18th C gunsmithing ?

[bob in the woods]

One of the reasons I posted my pocket pistol , built 15 + years ago, was to illustrate just how "wrong" it seems to me today. I've used this as part of 18th C reenactments, and have many misgivings about that today.   Brass barrels were not drilled /bored as far as I know , and I doubt very much whether the screws etc would have been filed from round stock or filed out at all [ swaged is more like it ]
Aside from the stock and the forged trigger, there's nothing really "historically correct " in terms of method of construction IMO .  This is a hobby for me , and aside from the use of these firearms, my main interest has been in how things were done .  My enthusiasm for the period has had to be reined back and I'm now far more cautious in my historical demonstrations .  There is a big difference between
"hand made" and made per 18th C methods.  I have much more to learn !    All comments are welcome 

[fahnenschmied]

It doesn't really matter - you can have a very nice replica of a lock, assembled from impossible-to-do-in-the-18th-century-with-steel  investment castings made directly off an 18th century lock.  On the other hand, you can have a lock, forged from iron and steel, by someone that has no good idea of the shapes and nuances of an 18th century lock.  Personally I'd rather have the lock that looks like an 18th century lock, than one that is made like one, but doesn't look like one.  Besides, the vast majority of arms weren't made by one person anyway - those who forge welded the barrels were different then the ones who bored them, yet someone else breeched them, someone else filed them, someone else straightened them, etc.  There could have been a couple dozen workers producing one lock - each with his own part of the work, and fast at that job. The stocker likely did nothing but letting the parts in.  Irelevant, if you are making a gun, if your screws were turned from stock on a lathe, or swaged first.  As long as you have arrived at the right shape and contour is what is important to me.  If your interest is in how things are done - fine - study it, tell about it, even tell how it is done differently nowadays.  After all, your wood stock - was the tree felled by axes, and the plank cut on a big sash saw?   
  Anyhoo, brass artillery barrels were cast, then bored - I don't know about pistol barrels.  I know some were cast flat, then rolled up and soldered - which I find crazy.  Don't sweat it, keep researching, and building!

[kudu]

If you really like the way "they" did it  Gun making - in the late 1700's early 1800's

Larry Horrigan from michigan is your man.  The NMLRA did a story , article on him in their Magazine Muzzelblast last year. I got the article  and also Know Larry. 

He's a good shot also as a matter of fact he beat me in one of our States smooth Bore competitions  by .200 of a inch last summer, less than a 1/4 inch  doggone it !!

He will probably be at the show in Kalamazoo Mi in a couple weeks. makes some nice Smoothbore guns. better save your pennies though!

[Levy]

Back in 2011, before I retired as the Historic Conservator for the State of Florida, a brass pistol barrel was recovered from one of the 1715 Spanish Plate Fleet wrecks near Fort Pierce, FL.  The barrel and the breech/tang were all cast as one piece (no threaded breech).  The breech tang had a small hole in it indicating that it was most likely a Miquelet type pistol with a screw coming up from the triggerguard.  It was impossible to tell if the bore (.60 cal.) of the barrel was core cast or was bored out.  It was eight sided a the breech, then 16 sides, the round with a cannon muzzle.  Ed Rayl made a copy of it for me (in .58 cal.).  James Levy 

[bob in the woods]

Just received my copy of the latest Muzzleloader Magazine.  There is an article about Brad Emig and his Cabin Creek shop which was absolutely fascinating .  18th C methods in the 21st C is what he's all about .   I know that Colonial Williamsburg has been keeping the 18C traditions alive but it is really good to see so many others doing the same while producing top notch work.

[borderdogs]

I don't reenact but I appreciate the efforts of those that do. My first real taste of reenacting was watching a reenacting of  the Battle of White Plains in the mid 70's. All the uniforms were clean and bright and the rebels looked clean and well fed....which was hardly the case for the rebels or even the Brits for that matter. It had rained the night before and when some one "died" they were very careful how they "fell". One fellow actually padded the ground before he laid down and died. Needless to say it wasn't very realistic. Since then the sport of reenacting has improved and from what I have seen has grown and their approach to the history they portray is at a whole different level.

In that same vein, approaching 18c gun building using the technology of that time is at a wholly different level than what many gun builders would do today. I could never see myself forging my own barrel but watching video's of those that do is fascinating. As someone who is very interested in history especially American history I am happy to know that there are those that are keeping the technology and techniques of those days alive. One of my uncles was a restoration carpenter and worked on many historical homes and museum houses. He started after WW2 and worked into the early 80's. Walking into his shop it was like walking into a woodshop from the late 1700's or early 1800's. There was no electricity in his shop there were no power tools except those he powered himself he had a library of wooden planes for different moldings, etc. When he went to a job he only worked with hand tools never any power tools. When I was young I couldn't understand why he would handicap himself so. When I was older we got talking about his work and he said he worked the way he did to keep the repairs he did true to what would be done when the house was built. He also said when he worked using tools that could have been used on the house originally help to keep his frame of mind in the period. I think your reflection on how you built that pistol is something my uncle would have understood.
Rob   

[JCKelly]

