18th Century Sandpaper?

[120RIR]

Something I've been wondering about for many years is the degree to which sandpaper/emery cloth may or may not have been used in finishing metal in the 18th century.  I've heard never but without it or something similar, how did metalworkers (be they gunsmiths or not) achieve a polish that would remove fine file marks?  I've heard some say that very fine filing was the order of the day and that was the end of it but I'm not sure I buy that.  Even on dead mint period pieces (and I'm specifically referring to largely un-fired 18th century Brown Bess muskets as seen in the recently published Goldstein and Mowbray book on that subject), there are clearly very few file or tool marks visible anywhere on these pieces.  The same is also true of the occasional flint longrifle that's in outstanding condition.  I know sandpaper/cloth existed and perhaps its use was restricted more to silver/gold smiths but perhaps the 18th century longrifle maker's were using a paste of varying grits applied with a cloth?  This would have the same effect as sandpaper without the paper part.  I'd appreciate any input and thoughts from builders who are real authenticity pinheads (like me when it comes to my 18th century engraving and silversmithing  ).

[Tim Crosby]

 This may be of interest:

 http://www.flintriflesmith.com/WritingandResearch/Research/sandpaper.htm

  Tim C.

[rich pierce]

Scraping, burnishing, and polishing with leather smeared with wet grit such as pumice works quite well for metal polishing.

[KentSmith]

Scraping brass and softer metals is a well known practice.  Abrasive stones, grits applied to leather or cloth like you do for a strop and I have read of some sand paper availability but expensive.   Powdered abrasives have been available for centuries as well as natural abrasive stones.  Grinding wheels made from stones mounted on hand, water or later steam powered shafts in effect grinding wheels were quite common.  Much care was taken to remove the majority of file marks to avoid the impression of indifferent work though the reality of the market the extent and effort required would vary.  A Brittish gov't contract for military long arms would have different inspection requirements than a Lancaster gunsmith making shop standard flintlock long rifles for westward migration.

[James Wilson Everett]

Guys,

Apparently sandpaper was used long before the ML time period, the best was glass paper where the abrasive was ground glass grains.  The earliest US patent pertaining to sandpaper was patent 8,246, Isaac Fischer, jr., 1834.  But this patent was for an improvement in the manufacture of sandpaper, not for sandpaper itself. 

Jim

[Mark Elliott]

I would like to point out that  you can use increasingly fine files to smooth and remove previous file marks.   I use #2 needle files to finish file before I apply abrasives.   The surface is pretty good before the abrasives are applied.   In the case of barrels,  if I need to do anything to it (many Rice barrels do not need anything but a touch up) ,  I draw file and leave it.   As long as I use chalk and am obsessive about keeping the filings out of the file path,   The resulting surface is pretty good; certainly good enough for a rusting finish.   

[bama]

I was going through some of my reference books awhile back and I was going through one of the inventories of a early gunsmith and sandpaper was listed. I want to say that the inventory was done in the 1820's. I will try to find it again but that may take a day or two.

[120RIR]

Thanks everyone...interesting comments, insights, and documentation.  I haven't entered the rifle building world (yet) but have been making gorgets, beltplates, etc. for the 18th century reenacting crowd for decades and at least with the guys I deal with, how a piece is made is often just as important as the looks of the end product.  They would prefer to spend a few extra bucks for something that was done in an 18th century manner instead of just looking like it was.  I'm trying to up my game a little.

[Mark Elliott]

I can't speak to others experience, but my experience is that with regard to guns,  most people really aren't willing to pay for period hand work as it adds a lot to the cost.   If you are going to make money,  you have to work as quickly and efficiently as possible.   This is just for gun work where the costs can really add up.   For generally less expensive items,  period correct methods may be worthwhile.

[Stophel]

I think you need to look at actual guns, not pictures of guns.  Your photos may not be showing what is readily visible to the naked eye in unfiltered light.

I find file marks ALL OVER metalwork on guns of all kinds, even fairly high end European guns.  Only the finest of the finest seem to have been polished out to the degree that many people demand today.

[Goo]

Finishing stones?  They work faster and better than files.

[Stophel]

File marks/scratches don't photograph well....

I did my best to photo this gun so that the scratches would show up in the picture.  This is a bird gun, ca. 1760, possibly German, but I'm thinking Flemish, actually.  The hardware was probably purchased from a shop that specialized in gun hardware (or the gun shop had a "department" that only did gun hardware).  Made by people who did nothing but brass gun hardware, casting, filing, and engraving, all day, every day.  The engraving on this gun is absolutely FLAWLESS.  I have looked over all of it, and there is NOT ONE SINGLE slipped line, not one accidental crossed line, no slip, no jump, nothing.  The engraving is basically perfect..... yet the brass has file marks (and stone marks???) all over it. They're not horrendous, but fine scratches can be seen every where on all the hardware (the sideplate less so, since it is a broad flat surface, and no doubt easier to polish).  MAYBE you can see some of the more egregious scratches on this triggerguard, in the beveled edges where the file was dragged sideways along the bevel (which is how I would do it...).  Most of the hardware is not that obviously scratched, but the marks are there, nonetheless. (You can also see the casting pit up near the tip of the finial.)

