trigger guards and buttplates

[mudcat dale]

Just a couple of questions for you more knowledgeable folks.  Were brass trigger guards and buttplates typically all cast?  Are there any original examples where brass furniture was formed from sheet/straps?

Thanks,
Dale

[G-Man]

Some (not all) late period brass and silver mounted Appalachian rifles and pistols  by makers who primarily worked in iron tend to have mounts formed from mutliple pieces of sheet that were formed, riveted and joined in the fashion similar to the way they made iron mounts.

I believe some hardware on trade guns was formed from sheet brass as well - for instance the buttplates on NW tradeguns.

I know of at least one very good contemporary maker (Mike Miller) who used to make quite a bit of brass hardware from sheet brass.  In Mike's case he was copying early Virginia styles and finished them up so that they appeared indistinguishable from  cast brass, rather than the aforemetntioned late Appalachian style brass mounts that tend to have visible joints and rivets and look pretty much just like forged iron mounts in form.

Guy

[Long John]

When considering a question like this one must always include the time period. 

In the middle of the 18th century, the time period that interests me most, European manufacturers were shipping kegs of gun locks and gun furniture to the colonies for use by American smiths.  I remember seeing reprints of adds from the Philadephia Gazzette announcing the arrival of such shipments from England. 

The making of a sand mold for casting of brass mounts was a well-known skill in colonial times and casting mounts allowed one to achieve economies of scale by making a bunch while you are at it.  But I suspect most colonial gunsmiths bought gun mounts from itinerant peddlers who bought a stock of them, amongst other things, before taking to the road.

Best Regards,

John Cholin

[mudcat dale]

Thank you both for the info. 

Dale

[Jim Kibler]

When considering a question like this one must always include the time period.  

In the middle of the 18th century, the time period that interests me most, European manufacturers were shipping kegs of gun locks and gun furniture to the colonies for use by American smiths.  I remember seeing reprints of adds from the Philadephia Gazzette announcing the arrival of such shipments from England.  

The making of a sand mold for casting of brass mounts was a well-known skill in colonial times and casting mounts allowed one to achieve economies of scale by making a bunch while you are at it.  But I suspect most colonial gunsmiths bought gun mounts from itinerant peddlers who bought a stock of them, amongst other things, before taking to the road.

Best Regards,

John Cholin

Most mounts are specific to a gunbuilder or at least a school / region.  This points to gunsmiths producing the mounts or at the very least a central source within a region.  I don't think it is reasonable to conclude most mounts used were of an import variety or even purchased by the gunsmith.  Surviving examples tell otherwise.  Yes, there are some original guns that obviously have mounts of a European origin.  These could have been re-used or could have been imported.  Nevertheless, these guns are a very small percentage of what is seen.

As to making mounts from sheet.  Butplates may have been sometimes hammered out.  This point is of contention between some of the prominent students / collectors.  One thing to consider from an eighteenth century standpoint, is that sheet material would have had to be cast and hammered out prior to forming a butplate.  From what I understand, this is not as easy as it may seem.  Going directly, and casting a butplate is likely an easier process.  Perhaps at times sheet material was available and may have been used for butplates.  One thing for cetain, the vast majority of all mounts were cast.

Jim

[James Rogers]

I think I agree with John AND Jim. Surviving examples are of a later time frame than the mid 18th century time that John cites and they certainly show some distinctives. I believe a big change begins to occur just prior to the revolution. There you can begin to see regional and distinct stylings attributable to American areas. Prior to this ramp up at least in my area, we are dealing with a mercantile economy that has the finished products done in the mother country and exported back to the colonies cheaper than what can be had locally. Manifestos and store advertisements of the mid 18th do show these made parts coming in. Course I am one of the hypocrite skeptics on the amount of full blown gunmaking in America prior to the big change mentioned above.

I echo what Mr. Cholin has said concerning the who, what, when, where.
Sheet brass parts can be found on dug examples of cheap trading guns made in England in the 18th century. Sheet brass was done in England and finished products were exported.
Jim, Phillip has been casting flat brass buttplate sheets in skillets Jim Hash used for silver buttplates. He brought me a nice trigger guard but left the buttplate fillet. I will let you know how that forms out.

