Grips Finished on 1858

[38-55]

Took some good advice from you guys and "antiqued" the grips on my Uberti Remington 1858.
Had trouble with my flash, so here are two pictures: one highlighting the grips and one highlighting the gun. Someday I am going to learn how to take really good pictures





Put the two together and you will get the idea!

Thanks again for the ideas!

[Rube Burrows]

Looks good.

[Pitchy]

Notches for the six men it killed?

[KCSO]

Something I never understood. I run a gun shop now and NOBODY comes in and says,"hey gimme that old rusty one in the corner". I wonder if they were different in 1860? No don't gimme the NEW Remington gimme the old rusty one??? I guess if that is what you like but is still don't understand, use it and don't abuse it and eventually it will look used. I have a buddy who has a whole collection of Cimarron original (NO) finish guns on the wall.

[Rube Burrows]

Something I never understood. I run a gun shop now and NOBODY comes in and says,"hey gimme that old rusty one in the corner". I wonder if they were different in 1860? No don't gimme the NEW Remington gimme the old rusty one??? I guess if that is what you like but is still don't understand, use it and don't abuse it and eventually it will look used. I have a buddy who has a whole collection of Cimarron original (NO) finish guns on the wall.

I think its because we have seen what the old guns look like and sure....they were new at one time. The finishes were not as durable as they are today and they were USED as tools every day.....they got worn faster.

The typical gun user does not use a gun enough these days to really break it in and put some use on it. My SASS guns are my most used guns and I typically treat them harder than the others and it still takes a good while to wear them down.

I guess what I am saying is that while we know those guns from the 1800s didnt look like what they do today......they were used and used hard so they did have some wear on them. Some of us try to simulate that in less time and use.


I also think that there is a difference between rusty and worn.

[Pitchy]

Depends on who you were, Hickok probably carried some pretty fancy lookin guns while a cattle punchers probably looked a little worse for wear.

[Booger Bill]

Kind of like those kids that were buying used levis and those pants that had holes and worn knees etc. By the way, we got to knock off a couple hundred cause you aint got the box and doc`s.

[38-55]

The reason I did this is because I like the looks of weathered old guns. I have seen so many pictures of 1858 Piettas and Ubertis and they all look the same with the shiney dark finish and I wanted something different. I also have 3 old Winchester '94s that have a great patina on them and would never consider doing to them what I did to the '58.
The '58 is a shooter and I will enjoy using it this spring with it's new looks.

Here is one last photo taken in natural light:

[Mossyoak1957]

Now shes looks right!.....before you did the grips she looked like the face of an 18 year old on a 100 year old body.
I like it!

[adirondakjack]

I expect any gun would look pretty rough after a cattle drive or two, shot much or not.

[Griff]

Here's a pic of my 1986 ASM 1851 Navy. I bought it new and have used it in cowboy action matches since it was new:

It's been treated rather roughly... often just thrown down on the table or ground, as the scenario calls for... resides in the safe between matches... and in a holster the rest of the time.

I've seen no need to prematurely age my guns. Since I am into cowboy action... and wish to live the part of an 1860s -1890s cowboy, I have various guns that would be between brand new and 20 years old... why would I even begin to try to age them to look 100 years old?

There were extreme variances between how guns were treated in the old west... just as there are today. Some have been treated well, even if used hard, and those are the ones we see that have no finish, dings and dents... but quite serviceable after 100+ years of hard use. Others were safe queens and lightly used, but lovingly cared for.

The ones that were abused are the ones we see that are rusted hunks of junk. Good only for decoration... if you think rusted junk makes for good decorations.

If you have to do that... ok, but also recognize that it also increases the level of maintenance required to keep it in good working order. Rust will set in very much faster on a gun with no finish, (especially one where the finish has been chemically stripped), and once begun... will be nearly impossible to keep rust free.

[gak]

I've seen no need to prematurely age my guns. Since I am into cowboy action... and wish to live the part of an 1860s -1890s cowboy, I have various guns that would be between brand new and 20 years old... why would I even begin to try to age them to look 100 years old?

There were extreme variances between how guns were treated in the old west... just as there are today. Some have been treated well, even if used hard, and those are the ones we see that have no finish, dings and dents... but quite serviceable after 100+ years of hard use. Others were safe queens and lightly used, but lovingly cared for.

The ones that were abused are the ones we see that are rusted hunks of junk. Good only for decoration... if you think rusted junk makes for good decorations.

