Barrel Treatment: Brown, Blue or aged in the white

[rldarmstr]

I have been out of this sport for a while, built my last flinter for a guy in Mass. in 1991. Back in the day, 25+ years ago browning the iron parts was considered standard procedure. Since that time smooth bores, beyond trade muskets, have had an increased following as have various treatments for metal and wood.

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

[Hanshi]

I'm not qualified to answer your question but from what I've been able to find; all three were in use from early on to well into the 19th century.  Apparently in-the-white and blue was more common with browning becoming increasingly popular as time went by.  I know there are others on this forum who can give you a truly correct answer.

[Stormrider51]

I too am anything but an expert.  For many years I "knew" that browning was the correct finish for a muzzleloader.  More recently I've learned that bluing pre-dates browning.  The majority of firearms in early America were military smoothbore muskets that were in the white.  It stands to reason that colonial gunmakers would have followed that standard.  Plus it make the guns cheaper to manufacture.  I personally don't care for in the white and the mottled appearance that develops but that is just me.  I took a middle path and put a "French Grey" on the barrel of my smoothbore.  As for creating that mottled appearance quickly, a hot box that is used for creating rust bluing will do the trick.  Just remove the barrel as soon as speckles of rust big enough to suit you form.  Oil and lightly steel wool.

Storm

[Rocklock]

My preference is brown. I have seen a vinegar treatment that from a distance looks in the white but mottled or even a Damascus appearance up close.

[RobD]

from readings and observations, there are no specific "correct" treatments for gun metals.  it's all good, and methods of treating firearm metal "finishing" - or lack thereof - appear to have been observed with regards to much about all firearms of the 18th century.  do whatever a like and you'll be "period historically correct", if that matters to ya.

[Kermit]

I'd take this question over to ALR. Lots of very good and well known builders haunt the site. You'll get straight--and HC--answers from them. Post your question under Gun Building.

AmericanLongRifles Forums - Index

[Hanshi]

I had an EV with a "gray" barrel which looked great.  I still have a percussion with a light, grayish barrel with a somewhat mottled finish.  In fact it looks like an old barrel with the finish mostly gone and it looks good.  One is blued, a couple are nicely brown and the rest are browned to where they look black.  I ain't picky.

[RobD]

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.  

[Stormrider51]

I'm going to follow up on something RFD said.  It seems to be well established that a number of metal finishes were used in the 1700-1800's time period and before.  Like I said, I'm no expert but I strongly suspect that which finish, if any, depended on how much money the buyer had to spend.  I never built muzzleloaders, that was my Dad's thing and some of his work ended up in the collections of folks like Gaines DeGraffenried, but I did build custom bolt action rifles.  I did hot salts bluing on those guns.  My standard level of finish was bead blasted matte.  That was the cheapest because it took me the least time.  The other end of the finish spectrum was a 600 grit polish that you could almost see yourself in.  Getting there took a lot more time and consequently cost the customer a lot more money.  If you got the money, I got the time but why stop there?  I could jewel the bolt and put the whole shebang in a Circassian walnut stock complete with pillar bedding.  The same would have held true for colonial gunmakers.  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.  So I think RFD is correct.  When it came to finish, almost anything is HC.

Storm

[RobD]

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.

[Captchee]

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 .

[RobD]

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 .

iow, from an 18th century perspective, anything goes and anything went, so many choices, so many results.

[Eric Krewson]

Not traditional in any way but I sure like Oxpho blue rubbed back to gray.

[Captchee]

well it depends   lets say you go to an even that supposed to  personify , say ?? 18th century  main . You show up with a hot air balloon and  a Yurt
 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 results”
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

[Kermit]

Or just paint it or coat it with Stockholm tar, and make the stock of beech.

Thanks, Cap, for responding to the request for "enlightenment." I didn't see a request for opinion or poetic license.