Before and after pics

0 Kudo

Forum Jump

Author	Comment
Righteous1	Before and after pics	Lead	[-]
Posts: 4 (09/28/08 09:02 PM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Tags : None Still new to this sight but figgured I show ya a couple I have. Didn't like that thick red russian varnish on these , felt like i was holding a candle so i stripped them and eneded up with this. Whatcha think? 91/30 & M44
Pahtu		#1	[-]
Posts: 2099 (09/28/08 09:10 PM) Veteran member Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Welcome Rightous 1. Looks like you have a couple dandy MN's! That 91-30 has some cool wood grain. Not my place to remind fairly new posters, but this site appreciates military firearms in their original condition. Altering original finishes, sporterizing etc are not discussed here. Not my rules, but house rules & I agree with them Of course the above guns are your guns to do as you please & there are other forums on the net who cater to such subjects. Please stick around here and see what these guys post here...Nice place to hang out & learn something new! Lot o experts check in and out on this place Pahtu.
eagle7		#2	[-]
Posts: 3562 (09/29/08 11:58 AM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	I don't have any heartburn with what Righteous did to those Mosins. The 91/30 looks like a restocked Finn capture with that oil stained stock. Can we assume that the reddish shellac on the rearsenalled Russian rifles was the original finish? IMHO the thick shellac coatings that those guns received during the post-WWII refurbishment program were not meant to be durable protection for issued weapons in field conditions. The shellac was merely a protective coating for long term storage, sort of like the same crap the Soviets slathered on the RC K98ks. I have a MN 91/30 refurb in a brand new stock that I had to refinish with shellac because the original finish was flaking and peeling.....and this rifle has seen zero field use. Righteous' 91/30 appears to have a wartime stock (no sling slot liner in the butt, half liner in the front).
Pahtu		#3	[-]
Posts: 2101 (09/29/08 07:27 PM) Veteran member Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	"I don't have any heartburn with what Righteous did to those Mosins." Truth be told, neither do I, as they are not my guns. If I overstepped my bounds, then I am sorry. I felt this needed to be brought up, as I don't make house rules, I follow em. Pahtu.
skywarp989		#4	[-]
Posts: 3197 (09/29/08 09:13 PM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Shellac was the original finish for Soviet and Russian rifles. The refurb shellac might have been applied sloppily, but it was still correct and authentic. Nice wood on that 91/30 -- I won't lose any sleep over the alteration. Life's too short to worry about refurb Mosins.
zeebill		#5	[-]
Posts: 3301 (09/30/08 09:59 PM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	I too have a feeling that refurb Mosins are anything but historic and accurate protrayals of wartime Mosins even though as stated above they did have shellac finishes. There are bits and pieces of many different rifles in refurbs for the most part only ringing my bell with certain pieces but then this is a personal thing so I try and keep that in mind. They for the most part are great shooters and when taken care of and kept whole with no modifications they make a nice rifle to shoot and enjoy. Nice looking refurbs for sure! Bill ELT
Hessenfesser		#6	[-]
Posts: 54 (10/01/08 07:54 PM) active member Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Anyone notice the centered crossbolt on the 91/30 stock? Could it actually be a re-captured rifle? ~Hessenfesser
OldIronMan		#7	[-]
Posts: 1238 (10/02/08 09:12 PM) Veteran member Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Folks can do whatever they want to with their property. My refurbs are all keeping their shellac. I like them that way just fine. "A cheerful heart is good medicine."
zeebill		#8	[-]
Posts: 3304 (10/02/08 11:51 PM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Yes the first one shown looks greatly like a Finn stock. If the shellac had been left on it I would say it was possibly a recaptured capture but now it frankly looks like a Finn rifle with a story. A prime reason for leaving things alone even though we all probably want to improve the look of our rifles this points out why we shouldn't very well. Still a great looking twosome regardless. Bill ELT
eagle7		#9	[-]
Posts: 3572 (10/03/08 11:33 AM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Good catch on the centered crossbolt.....is this a 91/30 Finn capture? Righteous, is the stock dovetail spliced? Are there "D", "41", and/or [SA] stamps on the barrel shank? By the way the stock took the stain/oil, it could be Finn artic birch rather than Russian beech.