I've been a metallurgist since the early 1960's. Started out at Black & Decker, later with small gas turbine engines, last with alloys that operated from 1400 to 2200F.
Along with liking antiques in general I have a fascination with ancient metallurgy. Some of it was pretty good - e.g., good quality files from 15-something were as good or better than those sold today in the U.S. of A.
Processes changed from 18th to 19th centuries, and they were different in small gun shops than in government armories. In the USA there was a huge difference between Springfield Armory and Harpers Ferry Armory.
If you want to Do it Like They did ya might wanna decide who the "they" were you wanna copy
The Absolute Best book on the subject is -
Harpers Ferry Armory and the New Technology  The Challenge of Change  by Merritt Roe Smith, copyright 1977 Cornell University.
A while back I was idly looking over the insides of my US musket's locks, first half of the 19th century. Interesting to see how the manufacture of lock screws changed over the years. Some of the screw blanks appeared to be lathe turned, while earlier ones were surly clamp-milled.
Flint frizzens were faced with high carbon steel forge welded on to a wrought iron base for military muskets and the better quality English sporting flint pistols. For American sporting arms the steel face was more commonly copper brazed on.  No, no one deep-case hardened a wrought iron frizzen so it would spark. Most impractical for a couple of reasons.
Gimme a PM & we can discuss specific matters. If I don't really know I'll not give you BS.

[Jim Kibler]

I've been a metallurgist since the early 1960's. Started out at Black & Decker, later with small gas turbine engines, last with alloys that operated from 1400 to 2200F.
Along with liking antiques in general I have a fascination with ancient metallurgy. Some of it was pretty good - e.g., good quality files from 15-something were as good or better than those sold today in the U.S. of A.
Processes changed from 18th to 19th centuries, and they were different in small gun shops than in government armories. In the USA there was a huge difference between Springfield Armory and Harpers Ferry Armory.
If you want to Do it Like They did ya might wanna decide who the "they" were you wanna copy
The Absolute Best book on the subject is -
Harpers Ferry Armory and the New Technology  The Challenge of Change  by Merritt Roe Smith, copyright 1977 Cornell University.
A while back I was idly looking over the insides of my US musket's locks, first half of the 19th century. Interesting to see how the manufacture of lock screws changed over the years. Some of the screw blanks appeared to be lathe turned, while earlier ones were surly clamp-milled.
Flint frizzens were faced with high carbon steel forge welded on to a wrought iron base for military muskets and the better quality English sporting flint pistols. For American sporting arms the steel face was more commonly copper brazed on.  No, no one deep-case hardened a wrought iron frizzen so it would spark. Most impractical for a couple of reasons.
Gimme a PM & we can discuss specific matters. If I don't really know I'll not give you BS.

J.C. 

I disagree about using deep case hardened wrought iron frizzens.  I think that most who study 18th century arms in detail will also disagree.  Ask all the folks involved with the gunsmith shop at Williamsburg.  Not only do they have a large number of original pieces for examination, they also make re-creations using what they believe to be period correct techniques.  Case hardned wrought iron frizzens were commonly used.  It worked then and works today.  I know we've been through this before.  Perhaps Eric who worked at the Williamsburg shop will chime in.  He and I have talked about this very subject.  You might see some evidence of a steel face being welded on some locks, but by and large there is no evidence of such.  I know you think blistering etc. would be a problem, but apparently with the right process it isn't. 

As a side note, those who have made frizzens from wrought iron followed by a deep carburizing treatment have reported fantastic sparking and good longetivity.

Jim

[jerrywh]

The very first flint lock I made was forged by 18th century methods in a coal forge. I use nothing but hammers, files and a hack saw. I case hardened the parts by pack hardening in tin cans and heated in a wood stove. I did use sand paper and a electric drill, I made all the screws by turning them in the drill and filing then to shape.  It took me years to accumulate all the info I needed especially for tempering the springs. I made the springs from and old pitchfork.  Still this would not be considered HC. The blower for my forge was a old vacuum cleaner. I sinned by using electric lights and the drill Plus toilet paper. I bought the barrel and the but plate and trigger guard. Later I learned to cast my own brass parts.  This was about 1961 to 1963.
   The only reason for this was I couldn't find the parts any other way. Any body who does this today is a glutton for punishment.  If you want to be HC don't use the electric drill or electric lights or any electricity.  In the end you won't prove anything. You won't make any money. You might be divorced .  But it is fun if your young enough. 

[bob in the woods]

I want to make clear that this is a hobby and a form of relaxation for me. I actually enjoy laying barrels in stocks by hand, making screws, and anything else that needs doing.  My shop is off grid. Drills are crank style or brace and bit . Lighting is windows and candle lanterns .  I have an outdoor forge and use charcoal...not coal. I don't care if it takes a year to finish a project. This is all fun for me. I already have a business/craft which doesn't make much money, so don't need another     I watched an interview of a Williamsburg interpreter who spoke of the difference ref today and the 18th C mindset.  Labour was cheap,  materials were the expensive component of a project. That is how I try to approach building a gun.  I think about all the firearms that were present in the 18th C and eventually needed repair.