If you have to do that... ok, but also recognize that it also increases the level of maintenance required to keep it in good working order. Rust will set in very much faster on a gun with no finish, (especially one where the finish has been chemically stripped), and once begun... will be nearly impossible to keep rust free.

Griff, I think what is being missed here is a) no one said they wanted an old rusted piece of junk--unless you've got an antique barn--and that's not what I see the OP's representing anyway. The old 1st Gen Colts (etc) people admire are worn, not overly abused old rusted pieces of junk. My two "prematurely aged" SAA types are three and four years old respectively. No sign of rust. I'm also in Aridzona, so that may be a contributing factor . b) MOST of the "aged" look you see on the "100 year old guns" you describe occurred LONG AGO, in the FIRST quarter of their now long lives, IMHO. In other words, it's not 100 years of age you see but 10, 20 or 30, then put away in a box or safe for 80. I'll bet VERY LITTLE of that wear has been in the last 80 to 100 years. Your specimen apparently has a durable finish that would have been the envy of the Old West'ers by the age of your gun. I think whoever said a cattle drive or two (or three or four if you're skeptical) in the old days--leather, dust, rain--would put pretty good wear on the gun probably has it right. The pristine Colts and Remingtons stayed that way if they were homeowners', storekeeepers' or banker's guns that seldom got taken out of the drawer. Yes, all the old guns were new once of course....but not for long if actually used. How many pristine 1st Gen SAAs do you see? The ones you do I bet did not see much actual use. My .02.

EDIT: Griff I should add that your ASM 1851 is a PRIME example of why some folks respond positively to the OP's (and others' similar) accelerated aging efforts. As another poster said, these days it's hard to put that "honest wear" on in a short or even relatively extended period of time--as yours proves. In another thread (here or elsewhere I forget) the worn OP's three screw .22 he intimated might get reblued has drawn a resounding cry to "leave it alone. It has great character the way it is; a reblue would be just another Single Six" to summarize responses. True, that gun has "honest wear" someone(s) else put on-over what would appear to be at least 35, but maybe 40 or 50 years. Those years are hard for some to come by these days for some of us , but the point is it was that look and sense of "character" people were drawn to like bees to honey. I've got several closer-to-new-than-not Rugers and a Colt. But, the ones I enjoy the most (regularly) and other folks respond most to are the two "aged" SAA-clones--a home (smith) brew USFA and a Cimarron done this side of the pond at my request. The new (ca 2008) Colt is a gem, but I seem to spend more time oggling and fondling my friend's covey of 1st Gens.

[damienph]

Rust will set in very much faster on a gun with no finish, (especially one where the finish has been chemically stripped), and once begun... will be nearly impossible to keep rust free.

I don't agree with that at all. The 1909 Argentine Mauser receivers are in the white. Mine still looks almost new. No signs of rust or discoloration. I have owned it for over twenty years and it was given to me by a great friend whose father owned it since the '50s.

My single six was original blued and at some point had the finish stripped completely off. I've had it for three or so years and haven't had any problems with it rusting. Several people have said that it is really a stainless gun but check the serial number with Ruger, I assure you it is not stainless but in the white.
Serial Number 69-551xx

Give the guy a break. He is sharing with all of us a project on a revolver that he is having fun with and is proud of. That's kind of the point of belonging to this forum isn't it?

[GoatGuy]

... Give the guy a break. He is sharing with all of us a project on a revolver that he is having fun with and is proud of. That's kind of the point of belonging to this forum isn't it?

+1

[Griff]

... Give the guy a break. He is sharing with all of us a project on a revolver that he is having fun with and is proud of. That's kind of the point of belonging to this forum isn't it?

+1

Ok. But, having been the intended victim of a fraudulent mis-representation of an "antiqued" firearm... I don't find them attractive. In fact, the "better" they're done, the more offended I become.

Just as I've known cowboys that like their leather to appear "antiqued", I don't seem to share that affinity also. I've bought new leather gear... and while it gets the odd ding or scrap thru use, I sometimes lament the passing of its "newness".

I had no intent to denigrate the work he'd done on "antiquing" his 1858 clone... I simply just don't understand the desire.

[damienph]

... Give the guy a break. He is sharing with all of us a project on a revolver that he is having fun with and is proud of. That's kind of the point of belonging to this forum isn't it?

