• Friends, our 2nd Amendment rights are always under attack and the NRA has been a constant for decades in helping fight that fight.

    We have partnered with the NRA to offer you a discount on membership and Muzzleloading Forum gets a small percentage too of each membership, so you are supporting both the NRA and us.

    Use this link to sign up please; https://membership.nra.org/recruiters/join/XR045103

HC barrel finish for a 1770s...

the hawken shop
L & R
Shop deals on ebay
Muzzleloading Forum

Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
It is written that Kenton always wore clothing that was brown or tan and never wore bright colors. That’s unusual enough in the time period that it was observed and noted.

So I doubt he had a barrel in the white on his gun, either by design or by choice. But that means others, maybe a lot of others, likely did.

The lack of any notation or written notes in orders for guns or observations of folks guns to me means that there must have been a “normal” standard for barrel finish. I think it’s notable that no one has written “he doesn’t take care of his gun and barrel is brown with rust, eewww.”

On the other hand, the 1803 note above is very relevant…the government, particularly the military, is not an Early Adopter of Anything. I don’t think that has changed in 250 years. So, for an armory to specify Browned barrel finish…it must have been in common use for a long time.

This to me is one of the most fascinating questions of this hobby…and one we will likely never have an answer too.
 
dave_person said:
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.
rkydSTE.jpg

IwXxWXg.jpg

NvnHN65.jpg

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
Click to expand...
 
Grenadier1758 said:
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.
Click to expand...

I’ve restored a few 1803’s, there have been many of these showing up in auctions. None of the barrels were browned, nor the ribs or undersides of the barrels. The Springfield and Harper’s ferry armories were experimenting with metal finishes at the, so the tech was in its infancy here in the states.

Springfield was using pickling methods, acid baths, potassium nitrate baths, and they had even tried a metal varnish.

It’s it possible that some were browned, yea absolutely but not what we consider to be browned with what’s available today.

I’ve also worked on common rifles that were still in the bright, none were browned.

You may find some documentation on 1803 ‘short’ rifles that were browned, these are not technically 1803 rifles but short rifle carbines that were designed for the Lewis Clark expedition, these were missing some salient features of the 1803 such s a noseband, used a smaller pistol sized lock and a hollow under-rib. These were stained to limit maintenance on the guns during the long expedition. These rifles were not considered a success though, Clark referenced a few of them exploding / mushrooming at the muzzle due to being too thin.
 
rich pierce said:
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.
Click to expand...

Agree with Rich, a lot of original guns have the appearance of being browned or darkened due to the build up over time of what we call patina. Rust browning would not have been a priority for gun builders in colonial America, the natural aging of wrought iron would produce a dark coloring that is much different than that of modern steels that we use.

Wrought iron is in a way almost like Brass. Brass tarnishes does not maintain a polish with use and oxidation effects. Same with wrought iron.
 
dave_person said:
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
Click to expand...

Dave, I’ve read where bees wax and linseed oil was burned in on iron as a type of finish, but I’ve only read about it used on things like wheel irons and carriages not guns. I was convinced that this was the metal finish most used, so it must have been done on guns… until i viewed original guns and began restoring them. The speculation that many here seem to feel is that if it was there it was used, in-spite of lacking evidence. i found very little to no evidence of it being applied. Same thing with straight linseed oil finish on gunstocks. Varnishes appears to be used mostly. The only original gun I’ve seen with a barrel finish was a third model brown Bess with what appeared to be a Japanese finish on the barrel, assuming it was for sea service.

People just get an idea stuck in their head and refused to deviate from it.
 
brazosland said:
It is written that Kenton always wore clothing that was brown or tan and never wore bright colors. That’s unusual enough in the time period that it was observed and noted.
Click to expand...
Is it unusual, or just descriptive of one individual? My wife often wears leggings. Is that so unusual today as to be noteworthy? Or just describing her style?
brazosland said:
So I doubt he had a barrel in the white on his gun, either by design or by choice. But that means others, maybe a lot of others, likely did.
Click to expand...
An unfounded assumption.
brazosland said:
The lack of any notation or written notes in orders for guns or observations of folks guns to me means that there must have been a “normal” standard for barrel finish. I think it’s notable that no one has written “he doesn’t take care of his gun and barrel is brown with rust, eewww.”

On the other hand, the 1803 note above is very relevant…the government, particularly the military, is not an Early Adopter of Anything. I don’t think that has changed in 250 years. So, for an armory to specify Browned barrel finish…it must have been in common use for a long time.
Click to expand...
Not true. When something is new and demonstrates an advantage, the military can be very quick to adopt it. Rifled cannon in the ACW is one example, jet fighters post WWII is another.
 
brazosland said:
Pennsylvania style rifle?

In the white? Or blue of some sort? Or either?
Click to expand...

In the white, patinas developed into a grey, dark or brown color with use and time.

Agree with Rich and Dave on the topic.

Be careful with what you read too and view as many originals as possible.
 
