Question on Iron/steel to use for 18th century Armourers rod.

[Artificer]

Well, here is another unusual/weird question in my quest to put together a working 18th century Artificer/Armourer tool kit to use to repair arms at reenactments and try to maintain historical accuracy (as much as possible) while doing so.  . 

In Dr. DeWitt Bailey’s book, Small Arms of the British Forces in America 1664-1815, I came across this reference on page 268. 

“The only other item that was very occasionally supplied by the Board of Ordnance to garrison and some regimental armourers and was a stout iron double-ended cleaning rod used by the Tower work force.  At Fort Stanwix, New York, in 1758, it was ordered that “An Iron Ramrod to be received from the armourer’s and the man to draw the draw the shot immediately” on coming off guard mount.

That is the only description of the rod found in Bailey’s book and there is no picture of such a rod.  I’m guessing that one end was threaded for a ball puller and the other end was formed into a worm, though that is PURE speculation on my part.  (I’m also guessing no such rods survive as they would have been used for something else or sold for scrap years later.)   

The reason they needed such a rod was because many of the Brown Bess muskets of the F&I War time period came with wooden ram rods.  Thus, no way to screw on a ball puller or even the later threaded worms.  (Seems they used a tapered coiled wire worm on the wooden rods, but that was only to tie tow on the worm to clean the barrel.) 

Well, back in the early 1980’s, I took a section of long brass rod and threaded one end for  ball pullers and breech face cleaning scrapers.  I can’t tell you how many times that rod REALLY came in handy when I worked the NSSA Spring and Fall National Championships and when I was the Team Armourer for the U.S. International Muzzle Loading Team. 

However to my knowledge, they would not have used a brass rod in the 18th century.  I also realize that during the 18th century, they used the term “Iron” quite often in place of “steel” for ramrods and other things, when the Iron Rammers were actually steel.  So to make such a rod to take to reenactments, it most certainly can be made of steel, but there’s the rub.  I don’t know what would be the best steel to buy to make such a rod.

I do know I will have to get at least a 48” rod as some of the musket barrels are 44”.long. I want to be able to at least case harden the male threaded end with Kasenit.  I’m thinking of drilling and tapping the other end as female threads so I can use breech face scrapers and that end will need to be case hardened as well.  Then I figure to make “T” handles for both ends out of maybe brass or iron/steel.  (Since I’m not sure what the original “double-ended” rod looked like, I’m hoping this will be sufficiently authentic.) 

Besides being able to at least case harden the ends, I’m concerned with “machineability” and resistance to chipping when machined so it will have good threads.  I'm guessing I will need to forge out the end for the male threads.   I have been studying hot and cold rolled rod and steel and quite frankly I am as confused as much as I was before I started researching the type of steel to use.  I’m also not sure how much stress I need to consider for the steel. 

Does anyone have a suggestion on what type of steel rod would be good for this?

Thank you, Gus
 

[rich pierce]

Cold rolled should be fine.  Need to case harden?  That's probably optional.

[D. Taylor Sapergia]

The 1800 Baker rifle was issued with a steel rod, a ball "drawer" and a jag, all of ferrous metal.  The rod has a thread of 12 x 24 iirc.  And it also seems to me that the rod had the male thread, and accoutrements the female thread.

[Jay Close]

Rather than speculate about what may or may not have been meant in one reference by the term "iron", why not take it at face value?

I know nothing about military ramrods or cleaning rods be they wood, iron or steel, but lacking further information, I'd be inclined to assume that when iron is mentioned it is what is meant. So, the material would be what we now call "wrought iron". 

The closest modern equivalent would be a low carbon steel or mild steel -- the lower the carbon content the better. Even if the original rods were steel they are unlikely to be "cast steel" so they still had a significant silica content and a grain structure like wood, albeit highly refined.

No modern medium or high carbon steel would be any closer (in my estimation) to the old blister or shear steel than mild steel is to wrought iron, for your purposes. My advise is not to over think this. Make your rod from mild steel.

[bgf]

I think most mild steel bar stock (including round) tends to be hot-rolled, which would be my preference anyway, but not a strong one in this case.  Either should thread easily--works a lot like brass in some ways.  I would worry that case-hardening the threads too much might do more harm than good, but maybe a light case on the whole rod would keep it from picking up dirt?  For occasional "rescue" use, I wouldn't stress too much about it.