Mountain Doctor		#10	[-]
Posts: 3030 (10/03/08 04:30 PM) Forum Site Moderator Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	As a moderator I have kind of mixed feelings about the stripping off at the shellac. On the one hand, they are definitely refurbs, and not completely representative of their war type configuration. Also, I've noticed that some of these finishes, to be pretty horrific. It's not rare for them to be flaking off, falling off, or have an alligator type appearance. I have a reproduction sniper rifle with such a finish. I know that sometimes the finish can be salvaged by spraying a thin coat of shellac on top of the flaking shellac and it will sometimes stabilize it. Mine was too far gone for that however. When I removed my bad shellac with a denatured alcohol, lightly cleaned the wood with him fine steel wool, and sprayed on several coats of fresh shellac. It certainly looks much better now, and probably the way Ivan would've wanted in the first place, but not quite the same way that Boris had done it. A similar discussion would be is it within our guidelines to remove the Russian shellac from Russia captured German Mausers.
temperflash		#11	[-]
Posts: 299 (10/03/08 05:44 PM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Some 19th century finishes were never meant to be durable. The British for example often used a very thin Tin plating on revolvers intended for long term storage in the tropics. The Tin plating wouldn't last in a holster for long even if the pistol were never fired. Enfield Muskets sold to the US during the civil War were often delivered without even being finish sanded. US commanders complained that the rough stocks were tearing up the recruit's hands during Drills. Several Japanese rifles I've examined had all the laquer scrapped away and brown boot polish rubbed into the wood. Probably by experianced troopers who didn't like the light wood and shiny finish giving them away in ambush. Most of the old military rifles I've worked on had little or no original finish left, so drawing out oils rebuilding oil perished inletting , then finishing in the manner that best brought out the qualities of the wood seemed the best way to go.
Righteous1		#12	[-]
Posts: 14 (10/03/08 05:50 PM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	eagle7 wrote: Good catch on the centered crossbolt.....is this a 91/30 Finn capture? Righteous, is the stock dovetail spliced? Are there "D", "41", and/or [SA] stamps on the barrel shank? By the way the stock took the stain/oil, it could be Finn artic birch rather than Russian beech. ok ya got me on this, what do you mean dovetailed on the stock? where at? as for the letter/number i dont see either one or one i can make out, heres a couple of pics i took of it just now, cant see markings that good due to cheap camera but maybe something there you can reconize. Helps if you can zoom in on them.
Carl Gustav		#13	[-]
Posts: 3144 (10/03/08 09:58 PM) Forum Site Moderator Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Acutually the Finns joined the front part of the stock to the rear with a finger joint just aft of the rear band. I doubt if yours is since the wood looks very consistent in grain pattern for the whole length. I think the Finns must did it so the they could use smaller pieces of wood to make a stock or possibly reduce warpage. Others more knowledgable may chime in. I refinished a couple of 91/30 refurbs because a lot of the shellace had fallen off. I obtained colored shellac flakes, mixed up a batch and attempted to match the original color but with mixed results. At least the finish is sound now. If I bought a vintage car and the original paint was peeling off, what would I do? It sort of the same thing. Save for adding some BLO to Garand stocks that were dry I have left the rest of the stocks in my accumlation untouched except for removing dirt and cosmoline. To each his own. Carl
eagle7		#14	[-]
Posts: 3573 (10/03/08 10:59 PM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Sorry I wasn't specific enough. Many of the Finn captured 91/30s have a two piece stock which is joined by dovetaillng the forearm just below the lower barrel band. IIRC it was done to prevent warpage. The dovetails look like long fingerjoints. From your photos I can't spot any wood splice. I do see a Soviet refurbishment stamp on the right side of the barrel shank (little rectangle with a horizontal line through the center), and the Ishevsk factory stamp (arrow in a pyramid).
