Brass and Iron mounts on early guns

[rich pierce]

I'm with Stumpkiller on this one. There are no known Lancaster rifles of the 1770's with iron mounts, except a J Ferree rifle with a sideplate replacement of iron.

In an effort to provide alternatives to customers, and allow creative freedom, suppliers have made iron (mild steel actually) mounts available for many types of longarms that never had them. Moreover, they simply make them identical to the brass mounts except using mild steel. That's in big contrast to original iron mounts that are forged, not cast, and often take different forms. So now it's possible to look in a catalogue and think, "do I want brass, German silver, or steel on my early York County rifle?" when there are, in fact, almost no examples of iron or German silver being used. This causes a lot of confusion, and I wish the catalogues would make it clear that these are creative choices that are not period correct AT ALL.

The big exceptions are Southern mountain rifles, plains rifles, etc., which often had iron mounts.

 

[Stumpkiller]

I'm still hunting, but I came across this EXCELLENT article on American made flintlocks (muskets) that were used in our Revolution [link below]. Lots of iron - but the times were desperate. Alas, no rifles mentioned.

http://www.11thpa.org/neumann.html

 

[THORNAPPLE]

Rich and Stumpkiller, this is a great topicical discussion to follow, but it begs the question: Did the old smiths build spec guns to sell off the shelf, or wallpegs....or was each gun a special customer order? Or a percentage of both? If custom orders were taken, it stands to reason that iron mounts may have been requested for whatever reason....just like today.
I've never seen an iron mounted JP Beck either, but one is about to hatch itself on my workbench (great segway, huh?). Todays hobby/business is CUSTOMER driven to a large extent, and most customers are not as well educated in history as the builders.
If you look at the existing estate lists of the old builders, you will find very few completed rifles, but a number of parts and lots of tools. This leads me to believe most weapons were made to order.
What say ye?

 

[dlemaster]

Stumpkiller
Sorry, I missed the twinkle in your eye.

Rich I agree with you, I too wish the catalogs were clear that German silver and steel mounts would be creative choices and not period correct. It brings to mind a fellow who called me several years ago who bought a set of parts to make a J. P. Beck rifle and decided he didn't have he skill to put it all together and wanted me to assemble it in the white and he would do the finish work. We came to an agreement on cost and he delivered the parts, lo and behold the mounts and inlays were German silver. I explained to him I could assemble the rifle but it wouldn't be "correct".
We sat down and went through "Thoughts on the Kentucky Rifle in its Golden Age" as well as RCA vol.2 looking at Beck rifles. He decided to buy the correct brass mounts and was very pleased with the results. He later thanked me for taking the time to go over the books and talk about Beck's rifles as he would have been disappointed if I had just assembled the parts he brought to me and later found out that Beck never used German silver.

Regards, Dave

 

[Stumpkiller]

What say ye?

I see you are a fellow of deep insight and profound reasoning abilities. A GREAT question!

A Trip to the Gunshop - (Click me)

One I asked three months ago. :crackup:

I think it was a combination. We see some patchboxes and triggerguards that are as alike as peas in a pod even between several gunsmiths, so it seems likely that they shared a common source. It is also likely that an apprentice was kept busy developing skills and producing parts that could be assembled to order.

Likely the wood was proportioned to the owner, but, I am sure there was a traffic in guns purchased by non-residents that may have been a drop-in sale. Correspondence was slow (though not far behind current snail-mail from city-to-city). I would bet there was always a used gun or completed rifle or two available for quick delivery or walk-in sales.

My vested interest in all of this is that I own an iron-mounted early (1780+/-) Lehigh/Northampton with the only brass being the forend-cap, ramrod tip and the patchbox. I've always thought this was the way to go, and I went it. In researching the project before I committed to the order I came across the info in the above posts and other threads hereabouts.

I just like iron mountings. Keeps the fay at bay (the wee folk can't abide the touch of iron ye know. Poison to their touch, it is. :winking

So, might there not have been a smithy in bygone age who said, behind the curtain, "Hezikiah, dig out that iron-mounted thing that's been collecting dust out back, we've got a live one here."

 

[dlemaster]

Gunsmiths estates are subjective to whether or not he was still working at the time of his death.
Some show little or no parts and tools because he may not have worked at the trade for several years due to poor health ect.. While others show some tools, parts and supplies but not very many, indicating he was not very active in the trade at the time of his death. Others show guns in their inventory and a stock of tools, parts, stocks, and barrels.
In Henry Kauffman's "The Pennsylvaina Kentucky Rifle" there is an excellent drawing of the floor plan of the Meylin gun shop which shows a small area that may have been used as a sort of show room to display completed guns that were for sale as well as any used guns he had in stock for resale. He could also take orders there for new guns as well.

As to the similarity of mounts there is ample evidence of imported brass mounts which could explain some of those similarities as Stumpkiller pointed out. Then again apprentices were probably doing a lot of that type of work also. I know when I started my apprenticeship for the first six months I did nothing but file work on mounts and make up ramrod pipe sets and muzzle caps. The gunsmith said I had to learn the proper use of the file and working brass.
All that work was almost exactly the same from part to part, so that could explain some of the similarities we see from the 18th century.