[Artificer]

I was thinking the orginal material might have been what we call wrought iron today, however, as most folks know that is very difficult and expensive to find today.

I'm not sure if the steel rod sold at Home Deport for example is cold or hot rolled.  Would that be good enough to use for this?

If I get the rod in a 48" length, I suppose I could try using it without casehardening and then if that didn't work, I would have a little extra length to remake both ends and then case harden them? 

Thanks to everyone for their replies.
Gus

[Artificer]

The 1800 Baker rifle was issued with a steel rod, a ball "drawer" and a jag, all of ferrous metal.  The rod has a thread of 12 x 24 iirc.  And it also seems to me that the rod had the male thread, and accoutrements the female thread.

The British must have fallen in love with that thread size.  Many of the screws in the P 1853 thorough P 1861 Percussion Enflieds were in that thread size.  Found that out by working so many original and real Parker Hale reproduction rifle muskets.

Gus

[Canute Rex]

Real wrought iron is almost impossible to find new today. There was a company in the U.K. making it a few years ago, but it was pricey.

Cold rolled mild steel is slightly (slightly) work hardened and would be less prone to bending than hot rolled. Both would take threads nicely. If the round rod has a trace of a seam along its length it is hot rolled. If it's smooth and uniform, then cold rolled. With square stock it's round corners vs. sharp.

In terms of authenticity of form, I'd use a rod a bit thicker than you might otherwise expect. We are used to seeing tempered spring steel range rods that have some strength to them. Real wrought iron had very low carbon content and bent more easily than even modern mild steel, with very little spring. I am totally theorizing here, but I'd say that an 18th century armorer would have something heavier than a 1/4" rod. With mild steel you'd probably want 5/16" or 3/8" for any heavy pushing. Get a 48" piece of 1/4" mild, put one end on the floor, and push on the end. You'll see what I mean. Note the "stout iron rod" in the original account.

Considering that in the 18th c. rods came in square and rectangular shapes from slitting mills, it might even have been roughly octagonal for most of its length, with rounded ends for the threads. It would only need to be round if it was going to be run down a set of pipes below the barrel, and it was a shop tool.

[bgf]

What I see at Lowe's and Tractor Supply (Home Depot probably as well) is that the sheet is cold rolled and the bar stock is hot rolled.  Cold-rolled has a better looking surface, but it can more likely (only occasionally) have a hard spot in my experience, and as Canute points out it is slightly work hardened, but probably not enough to give a 1/4" rod sufficient stiffness; either one should be fine if you can find a 4' length.  By saying heavy rod and muskets, I'm assuming you can use at least 3/8, 7/16 or 1/2, which should be more than stiff enough either way; you might even want to consider tubing, at least for part, such as welding 3/8" round inside a larger OD tube for a few inches on either end (you could blend them together into a taper).

[Artificer]

Rex,

Here is probably the source for wrought iron you mentioned in the UK: YUP, way to pricey for this use.  Grin.  
http://www.realwroughtiron.com/home-12.html

Good suggestion on the diameter of rod to use.  I made by brass rod I mentioned in the original post out of 3/8” stock for the same reason and I was thinking of using that diameter of steel for this rod.

GREAT info on how to tell if it is cold or hot rolled stock.  That will definitely come in useful.  Also appreciate the info on the historic form of the rod.  That gives me a couple other ways to make it than I had thought about.  

Thank you,  Gus

[Artificer]

  By saying heavy rod and muskets, I'm assuming you can use at least 3/8, 7/16 or 1/2, which should be more than stiff enough either way; you might even want to consider tubing, at least for part, such as welding 3/8" round inside a larger OD tube for a few inches on either end (you could blend them together into a taper).

OK, well I won't rule out 7/16", but I'm thinking about staying with 3/8" so the rod can handle anything from .45 cal. on up. 

Thank you , Gus

[bob in the woods]

Mine and friend's smoothbores  have 46 in barrels, so a longer rod would be prudent.

