Of Time & Age - The Longrifle

[Jim Filipski]

Hi Folks:
Recently I had a gun I built 2 years ago return to my shop to have the wrist repaired.

When it was new and pristine it was given to the customer in the spring of 2008. It was a left hand Isaac Haines pattern. Not super special (can be seen on my site) but just a really clean gun and way more work put into it then the customer asked for.

The guy I built it for is a Rev war Re-enactor and a good friend. He understands the care and upkeep of a flintlock fire lock, but to him it was a "tool" to use. He didn't baby it and used it hard. The broken wrist came from a theatrical act where he took a spectacular "hit" in front of the audience and unfortunately came down the wrong way onto the stock.

Well the good news is, I fixed it up like new and he will be hard pressed to find the break. But after observing the wear on this rifle I thought it may be something to share & enlighten folks on the ALR.

Here are some observations on a gun that was taken care of but by no means babied ( as most of us do to our precious firelocks)

After disassembling the gun & fixing the wrist I started to note how the gun had aged in such as short time. It is only two re-enacting seasons and at best that would be 10 events x 2 days per event or 20 days of surely hard use as a tool in the field! He never used it for anything else!
Now start comparing this to an 18th C woodsman & longhunter who's longrifle was a tool of his trade: cared for but possibly not babied (as many of us do with our longrifles).

I know that the barrel & lock were left in the white in the spring of 2008.
Now by the summer of 2010, both are nearly browned. Albeit unevenly but more browned then white.
The stock, delivered pristine, now sports numerous nicks dings & gouges and so does the barrel and the brass hardware. The muzzle shows much signs of  dents as does the muzzle cap. The finish dull & worn but still serviceable.

 My first true impression of this piece that was returned to my shop, was one of an antique....(or possible some handy work of Eric Kettenburg, a true master of what age should be)

So I got to serious thinking: 20 days of hard use in the field....taken care of but by no means babied. A tool of the guys trade, so to speak.

Now just imagine what one year would be like to a rifle in the hands of a longhunter/ woodsman in the 18th century. One that cared for the tool of his trade but used it heavily.

So now you possibly see why the plain guns are so scarce from the 18th century, were as, we have the beauties to look at now, possibly the ones that saw little service & were babied

Well that is just some random thoughts & observations that I submit to you all
Jim

[Dr. Tim-Boone]

Makes sense to me.....

[KLMoors]

Yup, it really makes you wonder what the life expectancy of these guns was on the frontier.  Even when the guns weren't actively being used, the "houses" they were kept in on the frontier were pretty rough places compared to today.

[Kermit]

Would this lead one to surmise then, that the originals that survive in anything like reasonable shape were probably the ones that saw little actual field use?

[shooter93]

I'd think it mostly depended on the owner. Many guns I'm sure didn't survive well but I have a number of hunting guns that have been used extensively and still look very good. My double rifle was made in 1913 and tracking the history of the gun and looking at interior wear it hunted africa quite a bit and was in excellent shape when I got it, engraving and all. I did refinish it but that was more a matter of my tastes and not need. And ofcourse I took it on another hunt to Africa myself.....just seemed fitting.

[TgeorgeZ]

Perhaps.

But if these guns were tools of the trade and represented a significant investment in money, and were implements an individual relied upon for his life and livelihood, one would think that they tried to take as much care as possible with them.  A tradesman's tools may show sign of wear, but would be well taken care of.  I think that is the case with your tools.  Worn. but well cared for.  And even they are not implements upon which your very life might hang.

Over time of course, I think the simpler guns - the tradesmen's tools, were probably worn out with use from generation to generation.  Those weapons with the best carvings, inlays, etc, were probably not meant for as hard a use as the simpler pieces and so more of them survived.

That's my opinion - for what its worth.

Glad you were able to restore the piece and I hope the re-enactor takes better care of it in the future.

[northmn]

If you look at the times and also browse the thread on who owned them I think you may find that the survivors may have been rich boys toys that saw little use.  The originals I see the most in my area are Northwest Trade Guns.  The survival rate on these guns is very minimal.  Some have been found at the bottom of rivers where they were lost overboard, one was a missionary's gun and a few "captured" from Natives.  A Wheeler I saw had no forestock.  The Longhunters or Eastern mountain men used them, but whether they were actually plain is debatable.  Survival rates from the Revolution and earlier are much lower than after 1800.  I have seen bundles of old Savage 99's and Winchester 94's that have been used in the manner some attribute to long rifles.  Little bluing left and stocks that look like tehy were beat with log chains.  They still funstioned and actually shot fairly well.  I have an old 99 Savage that has seen its use.  At a certain point the dings and the other wear seem to level out.

