HC barrel finish for a 1770s...

Pennsylvania style rifle?

In the white? Or blue of some sort? Or either?

Both. And barrels were sometimes blued and locks left white. I can’t prove it and may be all wet but my gut would be toward white as common.
many jagar were blued so I wound rule it out as being most common

Wouldn’t rule out... spellcheck got me

What I’ve read blued, brown or white in that order. Blued could be rust blued or charcoal blued. Locks were often case hardened and rubbed back to white on rifles. Browning of barrels was a smooth finish rather then the coarse texture you see on some modern builds.

Hi,
I am not aware of any evidence of Pennsylvania rifles with rust blued or browned barrels during the 1770s. There are a few examples that may have had charcoal or heat blued barrels. The locks were often case hardened but the fashion of preserving case colors rather than polishing them off is lacking. There also is no mention of rust browning or bluing chemicals in any surviving shop inventories from the 1770s. In fact, there is little evidence of rust browning on American long rifles until the 19th century.

dave

dave_person said:

In fact, there is little evidence of rust browning on American long rifles until the 19th century.

Click to expand...

Dave,
So is there evidence of end users, not builders, keeping the barrels polished, or would very minor rust that was handled by the owner with the application of an oil, form a patina on a rifle barrel over time?

LD

Hi LD,
I would think if the browning was polished off, you might still find it on the bottom of the barrel. The historical conundrum is the process of rust browning may have been known at least in England for much of the 18th century. There may be many British guns that were browned and because they usually pulled the barrels out for cleaning (hence, the hook breech and barrel wedges) the browning got polished off top and bottom. Below is a painting of an English sportsman by Ralph Earl dated 1784.



Clearly, the barrel is browned. Also note the top jaw screw and side bolts are also blued, probably heat blued the same way I do mine. I also received a note from Richard Colton, who was the senior historian at Springfield Arsenal NHP, about a 18th century New England fowler made using high quality French components. He discovered that the lock screws, side bolts, frizzen spring and detachable pan were temper blued. There are also advertisements from gunsmiths working in several of the big cities such as New York, indicating they blue (charcoal, temper) and brown barrels. So, the process was known. However, it did not appear to become a practice among long rifle makers until almost 1800. I believe all of the long rifles that survived in close to pristine condition, have barrels and locks left bright.

dave

I know that in the description of the metal finish requirements for the 1803 Harper's Ferry rifle called for the barrel to be browned, and the lock and bolts to be blued.

dave_person said:

Hi,
I am not aware of any evidence of Pennsylvania rifles with rust blued or browned barrels during the 1770s. There are a few examples that may have had charcoal or heat blued barrels. The locks were often case hardened but the fashion of preserving case colors rather than polishing them off is lacking. There also is no mention of rust browning or bluing chemicals in any surviving shop inventories from the 1770s. In fact, there is little evidence of rust browning on American long rifles until the 19th century.

dave

Click to expand...

Dave,
I read sources that suggest otherwise. For example, Firearm Blueing and Browning by R. H. Angier has,

Angier said:

In the literature on the subject the statement is generally found that the browning of gun barrels with this substance originated in England towards the end of the 18th century, which may be quite correct as regards military arms. The browning of barrels is in itself however much older, even in England, and according to information kindly given the author by Mr. C. E. Greener (the well-known Birmingham gunmaker), was in common use for sporting arms about 1720. A report of 1637 in the London Record Office explicitly mentions the "russetting" of barrels under the heading of "Repairs to the Arms of the Trained Bands" (London Militia).

Click to expand...

Angier further said:

A similar development took place at the same time on the European Continent: guns of the 18th century with blued (temper-blued) and browned barrels are numerous, and of the 17th century occasionally met with, in every larger public or private collection of firearms.

Click to expand...

On American guns Angier said:

Exactly the same advance took place on the American Continent, and the American backwoodsman, using the simplest possible means, browned the barrels of their historically famous, home-made rifles, from about the middle of the 18th century onwards [sic].

Click to expand...

Also, I'm not sure what "browning or blueing chemicals" you would expect to be listed in shop inventories from the 1770s. Pretty much the same chemicals used to acid stain maple could be used to rust brown iron.

Considering that many of the Pennsylvania gunsmiths active in the middle of the 18th century were trained in Europe, I would think that they would have been familiar with the blueing and browning techniques that Angier writes about. If they didn't use them on their rifles, it would likely be because it wasn't popular with their customers.

