Brass Shine

[Cattywompuss]

So, we all presumably know that a shiny gun ain't exactly tactically sound in practical situations. But we also know that a gun could be like a pair of shoes or a hat in days of yore (18th C.). It told people your station, as it were. Thus we also have highly decorated guns, and modestly decorated guns, and practically plain guns.

So my question is, do we have any primary sources, outright speculations, or generally sound implications of how people kept up the ornamentation on their rifles in the Colonial and Revolutionary eras? I was thinking that someone on the frontier might not want shiny bits, but then I recalled how often we see imagery of bright colors and gaudy bobbles in period art. Even native warriors wore bright colors at times, if not always.

To stay on point, anyone know if brass parts were kept polished, navy fashion, or not?

I could have posted this elsewhere, but given that it specifically deals with a period of time when flintlocks were the overwhelmingly predominant arm, I reckoned here is a as good as any historicity forum.

 

[rich pierce]

Nobody outside of military context has written on this. If shine was an issue then I’d think inlays and brass patchboxes and such would have been avoided.

 

[Cattywompuss]

Nobody outside of military context has written on this. If shine was an issue then I’d think inlays and brass patchboxes and such would have been avoided.

Good point, well made!

 

[FishDFly]

With the ornate engraving on some rifles, why would the engraver want his work covered up with grime?

 

[Cattywompuss]

With the ornate engraving on some rifles, why would the engraver want his work covered up with grime?

I'm not suggesting an engraver would. Nor am a suggesting anyone would intentionally cover up their pretty gun. I'm just asking if anyone knows how they were maintained by the owners who used them, not the creators of them.

 

[ghostdncr]

Personal opinion only. I have not a single scrap of historical reference to support this.

When I finish a rifle, any brightwork gets "softened" down to a dull/matte finish. Steel gets rust browned and brass gets wiped with used cleaning patches after the first few outings. That gives the brass a mottled patina that looks as though it's been living rough for a few years. Just personal preference. I noticed my brightwork spooking squirrels early on and decided to be rid of that. Pretty sure if my scalp were riding on it, I'd be even less excited about highly polished brass.

 

[Tumbledown]

I believe the notion of shiny brass giving away a hunter is a myth. The angle of the sun would have to be just right and the brass dead flat and mirror-bright.

Also, tarnish is a result of neglect and the first step in corrosion and decay. Brass was expensive, it would not be allowed to tarnish for long, if at all.

 

[Crow-Feather]

I would believe that those entering the mountains would, if possible, opt for non shiny metal on their tools.

 

[Cattywompuss]

Of course the various "Me Lords" like people from G. Washington's class and up would have had servants, tenders, and various servants to polish their fancy guns, and I reckon "middle class" merchants, traders, and others of their class would have wanted shine for what we might call inanimate virtue signaling, I reckon lower down folks on the sharp end may have muted their flash in certain circumstances.

One aspect of this subject is oblique to the notion of corrosion. Controlled patina is not the same as neglect. I recall the restoration of the Confederate monuments in Forsyth Park at home in Savannah. And the courthouse dome of my wife's hometown. When first restored they were brilliantly bright bronze and copper. Then they were intentionally patinaed to give them uniform color and weather resistance, just as we brown and blue barrels. Did smith's, like ghostdncr do similar things for folks who desired it?

Such a process could prevent outcomes like this photo of one of my patchboxes. The color irregularity must be in the metal because nothing one does will remove this, but this is also what happens if metal isn't finished in some way. While the irregularit appears as if something was brushed on to this brass at some point, the inconsistency in the metal can't be corrected with any tool I have.

 

[FishDFly]

I'm not suggesting an engraver would. Nor am a suggesting anyone would intentionally cover up their pretty gun. I'm just asking if anyone knows how they were maintained by the owners who used them, not the creators of them.

Most likely, kind of like cars and trucks, some wash and polish them and some just drive them and do not worry about their looks.

 

[SOLANCO]

Nobody outside of military context has written on this. If shine was an issue then I’d think inlays and brass patchboxes and such would have been avoided.

Our ancestors were fond of ornamentation. Furniture makers, metal smiths, and gun makers alike.

 

[Cattywompuss]

It also brings to mind some poachers I caught once. Fellas were in a white Volvo station wagon. An old ragged thing missing the rear window. But when they pulled it into the woods on a power line the put a hideous old blanket with a bear on it over the back. Such a blanket as one might find on a waterbed in a trailer in the 80s. For the record I grew up a trailer in the 80s so I'm not judging here. But the local land agent spotted the white of the vehicle and gave me a call. So little action in the area even the chief of police showed up to help catch them.

 

[FlinterNick]

Most guns in the field were not maintained to a high sheen, personalized guns would have been polished with a chamise like cloth and some type grit paste, much like what modern day semichrome is made from. Older Brass also darned much more, they used more copper in original brass.

 

[tenngun]

I believe the notion of shiny brass giving away a hunter is a myth. The angle of the sun would have to be just right and the brass dead flat and mirror-bright.

Also, tarnish is a result of neglect and the first step in corrosion and decay. Brass was expensive, it would not be allowed to tarnish for long, if at all.

I agree. For years I wanted brass to naturally tarnish, but over past few years I think that a myth.
unless mirror bright brass won’t flash in the sun, and even then it’s hard to get the right angle.
Brass would stay popular past the WBTS, and in Federal era silver was not uncommon.
many SMR were mounted in silver
White coats were common, as was bright red. Our concepts of camouflage in the woods wasn’t so much seen in the old days.
I’ve taken to polishing my brass.

 

[Omahkapi'si]

I let all my brass stuff go to patina. Not a fan of shiny brass.

 

[Brokennock]

Most guns in the field were not maintained to a high sheen, personalized guns would have been polished with a chamise like cloth and some type grit paste....

That is a very definitive statement, you were there? You have some other evidence or documentation that it was this way and no other?

 

[Ajgall]

I believe I have read military rifles and brass were polished with brick dust, so there was a known way to polish brass. I tend to agree with FishDFly that it was probably a matter of the owners personal opinion and some cared about the rifles looks and cleaned and polished and some didn’t.

 

[Omahkapi'si]

If I had a daughter I'd name her Patina.

 

[.36Rooster]

I would look into how metals were polished in those days...not specifically on firearms, just in general. My guess is it would be easier to find sources on those...and if you find a technique on polishing brass or silver, then by sheer stroke of logic, you have what you are looking for on firearms...

 

[Brokennock]

My guess is that, as a couple others have hypothesized, how shiny brass and other metalwork was kept was a matter of personal preference (for civilians and their personal arms and accouterments), but, that regardless of the level of polish, things were kept clean. Bright and shiny or mellow patina should not effect function and longevity, dirt and grime causing corrosion and excess wear could effect reliability and limit the lifespan of a necessary tool.

Could be wrong. Just seems that the mental picture I get of our founding fathers' generation, through their writings and legacy, is an image of a people who took care of their tools and equipment, didn't baby them, but certainly didn't neglect them.
Hard for me to put the idea in my head into writing.