Even though the stock wood is beech, the color you have sugggests that you had a very iron-rich solution. When you saw the stock turn gray that was your indication that you were getting ferrous oxide forming as the acetate left the stock. You could have applied straight vinegar to redden the color or used hydrogen peroxide. Either would have caused a shift towards ferric oxide and given you a redder color.
When you use a vinegar/iron stain you are in control of the color. Yuo can get anything from black to red by manipulating the chemistry a little. With a nitric acid/iron stain you have much less control; you get just reddish brown.
Best Regards,
John Cholin
It is impossible to get "iron rich" vinegar stain with over the counter vinegar. At least as compared to AF/Nitrate of Iron. Its too weak to dissolve much iron. As a result it does not stain the wood in the same matter as AF will.
This is probably why nitrate of iron was used historically.
Vinegar/iron was used as a *tint* for cabinets and furniture. Its was not used as a stain historically or so I am told by good authority.
I would also point to the fact that hydrogen peroxide was pretty rare in the 18th century since it *did not exist* being a man made chemical first produced in 1818.
I am also told that the color of the iron oxide is determined by the water molecules attached to it. Black or grey has more water, redder has less to none.
I would also point out that the red is actually correct for Nitrate of Iron stained maple though some *may* be more honey colored.
I have no desire for a grey/brown or green/brown or other weird colored gunstock.
Unless you dye the wood it is very difficult to get "the color you want" in maple. I use AF/nitrate of iron stain and I know its
right for a maple stocked longrifle. Some maple stocks were not stained at all and simply varnished with a dark, reddish oil based varnish perhaps made with leaded boiled oil and sandarac. This varnish looks like this. Sorta reddish even though put on circa 1850-60. This is a traditional finish, used on maple with no stain at all so far as I can tell.
This is a "Connestoga Rifle Works" (Leman) 54 caliber FS in unused condition. It is coated with a red varnish. It is dated on the lock 1840.
Nitrate of iron may look like this:
Or this:
Or this:
Depending on the wood and the batch of stain the range of colors above is typical.
The new rifles only have 2 coats of finish in these photos.
You will note in the photos of the 2 original rifles that the common undertone is red.
The red falls into the realm of AF stains or red/reddish varnishes made with an oil with reddish tones as a result of its formulation o the varnish was intentionally colored a translucent red as in the case of the Leman. Thus while there are rifles with stocks of other colors we can assume that the red/gold or red/brown stain produced with AF and/or shop made or purchased oil based vanishes are correct from the historical perspective for a wide range of rifles.
There ARE exceptions, but note the color of the wood UNDER the varnish on the late Hawken rifle. Its honey colored where the varnish has worn away (note its not chipped or flaked). So when you see a light honey colored rifle with traces of a reddish brown varnish in protected areas you can assume the rifle was probably varnished with a shop made varnish originally and that it was reddish brown when new.
Now if you dislike AF color or that produced by the vanishes such as those above by all means stain as you like.
But do not scoff at red/gold or reddish/brown. It is irrefutably historically correct for American rifles for at least 130+ year span from circa the F&I war to the end of serious ML production in the 1880s-90s.
Dan