Metal Patina

[Mike Brooks]

I would like to address the initial premise.  My Jaeger is filed and finished on all eight flats.  When you are inletting a barrel having the flats filed smooth makes the work easier.  The 18th-century standard was a "good workmanlike manner"  not only worry about what shows.

You need to take some old American guns apart...

[WESTbury]

Not to mention that the M1816 musket had a period when they were Armory blued and case hardened.
[/quote]
This is a small detail I could not resist responding to. The M1816 Flintlock Muskets had all of their ferrous components Browned except for the Ramrod which was polished bright and the lock components either case hardened and left in that state or heat blued and left in that state. The interior surface surface of the lockplate was polished bright. The brown finish was applied to the whole of the barrel and the outside surfaces of each iron component and left that way. The browning program officially commenced in 1823 and ended in 1832 at Springfield. It was a disaster as the browning formula they used resulted in a severe rusting problem. I've attached some photos of an 1829 dated Springfield for illustration.

[heinz]

I would like to address the initial premise.  My Jaeger is filed and finished on all eight flats.  When you are inletting a barrel having the flats filed smooth makes the work easier.  The 18th-century standard was a "good workmanlike manner"  not only worry about what shows.

You need to take some old American guns apart...

When I started in this game in 1960 we took lots of American rifles apart.  It was a large percentage of what was shot.  Some were good gunsmithing and some were not.  I stand by my comment.

[Not English]

It's getting away from my initial question, but I have to agree with Heinz and his comment. I have also had the opportunity to examine a few early longrifles. If one takes Mike's  comments at face value, you should still be able to see forging and hammer marks on the bottom 3 flats. I have never seen a barrel that showed forging and work marks on the bottom flats. They may have been draw filed and left at that, but that is still finished.

[Mike Brooks]

It's getting away from my initial question, but I have to agree with Heinz and his comment. I have also had the opportunity to examine a few early longrifles. If one takes Mike's  comments at face value, you should still be able to see forging and hammer marks on the bottom 3 flats. I have never seen a barrel that showed forging and work marks on the bottom flats. They may have been draw filed and left at that, but that is still finished.

Many of the guns I have had apart show hammer marks and rough filing on the bottom three, I have never seen one that was polished or finished unless it was fire blued. Lock mortices are carelessly hogged out in a manner that would be entirely unacceptable today. barrel channels for octagon barrels are round. Many of the old guns don't even have barrel flats that are the same width. I will state I don't get to take apart the level of guns you see in Shumway's books.  You must be seeing way more high end American guns than I am. Of course If I knew you other than "Not English" It might give more weight to your statement.
 Labor was incredibly expensive in America

[rich pierce]

Here is an example of what Mike is talking about.

[Hungry Horse]

 I own three antique muzzleloaders, two full stocks, and one half stock. Both full stocks are unfinished under the forearm, while the half stock is finished under the forearm.

  Hungry Horse

[heinz]

Rich, thanks for posting.  All in all, I would say that rifle was not built in a good workmanlike manner.  Part of that damage in the second picture may well have been inflicted in an attempt to remove the breach.  Can you hazard a guess as to whether the barrel was ever finished browned or blued on the top flats?  And did they only finish halfway down on the side flat? 

[Eric Kettenburg]

Heinz you mention your 'jaeger' being finished on all 8 flats.  I am not sure what you are indicating insofar as your definition of "finished" but I have never, ever, seen an American rifle with anything more than very coarse filing marks on the underside of the barrel.  Most that I have disassembled or worked-upon, and it is no inconsiderable number, have evidence of either very coarse filing (almost rasp-like) or grinding with intermittent hammer and forging marks/scale.  European arms, on the other hand, many of which I have also disassembled, display a much more refined degree of finish work underneath; however, I have never seen anything underneath even remotely approaching the level of finish on the top three flats.  This is not due to greater care in manufacture by the stockers, however; this is due to a much more defined system of work delineation, and barrel being supplied to stockers by people who did nothing 24/7 but finish out forged barrels.  This type of system was completely lacking in America until after the Revolution, although it had its origins here during the Revolution with the hasty advent of more specialized factories for rapid production.

I also stand by my own comments that most American-stocked arms prior to the 19th century would be completely unacceptable by the standards applied here in 2020.  I can likely count on one hand the number of rifles I have seen with full octagonal inletting of the barrel applied down the entire length of the forearm, and I can certainly count on one hand only the number of lock inlets that I've seen which employ a full bridle profile.  Most, as I have put forth, are just large holes in the stock with a couple of extra reliefs to accommodate the bridle screw heads.  I don't see this as "UNworkmanlike" at all, in fact, I see it as the definition of "workmanlike."  I do not think the vast majority of American gunsmiths were anticipating that their work would last 100 years, if even that long, regardless of the cost.  I firmly believe that the concept of minimal wood removal - even to the modern ridiculous extent of itty bitty sear spring pieces of wood left standing - would be beyond comical to an 18th century American stocker.