[Artificer]

I actually made it out to look at Lowe's Home Depot and a couple other places today to look for rod.  Nothing I could find was long enough or if long enough, not in 3/8" diameter.  I was able to spot the trace of the seam on hot rolled rod Rex mentioned and I would not have known to look for that without his advice.  Thanks again Rex.  It sounds like cold rolled rod will best suit my needs and I can get that at metal supply shops here in Richmond, VA area.   

I'm glad Bob chimed in on his and his friend's 46 inch  barreled guns.  A 48" rod may not be quite long enough for those barrels even considering the added length one gets with the adddition of a worm or ball puller.  OR, if I mess up on either end, there would not be the length needed to cut the rod off and start over.  So now I think I will get a longer rod and cut it to 54" before threading the ends.

Thanks to everyone.  Gus

[Dphariss]

I was thinking the orginal material might have been what we call wrought iron today, however, as most folks know that is very difficult and expensive to find today.

I'm not sure if the steel rod sold at Home Deport for example is cold or hot rolled.  Would that be good enough to use for this?

If I get the rod in a 48" length, I suppose I could try using it without casehardening and then if that didn't work, I would have a little extra length to remake both ends and then case harden them? 

Thanks to everyone for their replies.
Gus

Find an old wagon or buggy tire and saw a strip off it. Metal cutting bandsaw would be nice. If the quality it OK you will have a rod. If has a lot of inclusions it may fall apart.
I doubt that in the 1750s they would waste steel on a rod for pulling balls.

Dan

[Artificer]

 

I doubt that in the 1750s they would waste steel on a rod for pulling balls.

Dan

Dan,

I'm sure they would have used wrought iron back in the 1750's, but they also would have forged the rod so as to get rid of inclusions.  I don't have a forge and to be honest, just like they would not use steel because it would have been too expensive, I won't use wrought iron as it is too expensive today.  Most people could not tell a mild steel rod from a wrought iron one, especially after I put some fake forging hammer marks on it and forge down one end to make the male threaded end. I can forge down the end using my Mapp Gas and Oxygen brazing rig or borrow a oxyacetylene torch.
Gus

[Dphariss]

 

I doubt that in the 1750s they would waste steel on a rod for pulling balls.

Dan

Dan,

I'm sure they would have used wrought iron back in the 1750's, but they also would have forged the rod so as to get rid of inclusions.  I don't have a forge and to be honest, just like they would not use steel because it would have been too expensive, I won't use wrought iron as it is too expensive today.  Most people could not tell a mild steel rod from a wrought iron one, especially after I put some fake forging hammer marks on it and forge down one end to make the male threaded end. I can forge down the end using my Mapp Gas and Oxygen brazing rig or borrow a oxyacetylene torch.
Gus

Search ebay for "gas forge". I have a small 2 burner I use from time to time.
I like coal fires better but this is easier and works OK.
I would file it to the shape I needed is using a piece of rod.
Unless proven otherwise I would expect a tool of this type the be properly finished with no hammer marks. Gunsmiths were not blacksmiths and usually did nicer work.
Dan

[Jay Close]

Yes, by all means, your bench rod should be "bright". By that I don't mean "shiny" but it ought to have an even filed finish --- the evenness of the texture being central to what 18th c. folks thought of as polished.

In a similar vein, even though the work of a blacksmith was by definition normally left with a black, oxide surface, no competent smith would leave random hammer marks in a surface. To beat on a bar cold to give it that "authentic handmade look" is waaaaaay off the mark.

It requires a pretty high degree of skill to forge an evenly hammered texture appropriate to the work at hand. If an even better surface quality is desirable the bar could be run through top and bottom swages or dies to further smooth the hammer marks away.

That's nice work, too.

[Artificer]

Dan and Jay,

Yes, I should have thought about it more and you are right the rod should be filed smooth.  Maybe/probably burnished as well?  No problem with me doing that as I have plenty of hand filing experience.  Thanks for pointing that out!

I agree with Jay that when it was called for, blacksmiths could make some extremely finely finished work.  In particular the Clockwork Roasting Jack for turning meat on a spit, they made at Colonial Williamsburg, is a thing of beauty.  I wated in line for over a half hour one time to get into the kitchen just to see and admire it. 