 

[Flint1]

So, if some rifles of the F&I period were iron mounted, would any have possibly been browned? Or woukd the mounts and barrel have been left in the white?

 

[tg]

I don't think there are any historical references to browning as a finish before about 1770.

 

As to the similarity of mounts there is ample evidence of imported brass mounts which could explain some of those similarities as Stumpkiller pointed out.

Sand casting brass is not that difficult. It would seem likely to me that the BP's and TG's were cast in the makers shop. I have read that when an apprentice completed his appretiship, he was given a set of clothes and a set of tools for him to start his own shop. If this be the case, it also seems likely to me that part of the "tools" he was given could have included a BP and a TG to make sand casting from. If THIS be the case, then, of course, the apprentices castings would be the same as his teachers. A person can be an awsome gunmaker but not particularily artistic when it comes to design. Someone who learned the trade, always useing design elements from the master, stock architecture, PB design, carving design etc, but not haveing an artstic imagination would stick to what they know and their design elements would be very close to, if not identical to, that of his master. This could very well be how "schools" came to be??. To my way of thinking, this is more likely the reason for similarities that imports from the "mother land". I don't believe brass mounts were nearly as predominant in jolly old england as they were in the colonies. MANY english sporting guns seem to be iron mounted. Perhaps the good squire (Rockin' Robin) will chime in and give a more knowledgeable view of what was happening over there for mounts during this time period. If we had more information on what was going on over there, it would help in our conjecture of what was going on over here. IMO

BTW, I'm off to a week long rondy tommorrow morning so yall behave. I'm sure this thread will still be going when I get back

Cody

 

[54ball]

I'll throw my 2 cents in. I have not studied the history of the long rifle like many of you have. I do know in history, never must be used with caution. I think the iron mounted rifle did exist and probably from early on. I think we must look at Appalachia for the answer. Now this is the land that time forgot. Muzzleloaders never died in the eastern mountains and from these mountains they reemerged 2 generations ago. They made their own barrels and mounts from iron. Iron is litterally laying on the ground in the mountains. If brass was in short supply iron was used. I think they were very rare especially early on. By the time of the Battle of Kings Mountain the iron mounted southern rifle was being made and it's decendents are still being made today. Check out the Foxfire books they mention frontier forges and small furnaces in the mountains of North Carolina,Virginia and Tennessee. It is no doubt brass was by far the most common. The black rifle mentioned above dated to the 1750 1760 time period is known as the one and only of that age. How many brass mounted rifles exist from that time? One hundred,five hundred? There's your ratio right there.

 

[dlemaster]

I served an apprenticeship under a gunsmith who in turn served his apprenticeship under Wallace Gusler at Colonial Williamsburg. As Cody said I made many of my tools as part of my apprenticeship, others I bought at antique shops and flea markets. My first set of castings (butt plate and triggerguard) were made from copies taken directly from The Brass Barreled Rifle. When I wanted different styles of butt plates or triggerguards I made patterns out of maple or birch. My first stock patterns were profiles made of thin maple taken from The Brass Barreled Rifle and the Adam Haymaker Rifle. My guns started out looking very much like the guns of the master gunsmith I served under, but you gradually develop your own techniques and styles as you go along.

I know for me personally, I always liked working at the forge making castings much better than trying to forge iron mounts. I will admit that I'm probably brainwashed subconsciously to favor brass mounts just because I see more of them.
As I recall there is a picture of an iron mounted rifle in Kindigs "Thoughts on the Kentucky Rifle in its Golden Age" that looks pretty early but it is also pretty crude. I'll have to look it up when I get home.

Regards, Dave

 

[Packdog]

Very interesting subject with lots of sound reasoning. I have enjoyed reading the different opinons very much. I'm not a historian so I throw this out for discussion and the thoughts of others.

Was it simply against the law? The Northern colonies and the home of early colonial gunmaking were certainly much more under the watchful eye of the British Crown than than the mountainous regions and down South. It's not long after the Revolutionary War that iron mounts begin to show up.

Iron was found in all the colonies, and forges and furnaces were established in many placcs. But in 1750 Parliament enacted a law declaring that "no mill or other engine for rolling or slitting iron," "nor any furnace for making steel shall be erected in the colonies"! After this only pig and bar iron could be made. Parliament also enacted laws at various times restricting the manufacture of woolen goods. These laws bore heavily on the northern colonies, but were little felt in the South, where manufactories were rare.

web page

:m2c:

 

[Darkhorse]

There is a least one existing kentucky longrifle with iron mounts. If you ever watch Building the Kentucky Rifle by Hershall House, you will see Hershall hold this rifle up and show it and comment on it. Then he says we are going to build one similar but with brass mounts.
To Hershall House that was no big deal apparantly.

