Tkendrick said:
I have to admit that I don't get it, especially for re-enactors.
Soldiers in the Civil war were issued NEW rifles, they looked new, and Sgt's being Sgt's, I doubt they were told to "take it out and beat it up so it'll look more antiqueish".
Same with the mountain men. I have a real hard time believing that they didn't take really good care of what was probably the single most expensive piece of hardware they owned.
The first thing that pops into my mind when I hear someone talking about doing this is that they are intending to commit some type of fraud on someone.
Can anyone explain this to me?
1) NO not all soldiers during the ACW were issued new guns, especially amongst the Confederates who often had problems getting new equipment.
2) Not all Mtn Men carried new guns - many brought from the east the guns handed down to them and others bought used - there were even used guns on the trade lists taken to rendezvous. And while it may seem that they would be taken care of, based on period journals that was not always true, there are several notes about the men using poor guns as an excuse for not bringing back game, etc.
As to wear and tear - as noted guns could get beat up quickly under the adverse conditions experienced. Again read the journals for period observations. Even military expeditions such as L & C and Pike, where discipline would have been higher, they note how quickly guns were worn and or damaged, sometimes beyond repair. In fact L & C noted in one of their letters that if it had not been for their gun/blacksmith their guns would have been out of commission within just the first few months.
On the other hand, original stocks that are black are that color because of the oxidized oil on them.
This oxidizing takes many years to develop and a Mountain Man carrying around a gun that was made 5-15 years earlier wouldn't be carrying a gun with a black finish.
With all due respect Zonie, but that's not necessarily correct - blackening can occur both from oxidizing oil varnish (most guns of the era were oil varnished not oiled or greased to use the period term) and from improper neutralizing of the Aqua Fortis so commonly used to stain the common maple stocks or a combo of both.
With the original type oil varnishes it can take as little as 6 months or so to oxidize dark when carried 24/7/365, especially in the high dry west with the intense sunlight, but also due to grunge i.e. dirt, powder residue, etc. With AF it can occur in a matter of days. FWIW - Both observations are based on real life experience using the materials listed.
As to fraud - for many craftsman it is an "art" form and for users who may not have the ability to get out and do it as often as possible, it is a way of aiding their mid set - the ability to help them push back the years so to speak - in neither case does it necessarily have to do with fraud - it's only fraud when there is criminal intent involved or trying to make one self more than one really is i.e. lying...
Yes fraud and lying occur and their wrong no matter what the circumstances. Some folks will claim that those who age their goods make it "easier" for the criminal - true to a point, but then again those who choose to be a criminal will commit the fraud whether the piece is already aged or not - that's why they are criminals and such fraud is nothing new - it's been going on since at least the ancient Egyptians. Others will claim that it's dishonest - and again that can be true but only if some one makes a false claim......
Bottom line if you don't like it don't do it, but unless there is criminal intent leave the other folks who choose to alone - as for the liars, as long as there's not criminal intent I leave them alone as well - it's not my "job" to expose them especially since their lies will eventually hoist them on their own petard........