+1

Ok. But, having been the intended victim of a fraudulent mis-representation of an "antiqued" firearm... I don't find them attractive. In fact, the "better" they're done, the more offended I become.

Just as I've known cowboys that like their leather to appear "antiqued", I don't seem to share that affinity also. I've bought new leather gear... and while it gets the odd ding or scrap thru use, I sometimes lament the passing of its "newness".

I had no intent to denigrate the work he'd done on "antiquing" his 1858 clone... I simply just don't understand the desire.

I certainly agree with you on leather. I am pretty protective of my tack and saddles and take very good care of them. I am just saying that 38-55 is taking an obviously Italian made revolver (appears in pics to have all rollmarks intact) and "refinishing" it to make it his. He just wanted to share it with the rest of us. He has no intent what so ever to deceive, other wise he wouldn't be posting.

No big deal...

[38-55]

I should have qouted from my first thread on this project. I stated then that I had NO intention to deceive or misrepresent this gun in any way. All of the Italian roll marks are on the gun. I did this solely for MY enjoyment and yes, I am proud of the way it turned out. I can sort of understand why a gun dealer may not like this sort of thing. I personally have a great interest in history and all things old, and love the looks of a well worn finish on an old gun (or a replica). Rusted junk is another thing entirely. I do not look at old guns in terms of a source of income as a dealer would, but rather as a link to our past. No hard feelings, some of us simply do not see eye to eye on this one

[GoatGuy]

... Give the guy a break. He is sharing with all of us a project on a revolver that he is having fun with and is proud of. That's kind of the point of belonging to this forum isn't it?

+1

Ok. But, having been the intended victim of a fraudulent mis-representation of an "antiqued" firearm... I don't find them attractive. In fact, the "better" they're done, the more offended I become.

Just as I've known cowboys that like their leather to appear "antiqued", I don't seem to share that affinity also. I've bought new leather gear... and while it gets the odd ding or scrap thru use, I sometimes lament the passing of its "newness".

I had no intent to denigrate the work he'd done on "antiquing" his 1858 clone... I simply just don't understand the desire.

Fair enough explanation, I can dig it. It's much like me not understanding the desire of some men of fifty and sixty Winters or more wanting to acquire a moniker, dress up in old west period clothes looking like Tom Mix or some such, and competing in shooting matches using period firearms with reduced loads. Yet,... to each his own, I say.

[Ben_Rumson]

I did sort of the same thing as the OP...I spent several evenings carefully altering (polishing and keeping all the edges sharp)an 1858 repop in stainless...The idea was to take it from satin stainless finish to a high polish and make it look like the nickel plated Remingtons I've seen.. I never did get around to making grips of ivory micarta that I bought to complete the project.

[Old Ironsights]

The reason I did this is because I like the looks of weathered old guns. I have seen so many pictures of 1858 Piettas and Ubertis and they all look the same with the shiney dark finish and I wanted something different. I also have 3 old Winchester '94s that have a great patina on them and would never consider doing to them what I did to the '58.
The '58 is a shooter and I will enjoy using it this spring with it's new looks.

I'm the same way... ish.

I have a thing about Stainless steel guns, but hate the shine.

Out they go to the bead blaster so that when it's done it looks "in the white" (and is no longer reflective)... but doesn't rust like a white (or blue) gun.

[olyinaz]

The reason I did this is because I like the looks of weathered old guns. I have seen so many pictures of 1858 Piettas and Ubertis and they all look the same with the shiney dark finish and I wanted something different. I also have 3 old Winchester '94s that have a great patina on them and would never consider doing to them what I did to the '58.
The '58 is a shooter and I will enjoy using it this spring with it's new looks.

Here is one last photo taken in natural light:

Now you've got it! That really looks nice.

I understand where you're coming from and I think the joy of a weathered-look gun is that it looks salty but it's still mechanically tight. The old rusted clunkers we see in the display cases are often loose and rattly, sometimes barely functional. Well that's no fun. A good looking retro-repro gun works just fine for me.

I got this one for a song. It hung on the dealer's wall for going on two years before he finally marked it WAY down and I walked in and bought it. I honestly don't really even like Beretta's weathering effect, but it's got a layer of galvanizing under the black paint that makes it really durable and rust resistant and I'll work on it eventually to get it looking more honest. In the mean time I like it and that's all that matters!



Cheers,
Oly

[38-55]

Nice lookin' gun Oly and a great picture!