Another blood pitting
 

http://www.gunbroker.com/auction/Vie...p?Item=7337757

Why is it that blood tends to concentrate in the same areas most in contact with the holster?

rk

Holster looks nice!

I brought this up before, and don't mean to start an arguement, as I believe blood will rust a gun quick.

But when I hear that the blood has been on it since 1945 or whatever... It is hard for me to believe, makes me think of the capturing it from an SS Officer or picking it up from General DWM...

Wet metal can get messed up pretty bad if just left or ignored over time... I'm not discounting blood for this or others, but it is hard for me to believe that someone didn't pull the bayonet / pistol / ?? out and wipe it down at some point days or even much later?

I agree Ed, tell you what. Next time I kill something I will collect some fresh blood. I've got a Colt Police Special that I ground the firing pin off cause the gun is absoultey not safe to shoot. It has no finish left, cylinder falls out and the frame is bent. I will coat it with blood and see what happens.

rk

I've heard blood pitting was fact and I've heard it was fiction. I personaly think it's neglect and exposure to the elements. From my deer hunting experiences I know blood will permanently stain pickup paint. Have not noticed blood to be overly corrosive. I always wondered if the legend came from cleaning up battlefields weeks or monthes after the battles were fought.

Who knows? Stevie.

I have come home from a hunt, and cleaned the blood off a rifle weeks later and there has never been any pitting.

I don't have much experience with this, but last year, I said tis same thing and several people got all over me, stated that blood would pit the guns or items in a day or so...

I have had blood on knives and such, and it just cleaned off, but I don't remember anything on bluing. So maybe RK can spread some blood on the revolver, then take it off over time? Leave some on and just clean a bit one day, three days, a week?. Can you scan or take pictures, before, after, etc?

Ed

I'll do that Ed, Will take pictures of before,
put it all over, then remove it from parts in stages. What is a good time line? Weeks, months, I don't know.

rk

I would think if it was caustic a couple of days.

I would imagine that it will stain the metal in a couple of days, so a week to two weeks max should reveal something RK?

I was cleaning a PPK and the darn thing closed on Thor's finger, out spurts the blood (yes it was red and not blue) and I screamed, not so much from the pain but the panic a big drop on the bluing, 15 seconds before I got it off and it discolored it! Really acidic I would think! blood pitting I think looks much wider and like little pools of acid sat on the metal, salt and moisture pitting is usually much smaller holes, not larger pools (depressions) from what I have seen.

what is the whole point of "blood pitting" i just don't get it at all. to me all it is, is putting blood on a gun and waiting for it to turn colors. i mean, what's the fun in that?

krystian

There, the deed is done! Me and my lab assistant have put real human blood on a Marlin parts rifle. Took a digital picture, and put the experment in the laundry room to mature. My finger hurts.

Stevie.

Hi Folks!

Blood and water and corrosive for the same reason - they both contain oxygen. One is no more corrosive than the other.

Purely IMO, the stories of â??blood pittingâ?? are fanciful attempts to make poor maintenance marketable :-)

Warm regards,

Kyrie

Kyrie, There is a much higher concentration of salt in blood is there not? Salt is highly corrosive. Much more than your average water. Except here in Yuma! Jerry Burney

Blood contains coagulants that causes the blood to 'dry' or 'clot' quickly. It most certainly is corrosive. But if you just take a quick swipe at metal with a thin layer of blood then there will be just a light corrosion witnessed on the bluing. If the gun has layed in a pool of blood, then the results would be heavy corrosion and pitting. A drop of blood would leave a shallow pool type of corrosion appearance but pitting would be slight because the blood would clot before deep pitting would occur. So everyone in the above discusion are correct, depending.
Water,on the otherhand, is acidic but does not clot and so it will stay on the surface longer depending of external conditions. Deep pitting and a different type of surface distruction would be encouraged.
Big Norm

I will postulate:

that blood carries a -much- higher concentration of oxygen than H2O, as haemoglobin is an oxygen fixitive;

that blood will pool and remain in a much higher concentration than water because of its coagulative qualities (thank you Big Norm) and because it does not evaporate, but rather, dries;

that blood has a "head start" on a blued steel surface because that surface is oxidized (the bluing process) to start with.

Assuming that "blood pitting" is a real phenomenon, does it operate differently on a rust-blued surface than it does on a salt-blued surface? Is the oxide-blued surface somehow catalytic?

--Dwight

Dwight, I too would like to postulate,
We have two different compounds here and neither is stable. There are two types of water compounds. H2O or regular water and H3O or heavy water. Heavy water is an instable compound that exists in minute quantities in reqular water. The H atom can be ripped from the weak H3O compound to form an acid with other impurities in the water and an unstable H2O. This unstable H2O then is free to search for another compound or atom to try to become a stable compound. Iron (FE) has a stronge affinity for the oxygen atom and will form an irreversible compound (FEO) or rust.

Hemoglobin or Haemoglobin (different spelling for the same thing) is the glue that holds the oxygen atom to the red blood cell (RBC) and also gives the RBC its color. But not all RBC's are coated with the same amount of Hemoglobin. So a metal such as iron (FE) can rip an atom of oxygen off of a RCB pretty easily to form rust.