Hi Phil,
The problem is there is just no evidence on surviving guns. Folks can speculate all they want but if you ask what is historically correct, which by default means of what is there evidence or documentation, you fall flat. I am thoroughly familiar with Angier's book and he wrote long ago and was prone to misconceptions about historical gunmaking common to the era in which he wrote. He provides absolutely no documentation for the passage you cited. Much has been learned since.

dave

I think confusion arises because 1700s American guns appear today with browned barrels and browned locks. However on removing the barrels as Dave alluded, the undersides appear rough filed and no more. So it appears that maintenance of an as new, raw iron finish on barrels was not a priority. A friend who is a fine builder of Woodbury-inspired rifles uses his guns a lot at rondys and lets them age naturally. Takes over 10 years but we are talking at most 10 weekends a year.

So depending on a builder’s preferences when making a gun that is pre-1800, my best guesses for what was most common are:

As new: barrels bright most of the time. I’ve not seen American guns with fire blued barrels (in the channel) but it’s not that I’ve seen dozens.

Couple years use: browned, simulating in the field rusting.

Confusing data: I have a German boar gun from the 1700s with a very fine rust brown on barrrl and iron mounts. If looks well maintained but did get used into the percussion period.

What folks accept: almost anything.

Writing in 1789 and discussing the coloring practiced in England at that time, Wm. Cleator said:

"The last operation is that of colouring the barrel, previous to which it is polished with fine emery and oil, until it presents to the eye throughout its whole length, and in whatever direction we observe it, a perfectly smooth, equal, and splendid surface. Formerly, barrels were coloured by exposing them to a degree of heat which produced an elegant blue tinge; but as this effect arises from a degree of calcination taking place upon the surface of the metal, the inside of the barrel always suffered by undergoing the same change. This, therefore, added to the painful sensation excited in the eye by looking along a barrel so coloured, has caused the practice of blueing to be disused for some time past. Instead of it, barrels are now browned, as it is termed. To do this, the barrel is rubbed over with aqua fortis [nitric acid] or spirit of salt [hydrochloric acid], diluted with water, and laid by until a complete coat of rust is formed upon it; a little oil is then applied; and the surface being rubbed dry, it is polished by means of a hard brush, and bees wax."

Spence

Hi.
Rich is bang on and Spence, I mentioned the rust brown process was known in England for most of the 18th century. That does not in any way mean American long rifle makers did the same. I will also suggest that Wm Cleator was a gentleman observer, not a gun maker and his description of the process has the vagueness of someone whose understanding is woefully superficial. There are several 18th and early 19th century English gentleman sporting writers and most provide very suspect gun making information that can be dispelled easily by someone who actually builds guns. Peter Hawker is the exception, however, he does not try to describe the secrets of the gun making profession, rather he focuses on the best ways to use their products.

dave

dave_person said:

Hi Phil,
The problem is there is just no evidence on surviving guns. Folks can speculate all they want but if you ask what is historically correct, which by default means of what is there evidence or documentation, you fall flat. I am thoroughly familiar with Angier's book and he wrote long ago and was prone to misconceptions about historical gunmaking common to the era in which he wrote. He provides absolutely no documentation for the passage you cited. Much has been learned since.

dave

Click to expand...

Dave, I respectively propose an alternative argument for consideration.

The all too common "there is just no evidence" argument is an easy fall back position. But it can lead to a closed mindedness and lack of openness to possibilities and probabilities. A person can get in a position that defies logic.

As an example, we have no authenticated surviving examples of J&S Hawken St. Louis rifles that are flintlock. Some question whether they ever made any. But that defies logic. The brothers had an active partnership in the second half of the 1820's, and if they built any rifles in that period they most certainly would have been flintlocks. We just don't know what they looked like, because we're not sure any have survived.

Rust browning is simply a controlled and accelerated rusting process that also occurs naturally. How can we tell whether a rifle barrel that is almost 250 years old today and covered in a natural rust patina was or was not originally rust browned? The evidence may be right there, but we can't see it.

Rich has mentioned that by removing the barrel from the stock and looking at the protected underside, one could determine the original finish that was on the barrel. That's all well and good, but I'm not aware of any documented study where someone has systematically done that to a statistically significant number of rifles. We may know of some informal anecdotal cases where someone has looked at the bottom of a few barrels, but what does that really tell us about the total population?

There is a saying that, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence."

