• 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

DIY Defarbing and Refinishing

Muzzleloading Forum

Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

kh54

45 Cal.
Joined
Jan 26, 2021
Messages
703
Reaction score
1,126
Hi All. I thought I would show a couple of recent projects, in part to share my experience but also to see if others might have tips or suggestions that would improve the quality of my work. So feel free to comment, criticize, praise, condemn...or just ignore. :)

A few years ago I bought an early Italian 1851 Navy clone with a brass frame in .44 caliber that Todd Watts defarbed and engraved to mimic a CSA Schneider & Glassick. It turned out very nice and I decided that I wanted another, but in the correct .36 caliber. I watched for a .36 1851 brass frame with a smooth cylinder for a long time but never could get one for what I wanted to pay. I finally decided just to get one with the engraved cylinder and see if I could remove the engraving myself. I found a 1974 C.O.M. - I think I got it on Gunbroker. I don't have a lathe but I was able to chuck the cylinder into my drill on a wood dowel and with only two or three battery recharges and wet/dry paper I was able to remove the engraving and the deep turn line. I did leave the finish with some shallow sanding scratches, as I thought that was appropriate for a gun that might have been manufactured imperfectly in the South in wartime conditions. I also cleaned up the bolt so it wouldn't scratch the cylinder like it had before. Finally I removed all the manufacturer's marks on the barrel and frame (lots of filing and wet/dry sanding) leaving only the serial number, then I re-blued the steel components, except for the loading lever.

I also acquired recently a Pietta Griswold & Gunnison that I wanted to "defarb." I only planned to remove Pietta's awful markings and a lot of dings from mishandling, and not necessarily add correct CSA markings, at least not by myself. Again, lots of filing and wet/dry sanding on the barrel, stripping the bluing on the cylinder, polishing the brass, then re-bluing.

I have cold-blued the steel because I haven't yet built myself a bluing tank. I don't mind my imperfect results - they impart an antique-ish patina. On the G&G I applied the bluing but removed most of it with steel wool for the effect that you see. On the S&G I left the bluing as deep and smooth as I could get it.

Below are pics of before, during and after results. I haven't yet sent the S&G to Todd Watts but that's in the near future.

Sooooo, any thoughts??
 

Attachments

  • COM before.jpg
    COM before.jpg
    50.1 KB
  • Cheap lathe.jpg
    Cheap lathe.jpg
    104 KB
  • Pietta G&G_barrel stripped.JPG
    Pietta G&G_barrel stripped.JPG
    62.4 KB
  • G&G top - S&G bottom.jpg
    G&G top - S&G bottom.jpg
    228.2 KB
Awww, shucks. And thanks.

A bit more info: I bought the Pietta from another MLF friend. It sported a 2002 proof date. And I saved the original serial numbers on both guns; I'm not trying to deceive.
 
That 2nd pic with the hideous yellow finish is terrible looking. 🤣

All the rest look really good. I especially like the greyed barrel and cylinder. Great job on the lathe too.
 
Looks nice. If you want to age the brass a bit of any type of blueing compound and a lighter for heat will do nicely. The same blue compound thinned with a bit of water will darken the grey a bit...c
 
I agree good job on the gun metal but grab some oxpho blue and slather it on the brass it will add to the aged look, here are some I did. Both are defarbed and the brass was buffed with 0000 steel wool and the oxpho blue was applied. Let it sit for a few minutes and if it goes too dark buff it back! It’s also really good for giving a nice grey to steel!
 

Attachments

  • EA76719A-C814-4805-91F2-EA65406502D8.jpeg
    EA76719A-C814-4805-91F2-EA65406502D8.jpeg
    71.2 KB
  • 1678CEB9-B70E-4D97-8234-720D02A69DE8.jpeg
    1678CEB9-B70E-4D97-8234-720D02A69DE8.jpeg
    81.6 KB
Very nice :)

I "patina'd" 4 Pietta .36 Brassers just to make them look used hard, but no where near this kind of work.

I just used a vinegar bath to remove the bluing and I'm letting the brass yellow naturally.
 