DP 

[Dphariss]

Re-enactor abused does not equal use.
How someone might treat something that his life depends on is far different than how some dufus reenactor  treats a rifle he uses as a prop. This guy needs a rubber rifle.
One must always remember that re-enacting is not real life.
But then again we must keep in mind there are those who do not take proper care of their firearms or other belongings. Always have been so you will find one firearm with that is near junk and another perfectly serviceable after being used for the same thing in the same places at the same time. Those that take good care of their firearms have increased survivability since its more likely to function as it was designed to when needed.
I know of a flintlock rifle that has seen quite a bit of use. Use on horseback, packed on a pack horse at some times when traversing Yellowstone Park, been in the mountains for extended periods with the owner living in tents, in use everyday, shot quite a bit, killed game, rain, snow etc. It still looks pretty new.
So you will find guns that suffered heavy use that are still in good shape and you will find guns that had heavy use that are used up.
But remember Boone and others were out for extended time periods and the later western trappers even longer. They could not afford the abuse their firearms or allow them to "age" excessively.
Lewis & Clark had hunters that were out virtually everyday for the balance of the mission and while they wore out a couple of locks the guns were still serviceable though we have no idea how beat they were.  But all things considered I doubt the 2 officers allowed abuse or neglect of the weapons. But they were tools and I don't recall any broken rifle stocks.
Nor did the originals get stacked in a car or truck with a pile of other re-enactor "stuff". Few hunters traversed the country looking for rocks and trees to bash their rifle on since this a a good way to make it unserviceable by breaking the stock. Having bashed one accidentally and broke the wrist once upon a time I know how easy this is to do in some cases.
I find it interesting that the British Indian Trade Rifles circa 1780 came with a case or cover. Covers were very common in the west it would seem but not common or not mentioned on the east. They greatly increase the firearms reliability in wet weather if even somewhat waterproof. They also reduce dings and scratches.
Look at rifle 83 in RCA. This rifle could date to the 1750s-60s and was later converted to percussion. This indicates it was still serviceable by the 1830s-40s when this became common. The chlorate pits indicate it was used as a percussion probably for 20-30 years. So we have a rifle that was likely in use for 100 years perhaps and its still, or was, in pretty good shape.
The Antes Swivel shows a lot of wear to the wood but its not broken.
We also have to remember that 2 weeks of some kid playing cowboys and indians with a gun can inflict a lot of abuse or the gun being given to a 10 year old to hunt with.
A man I knew in my teens, he was then 80+, told of being given a shotgun to hunt with as a kid that he could not carry, it was too heavy, so he wore away a section of the buttstock DRAGGING it. IIRC he lay down to shoot it.
So a gun could survive in remarkably good condition then be wreaked in short period of time as a kids toy or hunting arm.
The John Thomas Rifle in RCA II is a interesting example. I wonder if it was field expedient disabled at the time the owner was captured. Either by the owner  to prevent enemy use or some Lobsterback that hated rifle guns.
Look at the repairs. The the barrel was straightened and leaded and a new forend built. This seems to indicate that someone may have tried to destroy the BARREL at some point by bending it.
We have no idea how much service it saw previous to this but it was apparently in military service for some time prior the the owner being captured. Buttstock shows no heavy damage the inlay is not dented that I can see, patchbox & buttplate are virtually pristine and no repair to the buttstock is noted in the repair list.

This is one of those "your mileage may vary things" but assuming a longhunters gun was beat all to $#*! in a year is simply not realistic. Its possible but I consider it unlikely unless the owner is a dufus.
Dan

[smart dog]

Hi Jim,
Those are good observations.  Having built and repaired guns for friends and family who are re-enactors and also compete in NSSA events, I completely concur with your description.  Another place that is usually worn, scratched or gouged are the muzzle ends of those nice delicate moldings we like to carve along the ramrod channel.  The re-enactors that I know are not "doofusses" as Dan suggested.  They use their guns well but hard.  However, they are often re-enacting the same battles over years and actually see more "action" than typical Rev war soldiers ever did.  Hence, the guns are used pretty hard.  That is why I never try to antique their guns because after one season, they and nature take care of that.

