HC barrel finish for a 1770s...

Smokey Plainsman said:

The truth is... nobody seems to know, or can agree, on the period correct barrel’s finish.

As such, chose whichever you enjoy the best. None are more correct than the other, and personal preference is fine.

Click to expand...

Hi,
Going back to the OP's original question. There is no evidence that Pennsylvania rifles made during the 1770s were browned or rust blued. There is evidence that they were left bright, but of course that "bright" would rapidly tarnish into gray brown through use. It is not a case that one idea is as correct as any other. We have direct evidence for one conclusion although the absoluteness of that evidence can be debated. The other conclusion has no direct evidence among 1770s Pennsylvania rifle makers regardless of what went on in Britain, bigger cities, or in the 19th century.

dave

dave_person said:

Hi,
Going back to the OP's original question. There is no evidence that Pennsylvania rifles made during the 1770s were browned or rust blued. There is evidence that they were left bright, but of course that "bright" would rapidly tarnish into gray brown through use. It is not a case that one idea is as correct as any other. We have direct evidence for one conclusion although the absoluteness of that evidence can be debated. The other conclusion has no direct evidence among 1770s Pennsylvania rifle makers regardless of what went on in Britain, bigger cities, or in the 19th century.

dave

Click to expand...

Interesting. But would the chaps had scoured their pieces to brighten them up yet? Today, many are enbrowned from age and sitting about for perhaps decades on end. If a man, or lady, paid so much for a piece would he not be expected to keep it well shined? We know it was done in the military. Such things are tricky to know, so much time has passed. 🕰

Seems like the only real answer is "It depends".🕳

Barry Strickland said:

I will slightly change the question. If you were in Indian territory would you want a bright shiny gun?

Click to expand...

Yes I would. The idea that folks were skulking around each other tree to tree is Hollywood. Campfire smoke , deep horse tracks, chopping wood - all these are signs detected easily and a mile away.

What sorts of trade goods sold best to Native Americans? Shiny and bright.

When we try to apply modern ideas and world views to the past, it does not work.

It then follows that reasoning, “I’d want THIS, so it stands to reason that THEY wanted THIS, and so THIS must have been prevalent” just does not work out.

rich pierce said:

When we try to apply modern ideas and world views to the past, it does not work.

It then follows that reasoning, “I’d want THIS, so it stands to reason that THEY wanted THIS, and so THIS must have been prevalent” just does not work out.

Click to expand...

Yes. This bears repeating, over and over, on so many topics here. Not, sure why this concept is so hard for some people to grasp.

Brokennock said:

Yes. This bears repeating, over and over, on so many topics here. Not, sure why this concept is so hard for some people to grasp.

Click to expand...

Even though we have a strong interest in traditional muzzleloaders and the time when they were used, we still live in the here and now. It is hard for us to separate the two. We still bring with us our experience and knowledge when we try to go back and imagine or study how things were 150 and more years ago. It is hard to imagine how they did not know this or that they didn't want X because our custom is to want it now. The Hawken rifle is a good example related to the fur trade era. In the 1970s us wanna be mountain men all wanted a Hawken even though it came in late in the era in very limited numbers.

Pennsylvania Gazette
May 24, 1775
"Mr. Brown also relates, that two regular officers of the 26th regiment, now in Canada, applied to two Indians, one a head warrior of the Caughanawaga tribe, to go out with them on a hunt, to the south and east of the rivers St. Lawrence and Sorrel, and pressing the Indians farther and farther on said course, they at length arrived at Cohass, where the Indians say they were stopt and interrogated by the inhabitants, to whom they pretended they were only on a hunt, which the inhabitants (as the Indians told Mr. Brown) replied must be false, as no hunters used silver (bright) barrelled guns".

Just found this thread, and found it interesting that nobody commented on this very telling note. I also think that plmeek has a strong point that some "browned" rifles were invariably made/sold.

There seems to be agreement that some rifle builders in America at the time were aware of the process used in Europe to brown rifles. I find it 100% impossible that they did not mention/suggest the process to their customers. The builders were engaged in the business of selling a product that had competition from other builders. Technology will advance, social morays may changed, but the human animal is still the human animal, and a man engaged in selling something to another person will invariably offer every option/enhancement that he has access to offer. Do I have evidence of said rifles? No. Am I engaged in wishful thinking? No. There is evidence that these guys were in the business of selling rifles in a somewhat competitive market, and had access to a process that could be sold as an enhancement. I've sold CNC machines for over 40 years and have a strong working idea on how the selling (and buying) process works in people's mind. These guys may have been rifle builders but they were also businessmen. As Don Rickles said in Kelly's Heroes "Business is Business".