Gus

[Jay Close]

That spit jack is Peter Ross's work. Technically, such a piece in the 18th c. would have been made by a "whitesmith" or even "jack smith" ---- lots of trade specialization in the period.

Blacksmiths were a particular trade, a general worker in forged iron whose income was largely provided by repair and what was called "coarse work" or "black work" or  "country work".  Think of a modern, small town welding shop.

This doesn't mean that a blacksmith could not have made something like that spit jack, just that the folks who could afford them would prefer the professionally made product. In a town like Williamsburg, VA that product would have likely been an import. The local work was driven by the local economy and its particular demands. A larger colonial city like Philadelphia or Boston may have had a large enough population to support more local trade specialization.

And of course the specialist's product was likely cheaper than the one-off produced by a general worker.

One of the joys of working in a museum environment like Colonial Williamsburg is the opportunity to explore a wide range of processes and products for the goal of simply learning more. That spit jack is a good example. Yes, we had production pressures, but also an awful lot of opportunity to experiment and grow.

[Artificer]

I was fortunate on the day I went to see that spit jack, that they were actually roasting some meat on the fire and I could watch it in use.  I was almost mesmerized by watching how the gears worked and admiration for the work. 

One of the kitchen wenches joked it was typical of a man that I was more interested in the spit than how food was prepared, but I was probably never the last one to table.  We ALL got a good laught out of that.

Gus

[FL-Flintlock]

Blacksmiths were a particular trade, a general worker in forged iron whose income was largely provided by repair and what was called "coarse work" or "black work" or  "country work".  Think of a modern, small town welding shop.  ... folks who could afford them would prefer the professionally made product.

Jay,
Care to fire off any more insults?  I don't know about your small town welding shop but the one I owned & operated for 15 years thrived on repairing the alleged "professionally made" products.  I suspect there's a lot of speculation in your statements unless you're limiting such to a specific geographical region rather than making a broad-base claim.  In southern and western areas, the local smiths and other trade people were highly respected and not looked down upon as being "country" or otherwise "unprofessional".  Perhapse those were the eastern and northern attitudes leftover from the tories and their ill-fated crown & guilds mentality but that was not the case elsewhere as history clearly shows and can still be seen in practice in some areas yet today where friends and neighbors still hold those relationships above materialism.

[Canute Rex]

Artificer, nobody would really be able to tell the difference between finished wrought iron and finished mild steel without magnification, an acid bath, or a hacksaw.

If it were me, I'd use a piece of 3/8" or 5/16" square stock and file it off into a reasonably true octagonal cross section. Then I'd file or machine the ends down to an appropriate diameter for your threaded fittings.

As for the level of finish, I'd say it had more to do with the wallet of the client than the skill of the smith. My mastersmith (I apprenticed right out of high school) could forge stuff that looked as if it had been machined. He was amazing. I never got as good, but with some time and care I could get a piece looking respectable. And yet, not everything he did looked completely smooth - it depended on the price of the piece. He showed me a lot of 19th and 18th century ironwork. The level of finish tended to match the level of complexity and artistry. Iron was expensive, but so was skilled labor. It appears that our ancestors didn't use an ounce more metal than was necessary to do the job, nor a minute of extra time.

[Jay Close]

Well, FL - Flintlock, it was certainly not my intent to disparage anyone's trade or method of livelihood. Terms such as "coarse work" or "country work" were common descriptions of the work of a blacksmith in the 18th c. That's why I included them in quotation marks.

Yes, they did refer to a difference in perceived quality in the work but did not necessarily reflect the skill of the workman. I'm sorry that you were insulted by my comparison to a small town welding shop, but that is the closest modern equivalent to the role a blacksmith played in a rural community in the  colonial period.  Lots of repair, custom work and making what could not be purchased cheaply in local stores. And yes they too at times had to rebuild or beef up the imported goods made by specialist manufacturers. I seem to recall an instance in which George Washington (perhaps Thomas Jefferson) took newly imported hoes immediately to a local smith to have them reinforced to withstand plantation use.

The terms I used have taken on a connotation of shoddiness that they did not possess two or three hundred years ago. If fact, if you read my previous posts I was at pains to suggest that is wasn't just gunsmiths who did "nice" work. To call something "country work" in that time period did not mean it was poorly made nor was there the implication that the workman was unskilled or not a respected member of his community. It simply meant that the work was was made in a practical, workmanlike manner, left with mostly a hammered finish.