dave

[northmn]

Dan is likely essentially correct in the fact that those that used them as tools took fairly good care of them.  But normal use will cause dings and scratches.  I ahd a wrist break because a rifle fell off a poorly made bench and bounced.  This was at a BP shoot.  That same accident could have occured leaning up against a tree or whatever.  Stuff happens over time.  I have seen pictures of a few wrists wrapped in brass that were repaired and a few trade guns wrapped in rawhide.  Longhunters also had their guns more exposed to the elements than we have.  Still I suspect the tough survived.  The Revolutionary and PreRevolutionary survivors seemed to be more robust than the "Golden Age" guns like the Bedford.

DP

[bgf]

I don't see how visible wear equals abuse.  The modern rifles I've seen that get used 1x/month in good weather and then taken home and virtually restored look a lot different from the ones that get used >2x/week year-round and cleaned and oiled; they function identically.  It is almost painful to watch someone handle a rifle he can't really afford to use -- there is no way that Indian fighters and longhunters babied their rifles in that fashion, although I believe that they did take care of them.  Did Simon Kenton flitz his mainspring after every 20 shots ?  Many these days insist on climate and humidity controlled storage for their firearms -- that was not possible until recently.  Likewise, even a rifle that was carried in a scabbard would have been out a good deal of the time, and it is difficult to see putting it back into the cover for every break (not to mention dangerous): simply leaning rifle against a tree while the hunter relieved himself would have resulted in wear fairly quickly; it wouldn't be abusive wear, but I guess that depends on your definition of abuse.

[rich pierce]

Guns had to be repaired and even had the rifling re-freshed on the Lewis and Clark expedition.  The extensive use on the rivers and in boats may have taken an extra toll.  The men were selected and presumably did not included doofusses.  The usage of rifles on this epic expedition might equal 6 or more seasons of "longhunting", it is hard to say since probably most days, most members of the expedition did not fire their rifles.  They also spent time in the wet Pacific northwest.  It is probably not fruitful to try to over-generalize what "typical" use might be for a "longhunter", for a Revolutionary War rifle corpsman, Native Americans and frontiersmen using rifles for hunting and at war, or farmers and sportsmen who used their rifles for target shooting and local hunting.  Suffice it to say, we've all handled guns that are shot-out, with little to no original finish on any metal parts, are repaired at the wrist, and finally, have locks that are broken in one way or another.  Here's a mid to late 18th century West Virginia longrifle with plenty of use.  It's easy to see the patina that is there from the original finish, then what was removed when the wrist was repaired.

[Dphariss]

Hi Jim,
Those are good observations.  Having built and repaired guns for friends and family who are re-enactors and also compete in NSSA events, I completely concur with your description.  Another place that is usually worn, scratched or gouged are the muzzle ends of those nice delicate moldings we like to carve along the ramrod channel.  The re-enactors that I know are not "doofusses" as Dan suggested.  They use their guns well but hard.  However, they are often re-enacting the same battles over years and actually see more "action" than typical Rev war soldiers ever did.  Hence, the guns are used pretty hard.  That is why I never try to antique their guns because after one season, they and nature take care of that.

dave

If they beat up their guns they have a problem of some sort or bad luck. I have dinged guns, it happens.
Or perhaps I misunderstand "re-enacting". How does one use one hard re-enacting? Do they re-enact in snow and rain? Do they crawl around in the dirt, get their feet tangled in boulders invisible under 18" of snow?
I have a rifle right now I have low crawled with sneaking on deer and antelope 50 yards+ each on two different instances I can recall. Its not dinged from this, some minor scratches maybe. Its also been fell down with several times on snow covered rocky mountain sides without being beat up. This is actual use of a "working gun" BTW. Its had far more than 20 days use. Literally hundreds of miles in a pickup on often on county dirt roads that are only "maintained" every 3-5 years. I carried it  ON FOOT something in the range of 50 miles one year looking for deer. The finish still looks pretty good with no visible wear.
Its  FAR more likely to get beat up, ie get a ding in the stock, putting it in or taking it out of my pickup than it is low crawling 50-60 yards through the sage brush, bare dirt and/or grass. Falls can be more serious but since its a flintlock rifle I take pains to keep it out of the snow/dirt etc if I fall if at all possible.
So when I hear of people beating their guns up re-enacting I think "lack of care".
The friends rifle I mentioned before has been horse back HUNDREDS OF MILES in the wilderness. Its not beat all to heck, its been hunted with for YEARS. So don't try to tell me how tough re-enacting is. Unless doing actual bayonet fighting I can't see the guns getting beat up past minor dings from handling or finish wear. Yes guns get broken, but its invariably abuse or accident. Normal use and care will not break guns or really beat them up.
But re-enactors that use guns as props see them differently than people who are hunting with them and take pains to NOT beat the gun up, take pains to keep it dry and USEFUL since its the only firearm you have and you are a days ride from "civilization".