I'm most interested in what in the white might be on a basic unadorned long rifle of the late 18th cent. Would one have been draw filed and left that way or polished to a higher shine? I imagine a poor boy barrel and lock would have been left white and allowed to take on color as it aged, but not polished bright as that would likely be an extra cost. . I have a barrel I've been hauling around for about 40 years. It was white, but not bright to begin with. It now has a grayed patina. The rifles that interest me are not the fancy carved and engraved style, which would cost three to four times the price of the most basic rifles being made, but the rifles of the small subsistence farmers and working men. I'm thinking these most often would have been white, but how bright?

Poor boy rifles really do not appear in the 1700s in any number. Rifles were far more expensive than smoothbores. If someone needed an inexpensive gun a rifle was not in their budget.
There are a good many original 1770s era colonial American rifles finished in the white of showing brown only above the stock line. The brown we see today on the top flats often stops on the side flats - it is patina from years of use in all sorts of weather.

kansas_volunteer said:

The rifles that interest me are not the fancy carved and engraved style, which would cost three to four times the price of the most basic rifles being made, but the rifles of the small subsistence farmers and working men. I'm thinking these most often would have been white, but how bright?

Click to expand...

The problem with this thinking is that it is not based in fact. A rifle would have been expensive. Period. There was no sense in getting a "plain" rifle, especially since a good gunsmith could carve, or even engrave (to an extent) a gun pretty quickly and easily. For an experienced gunsmith, carving does not take very long... very little time, actually. It would not be difficult, nor expensive to do. It was expected. This changed in the 19th century, as styles changed (unfortunately...), and as economics changed. But the 18th century "Po boy" rifle I think is basically a fantasy.

There are "relatively plain" rifles (or rifle-type guns) of the late 18th century. My opinion is that to a great extent, this may have been pretty much the standard level gun. But these existing guns still have all their normal hardware, and still have at least some carving in the normal places. Fore end mouldings, "teardrops", some kind of carving behind the breech tang.... Basically only omitting the carving around the cheekpiece.

As for barrels (and locks) being left white, that was pretty much S.O.P. Charcoal blueing was done, but not very commonly. Purposeful browning in the late 18th century seems to be pretty well limited to fine grade guns with Damascus/twist barrels, the browning showing off the pattern. I believe that for the most part, existing 18th century American rifles with browned barrels got that way simply from use (and abuse). It doesn't take very long for a rifle barrel to start turning brown. All I have to do is handle one, and it rusts up in short order. I will have a pretty heavily patinated rifle barrel before I'm even finished making the rifle! Without doing anything but scrubbing off the heaviest, reddest rust.



Keeping the barrel bright would actually require maintenance. As I recall, British soldiers were issued brick dust to keep their barrels scrubbed bright and shiny. A hunter may have desired the barrel to go brown (as evidenced by the above PA Gazette article), but I am doubting that it was really done in the 18th century much on purpose by the gunsmith. I may be wrong on that, but that's how it seems to me.

Hi,
Chris, I mean Stophel, is absolutely right. This myth that there is a lost cohort of poor boy guns and plain guns out there during the 18th century is pernicious. It fails to appreciate the norms of the times and it ignores the ledger records that exists and the fact that so many "fancy" guns were not wall hangers. They show tremendous wear from shooting, particularly those converted to percussion. Why convert if the gun is not being used? Look at the wear on the Edward Marshall rifle owned by a working man. If you want to reproduce typical and historically accurate Rev War period or colonial period rifles, you need to be able to carve. And if you can't, you would never have been able to complete an apprenticeship at the time.

dave

plmeek said:

The proper answer to the question, "Did American gunsmiths rust brown barrels in the 1770's?" is not "NO". The proper answer is "we don't know."

Click to expand...

I know I'm resurrecting an old thread, but I believe it is worthwhile to add this point:

If we don't know for certain it was done then, we shouldn't do it when recreating arms of the era today.

plmeek said:

And by the way, I didn't present my alternative argument as a proof that barrels were browned back then, but that is was possible that they were.

Click to expand...

Possible doesn't mean probable, or even done at all. Until we have absolute proof, and not just a one-off but several examples, rust-browning a barrel is anachronistic.

plmeek said:

Also, indirect evidence and circumstantial evidence is used all the time in science, medicine, and courts.

Click to expand...

Indirect and circumstantial evidence must be overwhelming to be considered proof. Everything I have read here shows any "evidence" of rust-brown barrels on colonial era American guns is anything but.

Stophel said:

View attachment 75600

Keeping the barrel bright would actually require maintenance. As I recall, British soldiers were issued brick dust to keep their barrels scrubbed bright and shiny. A hunter may have desired the barrel to go brown (as evidenced by the above PA Gazette article), but I am doubting that it was really done in the 18th century much on purpose by the gunsmith. I may be wrong on that, but that's how it seems to me.

Click to expand...

