To Shine or not to Shine: That is the Question

[Marc Adamchek]

OK, we're told that letting brass furniture get dull is "what they dun" back in the day. AndI know, it cuts down on the reflection for hunting. But do ya think anyone of those early America types ever thought, "My God, puttin' a shine to Ol' Betsy shore makes her purty"?

 

[Gary]

I don't think they shined them at all. Why draw attention to yourself (by either the natives or the game)? Now, a gentleman farmer who probably have it polished if it the area was settled and free of warfare.

 

But do ya think anyone of those early America types ever thought, "My God, puttin' a shine to Ol' Betsy shore makes her purty"?

I'm sure they did. Probably got killed as a result.

People do stupid things to impress other people!

Always and Never do not exist in the historical context.

:front:

 

[roundball]

OK, we're told that letting brass furniture get dull is "what they dun" back in the day. AndI know, it cuts down on the reflection for hunting. But do ya think anyone of those early America types ever thought, "My God, puttin' a shine to Ol' Betsy shore makes her purty"?

FYI...I've kept the brass showroom shiny on every one of my muzzleloaders for 15 years now...fill all my tags every year...doesn't bother deer one bit...scent and movement are everything.

 

I tend to agree with you. We overdo camo and dullness. The woods are full of bright colors and refections off shiny things. I have hunted turkeys (successfully) for years with a shiny shotgun. But there is some documentation for dulling brass and gunstocks and the so-called "black rifles" used in the old times. If you really want to hide, you do go dull. Brass naturally "ages" to a nice yellow color or you can blacken it with a dirty patch after a shot of BP. In the old days I think the hunters were more worried about other humans than game animals while in the wilds--and dressed accordingly.

 

[Mulebrain]

Blueing was originally used to dull/hide the fininsh on firearms, not to prevent rusting! As far as brass furniture goes, it depends on the gun and your personal taste.

I like patina, and aging so I leave the bright work alone.

I wouldn't have told that to my Divo in the Navy tho :haha:

Funny, I have seen guns in war collections where blued parts were gone, and parkerized plated ones were good as new! I am referring to dug weapons.

As far as the way they did things back in the day, I really don't think most folks had the time to polish guns. Now folks in the military might be a differnt story!

I am sure many gunsmiths delivered up some beautifull shiney weapons to owners, and maybe upperclass folks kept them polished or had someone else polish for them.

 

[tg]

"OK, we're told that letting brass furniture get dull is "what they dun" back in the day'

Who told us this...and what period source were they quoting?

 

[Mulebrain]

Well, it will get dull naturally on it's own. I don't think people back in the day let it dull to look old. I really doubt they cared.

 

[LSU TIGER]

I think some parts had a dull shine from handling, like the buttplate, trigger guard, entry thimble, front thimble, and nose cap. The rest aged to a "peanut butter" look. :m2c:

 

[Stumpkiller]

Let's consider what was available if they wanted to polish brass? No Brasso or Flitz available in the flintlock era. Powdered brick dust or fine sand was used to keep gun barrels shined up on muskets. If this was used on brass we would be wondering if brass were engraved as the evidence would have been erased in keeping the brass shiney. Was there a non-abrasive brass polish generally available in the mid to late 1700's? Jeweler's rouge perhaps?

 

[pepperbelly]

This is just my opinion, and I am new to this, but didn't they use brass because it resists corrosion better than iron? Since they were in survival mode permanently I think the idea of polishing the brass wasn;t thought about.
As far as bluing, blue is a form of rust. The idea is that it will slow down the oxydation that rusts red. Oil prevents rust on blued parts and to a lessor extent on unblued steel. That is why steel in the white takes more care.
I don't know as much about that era as most of you so I have no idea how parts were blued, but rust bluing was possible with the technology available then.
This is just my opinion so don't be afraid to set me straight if it's wrong. I've been wrong before.
Jim

 

[reddogge]

I like my guns to look old so I don't polish the brass. I just let them age naturally and they are 25+ years old and look just the way I like them. I personally don't like to see an old gun gussied up and spit shined but that's just me.

 

[benvenuto]

Well, it will get dull naturally on it's own. I don't think people back in the day let it dull to look old. I really doubt they cared.

I think it was just a matter of personal taste "back in the day"

On a fancy rifle, stands to reason the owner would take a lot of pride in appearence, keep the brass clean in the first place and give it a bit of spit and polish every now and again. Once it got out of date, maybe they would pay a bit less attention and a sort of patina would build up.

On the other hand, if it was a "game getter" or a "barn gun' I doubt anything more than the strictly necessary would have been done to it.

You have to be carefull about imposing our modern tastes onto what happened back then. We are used to "old looking" guns because they are what we see in museums and they are what we consider valuable.

"Back in the day" however, the newer looking the better for the most part. And if, say, your were re-enacting someone who was ex military, you can bet their piece would be as shiny as a mirror because soldiers would get into all sorts of trouble (think 50 lashes) if it wasn't. :m2c:

 

FYI...I've kept the brass showroom shiny on every one of my muzzleloaders for 15 years now...fill all my tags every year...doesn't bother deer one bit...scent and movement are everything.