I constantly see a disconnect between the re-enactor and real life. Its NOT THE SAME THING.
Some re-enactor who uses a gun for a prop has almost nothing to do with real life use, its HOLLYWOOD stuff. Its not reality. If the gun breaks or does not go "boom" its simply an inconvenience. If there is a bull moose causing panic in the horses, Gbears (maybe  several) in camp, you walk unknowingly too close the cow moose and calf or a Gbear, its DIFFERENT. ITS NOT A GAME. So it behooves one to TAKE CARE OF HIS FIREARM.
Everything I have mentioned above has happened to me or a friend at sometime or another.
There is a place about 25 miles from here that I hunt across the road from that is currently leaving garbage out so they can watch the bears. They now have a resident garbage Gbear along with the blacks. I think FW&P is trying or planning to trap the Gbear, its pointless but they likely will.  I will go up and scout around on the Forest Service to see is there are any trails I can watch to shoot a black when the season opens. You can be sure I will not be beating up my FL or handling it carelessly before, during or after.


Dan

[smart dog]

Hi Dan,
The folks I know that re-enact take good care of their expensive guns because they can't afford to be replacing them regularly.  However, they wanted the guns for re-enacting, so they take them marching, shooting, drilling, and camping in sun, rain, and snow.  Despite good care, they get dinged, scratched, and gouged. 

dave       

[Jim Filipski]

I constantly see a disconnect between the re-enactor and real life. Its NOT THE SAME THING.

Dan

Well In the past 20 years that I have re-enacted the battles of the Revolutionary war  they have not let us load our guns with round ball so I guess "Its not the same thing"

Jim
(Theatrical Dufus)

[Artificer]

Guns that are used in reenactments get dinged up because you have to do things on the orders of others, quickly, and with less caution than one normally takes when hunting.  Yes, you do have to crawl through the dirt, sand or mud at times with them.  You do have to sometimes move through the woods or brush in formations that don't allow you to dodge the branches and trees like you do when hunting.

Guns that are used in what we used to call "Tacticals" or Civil War period "maneuvers" or "field exercises,"  get used quite similarly to how they were used in the day - except we don't fire live rounds and actually fire two to three times the numbers of blank rounds that would have been fired in some battles.  Yes, I've waded streams up to 5 feet deep, skinnied up and down near vertical bluffs and cliffs, and generally the same kind of use and abuse one gets in the modern day "field exercises."  As an Armorer with 26 years in the Marine Corps, Marines can do some really unusual damage to guns during field exercises even when they are careful as they can be.  

I've seen some pretty messed up guns that people only used for hunting and even when some of them are very careful.

I've also seen reenactor and NSSA guns that ranged from beautifully taken care of to downright abused, but the same thing with hunting guns.  Generally speaking though, guns used for reenacting get more use and unintentional abuse than do hunting guns.  

Will never forget one exceptionall hot year in Wash, DC right outside the National Archives where we did an 18th "tactical demonstration" on the 4th of July.  The asphalt on which we had to do the demonstration was over 120 degrees.  To please the crowd, we fired a LOT more and a lot faster than would have ever been done in any 18th century battle.  While doing the "Highland Drill" as British Highland Skirmishers, my Brown Bess barrel got so hot it burned patches of skin off both by hands and stuck pieces of flesh in five or six spots on the barrel.  Something like that could have happened at the Battle of Monmouth, King's Mountain and a few other places; but not that usual in the period.

One type of period "abuse" that would have been common and not seen as abuse would have been to place a rifle on pegs over the hearth.  The stock would have gone through times of fairly fast changes in heat and humidity from outside in the cold, snow and rain to being warmed over the fireplace.  Sure a knowledgeable person would have allowed the rifle to normalize slower by placing it away from the hearth until the rifle warmed up a little, but I'll bet a lot of them just hung it on the pegs when they came in.  