[G-Man]

Dale - just to clarify - my point about the formed mounts on some 19th century brass and silver mounted Appalachian guns was not to imply that it was common across other regions or timeframes - or even common in Appalachia in the 19th century for that matter  - but was just to show that it was done in some places and times where it probably reflects a particular maker's preferred way of constructing them given the likely limited demand for a brass or silver mounted gun in an area where iron mounts were the norm.  19th century Appalachia is the only region and timeframe of the Ameridcna longirfle I know of where brass and silver hardware was made in this fashion, with the exception of some very crude utilitarian "strap" guards I have seen on some restock/cobbled up guns that are not really representative of a distinct style or region.  

Again,  I did not mean to mislead with my comment about Mike Miller's formed pieces - in his case I don't think he was trying to replicate a period process but rather was using this construction technique to allow him to come up with some one-of-a-kind forms and sizes for particular pieces without having to set up for casting for just one set.  He finished them out so they appear like cast brass hardware, as brass hardware on a 1770s Shendandoah Valley rifle would of course be expected to have been cast as Jim pointed out.

Guy

[Jim Kibler]

I hear what you are saying James.  

How widespread the use of import hardware was, even in say the mid 18th century really isn't known with virtually no surviving examples from this time period.  As mentioned, import hardware is sometimes found on later surviving examples, but these are a small pecentage.  The norm based on surviving examples is hardware cast by the gunsmith or cast locally.  Ship manifestos may include gun mounts or hardware, but this is scant evidence to draw many conclusions in my view. 

As to sheet hardware, I am not that familiar with cheaper trade guns and sheet brass hardware.  I suspect these have hardware that is somewhat primitive and less developed in form when compared to higher grade guns from the time period and place.  Is this so?  The reason I bring this up is that I suspect for fully formed / developed hardware, casting is more economical than forming sheet.  How about brass mounted mid grade fowling pieces?  I've always taken it for granted that this hardware was cast.  Any thoughts?

[bgf]

From another perspective, I'd be interested in what anybody knows about when "they" (probably in Europe) started casting the brass hardware and how they made the "originals" for casting.  I know it sounds like a stupid question and it wouldn't be my first, but if you look at almost any casting, you will see features on it that are identical to one that is either forged or fabricated from bar and sheet stock.  For example, where the triggerguard rail attaches to the bow, there is almost always a decorative feature (e.g., the chevron) much like on a forged guard where the end of the rail is worked down and shaped to blend into or transition into the bow where they are riveted together.  I would classify these types of features as vestigial, as they really serve no purpose in a casting (occasionally you will see castings without that type of feature), which begs the question whether they were originally forging and/or fabricating the originals for casting or simply mimicking what people expected to see on a "real" triggerguard, not one of those new-fangled cast ones . 

I also wonder how one could tell a well-finished fabricated brass guard from a well-finished cast one without extremely close examination, i.e., I don't think a picture would in general be sufficient.

[James Rogers]

Jim,

I think you are spot on in all cases here for what little I know. I speak with the desire to learn more and not that of any authority.   I would love to hear from all who have any knowledge in this.  I agree it is hard to draw any conclusions with what we have from the mid 18th century time frame. I just do not see a vast amount of full blown gunmaking going on here until that pivotal point mentioned. I would think if any piece needed to be made here it was cast as is evidenced by later surviving examples and period remains of casting setups. Casting for a gun shop here would certainly not have needed such a large industrial process. I think that although there are only a few decades between this time frame and the period where we have examples, they are different in circumstances as night and day.

 As far as the mid grade and lower mid grade fowling pieces, from what I have seen from archaeological digs, manuscripts such as store inventories and orders as well as surviving pieces, they were cast. It was just more economical to cast if any from of elegance was the intent. We are discussing the oncoming of common brass items beginning in the late 17th century on another forum. The industrial process seems to begin in both England and the continentals at that time.