Precicely!!!. I don't think that people were much different "back in the day" than they are now. People are people. I tend to equate guns 200 years ago to vehicles today. A rifle to a settler or whatever then was possibly much like a vehicle to someone today in importance function taste etc. Today, some people wash and wax their 4x4 every week. Others never wash it, let the rain clean it. Some people get all the bells and whistles, some get a plain "work truck". I think the attitude toward guns was similar. As far as time to polish a rifle, I think they had more than we do today. Summers were busy but "cabin fever" in the winter was not uncommon. After doing chores, sitting around when it's -30 out with nothing to do, I don't think it's a stretch that some would grab a piece of linen and start rubbing the brass on their rifle just to kill time. With enough time, it would likely come out just as shiney as with brasso. All brasso does is speeds up the process which is important in todays million mile per hour world but 200 years ago....As far as shiney giving up your location, Like RB said, game just don't care. I've had deer <20 feet from me and if the wind is right and I don't move, they don't know, don't care. As far as shiney getting you killed, perhaps. However, I don't think there was an indian behind every tree waiting for some unsuspecting settler to walk by. I think that's just hollywood. History is written by the victor. That is why we tend to think of scalping as an "indian" thing. The concept was introduced by the british. If the indians were such a menace, why is north america over run by europeans?. anyways, I rambling again. bottom line for me, I don't thuink people were much different then than now. Some had a "a rifle is just a tool and you don't polish a shovel" attitude and some had a "a rifle is very expensive and the better I look after it, the longer it will last, and besides, I like shiney" attitude. Just like people and their trucks today.

Thanks for listening
Cody

 

[oneeye]

History is written by the victor. That is why we tend to think of scalping as an "indian" thing. The concept was introduced by the british. If the indians were such a menace, why is north america over run by europeans?. anyways, I rambling again. Cody

While this is somewhat true, don't let your historic conscience cause you too much stress. There were many Indian tribes wiped out by other tribes long before Europeans came here. I am still trying to figure out why that is okay morally, but white encroachment was not?

Sorry to hijack the thread, but this pushed a button.

Dan

 

[tmdreb]

Let's consider what was available if they wanted to polish brass? No Brasso or Flitz available in the flintlock era. Powdered brick dust or fine sand was used to keep gun barrels shined up on muskets. If this was used on brass we would be wondering if brass were engraved as the evidence would have been erased in keeping the brass shiney. Was there a non-abrasive brass polish generally available in the mid to late 1700's? Jeweler's rouge perhaps?

Bingo. Use a brickdust or woodash + water polish, and you'll get a clean, bright weapon that's not shiny like a mirror. Shine then and shine now weren't always the same thing. Also remember they were using oiled stocks, and not shiny plastic-coated ones.

 

[Pork Pie]

Another neat trick is make a damp paste of hard wood ash apply it to a dry corn cobb and use it to polish holds the vehicle well and provides you with a handle.
Cheers
Pork Pie.
P.S.
I agree that trying to speculate what " They " would have done is not a good pratice. As what is conceived as practical changes with fashion and culture.
Kind of like saying that Extasy Heads would not shave half there head and dye the rest outrageous colors because it would draw attention from the Law. I rest my case.
Cheers
Pork Pie

[/quote]

Bingo. Use a brickdust or woodash + water polish, and you'll get a clean, bright weapon that's not shiny like a mirror. Shine then and shine now weren't always the same thing. Also remember they were using oiled stocks, and not shiny plastic-coated ones. [/quote]

 

[Okwaho]

I've read all the posts on the relative merits of keeping gun brass shiny and I think as far as White men go it was really an individual matter. I do lean,however, to the notion that most men had enough pride in their weaponry that they would have done their best to keep their rifles clean and well oiled and probably keeping them as rust free as possible wiping down the mounts along with the rest of the gun.

I think that Indians did the same. I don't know where it is but I have a trade record from Montreal which stated that Indians preferred guns with "yellow" mounts.The Fusils fin which were presented to Indians by the French in Canada and Louisiana were almost universally brass mounted as a token of esteem. I have two reenactment guns. One is an English fowler of 1740 styling in brass and the other is a French Fusil Ca. 1680-1690 mounted in iron. I keep it clean and free of rust and I think Indians did much the same.

I noted that Cody stated tht the Btritish introduced scalping to the Indians.This is is an inaccurate statement.There is a very good short article in "The Encyclopedia Of the North American Indian" by James Axtell of William and Mary College titled, "Scalps and Scalping" Basically his premise is that there is no record of non-Indians scalping except for the Scythians,nomadic Eurasian peoples of the 8th and 4th centuries[url] BC.In[/url] North America there is pre-contact evidence of skulls with scalps having been taken Ca. 2500-500 BC.One of De Soto's men was scalped in the 16 th century and there are Jacques LeMoyne's sketches of scalps being taken in the 16th century{Theodore de Bry's depiction}.
Other early explorers mentioning scalping by Indians include Jacques Cartier,16th centurty and Peter Radisson in the 17th century while with the Mohawks who used the term "Head" to probably denote a scalp.

As to European promotion of scalps, payments or bounties were offered as early as 1637 for Indian scalps and after 1688 for European scalps.The most infamous purchaser of scalps was of course British Colonel Henry Hamilton of Detroit who became known as the "hair buyer".
Tom Patton

 

Okwaho, I made a poor choice of words in stateing that "scalping was introduced by the british". I meant that it was promoted by the british. however, that is a moot point as the information you provided was new to me and therefore, regardless of how I would have put my point across, it would have been in error. Thank you for the clarification.i found you post informative and very interesting.

Thanks
Cody

 

[pepperbelly]

Tom I enjoy reading your posts. The information on the native perspective is very interesting. Most accounts I have read are mostly from the settler/invader point of view.
I must admit to never really thinking much about it. I grew up watching westerns on tv (I'm 47), and as a boy that shaped my view of the native indians.
As an adult a movie changed my thinking. Dances With Wolves may have been fiction, but it started me thinking. The Patriot and Last of the Mohicans seem to try to show a more realistic view also.
Anyway, keep posting. I really enjoy reading your comments, and I love learning things, especially things I didn't know the question to. Keep it up.
Jim