[Stophel]

I do wonder just how fine of files they had available to them.  I have a hard time believing that they had files as fine as some of the frog hair Swiss files I have.  I am kinda thinkin' that they may have used stones a lot (which still leave fine scratches). 

[flehto]

My final wood finishing is w/ 220 grit sandpaper which is also used for whiskering.  I do use scrapers but only to shape.

In this day and age, attempting to build a LR using 1780 tools and methods is a worthwhile endeavor if the builder isn't concerned w/ the build time, but besides  procuring the tools and equipment,  the use of some of these "old time" tools adds significantly to the hours spent. Williamsburg builds LRs in the manner of the "original builds" and is able to charge accordingly....but most builders whether they be full time or serious part time builders, don't mainly  use "old time" tools or methods because they'd have to charge prices that only Williamsburg is able to  charge.

With the advent of using CNC to make extremely accurate precarves for kits , discussing whether to use sandpaper seems trivial.....we're way past the use of sandpaper.

I've built most of my LRs from blanks and send the blanks and bbls to Dave Rase for the bbl inletting and RR work and then use a bandsaw to reduce the wood to a squared "precarve"". After bandsawing, the use of "old time " tools comes into play for various inlets but then I use a free standing drill press to accurately drill all the holes . So....out of the total hours to make a LR, most of the tasks are done w/ modern tools.

This procedure is fairly efficeient but nowhere as efficient as a kit supplied w/ a CNCed precarve.

My trade was tool and diemaking and I was lucky to have started my apprenticeship when hand skills were importsnt and left the trade before CNC took over. CNC was a natural progression in toolmaking  from an economic standpoint but caused the toolmaker to be a minor part of the actual tool building.

Sandpaper? I use it all the time.........Fred

[rich pierce]

Stamp out egregious file marks!

Methods and materials used to finish metalwork will depend on the desired end result, and that may depend on both the builder’s preferences and the gun being built.

[jerrywh]

Even in the 17th Century they had buffing wheels in Europe ans England. They also used sticks with compound on them.  Check out the Diderot Encyclopedia of trades and industries printed in the 1600s. If they had it in England you can bet it was imported to the colonies. Maybe Jacob Dickert didn't have it but somebody did like Paul Revere

[wormey]

I went back and reread the original posters question and it appears to me that he was not suggesting doing things the way they did, but only asking out of curiosity.  I have been curious about the same thing for a long time.  I`m gonna continue to use power tools as well as other modern methods, but I still have a handmade rifling machine that I occasionally use, but will continue to primarily use Rice barrels and Chambers locks.  I`m just interested in the history of it all from cutting the tree down to making the lock, stock, and barrel.  Just how did they perform their magic  Wormey 

[jerrywh]

 I think one mistake some people make about history is thinking that everybody did things the same way back then. I'm sure that the different craftsman did things by many different methods just as they do today.  This is how things progress and technology is advanced through the ages. People are constantly coming up with new ideas and they are adapted by the different trades as we advance. That's how we got from flint to percussion and etc. So when asked how people did things back then the true answer would be , several different ways.  We can tell some things by the content of their inventory and such. For example John Twig of England had 12 lathes in his shop.  And Joseph Manton had a building about a block square in London and it was two stories tall.  Sometimes we visualize an old man standing behind a bench in a log cabin and most of the time that is not reality.  Although this was not the case in the colonies there were exceptions and diversity.  One must ask himself how someone like Jacob Dickert produced hundreds of muskets if he was just a one man industry as some imagine.

[J Henry]

  shark skin.

[jerrywh]

 So called sharkskin works fairly well on wood that  often wasn't actually shark skin but some other type fish. Don't work on metal at all. In Europe they used abrasive powders on metal glued to sticks. leather or cloth. The abrasives were sized for fineness. They also had polishing wheels as we do today but powered by water horse or dog wheels or ---- even slaves.

[thecapgunkid]

Jerrywh..."I think one mistake some people make about history is thinking that everybody did things the same way back then"...

Yup.  My Master Cordwainer taught me about  sharkskin, but I can't find a lot of documentation because I haven't looked very hard.

I've seen people get wood very smooth with broken glass scraping with the grain, and others using sand glued to wood strips.  That's why I judge Jerry nailed it, and why it is as much a culture thing as a history thing.  Whatever works for you, and whatever you learn about along the way.

[Eric Kettenburg]

You can find plenty mention of pumice and "rotten stone" in Philadelphia merchant advertisements.

This kind of discussion REALLY needs to specify what country, what era, what region you are discussing.  What was used in Europe and the finish expected of a 'typical' European piece is very different when compared to what one might find on say one of the Oerter rifles, or some other American rifle.

Most American work appears to have been finely filed and then simply burnished or buffed up a bit with something mildly abrasive to add a shine and mask the file marks.