There is a post in this thread citing a recipe for a "varnish" to apply on barrels. It would have been an effective way to prevent a wrought iron barrel from rusting while reducing its shine and maintenance. It may have been so commonplace before American makers started rust browning as to be largely lost to history.

dave_person said:

Hi,
Chris, I mean Stophel, is absolutely right. This myth that there is a lost cohort of poor boy guns and plain guns out there during the 18th century is pernicious. It fails to appreciate the norms of the times and it ignores the ledger records that exists and the fact that so many "fancy" guns were not wall hangers. They show tremendous wear from shooting, particularly those converted to percussion. Why convert if the gun is not being used? Look at the wear on the Edward Marshall rifle owned by a working man. If you want to reproduce typical and historically accurate Rev War period or colonial period rifles, you need to be able to carve. And if you can't, you would never have been able to complete an apprenticeship at the time.

dave

Click to expand...

To a point ide agree but think some more simple guns got offered then as now The ubiquitous trade gun well made & serviceable but no frills .might serve to illustrate this notion . Every museum has oft as not got fine items preserved because of the quality but the equivalent of a Bean tin or flip flop sandals is not to be found . The grand ladies gowns in number yes . But nothing the maids wore .The finely made ornate rifle is likley the gun the owner wanted but in his youth couldnt afford. until his senior established years when it didn't have to be worked hard . Ive a modest battery of ornate guns but the' NZ Poor boys' and kindred 'got ups' from old parts are now well used old friends' .
Rudyard's take on the matter

One would have to take the barrel out of the stock to investigate the finish of the parts that are protected from the elements. That's not likely to happen. Fire bluing was common on the small parts. We have to look at the formulations used for gun finishes. Would they be to turn steel or wrought iron brown or blue. My Derringer (replica) is left in the white. Military muskets were left in the white except for screw heads.

The gray patina of an in the white barrel is common.

The warrant for the 1803 Harper's Ferry rifle calls for the screw heads and lock to be blued. The barrel was to be browned.

There are military orders for the day that direct a procedure to brown the in the white barrel of a musket for light infantry and ranger troops.

Barrels from the Hawken shop were commonly blued and through use acquired the brown patina. It is only revealed that the barrel was originally blued when the hooked breech barrel is removed.

Which brings me back to the original question of original finish to be historically correct. Three barrel finishes were known. Unless one has a copy of the sales information, there is no easy way to determine the original barrel finish color.

Grenadier1758 said:

One would have to take the barrel out of the stock to investigate the finish of the parts that are protected from the elements. That's not likely to happen. Fire bluing was common on the small parts. We have to look at the formulations used for gun finishes. Would they be to turn steel or wrought iron brown or blue. My Derringer (replica) is left in the white. Military muskets were left in the white except for screw heads.

The gray patina of an in the white barrel is common.

The warrant for the 1803 Harper's Ferry rifle calls for the screw heads and lock to be blued. The barrel was to be browned.

There are military orders for the day that direct a procedure to brown the in the white barrel of a musket for light infantry and ranger troops.

Barrels from the Hawken shop were commonly blued and through use acquired the brown patina. It is only revealed that the barrel was originally blued when the hooked breech barrel is removed.

Which brings me back to the original question of original finish to be historically correct. Three barrel finishes were known. Unless one has a copy of the sales information, there is no easy way to determine the original barrel finish color.

Click to expand...

The original question was about 1770s arms. What came out of the Hawken shop is irrelevant. Same for 1803 Harper's Ferry arms.

It has been cited here that some barrels have been pulled from stocks, and there is a lack of conclusive evidence they were blued or browned. So no, there weren't 3 known finishes on 1770s arms, just one, and a whole lot of unsubstantiated speculation.

@Tumbledown, I thought a lot about putting the reference to later guns than were asked about in the original post. The 1803, while being 30 years later than the time frame of the question is close enough to be somewhat relevant. In the time frame, gunsmiths knew of ways to protect barrels from rusting. Your point is correct for the Hawken rifles. I do agree that there is a lot of unsubstantiated speculation other than the muskets were likely factory bright. And barrel finish on the military arms doesn't necessarily apply to non-military arms.,

Since we don’t have wrought irons barrels today…a question…

What is the nature finish color of a completed wrought iron barrel?

brazosland said:

Since we don’t have wrought irons barrels today…a question…

What is the nature finish color of a completed wrought iron barrel?

Click to expand...

Down here unless you polish the barrel and keep the gun in a controlled humidity storage you will have a browned barrel soon enough. IT'S going to happen so I decided to like it.

Grenadier1758 said:

@Tumbledown, I thought a lot about putting the reference to later guns than were asked about in the original post. The 1803, while being 30 years later than the time frame of the question is close enough to be somewhat relevant. In the time frame, gunsmiths knew of ways to protect barrels from rusting. Your point is correct for the Hawken rifles. I do agree that there is a lot of unsubstantiated speculation other than the muskets were likely factory bright. And barrel finish on the military arms doesn't necessarily apply to non-military arms.,

Click to expand...

I didn't mean to imply the only known finish was polished bright. I was specifically thinking of in the white.