To those who like to leave little 'sear spring triangles:' wait until you're out in a drenching rain and then conspicuously wonder why your trigger pull will not fully release the sear!  What a giant waste of time.  I think an apprentice would have been beaten senseless. 

[heinz]

Eric, thanks for your well-reasoned post.  I will defer to your observation on American colonial rifles.

Here are photos of the top flats and the bottom flats on the Jaeger.  Unfortunately, the rifle is with m son in Minnesota and I am in SC so I cannot give you a longer view.  The flats and finish are essentially the same.  I believe it is a charcoal blue with an oxidized patina.  The touch hole shot shows this one has seen some use and confirms your observation that the lock inletting emphasized function not looks.





json code tester

[rich pierce]

Rich, thanks for posting.  All in all, I would say that rifle was not built in a good workmanlike manner.  Part of that damage in the second picture may well have been inflicted in an attempt to remove the breach.  Can you hazard a guess as to whether the barrel was ever finished browned or blued on the top flats?  And did they only finish halfway down on the side flat?

Acer can say more but from our discussions I think the ramrod channel and lock inlet for the mainspring had a “confluence”. The barrel looks as though only the top and side flats were finished by draw filing. I suspect the patina on the top and side flats is due to exposure to the elements during use. I see a lot of barrels with that line down the side where the exposed barrel meets the channel portion. I doubt anybody could or would carefully just brown barrels to exactly that point. This is likely a gun made quickly for the Revolutionary War. The buttstock has a huge spliced-in piece doweled and glued. The lock is higher quality than most used on colonial pieces. It all fits a story of a rifle assembled from what was available that week.

[Mike Brooks]

Here is an example of what Mike is talking about.

Typical of what I have seen. In fact I would consider that barrel channel pretty good for american work. Thanks for posting.

[Mike Brooks]

Heinz you mention your 'jaeger' being finished on all 8 flats.  I am not sure what you are indicating insofar as your definition of "finished" but I have never, ever, seen an American rifle with anything more than very coarse filing marks on the underside of the barrel.  Most that I have disassembled or worked-upon, and it is no inconsiderable number, have evidence of either very coarse filing (almost rasp-like) or grinding with intermittent hammer and forging marks/scale.  European arms, on the other hand, many of which I have also disassembled, display a much more refined degree of finish work underneath; however, I have never seen anything underneath even remotely approaching the level of finish on the top three flats.  This is not due to greater care in manufacture by the stockers, however; this is due to a much more defined system of work delineation, and barrel being supplied to stockers by people who did nothing 24/7 but finish out forged barrels.  This type of system was completely lacking in America until after the Revolution, although it had its origins here during the Revolution with the hasty advent of more specialized factories for rapid production.

I also stand by my own comments that most American-stocked arms prior to the 19th century would be completely unacceptable by the standards applied here in 2020.  I can likely count on one hand the number of rifles I have seen with full octagonal inletting of the barrel applied down the entire length of the forearm, and I can certainly count on one hand only the number of lock inlets that I've seen which employ a full bridle profile.  Most, as I have put forth, are just large holes in the stock with a couple of extra reliefs to accommodate the bridle screw heads.  I don't see this as "UNworkmanlike" at all, in fact, I see it as the definition of "workmanlike."  I do not think the vast majority of American gunsmiths were anticipating that their work would last 100 years, if even that long, regardless of the cost.  I firmly believe that the concept of minimal wood removal - even to the modern ridiculous extent of itty bitty sear spring pieces of wood left standing - would be beyond comical to an 18th century American stocker.

To those who like to leave little 'sear spring triangles:' wait until you're out in a drenching rain and then conspicuously wonder why your trigger pull will not fully release the sear!  What a giant waste of time.  I think an apprentice would have been beaten senseless.