Hi All. I thought I would show a couple of recent projects, in part to share my experience but also to see if others might have tips or suggestions that would improve the quality of my work. So feel free to comment, criticize, praise, condemn...or just ignore. :)

A few years ago I bought an early Italian 1851 Navy clone with a brass frame in .44 caliber that Todd Watts defarbed and engraved to mimic a CSA Schneider & Glassick. It turned out very nice and I decided that I wanted another, but in the correct .36 caliber. I watched for a .36 1851 brass frame with a smooth cylinder for a long time but never could get one for what I wanted to pay. I finally decided just to get one with the engraved cylinder and see if I could remove the engraving myself. I found a 1974 C.O.M. - I think I got it on Gunbroker. I don't have a lathe but I was able to chuck the cylinder into my drill on a wood dowel and with only two or three battery recharges and wet/dry paper I was able to remove the engraving and the deep turn line. I did leave the finish with some shallow sanding scratches, as I thought that was appropriate for a gun that might have been manufactured imperfectly in the South in wartime conditions. I also cleaned up the bolt so it wouldn't scratch the cylinder like it had before. Finally I removed all the manufacturer's marks on the barrel and frame (lots of filing and wet/dry sanding) leaving only the serial number, then I re-blued the steel components, except for the loading lever.

I also acquired recently a Pietta Griswold & Gunnison that I wanted to "defarb." I only planned to remove Pietta's awful markings and a lot of dings from mishandling, and not necessarily add correct CSA markings, at least not by myself. Again, lots of filing and wet/dry sanding on the barrel, stripping the bluing on the cylinder, polishing the brass, then re-bluing.

I have cold-blued the steel because I haven't yet built myself a bluing tank. I don't mind my imperfect results - they impart an antique-ish patina. On the G&G I applied the bluing but removed most of it with steel wool for the effect that you see. On the S&G I left the bluing as deep and smooth as I could get it.

Below are pics of before, during and after results. I haven't yet sent the S&G to Todd Watts but that's in the near future.

Sooooo, any thoughts??
Mr. Watts de-farbed an Enfield musket for me about 10 years ago, before Pedersoli came out with a fastory-defarb. He did a nice job for me. Had all the bells & whistles and markings, hardware, etc. I forget which mfgr. initially made the musket, and I got it from him as opposed to sending my own to him. So, is he still de-farbing pistols and such? He was Blockade Runner, I believe.
 
Mr. Watts de-farbed an Enfield musket for me about 10 years ago, before Pedersoli came out with a fastory-defarb. He did a nice job for me. Had all the bells & whistles and markings, hardware, etc. I forget which mfgr. initially made the musket, and I got it from him as opposed to sending my own to him. So, is he still de-farbing pistols and such? He was Blockade Runner, I believe.
I think Todd Watts had an arrangement with Bockade Runner to offer defarb "packages" on guns they sold. You buy the gun from Blockade Runner, add on the defarb price, and they would turn the gun over to Todd. He would do his thing and then ship the gun to the buyer. I bought an ArmiSport M1842 smoothbore with the Todd Watts defarb package from them 10-12 years ago, and I am very happy with it. This gun is one of my "keepers."

Defarbing does improve the appearance for those of us who like the look of older guns, but with long arms in particular, defarbing makes a slimmer, better-handling gun with more refined woodwork. The objectionable graffiti is also removed. This type of defarbing is not fakery and it is not necessarily even antiquing or artificially aging, as the gun may end up looking like a brand-new original. Todd Watts was very good at this. However, I don't see his defarbing service listed on the Blockade Runner website any more.

I was able to locate Todd a few years ago, and I sent him a 1980's vintage NOS CVA Big Bore Mountain Rifle kit I had picked up. He assembled and finished it for me, and did a very good job.

Blockade Runner is still very much alive. I'm pretty sure Todd Watts is still out there, too, but I can't say he's still working with Blockade Runner. I know Lodgewood Mfg. is well respected for their defarb jobs, but the last I heard, they were not taking on any more of this type of work until November, due to their backlog. John Zimmerman also did excellent defarbing, but he is getting up in years and I think he has cut way back on his workload. I'm sure there are others, but these are the three of whom I am aware.

