Barrel Treatment: Brown, Blue or aged in the white

[prairie dog]

The lock on my trade gun was left polished in the white.  It is taking on an aged patina quite nicely all by its self with no help whatsoever from me.  In fact it is doing so in spite of my efforts to keep it looking new.

Dang if I understand the desire to artificially age a piece. My stuff starts looking old the moment I handle it.  :lol:

[RobD]

i like an in-the-white barrel.  letting it patina on its own is as "period correct" as it gets.  

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.  

[Captchee]

Your welcome Kermit.
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

[RobD]

...  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.

[twisted_1in66]

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.

[RobD]

good stuff, twisted - thanx for sharing!

i also prefer in-the-white barrels, and then just let 'em patina on their own.