Gus

[SPG]

Gentlemen,

I used a .54 Don King flint Hawken for many years guiding, hunting and just plain living in the hills. The rifle was carried on foot and horseback, primed and by my side at night, and constantly in my hand because it was my firearm of choice...and for a few years the only rifle I owned. It was always loaded, it was always cleaned, and if it needed attention it got it...before anything else was attended to. The area that I was in really required that what ever one carried it had better be in working condition. I would say that the rifle is in 80% original condition, fully functional, not abused. I did have to replace a mainspring that broke when I cocked the rifle at 38 below zero ( I carried a spare mainspring and frizzen in my hunting bag). The point I'm trying to make is that when you "live" with a rifle, I think that you take better care of it...you are cleaning it at night, you are wiping it down with whatever you can find; in short, it is your most prized possession and you keep it in good working order. I packed my Hawken in a buckskin gun cover which really minimized the dings, dust, and kept her dry and ready to fire. I also carried it on my back, not in a modern saddle scabbard...one of the worst things for wrecking any gun.

I worked with guys that didn't take care of their rifles, knives, horses, ect. Many had some hard times because of not keeping their equipment in order. This is a much bigger deal when you are many miles from even a trailhead or when people are depending on your ability to handle a problem. I'm sure in the old days there were those individuals who didn't take good care of their equipment... many probably died prematurely. I think that, given a conscientious owner, a fine rifle can be used for many years and show a minimum of wear. Just because a rifle is fancy and doesn't show any obvious abuse does not mean that it was a cabinet-queen.

When I was bossing a hunting camp two young men showed up looking for work as "guides". I asked to see the revolver one was carrying...it was very rusty. The other guy's saddle rifle was in the same, if not worse, condition. They joked about the condition of their guns saying that "hey, we use these things, we don't look at them." Both their horses were missing shoes and sored-up. I told them that we probably didn't need any help.

There were the same types on the frontier and that's probably what helped separate the living from the dead. As expensive as even a plain rifle was, I'm sure that a competent hunter took extremely good care of whatever firearm he was carrying.

Just my thoughts...


Steve

[Ben I. Voss]

Steve, I don't suppose you would have a photo of that Don King hawken that you could post, do you? I'd be interested to see how it looks - both it's condition and just because it was made by Mr. King!

[smshea]

I just took a quick scan of my picture files which i have organized fairly well.  Of the guns that I have had in my hands to take pictures of (as opposed to guns I just have pictures of but have not handled) From Reading to the Delaware river, I get a quick count of 38 guns with period fixes. Those are just the ones I have marked with obvious repairs. While that is not a large percentage of the overall file....Its allot of cracked toes and wrist repairs from just one region of Pa. It also does not include period (likely 19th century) restocks.
 What does any of this mean...I don't claim to know, but I don't think they were all broken by kids in the sand box. So someone will have  to explain to this Doofiss why we have so many broken and repaired rifles not to mention period accounts of gun repair by gunsmiths .....someone was hard on them.
 Also ( and this is pure speculation on my part) I doubt very much if the bulk of these rifles were ever more than 50 miles from where they were made, and many that likely were never out of the valley region of Pa. so heaven only knows what happend to guns that actually saw hard frontier use. 

[SPG]

Ben,

I'm far from being a whiz on a devil-box...but if I can't figure it out I'll have Mr. Phariss help me out. This Hawken was a bit of a departure from Don's norm...32" 1 1/8" barrel, sling fittings, and a simple oval patch box. It has been, and continues to be an excellent rifle.

Scott,

One thing I don't think we are taking into consideration is the unintended wear/abuse inflicted on old guns by those who don't regard them as something to take care of...i.e. the great, greats of an old hunter who knew the rifle simply as "grandpap's old musket-loader". Those without any regard for a rifle will inadvertently be pretty hard on them. Dropped from a mantle or knocked out of a corner...easy things to happen to an old rifle that isn't regarded as important anymore.

I'm reminded of the friend who showed me the "playgun" that he used when he was a kid. There was a pair...in a box..but he lost one in the river. Darn presentation-grade Tiffany 1861 Colts just don't float very well. And besides...his greatgrand dad (who they were presented to) had long since been dead at that time.

