to say that someone somewhere dint make a gun stock from it .
any thats my point IE cominality of place and time
Post by: Kermit on February 12, 2015, 05:35:32 PM
Thanks, Cap, for responding to the request for "enlightenment." I didn't see a request for opinion or poetic license.
Post by: prairie dog on February 12, 2015, 10:32:39 PM
Dang if I understand the desire to artificially age a piece. My stuff starts looking old the moment I handle it. :lol:
Post by: RobD on February 13, 2015, 05:39:38 AM
finish protecting gun metal is "period correct".
artificially aging gun metal to look old is just bogus.
like most of the stuff dealing with things of ancient age, where much of things that life era are at least somewhat theoretical, it's all good and the historical period correct police aren't required for the most part.
Post by: Captchee on February 13, 2015, 08:35:38 AM
Im also not into the whole aging thing . I spend to much time working on theses guns to beat them up with a chain or pit the barrels so as to make them look old .
I think all to often we forget that in the age these guns were produce , they should not look like a 200 year old piece . that’s my opinion anyway
I too have grown to like either bright work or the different stages of grey that results form a piece being left in the bright OR having aged after havening a period blue.
When it comes to the period police , “LOL “
I would agree that depending on the circumstance , they may not be needed.
I get in trouble a lot over the guns I build because I don’t for the most part build copies. If I like an item , be it a different butt plate , side plate , engraving ….. I use it ..
At the same time however I also understand the need for the period police . They remind us of what is documented , what can be proven , what was the most common …. And frankly if it wasn’t for the more hard core among them , we most likely would not have the largest % of the documental information we have today .
After all , if not for them , who among us would take the time to bring forwards the knowledge we have on Lewis and Clark, the fur trade ledgers of companies like HB and others . How about the diaries and correspondence we would have much of the information surrounding the early trade , thus what the guns looked like and why
I also submit that if it wasn’t for those historians that roam among us , we very well may be even more likely to repeat the failures of the past .
Myself I was doing this in a time when there was no internet. Most of us had never seen an original long rifle no less a true hawkens . Those of us that had were sometimes lucky enough to get a photo published in some obscure print.
We did have people like Pope , Hansen ,Lindsey, Shumway … who back then had enough since to see a history being lost and thankfully , become the so called period police of the day .
Without them , we not have much of the base knowledge and historical understanding we have today .
So at least for myself , when it comes to those period police , I lend a bent ear . That doesn’t mean I have to apply what they say . Nope , I can give them a 2 thumbs up , as I smile and walk away so as to continue doing what I want, sound in the knowledge that while it may not be period , it is what I want and what I like
Post by: RobD on February 13, 2015, 08:55:40 AM
Quote from: "Captchee"
... When it comes to the period police , “LOL “
I would agree that depending on the circumstance , they may not be needed. ... At the same time however I also understand the need for the period police . They remind us of what is documented , what can be proven , what was the most common …. And frankly if it wasn’t for the more hard core among them , we most likely would not have the largest % of the documental information we have today ....
yes, i agree. proven historical artefacts and/or documented reference creates the need for at least self imposed "period police" to approve that the replicate article is, well, "period correct" and a true representation of a surviving artefact (physical) or documented historical data (first hand written or drawn proof). all of this is about correct *replication* of known physical things of a long bygone era.
other than that, who can prove that your last long gun build isn't "era correct" if the form and function of the parts fully allude to that time period? true, the barrel may be of modern steel and not hammered out wrought iron by wallace gusler, but that's not an absolute for a modern "period correct" firearm replica. at least i don't think so.
Post by: twisted_1in66 on August 09, 2015, 04:19:20 PM
Quote from: "rfd"
lemme ask - does anyone, anywhere, know for sure just went down with all the folks of that 18th century era? i think anything goes and just about anything went, including what happened to gun metal. for the military, i think it's a given that the brit muskets (brown bess etc) were at least for the most part left in-the-white. what happened with private gunsmiths and their commissioned weapons is a whole 'nother matter .... "anything goes!" and therefore anything is historically period correct. prove me wrong.The Brits were not only in the white, the soldiers were required to polish them regularly with a paste made from brick dust (modern bricks are of a different "better" composition and don't work well for that). The Brits did that because they wanted you to see them coming - it was an intimidation factor. Roger's Rangers during the F&I war specifically did NOT polish their arms because they wanted to remain unseen as much as possible.
Vast amounts of gun barrels and locks were shipped to the colonies from England. The way that England wanted it to work was for the colonies to sell them the raw materials and then buy back the manufactured goods. It was even illegal to manufacture iron/steel goods. The farther you got from civilization the easier it was to do so without being caught and the gunsmiths in PA and VA certainly made their own rifle barrels but still used imported locks. Once the war started, all bets were off.
Although there are a few instances of browned barrels in the 1700's, it really didn't become common until the 1800's. So while it technically can be documented, it can't be documented as common. So far I've seen one gunsmith in the 1700's offering browned barrels. Charcoal bluing of rifle barrels was one method used in the 1600-1700's and in-the-white was common. The charcoal bluing results in a brighter bluing than what we are used to now, but was a common extra. Even with an in-the-white gun, you slowly develop a patina over the years. it's certainly not brown, but it's not bright anymore either. No one will turn you away from a reenactment if you gun is browned, but you should know that it was not common.
I pickled a barrel on one of my rifles to give it the old and used look. Gun maker evidently learned the technique from Hershel House. I had to remove the bluing first which was easily done with Bluing and Rust remover - took about 5-10 minutes. After that the barrel was pretty shiny.
Done correctly, pickling a barrel involves plugging the muzzle and touch hole and submerging it in a trough with a boiling mixture of bleach and water. This mixture is poisonous to breath so you have to do it outside. It has to be a rolling boil and it needs to be boiling evenly all along the trough or you will get irregular sized pits. If any of the mixture gets inside the barrel, you've ruined the barrel. The barrel turns a scary red immediately upon being submersed in the mixture and if it's done right, when you pull it out it is totally covered in tiny round balls of rust. This is what you want. Then you take it over to the wire wheel to wire-wheel it off until you are happy with the finish. Then, just oil it well. If you don't want it to slowly age afterwards, you can go over the barrel with a baking soda paste before you unplug the touch hole and the muzzle. I just oiled it and it slowly gets better and better.
This pickling will give you a grayish look with lots of tiny pits. It honestly looks like one of my grandfather's blued guns after being used for 20-30 years or so when the bluing has all worn off and small pits are visible. He was a rancher and carried his rifle and a side arm in the jeep with him daily. So lots more exposure than most firearms would have.
Although my barrel turned out great on my first rifle, I elected to leave my second rifle in the white to develop its own patina over time. Unless you keep polishing an in-the-white rifle, it will develop a patina fairly quickly. Mine got fairly well rusted overnight while attending the reenactment of Yorktown on the 225th anniversary (rained a lot) and I had to take the barrel off and take a green scrub pad to it when I got home. Didn't really polish it but just knocked all the rust off. It looked even a little older afterwards.
Personally, I prefer the natural patina that in-the-white develops.
Post by: RobD on August 09, 2015, 04:44:42 PM
i also prefer in-the-white barrels, and then just let 'em patina on their own.