Thanks for posting this Eric, "maybe" these folks will believe you since you're bonified.  I was beginning to think I was the only one who took apart  the crudest guns built in colonial america.
  I thoroughly enjoy taking these guns apart when i get the chance. They reveal what level of wormanship was excepted. As long as the end product looked good, what was on the inside didn't have to be pretty as long as it was fairly sturdy and functional. Today We spend entirely too much time with the process. H. House taught me the best lesson I have ever had way back in the early 80's, whack any wood that needs go out of there and move on, don't be fiddling around with things that aren't important.  I have never seen any evidence of finish on the inside of any old american gun...british or german either come to think of it. It just wasn't done , but I read about how much trouble guys go to today to make sure everything is sealed up and waterproof under all the parts....obviously a silly thought back in the day.  I could say much more but I think I may be wasting my time.  people are going to believe what they will.

[Mike Brooks]

Eric, thanks for your well-reasoned post.  I will defer to your observation on American colonial rifles.

Here are photos of the top flats and the bottom flats on the Jaeger.  Unfortunately, the rifle is with m son in Minnesota and I am in SC so I cannot give you a longer view.  The flats and finish are essentially the same.  I believe it is a charcoal blue with an oxidized patina.  The touch hole shot shows this one has seen some use and confirms your observation that the lock inletting emphasized function not looks.





json code tester

Very nice and typical of Euro work. But not all euro work. I had a jeager through the shop some time ago that had three brazed repairs. The  barrel was repaired before it was stocked up as there was no evidence of a blow out in the barrel channel. It must have blown out in the first proof, was brazed up and then passed the second proof and was deemed "sound". It obviously was sound as it survived another couple hundred years.
 I have had alot of english fowling guns apart, from very high end guns to trade gun and export level. The quality ranged all over the place, "you get what you pay for " was typical of the english trade., most all of it better than any american gun I have seen.

[heinz]

Mr Brooks, you and Eric have persuaded me.  I had previously thought that the unfinished lower flats were juston guns that were not browned or blued.

That Jaeger does have patches, but they are in the wood.  And that tight little barrel tenon was filed down after the hole was drilled.  The inlet in the stock is larger, as is the tenon base.  In the lower picture, you can see a big patch in the forearm that does not show on the outside.  Also those pinholes are no straighter than mine which I hand drill.

[Eric Kettenburg]

I had a ca. 1750-1760 era German horse pistol here a little while ago that had most of the forearm spliced on as a separate piece of wood, and it was dead nuts original.  It was quite well done, in fact you could tell from the outside ONLY after removing the barrel, looking at the splice joint, then looking at the outside!  But a good example of 'workmanlike;'  why waste a longer piece of wood when two shorter pieces with serve equally well?

The rifle Rich posted is a very cool piece, and aside from the weird lower butt splice (which I am still not convinced is original) is pretty typical of most American guns I've ripped apart, and in fact I agree with Mike, the barrel channel looks on the better side.  Until the Federal period when those guys could start getting all fru fru with their work, they needed to get stuff out the door FAST.

I pretty much taught myself how to build by wearing-out Hershel's first video.  I think everyone should watch it a few times.

[Clark Badgett]

Not to mention that the M1816 musket had a period when they were Armory blued and case hardened.

This is a small detail I could not resist responding to. The M1816 Flintlock Muskets had all of their ferrous components Browned except for the Ramrod which was polished bright and the lock components either case hardened and left in that state or heat blued and left in that state. The interior surface surface of the lockplate was polished bright. The brown finish was applied to the whole of the barrel and the outside surfaces of each iron component and left that way. The browning program officially commenced in 1823 and ended in 1832 at Springfield. It was a disaster as the browning formula they used resulted in a severe rusting problem. I've attached some photos of an 1829 dated Springfield for illustration.





[/quote]

Thank you for that correction. I really don't know why I typed blued instead of browned.

[DBoone]

I am very fortunate to have done a great deal of restoration for a (now deceased) KRA member/collector in NC many years ago.  That man sure kept me busy and I really learned a lot!

Octagon barrel channels in many, if not most guns,  were generally round and/or obviously quickly done;  lock inlets were typically caverns for moving parts while allowing for decent ledge support of the plate, and rarely the internal bridle;  the bottom 3 flats, especially on forged barrels were almost totally unworked; and as a side note.......tenons were very, very rarely slotted.....(actually many of those looked like the original stock had wedges instead of pins)...... and were only a round hole, as drilled, for pins which were normally larger than what is typically used by today's builders.

I have opened up a lot of old rifles from PA to SC, and to be fair a few of them had obviously been re-stocked, and for the great majority of them........probably 99%..... the remarks and input from Eric K. are dead on! A wise gunmaker will listen to this man.  He "knows" of what he speaks!

Thank you, Eric!!!

