I originally posted this under the "PC" thread" but asked Claude to delete it as it's not on topic.
Intro: It's often asked, "Are brass mounts or iron mounts more appropriate on this or that gun from the F&I War period?" I have seen 3 common approaches to answering the question. The first is research based. Folks look at what's in collections and museums and make the assumption that such guns are representative of what existed. The second approach is to extrapolate from originals of a later period, and decide that the mounts used on guns made before the Revolution are likely made of the same materials, in the same region, as guns of a later period from that region. Southern "mountain" guns of 1810 on were often iron mounted, and it's coomon for folks assume that guns of an earlier period must also have been largely iron mounted. The third approach is to use "reason". That is perhaps the least "powerful" approach because we assume that things were then, as they are now. There were factors operating of which we know nothing.
Here's my ideas on the ever popular "brass versus iron" debate:
Cost always matters Brass, pound for pound, is much more expensive as a raw materal than iron. But it can be sand cast into fine and complex shapes with very little effort. Forging iron by hand into complex shapes such as a trigger guard is much more labor intensive. It might take 8-10 heats and therefore an hour at least for the rough forging. Verus 20 minutes to set up the sand mold and pour. So in the colonies, where labor was expensive, iron mounts would cost more to make considering "parts+labor".
Labor and factories in Europe made iron mounts cheap However in Europe for production guns, they made dies which a smith could hammer the iron into, producing trigger guard rough forgings much faster. Plus labor in Europe was cheaper than in the colonies. And factories allowed specialized tasks and as you may have seen, anyone who does the same thing every day gets fast at it.
Brass may have been marketed as special on chief grade fusils Generally the French fusils for trade had iron mounts. I imagine the brass was marketed as "special" to the Indians and the cast in or chased engraving may have added to the appeal.
What about iron mounted Southern guns? Were they common in the colonial period? Editorial- my views only! Folks who like iron mounted Southern guns of the 1810 and later vintage like to reason that there must have been a lot of early iron mounted Southern rifles but they got confiscated, destroyed, carried off, or used up and fancier guns with brass mounts were kept as heirlooms. Nice hypothesis but it's 100%supposition and can never be proved or disproved. That's the beauty of the theory. It can't be wrong because if the guns are all gone.....
I can import barrels and locks but dang it I can't find any brass! Some folks reason the backwoods gunsmith might not be able to get brass but could forge iron mounts. OK, that's possible, but not plausible. All evidence indicates that about 75% of locks on American longrifles and smoothbores before 1775 were imported, not made here. And many barrels were imported also. Plus there is plenty of evidence for imported finished brass mounts being used on American pieces of the colonial era. So they could get locks and barrels but not brass?
I think the Southern mountain rifle of the 1800s was often made by guys whose primary skill and business was blacksmithing and they chose to show their skill and art by making iron mounts. As simple as that. :imo:
I'm not the student that some others are, so take what I say as my thoughtful opinion only
Intro: It's often asked, "Are brass mounts or iron mounts more appropriate on this or that gun from the F&I War period?" I have seen 3 common approaches to answering the question. The first is research based. Folks look at what's in collections and museums and make the assumption that such guns are representative of what existed. The second approach is to extrapolate from originals of a later period, and decide that the mounts used on guns made before the Revolution are likely made of the same materials, in the same region, as guns of a later period from that region. Southern "mountain" guns of 1810 on were often iron mounted, and it's coomon for folks assume that guns of an earlier period must also have been largely iron mounted. The third approach is to use "reason". That is perhaps the least "powerful" approach because we assume that things were then, as they are now. There were factors operating of which we know nothing.
Here's my ideas on the ever popular "brass versus iron" debate:
Cost always matters Brass, pound for pound, is much more expensive as a raw materal than iron. But it can be sand cast into fine and complex shapes with very little effort. Forging iron by hand into complex shapes such as a trigger guard is much more labor intensive. It might take 8-10 heats and therefore an hour at least for the rough forging. Verus 20 minutes to set up the sand mold and pour. So in the colonies, where labor was expensive, iron mounts would cost more to make considering "parts+labor".
Labor and factories in Europe made iron mounts cheap However in Europe for production guns, they made dies which a smith could hammer the iron into, producing trigger guard rough forgings much faster. Plus labor in Europe was cheaper than in the colonies. And factories allowed specialized tasks and as you may have seen, anyone who does the same thing every day gets fast at it.
Brass may have been marketed as special on chief grade fusils Generally the French fusils for trade had iron mounts. I imagine the brass was marketed as "special" to the Indians and the cast in or chased engraving may have added to the appeal.
What about iron mounted Southern guns? Were they common in the colonial period? Editorial- my views only! Folks who like iron mounted Southern guns of the 1810 and later vintage like to reason that there must have been a lot of early iron mounted Southern rifles but they got confiscated, destroyed, carried off, or used up and fancier guns with brass mounts were kept as heirlooms. Nice hypothesis but it's 100%supposition and can never be proved or disproved. That's the beauty of the theory. It can't be wrong because if the guns are all gone.....
I can import barrels and locks but dang it I can't find any brass! Some folks reason the backwoods gunsmith might not be able to get brass but could forge iron mounts. OK, that's possible, but not plausible. All evidence indicates that about 75% of locks on American longrifles and smoothbores before 1775 were imported, not made here. And many barrels were imported also. Plus there is plenty of evidence for imported finished brass mounts being used on American pieces of the colonial era. So they could get locks and barrels but not brass?
I think the Southern mountain rifle of the 1800s was often made by guys whose primary skill and business was blacksmithing and they chose to show their skill and art by making iron mounts. As simple as that. :imo:
I'm not the student that some others are, so take what I say as my thoughtful opinion only