Some trading gun common parts (English) are indeed somewhat primitive in comparison. Strappy things with crude engraving. Some were also cast but the sheet pieces (as well as the sheet itself) were produced across the pond in an industrial environment developed for that procedure which justified it's economy I guess.
Diderot's shows brass being poured in large sheets and then pressed. It was then cut into smaller sizes of sheet which could be trip hammered, wrought out for making wire, strapped, etc. Access to this sheet over there was an economical alternative if quick and simple mounts (such as a quick and dirty strap type guard) were to be done.

I do not know offhand if sheet was sent over here. Maybe Mr. Brumfield or someone else can elaborate on that. For any production over here it seems casting is the way it was done from both a practical view as well as historical.
I believe Williamsburg has recovered some lead patterns used to make harness buckles and I would guess that same procedure to be good for hardware.

bgf,
As i mentioned above, lead patterns could be used as "originals" to cast from. Maybe Gary or someone else can clarify if mounts were done in the same manner.
Dont you hate it when you ask for historical information and then you get a response as to how someone is doing it in present day? Well I am about to do the same. My buddy is experimenting and having good results with making an initial wood pattern which is easy to work and detail, then casting a lead pattern from it for regular use with minimal shrinkage.

[mudcat dale]

I really appreciate all the replies.  Great info.

thanks ya'll
Dale

[Jim Kibler]

One early example of sheet metal hardware that comes to mind is RCA  118.  Some feel the Marshall butplate was made from sheet as well, though some also believe it was stocked from re-used parts.  I'm sure there are others, but those are a few that come to mind.

I don't know what to really say about the idea of import hardware being more commonly used during say the mid 18th century.  Who knows?  Even if the time period is bumped up to say the 1760's it still is uncertain in my mnd.  From the few surviving examples, how are we to know whether the hardware was purchased or cast by the gunsmith?  They may be often of a more typical European form, but does this really tell us anything?  Import rococo hardware used on slightly later examples is much more readily identifiable.  For example shumway shows a group of guards on page 648 or RCA volume II.  Further, whithout a gun apart, how do we know if the hardware was re-used from another gun?  If we up the time period to say 1770 though,things become much more clear.  Many more surviving guns exist and trends in style of hardware from a particular builder or region become identifiable. 

I too would be like to hear if others have any thoughts on this matter.

Jim

[Dr. Tim-Boone]

Seems that we might be best served by looking at the existing early fowling pieces made in the colonies.... cast or sheet?? I tend to agree with Jim's notion that by 1760+ the rifle builders were making a lot of their own personally or regionally... Any difference by region among the early fowling pieces in collections... Hudson Valley, New England, others?? That and the shipping and receiving records are about all we really have, unless we find information in first hand accounts of gunmakers....not too many of those.

Its sort of like the discussion of steel mounted versus brass mounted....it depends...

[Nate McKenzie]

Wouldn't a busy gunsmith be likely to order his mounts from a local foundry, possibly made to his own patterns?

[Jerry V Lape]

I like Nate's question but with a slight twist.  Would some of the schools have been formed around a single foundry?  Couldn't the scenario be: one gunsmith or silversmith or blacksmith have been the foundry which defined the school with his pieces.  Perhaps a foundry man who repeatedly cast the furniture designed by one gunsmith, or even copied an import, and all the journey men around that original gunsmith adopting the style for ease of availability?

 

[Jim Kibler]

Both of these scenarios sound plausible to me.   

[James Rogers]

I would say very possible.
I wonder if there would be some PA info.  relating to this, especially towards the latter part of the era?

[flintriflesmith]

The problem with the foundry setting the regional style scenario is that there are very few brass foundries known in Colonial America. We know that gunsmiths and silversmiths did some casting as a part of their trades. Evidence of this is found in documents like newspapers where the smith would offer to purchase scrap and in broken crucibles and the occasional pattern discovered in archaeology.

The competition from low priced imported brass items, from cabinet hinges to drawer pulls, seems to have made it impossible for very many, IF ANY, dedicated brass foundries be successful businesses in Colonial America. (Cast iron ware was a different story.) Brass foundries were certainly not in most communities were guns were being made.

The Founders Guild in England also lobbied for laws prohibiting the importation of unworked brass to the colonies so brass ingots are not being imported in any quantity.
Gary