Best regards,

Notchy Bob
 
Last edited:
Mr. Watts de-farbed an Enfield musket for me about 10 years ago, before Pedersoli came out with a fastory-defarb. He did a nice job for me. Had all the bells & whistles and markings, hardware, etc. I forget which mfgr. initially made the musket, and I got it from him as opposed to sending my own to him. So, is he still de-farbing pistols and such? He was Blockade Runner, I believe.

Todd Watts is very much still in business: Watts Defarbs. I think that he also still has a Facebook page. I have had four muskets defarbed by Todd: two Parker Hale Enfields, an 1853 and an 1858, an ArmiSport 1853 Enfield, and a Miroku 1863 Springfield, all done beautifully. I'm especially proud of the Miroku. Todd did some sleuthing to justify a mix of barrel bands and band springs and it came out as a documented transitional 1863/1864-65 Springfield reproduction.

I also sent a 44 caliber brass frame 1851 Colt clone to Todd for a small repair and he asked if he could experiment on it to engrave it like an original Schneider & Glassick. He gave the frame appropriate CSA markings and engraved the barrel. I later decided that it was too pretty to shoot and sold it to another forum member.

In short, Todd Watts is still doing what he does so well, and I'm very pleased with the work that he has done for me. I still have at least two more projects to send to him as soon as I put together the $$$. I think of him also as a friend.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_5265.jpg
    IMG_5265.jpg
    1.8 MB
  • S&G_1.JPG
    S&G_1.JPG
    907.4 KB
  • S&G_3.jpg
    S&G_3.jpg
    458 KB
I'm not going to "condemn" you by any means and you did do a nice job. That said, you do know that Dixie Gun Works sells a Pietta .36 cal brass frame revolver that is an unintentional clone of the S/G? It's the cheapest revolver they sell. $275.00 plus shipping. VERY affordable. I happen to own a pair of them that are mechanically and cosmetically perfect. Actually better then any Uberti's I own.
 
I'm not going to "condemn" you by any means and you did do a nice job. That said, you do know that Dixie Gun Works sells a Pietta .36 cal brass frame revolver that is an unintentional clone of the S/G? It's the cheapest revolver they sell. $275.00 plus shipping. VERY affordable. I happen to own a pair of them that are mechanically and cosmetically perfect. Actually better then any Uberti's I own.

I don't feel condemned, and thanks for the compliment, although I'm not sure what your point is about the new Piettas at DGW. Maybe I missed something - do they have Pietta's usual BP warning and name highly visible and deeply stamped into the barrel? I really dislike that Pietta does that and I appreciate so much that Uberti does not.

The guns I described in the original post I bought used and were much cheaper, as little as $75 for one of them. I bought them for project guns during the middle of the pandemic when nothing new was available from any US sources. If I had purchased a new Pietta I would have still done the same work for my poor man's defarb, i.e. remove modern markings and cold blue the steel parts.
 
Well I guess if you wanted ALL the modern markings gone then I see your point. The Pietta I mentioned does have the plain cylinder without the customary navy roll stamping though. Would save the time and effort in removing that. And $75 beats $275 any day of the week and twice on Sunday. Like I said, you did a good job!

However I will stand by my claim that my two Pietta S/G unintentional clones bought from Dixie with date stamps of 2020 beat ANY Uberti I own including 2nd and 3rd gen Colts in both mechanics and cosmetics hands down. The 2nd and 3rd gen Colts use Uberti parts. Other than the Pietta name and warning and the usual proof stamps, these two are literally perfect. They don't even have the 'pietta flare' on the lower portion of the grip. Now my sample size of Pietta's is only these two. The rest of my cap/ball are Uberti. But these two have really impressed me.

edit- Extremely good fit and finish. Very crisp and light triggers (both of which are virtually identical in feel and weight). Perfectly fitted internals. No 'short arbor' to deal with, unlike Uberti's. And to clarify on the internals, the parts were obviously hand fitted, but hand fitted by someone who gave a darn about doing a fantastic job.
 