Wallace Gusler in "Relief Carving the Kentucky rifle" mention the iron brass thing. But no definite reason is given. He says that many of the southern rifles and rifles of the high country were being built with iron mounts and the question was why.
Mr. Guslers opinion was many of the early german rifles were built with iron mounts and his question is "Why are the pennsylvannia rifles even built with brass."
He also tells a story of a rifle on a military action that lost a patchbox, probably wood. This was well documented and the description of the rifle was one made with iron mounts.
But he never did answer the question.

Bob..... I built a .54 Isacc H. with brass mounts and high grade wood. It looks great. I like the way it carrys, holds and shoots so much that I am building a .40 B weight just like it. I am going with set triggers and all iron mounts on this one. The main reason is its purpose is to be a turkey rifle. And it will be stained dark.
I personally think it will look very period correct out in the forest. Because it is what I wanted. And I think a lot of guns were made different ways because the buyer wanted it that way.
And that my friends is why I think some were brass mounted and some were iron.
Because someone wanted it that way.

 

[750k2]

Well I'm still curious as to the verdict in this situation?
I'm not that into the PC asspect of the game that much, but I do like the lines of the originals.
You see I'm the one waiting for the Beck with the steel furniture. I like the looks of it against the background of a special piece of maple, all of my favorite rifles are like this 2-40 flinters and a 50 cap and now the Beck.
I like being a little different than the mainstream.
Why wouldn't someone have felt the same in the
1760's (I'm payin and I want this) if for no other reason than to be a little different.
How many rifles were built 1750-1770 TOTAL?
How many survive?
Maybe some day I'll learn to like brass but I wouldn't count on it.
I gotta think there were people who had open minds
back then or we would be listining to Tony Blair now?
:imo:

 

[rich pierce]

All I can say is to repeat that I know of no surviving examples of "fully appointed" (not barn gun) iron mounted Pennsylvania-made longrifles which would be dated before 1790 and there are probably at least 500 existing rifles that fall into those timeframes. That does not mean that none ever existed- it means that the proportion must have been very small. It also means that we know nothing of what such mounts would look like, whether they would be the same or different in form from the brass mounts that are typical of specific dates and "schools".

Does that mean that to build such a rifle now is "wrong"? No, it just means you are ordering a custom gun built to your specs. And yes, someone "back in the day" could have done the same and surely JP would have been able to accomodate them. But such a gun would have been well outside the mainstream. Just as unusual as his silver-mounted piece.

I think it's reasonable to say one can't have it both ways- to want something different from all existing examples, and also want it to be "period correct". The two are mutually exclusive. Period correct means "documentable" to me. And I can see no documentation for iron mounted, fully appointed rifles from Pennsylvania pre-1790. Those are just the facts. There's nothing wrong with saying, "It's iron mounted because I wanted it that way" , and a fella ought to be able to say that without also trying to argue that "it coulda been." No need for anyone to argue, "there shoulda been" or "there musta been!"

I've never had a problem with folks that choose to make iron mounted, Golden age and earlier styled Pennsylvania longrifles. I have just always held that there's no evidence they were made.

A fella buying a custom gun should get what he wants. That's why he's getting a custom gun!

 

[bob1961]

thats what i'm going to do to my lancaster....all steel furniture just haven't found ram rod pipes yet....i'm having these guys do my steel parts in a case colored or rust blued finish....

restoration firearms

i think it will look sharp....as i've said in the past i'm not worried going PC at this time with this gun but it looks like it could of had iron furniture....it will be a full time hunter fer me and will git used....so i'm wanting someting everyone else doesn't have....ya guys can git my drift :thumbsup:................bob

 

[Stumpkiller]

If you want forged iron thimbles and entry pipe I know of a smith that can make you some. No idea what he might charge, but that's between you and him.

[email protected]

The finish I chose is a lightly "aged" gray patina with a very slight, even pitting. Exactly for the reasons you mention: hunting and uniqueness . . . and I just like the looks of "old" iron.

 

[Flint1]

We've talked about iron vs. brass mounts bring pc on F&I period firearms, but there is one more thing I would like to clarify. What about the "poor boys" without buttplates, nosecaps, or toeplates. Do these date from the pre-revolutionary period, and are they purely southern mountain rifles?

 

[tg]

"I think it's reasonable to say one can't have it both ways- to want something different from all existing examples, and also want it to be "period correct". The two are mutually exclusive. Period correct means "documentable" to me. And I can see no documentation for iron mounted, fully appointed rifles from Pennsylvania pre-1790. Those are just the facts. There's nothing wrong with saying, "It's iron mounted because I wanted it that way" , and a fella ought to be able to say that without also trying to argue that "it coulda been." No need for anyone to argue, "there shoulda been" or "there musta been"

That is about as well put as it could be Rich, it does seem to be a trend to choose an item that appeals to ones taste and then try to argue it into the history books so to speak. I would like to see some iron furniture avalable that is similar to what hads been found on original guns rather than all the "from the same mould as brass" stuff, it would give a little more in the way of valid furniture to choose from.

 

I agree TG but
i believe there was iron hard wear out there , its one of those things that "if you are able to do something your most likely will , legal or not