In both instances we have a three way chemical reaction. There are the compounds involved to form the rust bluing in WW1 and the ones to form the salt bluing in WW2. In instance one, are the metals in rust bluing strong enough to rip the oxygen atom from H3O but weak enough to allow that atom to be ripped off to unite with iron to form rust? The same anology can be made regarding Haemoglobin. The second instance involves the analsis as to whether the chemicals involved in salt bluing will formulate the same reaction.

The final question, of course, would be which of these four reactions, while being ever mindful of solution impuities, will occur the quickest? Hell, I don't know!
Big Norm

Hi Folks!

The corrosion of which we speak is simply oxidation - oxygen forming a bond with the iron in steel to form iron oxide - rust.

For oxidation to occur only oxygen and iron are required, and it doesnâ??t matter where the oxygen comes from - water or blood.

> There is a much higher concentration of salt in blood is
> there not? Salt is highly corrosive
Respectfully, and with no offense intended, salt is not corrosive. Corrosion occurs more quickly in the presence of salt because salt attracts and holds water. It isnâ??t the salt that is producing rust - itâ??s the water attracted by the salt.

> that blood carries a -much- higher concentration of oxygen
> than H2O, as haemoglobin is an oxygen fixitive;
Blood contains less oxygen than does water per unit - water is one third oxygen. The oxygen in blood is less tightly bound that is the oxygen in water. Water has more oxygen, blood gives up its oxygen more easily, making it a wash as to which will produce more iron oxide faster.

> Assuming that "blood pitting" is a real phenomenon, does it
> operate differently on a rust-blued surface than it does on
> a salt-blued surface? Is the oxide-blued surface somehow catalytic?
No, sir. Both rust and salt blue produce oxide surfaces. In essence, the iron in the surface of the steel becomes bound in a stable compound with no room for another oxygen atom regardless of which process is used. The rust blue process tends to produce a deeper layer of iron oxide than does the salt blue process, and rust blue finishes are somewhat more durable as a result.
Be all that as it may, both bluing methodologies create the same stable surface oxide compound. The normal concentration of oxygen in the atmosphere cannot bind to this blued surface and the surface will not further oxidize. However this stable surface oxide can be over-powered by a concentration of oxygen (as is present in blood or water) and further oxidation will then occur.

If we were to put a drop of water and a drop of blood side by side on a Luger frame and leave it for a week, and then clean and present the frame to a third party that third party would be unable to tell the difference between the two spots of oxidation, or to tell which spot of oxidation was caused by which oxidizer.

Gentlemen, over the years Iâ??ve bled on a whale of a lot of firearms and can tell you from my own experience that blood is not especially corrosive. A sweaty finger print will produce more rust faster than will a bloody finger print.

I respectfully and with no offense intended to anyone maintain by my earlier opinion that the stories of â??blood pittingâ?? are fanciful attempts to make poor maintenance marketable. The people who try and sell â??blood pittingâ?? are doing the same thing as those who try to sell â??General DWMâ??sâ?� Luger :-)

Warm regards,

Kyrie

Gentlemen, There is a Dutch Luger offered on Gunbroker with quite a story. It is interesting to look at. I do not have the # but it is easy to find. Take a look and read this fellows story...Let me know what you think. Jerry Burney

I looked for the Dutch gun and couldn't find it, found some cool aluminum grips? I'll look for the story tommorow. I did look at my marlin parts rifle; roughly 48 hours, I don't think it's even rusting, I'm patient. Maybe tommorrow the blood will pit the steel,I can wait years before I clean it.

Stevie.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">This Luger is a 1906 Dutch Luger with a "Real" story behind it. Very rare 1906 Dutch Luger. Only 4000 made. Extensive pitting on gun. This weapon was just obtained from a Vet who took it off the body of a dead Jap on the island of Saipan. The gun was in the Jap's hand and had one round in the chamber and one round in the clip. The gentlemen in question was badly decomposed when found. The Vet did not even want to reach down to remove the weapon from his hand, so he placed a shoe string on the gun barrel to pull the gun out of his hand. Upon doing this, the trigger finger came along with the gun! - he placed the finger in a jar, as a souvenir. I received the jar, with the finger, along with the gun but I felt uncomfortable with having it around, so I gave it a proper burial in my back yard. Quite a story and quite a rare gun. I have fired this one myself, just for the history of it. All match but take down lever and clip. Questions will be answered via e-mail. C&R or FFL required. According to Datig's book, "The Luger Pistol", 4000 Lugers were capatured by the Japanese and used by them. This has to be one of them.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">For a Dutch gun with a plate still on it, not a baaaad price, I think still high for the pitting, but think $600 would walk it out the door? :D

at this auction:
http://www.gunbroker.com/auction/Vie...p?Item=7387414

(deleted 'cause Ed beat me to it!)

--Dwight

Ed (Mustang66),
I am somewhat skeptical of the Dead Japanese Soldier Story who died with a loaded gun in his hand.
If that is true I can see why he died, The gun was loaded with one round in the chamber and one in the magazine and appears to have the safety lever on safe position. (there is little or no rust in the area that a "safe weapons" safety lever would cover)
I cannot buy the story that a Soldier Died with a partially empty weapon on safe.
"In my opinion" the weapon was left for quite a long time wrapped in wet rags.
Even oily rags were not able to protect a weapon in the Jungles on the Tropical Islands of the South Pacific.
I think that some of our "Anzac" or "Zelander" Friends will back me up on that.
ViggoG