"Use" and "Abuse" are two very different terms.

Steve   

[northmn]

When I look at normal use, which again can include things like rifles being leaned against something and falling down I think there is a certain "abuse" element.  Mine take a beating going up and down treestands that are commonly hunted in.  To me the biggest issue of use and aging a firearm back then would have been related to technology.  Today we have oils and preservatives that can really assist in preventing rust.  We do not clean with tow and so forth.  They had tallow and linseed oil.  The tallow hole in a Tennessee poor boy may not have been just for patching, but for total gun maintenance, as in wiping the lock and outside of the barrel.  If I get caught out in the rain the gun is treated with a modern oil after I wipe it down with a very absorbant cloth.  They were said to have kept their guns cased or covered quite a bit also.  As to original guns, I have restored a couple of shotguns where the cracked stocks and such were not so much from lack of care as age.  The constant expansion and contraction they went through from various humidity conditions finally got to them.  If the bores and locks are still in good shape the gun was likely cared for.

DP

[smshea]

I'm certainly not trying to make the case that there was no abuse or loss of guns due to abuse especially in the early-mid 20th century, Ive seen the results on many occasions. The repairs I refer to are very likely done in the early -19th century while the guns were still in service,in fact many times the repair has been repaired or shows ware from use after the repair.
 My point in this is that they broke and in many cases could be repaired but in many cases I'm sure they were beyond repair and restocked of salvaged for parts. I think the idea that 18th/early 19th century guns didn't used up and then salvaged into something else is a bit silly..way to much evidence to the contrary. I certainly don't think that people intentionally abused there guns but I do think life on the 18th century frontier was harder than any of us can imagine and if the guns received ware and tear on the farms and in towns here in Central Pa one can only assume that the ware and tear even a days walk away from population centers might be worse and certainly not as easily repaired professionally.
 There were allot more guns built than we have today and while I'm sure we lost a great many to the years post civil war due to improper storage or negelect and lack of interest and we lost some to the Coon Skin Cap clad "Leave it to Beaver" types playing with the gun in the attic. Certainly this is not how they all ended.

[northmn]

Even though cared for I doubt that they were babied.  What do we consider caring for a ML.  You keep the outside oiled and clean it after shooting.  You try not to ding it up too much in use, but still the thing is expected to take what we would call normal use.  Obsolescence is another cause of loss.  One Hawken barrel was said to have been found as a fence post.  Other heavy barrels were said to have been used as crow bars in the mines in California.  There is that period when guns tend to be classed as old beaters before they become collectable.  I saw that with the milsurp rifles I played with. 
I look at my 40 which saw use as a target rifle and got its wrist broke in that fairly easy use when it bounced off the bench.  I have carried it in the woods a few times since, sometimes in the snow.  Somewhere it has picked up that look that we call "patina" and I cannot say it has been used heavily. 
Arguing over whether a particular sport is tough on them or not is futile, if they are being carried or used they will develop a "patina".  I broke a frizzen spring on one rile while shooting it in fairly cold weather during deer season.  I still think the combination of design and the cold may have contributed to the break.  The famed Hawken halfstock was supposed to have been designed to avoid the weaknesses of the longrifles.  Long tang and trigger plate bolted together to reinforce the wrist.  Half stocks as the slim forestocks also broke on long rifles.  Plain not fancy because plain does not show use as bad.  May be something to it.

DP

[Majorjoel]

So someone will have  to explain to this Doofiss why we have so many broken and repaired rifles not to mention period accounts of gun repair by gunsmiths .....someone was hard on them.
          Yes, I think UPS Delivery has a lot to do with this!

[Mike R]

...you see, Dan does not like reenacting or reenactors, thus his caustic comments.  I personally try to take good care of my firearms--a lifetime obsession.  There are some reenactors--most I know are Civil War guys--who really do rough it--yes they camp & reenact battles or troop movements in the rain or snow.  Yes some crawl over rocks and brush, some fall hard, etc...one does not need to fire bullets to "use" a rifle hard. BP blank loads foul a gun pretty bad.  Unlike the plastic stocks of modern army rifles and unlike modern rifle steel treatments, the old iron and wood guns took some 'normal abuse' at times that shows.  Even my babied guns have dings and places where rust started.  I know several guys who started a few years ago with shiny new Enfields or Springfields that are now antique looking--and they took care of them...