Aged Look to Weapons

[Hambone Dave]

I noticed many who want their weapons to have an aged appearance. Back in the 1870s and 80s, the weapons would not have been very old so to be period correct, won't most of the weapons be fairly new and thus look new-ish?

Just my observation.

[Grenadier]

In my view, that would depend on what you were trying to represent. If you were aiming to recreate an individual who carried a 1851 Navy revolver since 1865 and its now 1874, wouldn't you think that revolver would show some wear? Being banged around in a holster out in the elements would most likely take a certain amout of toll on a peice.

 How about a soldier with a weapon thats 10 years old? Or the poor dirt farmer who bought a surplus 1863 Springfield and made it into a shotgun?

 I don't think someones main weapon of choice should appear as though it were 100+ years old, but the correct wear and tear for each situation might be fitting. A saddle tramp who made a few dollars a month probably would not have a brandnew DA Smith and Wesson two months after they hit the market, but a well worn cartridge conversion might be more correct in that situation. Just as the guys in my WW1 unit show up with a Gew98 that looks 95+ years old, I try to get them to restore it a bit to appear as though it was 1917, not 2012.

[MJN77]

You also have to take into account that the modern finishes on modern guns are a heck of a lot more durable than "back in the day". It took less time to wear the finish off of a gun 120 years ago. But no, the gun wouldn't look 100+ years old 100+ years ago.

[Advertising]

[Trailrider]

The vast majority of people back in the post-CW West were not wealthy enough to afford the latest and greatest. There are two schools of thought about how the average cowhand, farmer, etc., might have cared for their guns. (Most people operating from a fixed base, i.e., a farmhouse, or the bunkhouse of a ranch would more likely have shotguns and or rifles.) Either they would have valued them to the point where they would keep them cleaned and oiled, or, if lazy, they would have neglected them. If you depended on feeding your family or protecting your employer's stock, then I would expect the former. Of course, a gunfighter or lawman, whose very life might depend on the working of his guns, would take good care of them. Wild Bill Hickok is supposed to have practiced with his pistols daily, then cleaned and reloaded them.

I have no idea how good a care he took of his guns, but as a military officer Lt. Fred. H. Beecher would have kept his guns cleaned, oiled and in good repair. Beecher was a "gun nut", having owned a Slocum revolver, a Hawken rifle, and a bunch of other guns, plus a Henry rifle he'd asked his brother to send him. He was apparently carrying the Henry when he was mortally wounded at Beecher Island.

But, I have to agree...100+ years ago, most guns would have not shown 100 years of wear. Maybe nicks, dings, and scratches, but not more than many of us have on our CAS guns. Oh, there is one thing...case hardening will fade to a mottled gray with on exposure to sunlight!

[August]

In my experience, those "aged" looking guns are ones that have been used in a dozen CAS matches, or so.

They get beat up pretty quick in this game.  But, they run for a long time.....

[MJN77]

The vast majority of people back in the post-CW West were not wealthy enough to afford the latest and greatest. There are two schools of thought about how the average cowhand, farmer, etc., might have cared for their guns. (Most people operating from a fixed base, i.e., a farmhouse, or the bunkhouse of a ranch would more likely have shotguns and or rifles.) Either they would have valued them to the point where they would keep them cleaned and oiled, or, if lazy, they would have neglected them. If you depended on feeding your family or protecting your employer's stock, then I would expect the former. Of course, a gunfighter or lawman, whose very life might depend on the working of his guns, would take good care of them. Wild Bill Hickok is supposed to have practiced with his pistols daily, then cleaned and reloaded them.

This really has nothing to do with appearance. Even a well oiled and cleaned and cared for and maintained gun can look old/used/"aged". I think the original question has more to do with the way the finish looks.
 I think the people that want an aged look to their guns just want a gun that looks like it was carried and used on the wide open prairie. Not a new off the general store shelf looking thing. Like how some folk (myself included) who own a Henry or 1866 rifle prefer to let the brass tarnish instead of polishing it up nice and pretty. Most people in the "old gun" group dress up like an old working cowboy. Not too many want to dress like bankers.

[Shotgun Franklin]

I actually carry my guns. After 8 years the one looks pretty good. The second gun is less than 9 months old and still looks real good. As was suggested, it depends on the person owning the gun.

[1961MJS]

You also have to take into account that the modern finishes on modern guns are a heck of a lot more durable than "back in the day". It took less time to wear the finish off of a gun 120 years ago. But no, the gun wouldn't look 100+ years old 100+ years ago.

Plus 1 here.  I found it odd that the manufacturers attempt to make a new in box SAA look 100 years old.  The only pistols that I've seen that look beat to death (personally seen) are the ones being used at the Bianchi Cup in Columbia Missouri.  Of course, it was my understanding that Doug Koenig had ROUGHLY 100,000 rounds through them.  They fixed what broke, and all, but didn't bother re-finishing the pistols. 

later

[Shotgun Franklin]

Of course there's usually a really big difference in a gun you use at work and a gun you play a game with. As a Cop I took pride in keeping my gun looking good. I didn't shoot it nearly as much as the guns I play CAS with. Now it's just me but I don't want a gun that looks a 100 years old, I'd rather have a gun that looks period with honest wear. I got to handle a gun that was supposedly carried by Wyatt Earp during the Alaskan Gold Rush, it looked like crap and I'm real sure it didn't look like that when, if, Earp was carrying it. To each his own.

[Trueno]

I noticed many who want their weapons to have an aged appearance. Back in the 1870s and 80s, the weapons would not have been very old so to be period correct, won't most of the weapons be fairly new and thus look new-ish?

Just my observation.

Carrying on your hip 6-8hrs a day or more or riding the trail or mending fences etc etc etc would've put a good bit of holster wear on most any firearm...especially in dusty conditions.

My other hobby is AK's and weathering them requires a different approach for AK's from different parts of the world. An AK-47 from the jungles of Colombia is gonna be grundgy and possibly rusty compared to one that would appear polished from Kenya/Sudan where the environment is dusty/sandy.

maybe? 

[TwoWalks Baldridge]

In some cases, the aged look is applied to our six shooters, because the original finish is so dang ugly.  Below is an example of 3 Uberti Hombre's.  The one on the left is the original sand blasted and painted finish, the other two were the same.  Now in fairness, the goal was not to make them look 100 years old, but to make them look better.

[Major 2]

A somewhat different perspective ... I have a Colt 1860 Army made in 1862 it's finish is better age wise that my
Colt 2nd Gen. 1860 (circa 1977) I carried & used in countless CW cavalry reenactments is over 28 years.

Granted , the original has been babied as a collector piece , that can'e be said for the 2nd Gen. which now has a Conversion Cylinder and is still in use , in WAS.