Last edited:
Ah, I understand - thanks for the clarification. When I was looking for a revolver to defarb for a correct .36 cal S&G I would have bought a new Pietta had they been available. But removing the engraving was a fun project in itself.

I have had similar experiences with most of the Piettas (9) that I've owned. The newer ones, especially seem to be very good - the older ones have been less consistent. The 1860 Pietta that I'm offering for sale is perfect mechanically as well as fit and finish. It is every bit as good as any of my Ubertis (16), but then I deburr and polish all the internal parts on every one of my revolvers regardless of who made it. If only the Pietta's didn't have those awful markings...
 
I KNOW that a lot of people are going to disagree with me on this but here goes ... ...
I understand the reasons why "defarbing" is done -- but I am against "FULL" defarbing, where there is NO permanent indication that the item which APPEARS to be an original 19th C gun is, in fact, a reproduction that has been worked on.
This is a recipe for deception by a small number of "traders" and morally wrong.
Apart from some "luggage label" or paperwork file documenting the alterations (easily accidentally lost or deliberately so) I believe that SOMEWHERE on the bundhook should be engraved the "provenance" --- under the rammer? under the grips? on the underside of a long gun barrel? The snake oil brigade won't like it but is this not just being fair to subsequent generations?
 
I KNOW that a lot of people are going to disagree with me on this but here goes ... ...
I understand the reasons why "defarbing" is done -- but I am against "FULL" defarbing, where there is NO permanent indication that the item which APPEARS to be an original 19th C gun is, in fact, a reproduction that has been worked on.
This is a recipe for deception by a small number of "traders" and morally wrong.
Apart from some "luggage label" or paperwork file documenting the alterations (easily accidentally lost or deliberately so) I believe that SOMEWHERE on the bundhook should be engraved the "provenance" --- under the rammer? under the grips? on the underside of a long gun barrel? The snake oil brigade won't like it but is this not just being fair to subsequent generations?

Well it's morally wrong for the person who knowingly sells an antiqued repro as original, but not for the original owner to alter it to appear as such, as long as they don't pass the fake off as original.

Under the grips? Under a long gun barrel? IF one is concerned of an antiqued repro being passed off as fake, and protecting the public, then one might not want to assume that the buyer knows to look in these areas.

IF one values the piece, then the factory serial number and proofing marks should remain (imho). IF it gets stolen, there is no way for the recovering LEO to determine to whom the gun belongs without that visible number allowing the LEO to check it by computer, and NO folks..., they won't know to check under the barrel or the grips in about 99% of the cases. Since it's impossible to recover, expect any insurance claim on that piece to be denied....

Riddle Me This...,

THE RIDDLER.jpg
IF an original owner leaves the serial number and proofing marks, what stops the swindler from removing those in the future and then selling the piece as original ??? WE have no way of knowing what will happen to the piece, once it's left our hands. A swindler can take our second hand, unaltered, factory original repro and put some time into it, and voila, a fake...

LD
 
I KNOW that a lot of people are going to disagree with me on this but here goes ... ...
I understand the reasons why "defarbing" is done -- but I am against "FULL" defarbing, where there is NO permanent indication that the item which APPEARS to be an original 19th C gun is, in fact, a reproduction that has been worked on.
This is a recipe for deception by a small number of "traders" and morally wrong.
Apart from some "luggage label" or paperwork file documenting the alterations (easily accidentally lost or deliberately so) I believe that SOMEWHERE on the bundhook should be engraved the "provenance" --- under the rammer? under the grips? on the underside of a long gun barrel? The snake oil brigade won't like it but is this not just being fair to subsequent generations?

I left the original serial numbers on the revolvers that I posted about and any others that I’ve similarly “defarbed.” (In quotes because I’ve not added any period correct markings.) Todd Watts removes the serial numbers from conspicuous locations and engraves them on the underside of the barrels. To me, that seems sufficient evidence for future owners. Only the least discerning and careless individual would mistake these for originals and I don’t feel like I need to try and fix stupid in any generation - to put it bluntly.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top