The contrast was "white work" or "bright work": forged work that was polished and sometimes decorated. It was simply thought of as a higher grade, more of a luxury product  at the time.  Again, no implication that a skilled whitesmith was afforded any more local respect than a skilled blacksmith, everything else being equal.

You seem to have taken particular umbrage at my use of the term professional to describe the maker of a specialized product.  I was simply drawing a distinction between a specialist maker and a generalist. The object in question was a elaborate clockwork devise to power a spit. I don't care how good a blacksmith you are, how good you are at that profession, unless you make that kind of object on a regular basis, I do not think that you could call your approach to it a professional one.  I have made 18th c. style locks and keys, but I am not a professional locksmith. I'm a blacksmith who occasionally  makes a lock and key. Admitting that doesn't hurt me one bit. Peter Ross, who made the spit jack at Colonial Williamsburg, would be the first to admit that he made  more than one false start. So he wasn't a professional jacksmith, but he is still a heck of a blacksmith.

I don't know if I have sufficiently explained the context of the terms I used. Believe me I have nothing but the deepest respect for the smiths of the 18th c. I've spent my working career trying better understand and duplicate the work they did. Peace.

[Artificer]

If it were me, I'd use a piece of 3/8" or 5/16" square stock and file it off into a reasonably true octagonal cross section. Then I'd file or machine the ends down to an appropriate diameter for your threaded fittings.

Rex,

First of all, thank you for your thoughts and I do appreciate them. I followed what you wrote about square or rectangular stock being the way iron was generally supplied with interest. Great points.

The problem is I’m trying to guess about the shape of the rod of what the Tower of London would have supplied for a military armourer without a more exact period reference.  I’m guessing the rod would have been round so as to give the least amount of possible damage to the musket bores.  You may be correct the rod could/would have been octagonal shaped.  I just don’t know.  What I do know is that round iron/steel rammers had already appeared on some Muskets at the time these Armourers rods were issued by the Tower of London.  So I’m guessing the Armourer’s rods would also have been round.

Gus.   

[FL-Flintlock]

You seem to have taken particular umbrage at my use of the term professional to describe the maker of a specialized product.  I was simply drawing a distinction between a specialist maker and a generalist. The object in question was a elaborate clockwork devise to power a spit. I don't care how good a blacksmith you are, how good you are at that profession, unless you make that kind of object on a regular basis, I do not think that you could call your approach to it a professional one.

“Umbrage” is one way to describe it, “rubbing my rhubarb” is another.  Simply doing the same thing repeatedly does not make one a “professional” – I can show you many people who have been doing the same thing for decades yet continue to do it wrong or unprofessionally.  Such is why I, and most other small/micro businesses, take serious exception to the modern ISO system - just as the independent “professionals” of today take exception to unions - just as the independent “professionals” of yesteryear took exception to the European guilds ... no matter which way one wishes to stack the pile, there is a distinct separation between the true “professionals” and those who merely do the same thing repeatedly.  The attitude you express may be correct for the period in Williamsburg, VA but it is not valid elsewhere, particularly those areas somewhat distant of those dominated by the European crowns.  When one looks at true historical documentation, one will find the local smiths, be they black, cooper or whatever trade, they were held in very high esteem to the point of being officially exempt from having to partake in military/defense drills, standing guard duty or other menial tasks assigned to most all others.  There are numerous accounts of such being the case throughout the Illinois and Louisiana territories and the further west and south one went, the higher the regard for the local professionals became.  Locally produced good carried far more value than the majority of imported goods that were considered inferior, my Spanish is rather rusty but I believe the old Florida slang term was “fuertosas” for the robust high-quality locally made goods or the local craftsmen who produced them.  A sea captain seeking to trade for provisions commented to the effect that “fine English wares returned little worth beyond the materials”.  I’m not trying to pick a fight but rather point out the difference that just because one does a particular job or produces a particular item with regularity does not make him a “professional” – and, what one may consider to be finely crafted goods, others see as inferior junk and as such we should refrain from making broad-based statements as they may only apply to a very limited ethnic or geographical region.
Mark