Anderson's article "Charcoal Bluing of Rifle Barrels" in the 5th volume of The Journal of Historical Armsmaking Technology" gives context to bluing barrels back to the 1600's. The article also notes advertising for browning barrels dateing to the 1780's.
 
rchas said:
Anderson's article "Charcoal Bluing of Rifle Barrels" in the 5th volume of The Journal of Historical Armsmaking Technology" gives context to bluing barrels back to the 1600's. The article also notes advertising for browning barrels dateing to the 1780's.
Click to expand...

For years people said the brown Bess was called a brown Bess because the barrel was browned… this was even written into some journals and articles. But the fact is 99.89% of brown Bess muskets were not browned.

Be careful with what you’re reading.
 
FlinterNick said:
Be careful with what you’re reading
Click to expand...
The Journal was published by the NMLRA through Western North Carolina University. The editorial committee included Gary Brumfield, John Bivins, Wallace Gusler, Lynton Mackenzie, and Mark Silver. Anderson's research was backed by the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation and the Williamsburg Gunsmith Shop.

Not exactly some guy's"opinion piece" meant for mass market publishing.
 
rchas said:
The Journal was published by the NMLRA through Western North Carolina University. The editorial committee included Gary Brumfield, John Bivins, Wallace Gusler, Lynton Mackenzie, and Mark Silver. Anderson's research was backed by the Colonial Williamsburg Foundation and the Williamsburg Gunsmith Shop.

Not exactly some guy's"opinion piece" meant for mass market publishing.
Click to expand...

What was their physical evidence? Sporting guns ? High end guns ?

As many have stated, the evidence is just not there to say it was a common practice.

The other fact is what some considering browning today is not what some consider browning in the 18th century. Same concept with stock finishes, where many widely believe linseed oil was the finish used on many guns. They used a varnish not what we would consider varnish today but it’s what they considered varnish in the 18th century.

You can’t be too literal when reading articles, you have to have an open mind… and this has been said by Lynton Mackenzie.
 
Last edited:
FlinterNick, it's obvious you have never read the article. I'm not going to argue with you. For me, if that editorial board thought Anderson's work good enough to publish I am going to go with that--at least until someone publishes another peer-reviewed paper that shows Anderson wrong
 
Tumbledown said:
Is it unusual, or just descriptive of one individual? My wife often wears leggings. Is that so unusual today as to be noteworthy? Or just describing her style?

An unfounded assumption.

Not true. When something is new and demonstrates an advantage, the military can be very quick to adopt it. Rifled cannon in the ACW is one example, jet fighters post WWII is another.
Click to expand...
Individual examples can always be found… that doesn’t disprove the idea. The army’s aversion to the Henry rifle is an easy example. And the insistence on infantry fighting in ranks in the face of those cannons is another. There are a lot of straw dogs in your post.

Your wife’s leggings make my point, thank you.

Virtually everything in this thread could be dismissed as unfounded assumption.
 
FlinterNick said:
For years people said the brown Bess was called a brown Bess because the barrel was browned… this was even written into some journals and articles. But the fact is 99.89% of brown Bess muskets were not browned.

Be careful with what you’re reading.
Click to expand...
Rchas is pointing to this scholarly publication as a reference for when the technology was available and in use. Not making assertions that it was in use in the colonies or on the guns in question.

If you are not able to contribute in this thread in a way other than to try to impress everyone with how smart you are… perhaps it would be better to just sit and observe?
 
brazosland said:
Individual examples can always be found… that doesn’t disprove the idea. The army’s aversion to the Henry rifle is an easy example. And the insistence on infantry fighting in ranks in the face of those cannons is another. There are a lot of straw dogs in your post.

Your wife’s leggings make my point, thank you.

Virtually everything in this thread could be dismissed as unfounded assumption.
Click to expand...

Seriously man his wife? You e taken this very sideways and shame on you.
 
brazosland said:
Individual examples can always be found… that doesn’t disprove the idea. The army’s aversion to the Henry rifle is an easy example. And the insistence on infantry fighting in ranks in the face of those cannons is another. There are a lot of straw dogs in your post.

Your wife’s leggings make my point, thank you.

Virtually everything in this thread could be dismissed as unfounded assumption.
Click to expand...

Henry rifle? …. I’ve heard enough … peace out…. 1770s ? And you’re telling me to read ?
 
Last edited:
rchas said:
FlinterNick, it's obvious you have never read the article. I'm not going to argue with you. For me, if that editorial board thought Anderson's work good enough to publish I am going to go with that--at least until someone publishes another peer-reviewed paper that shows Anderson wrong
Click to expand...

I can always tell when someone hasn’t seen many originals … have a blast with the books
 

Similar threads

Smokey Plainsman
Woodsrunner Question?
2 3
Replies
45
Views
4K
ChuckJonesWagon
C
T
Who charcoal blues Fowler barrels
Replies
18
Views
570
dave_person
dave_person
DrLaw
Smooth bore metal finish
Replies
14
Views
818
Clark Badgett
Clark Badgett
RobertIN
Anyone have photos of finished Colonials with barrel and lock left in the white?
2
Replies
33
Views
3K
Gum Slough Muzzleloader
G
RHG
barrel blueing
Replies
2
Views
293
BS2366
BS2366

Latest posts

Back
Top