Mixing metals on an English sporting rifle

[Dale Halterman]

I am collecting parts for an English sporting rifle to be based loosely on the Turvey rifle in RCA. I picked up one of Jim Chambers' ornate silver sideplates and thumb pieces, but I am having second thoughts about using them. In order for it to look right, would I also need to get a silver buttplate and trigger guard? Or did they mix brass and silver hardware on the same rifle?

Dale H

[M.D.H.]

Dave,
I completly understand your thought process. And feel the same way...  Out of all of the originals I've held and pictured, the majority had the same "colors" (if you will) through out the gun.  HOWEVER, in gun buidling and originals, there is no rule set in stone. 

If you like the light or silver look as much as I do, try going with Iron or steel parts.  They take some extra sanding and polising, but in the end you end up with a great looking piece.  If I'm not mistaken, Jims Sporter is in Steel....

M

[David Rase]

If you are going to use a silver sideplate then by all means use steel furniture for the rest of the hardware.  The silver thumbpiece can be used with brass or steel furniture.  The only brass/silver I can think of off the top of my head is American from down in North Carolina, Vogler used it I think.
DMR

[Jim Kibler]

Absolutely nothing wrong with using a silver sideplate and thumbpiece with an iron guard and butplate.  Was sometimes practiced on English guns of the general period as the Turvey gun.  I have a fowling piece by Thomas Richards that has an iron butplate and guard with a silver sideplate.  I suspect the thumbpiece was also silver but it is missing.

[omark]

i have had access to an original curly maple halfstock cap lock by jacob long, probably built in pa about 1850 or so. it has brass furniture and the inlays are silver.    mark

[smart dog]

Hi Dale,
English makers, like all others, mixed and matched largely owing to supply, customer demand, and use.  Silver is softer than steel, iron, brass or bronze so it would make inferior buttplates and triggerguards with respect to wear.  Certainly there were many presentation guns tricked out with silver but I doubt many were meant to be used very much.  So many makers made the hardware that had to be tough out of iron or steel, but used silver for the decorative parts.  Silver shows up a lot on pistols but they generally were not used as hard as long guns.  Also, during the 17th and early 18th centuries, steel was very expensive because it was always in short supply.  Methods to make large quantities had not yet been invented. In the 17th century, steel was often considered more prestigious than silver because it was almost as expensive, wore much better, and could be polished bright.  In fact, it often keeps a bright silver color longer than silver before tarnishing.  On firearms, steel was in demand.

dave

[Bill of the 45th]

Highly polished rust blued steel will look terrific with silver, and English Walnut..  I say go for it.

Bill

[Jim Kibler]

Here is my understanding of materials used on 18th century English guns.  Iron was the most desirable and highest cost followed by silver followed by brass.  This is likely a rather general statement and likely wasn't true 100% of the time.  When iron was used, it had to be forged and couldn't be cast.  This might be a relatively small difference in labor for plain hardware, but when relief decoration is considered the labor associated with iron increases tremendously.  It seems the English were highly skilled in casting very fine relief hardware in silver in brass.  Decoration in iron must be chiseled, or perhaps partly produced by forging dies for repetitive decorative elements.  So it is labor that made iron the more costly material.  I don't know for sure, but I would feel confident in saying Silver pound for pound was MUCH more costly than iron. 

[smart dog]

Hi Jim,
But not steel.

dave

[Jim Kibler]

I don't believe steel was used for hardware on English guns in the period being considered.  It was of course wrought iron.  Why would one want to use steel on hardware in the 18th century?

[smart dog]

Hi Jim,
If you look at Neal and Back's book "Great British Gunmakers 1740-1790" you will find that they identify pistols and long guns made by Twigg and others mounted in steel and others in iron.  In their book on Griffin and Tow they also show guns mounted in steel, not iron.  I agree with you that iron was probably the metal of choice when mounts were chiselled.  Look at the Brescian guns for example.  But not all mounts are chiselled and I believe steel was the metal of choice for high-end guns that were engraved.  Certainly many presentation and show pieces were mounted in silver or gilded bronze, but I believe steel was the sportsman's choice if he could afford it.

dave   

[Ben I. Voss]

Just a guess, but perhaps they called it steel if it had been case hardened (and probably re-polished bright)? Or perhaps the terms iron and steel were used in a generic sense?

[Jim Kibler]

I think it is modern corruption that is causing the words iron and steel to be used interchangably.  Still can't imagine why steel would be prefered to quality fine grained iron.  I'm no expert, but from what I gather most steel of this period it formed from basically an extended carburizing treatment of wrought iron.  Don't think crucible steel was all that common.  As has been mentioned, perhaps the mounts were sometimes carburized.  I can't really see what big advantage this would offer as well.  The European guns that I've had in my possesion that appear to be iron are certainly iron.  Given the cost of steel and the labor involved in producing mounts from it, I can't see any benifits that would warrent this expenditure.  Help me out?

[smart dog]

Hi  Jim,
The Portuguese authors of "Espingarda Perfeyta" (1704) discuss at great length how to pick good steel as well as iron. They distinguish between the two very clearly.  Perhaps much of the steel in the late 17th century and early 18th was from the blistering process. The authors particularly emphasize steel made in Milan, which they claimed was the best material for frizzens and springs. They also imported steel from Germany, Hungary, and Venice.  Hayward, in his books on the gunmaker's art distinguishes steel from iron mounts in 17th and 18th century guns. Perhaps, firearm historians and collectors mistake carburized iron for steel, but the authors of EP certainly did not.

dave

[Jim Kibler]

I can understand steel use where hardness and strength is necessary.  I don't see this being needed on mounts.  Does Espingarda mention the use of steel on mounts?  I would question how modern authors such as Neal and Hayward would know whether the material is steel or iron as well.  Without some analysis, I wouldn't think it would be readily apparent.  I'm still not sold on steel mounts. 

[smart dog]

Hi Jim,
You could be right about Neal, Hayward, Back and others but they do distinguish between steel and iron.  Why bother noting it if they could not tell the difference.  Second, I don't suggest for a moment that steel was necessary for mounts, but I do believe it was a highly prestigious metal that was used on many high-end guns.  Silver and gilded bronze were not needed either, but they were used for their appearance and cost.  Steel was very costly and was used for that purpose as well as the fact that it is very wear and rust resistant.  I'll bet that early 18th century sportsmen would overwhelmingly choose steel for mounts if it was available and if they could afford it.

dave

[Dale Halterman]

Thanks for all the responses, guys. I really like the idea of rust bluing the steel parts. Just need to get a tank big enough for the barrel.

Dale H