I think some gunmakers today may get to a point of dissatisfaction with their work as they unceasingly believe that their guns should parallel that of today's modern guns.... like the Remington 700, ect....and will re-think their approach and gunmaking methods that will give their work the warmth and charm of a well-made original that was surely created in "a workman-like manner."  I hate to say it but there are guns being made today that, at least to me, have little life or attraction, as they are so near perfection that they are almost boring.  Sorry.....just my humble opinion.  To each his own.

The late/great George Shumway once told Jack Hubbard and myself at an early CLA show that today's guns are "grossly overdone".  I, for sure, agree with that and have fought doing it in my own work ever since, while still trying to satisfy the general expectations of today's buyer/customer.

[davec2]

DBoone,

I understand exactly what you are saying when you talk about a lot of work done today being grossly overdone.  And that is undoubtedly true as it applies to the vast majority of 17th, 18th and early 19th century working guns.  However, on the other end of the spectrum we have the staggeringly beautiful work of the greatest of the British and other European gunsmiths in that same time frame.  Admittedly, most of their guns were made for the gentry and nobility, but they worked in the same era and with the same tools.  For myself, I can appreciate the "workman like" simplistic working guns but can also greatly appreciate the the talent, in both design and execution, of the guns by a maker like Nicolas-Noël Boutet.......

[Marcruger]

"A wise gunmaker will listen to this man.  He "knows" of what he speaks!"  Same could be said about Don Bruton.

Dave, I chuckled when I saw your picture of the elaborate European gun set.  I once walked into an antique shop and saw a bread/pie cooling cabinet that looked like it had been built solely with a dull axe.  It had a huge price on it.  The proprietor asked if I was interested in buying it?  I said no, it was too crude for my taste.  He got huffy, and replied, "It is that way because it was made over 200 years ago!"  I sent back, "Well, Louis the XVI's furniture was made at that same time, and it sure wasn't crude.  It'd make Liberace blush."  He didn't have an answer for that. 

My personal taste run in the middle, though I can appreciate both ends of the spectrum. 

God Bless,   Marc

[Mike Brooks]

DBoone,

I understand exactly what you are saying when you talk about a lot of work done today being grossly overdone.  And that is undoubtedly true as it applies to the vast majority of 17th, 18th and early 19th century working guns.  However, on the other end of the spectrum we have the staggeringly beautiful work of the greatest of the British and other European gunsmiths in that same time frame.  Admittedly, most of their guns were made for the gentry and nobility, but they worked in the same era and with the same tools.  For myself, I can appreciate the "workman like" simplistic working guns but can also greatly appreciate the the talent, in both design and execution, of the guns by a maker like Nicolas-Noël Boutet.......

YIKES!  Things  like that make my hair stand on end. Just because you CAN do something doesn't mean you SHOULD. There is good taste and then there is the realm of outlandish and gaudy....

[rich pierce]

John Bivins and others set a new standard for “better English quality” work. That echoes through everything we see today. Having barrels and barrel inlets done to extremely close tolerances has made it easier to approach high quality work. CNC makes it that much easier. I think to some extent the a Woodbury school influence is pushback against the Bivins school and toward handmade rifles that evoke our feelings about days gone by.

[DBoone]

Several replies in one.........

Dave, Thank you and I certainly see and understand your comments.  It can probably be said that anything can be a canvas for fine art and guns were an obvious choice.  The talent and execution with some of this borders on the unbelievable.

On the other hand, for myself at least, I know I lack the talent and desire to go for the stuff that was desired by the upper crust, elites and those who thought they were more than they actually were.  I'm just too common and would have been one of many hoping  "not to starve today" on the frontier.  I'm about basics and simplicity.  It may be an IQ thing. 

Marc - Your kind words are humbling but there are times I resist the temptation to read my own words.   LOL  Without a doubt I think I comfortably  live in your school of thought.  well said.

Mike.............I'm with you on your comment.  When I see some of that stuff I have to throw up "crossed fingers' and hope none of it gets on me!  In my opinion your work is among the best and most balanced ever!

[DBoone]

Rich hit it on the head!  IMHO

[Daryl]

Apples...  Try apples. 

If time isn't of any consequence, take a slice of apple and rub the metal surfaces with it.  It should, over time, turn it a smooth dark grey-ish color.  I had a rather pristine little gentleman's pocket knife that I put to use, on my chair-side table, to slice the occasional after-dinner apple and that's what has happened to it. 

Of course, I'm not taking it to the range and wiping it down with any type of oil, so your results may differ.

Have you considered a 'soft' rust blue finish?  Allen Martin used a rust blue barrel finish on the Reading piece he did for me and it was the perfect compliment to the wood and brass finishes.

     

I just happened to notice a nice easy loading crown on that rifle.