So if we are looking for something that by its very nature is difficult to see such as rust brown finish on a barrel that has been naturally rusting for the past 250 years, what else can we do to address the question?

I think we can look at circumstantial evidence and assess the possibilities and probabilities of its existence.

We know that rust browning of barrels was done in England and Europe during the period of interest. We know that many gunsmiths in Colonial American had been trained and worked in the areas were rust browning was being performed before emigrating to America. They would have been aware of it and likely trained in how to do it.

Colonial gun makers also had access to chemicals suitable for browning a barrel. Solutions for rust browning are easily made from common acids and salt compounds.

I found a reference in Trade Guns of the Hudson's Bay Company 1670-1970 by S. James Gooding of the Hudson's Bay Company ordering trade guns with browned barrels in 1780.

Trade Guns of the Hudson's Bay Company page 137 said:

At a meeting of the Governor and Committee of the HBC held on December 20, 1780 it was...Ordered...That in future the Guns have Brown Stocks (no white) the Barrals [sic] likewise Brown with an additional Weight of 6 oz to them for Strength.

Click to expand...

This is awful close to the period of interest and demonstrates that guns with brown barrels were being introduced in North America. Granted, the customers of these guns were natives in Canada, but traders in the Colonies often ordered the same type of guns that the HBC was having made.

On page 59 of the same book,

Gooding said:

It must be remembered that the traders did not want a row of identical guns: better to give their customer a variety from which to make a selection. That variety could be as simple as the length of barrel, or a "Fine Gun" with a little extra brass.

Click to expand...

Gooding is paraphrasing a letter sent by a trading post factor that I've seen quoted but I can't recall the reference so have cited Gooding instead.

The variety that the traders wanted to offer included three, and sometimes, four different barrel lengths; white stocks (beech) or brown stocks (walnut); blue, bright, and brown barrel finishes; and trade guns, fine guns (Chief's grade), and regular fowlers.

This indicates that the natives were little different from people today that want some variety to choose from when shopping. I would argue that customers in Pennsylvania and other Colonies had similar desires. That's why there exists a variety of decorations, wood types, and styles in surviving Colonial guns. It's only logical to assume barrel finishes were varied for the same reason.

I would argue that some gun makers in America in the 1770's had the means, the motive, and the opportunity to make rifles with brown barrels. It was possible and even probable for them to do so. Logic, not just speculation, would suggest that some did. It's not direct evidence, but to me it's pretty compelling circumstantial evidence.

Hi Phil,
Sand paper was available in the big cities yet there is no evidence the Pennsylvania gun makers used it until well after the Revolution. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence is a false argument and logic. The fallacy is called "ad ignorantium". No Phil, I am not saying you are ignorant at all. You have great knowledge in many areas but your argument is simply a false one. The proper response is not that the alternative hypothesis is correct but that the supported hypothesis ( in this case, no browning) is correct but not absolutely. Meaning, more data may challenge it. That Phil, is true open mindedness.

dave

It's a simple matter to look at original American rifles that are still in very good condition, and you will see barrels that are white.

People talk about charcoal blueing, but as yet, I can't remember seeing any American example.

I would suspect that the majority of the fine 18th century English fowling pieces that had browned barrels were finished so in order to show the twist.

One can wish for a browned 1770's Pennsylvania rifle the same way people desperately wish for them to be iron mounted.... but, it coulda been don't make it so.

From what I have seen, iron seems to be more rust resistant than steel (and have been told the same by others, though I would accept correction if shown that this was not so), and I don't think a "finish" was as necessary 200 years ago as it is now.

dave_person said:

Wm Cleator was a gentleman observer, not a gun maker and his description of the process has the vagueness of someone whose understanding is woefully superficial.

Click to expand...

That's probably why I enjoyed his book, he's writing on my level.

Spence

By the way.. here's an exceptionally rare (possibly unique) iron mounted Pennsylvania rifle.. of course it's from about 1830, not 1770.

https://auctions.morphyauctions.com...on_mounted_flintlock_kentucky_-lot465810.aspx
And the iron was left white.

Regarding surface rust resistance of wrought iron compared to mild steel: I see no difference. I have one wrought iron barrel I shoot fairly regularly. Just one datapoint, but it likes to rust like any modern barrel. I’ve freshed about 15 original rifle barrels now. They come to me in awful shape due to internal rusting.

My barrels all pretty much look like this before I'm even done making the gun.



Just knock off the active, dusty red rust, and wax it, and it'll pretty much stay this way from then on.