m1 talker		#15	[-]
Posts: 6148 (10/04/08 12:17 PM) Veteran member Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Did the splicing of the stocks really work? I know I have not seen any warped Finn stocks, but if it worked so good, why didn't other countries do it? I know Finland has some cold winters, but there are other countries that have the same kind of winters. I seem to think that they may have thought they had a better idea or a solution to a problem that didn't exist. Curt
eb in oregon	Really, what is original?	#16	[-]
Posts: 206 (10/04/08 02:08 PM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Here, once again, we have the subject of "what is truly original?" It is my opinion, which is in the minority, that the subject of "originality" is greatly over stated and abused. To be really, truly original the rifle, pistol, or object in question should be, needs to be, in the condition in which it left the factory after manufacture. Anything after that is mincing words. An original rifle may be used, abused and still be "original" as it has had NO ALTERATIONS OR ARMORY REFURBISHMENT since manufacture. So, we have a piece that has been through arsenal refurbishment, is it original? No, not in the literal sense, however to some C&R folks, this is still original. Why? Well it was refurbished by armorer's of the country in which it was manufactured using original replacement parts of course! Wrong answer as firearms and equipment that was battlefield capture was regularly refurbished by the country that captured it. So, are these weapons "original?" Depends on whom you talk too. Some think so, some think not. On top of this we have refurbishment of firearms after the conflict ended, such as the aforementioned Mosin-Nagants of Righteous1 here. These two rifles were refurbished by armorer's who were probably conscripts at worst, or factory workers just cranking out a product as fast as possible at best. Neither of these people gave a rat's butt what the rifle looked like, or what they even slathered on it to seal the stock. They used whatever the government supplied, and the government didn't care either as whoever was in charge most likely had a quota to meet and that was far more important than anything, to include if the issue that all the weapons were really truly serviceable. So, now that the whole issue of "originality" is really complicated, we have the issue of guys like me. I seem to have a talent for buying rifles "not as advertised" that are rarely in close to "original" condition. So, what do I do? Other than sending the rifle back, (and I have an issue about losing money by re-stocking fees or postage) what is left is to replace all damaged, worn parts and ( 9 out of 10 times) strip and refinish the stock to factory standards. A practice abhorrent to many C&R collectors. So I ask, which is really more desirable, a rifle as the factory made it, or a rifle that has been refurbished by some poor schmuck that didn't give a rip and may have been drinking vodka to help the day more tolerable? Just stirring the pot a little. Eric "We must all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately." Benjamin Franklin, July 4 1776
temperflash		#17	[-]
Posts: 303 (10/04/08 05:24 PM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	The Russian captured Mausers may be less than factory original or even correct trim at time of last use by the Germans, but the alterations do add to the individual rifle's history. It indicates that the rifle was likely used in combat on the Eastern Front. To some extent the gosh awful finish on the Soviet Rifles that were consigned to storage also tell something about the rifle, though not as much. Finn rebuilds of old Soviet weapons tell a lot. The russians lost so many troops that the Finns once loaded tens of thousands of frozen Russian corpses onto a train and ran it down the tracks back to mother russia where it came from. The only ethnic joke ever aimed at the Finns is "How can you tell a Finn from a Russian?" Answer is "You can't, but a Finn can at two hundred meters over open sights in a driving blizzard" So the joke is really on the Russians. Mosin Nagant wood is seldom pretty enough to think much about the finish, but on rare occasions the wood is nice enough to deserve the best finish you can put on it.
Pahtu		#18	[-]
Posts: 2104 (10/04/08 06:13 PM) Veteran member Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Of my humble little collection, I have two MN's that have been refinished by me(way back in the day before I knew better...). They no longer resemble anything close to an original finish - They look good, but their history is gone, sanded away by me. I do not post my handiwork, because it is against forum rules & the moderators could rightfully delete the thread. Like one of the other posters said....He does not get heartburn for refinished refurbished Mosins. Neither do I. How many members here would get heartburn over a bubba refinished Finn 28-30? Some of them(the 28-30's) have been refurbed sometime in their Finn history? What is the difference? I will in no way tell someone what to do with their own property, it is their business, case closed. I will gently remind folks that this forum is not the "How to refinish a MN forum", nor is it a show off how I refinished my MN forum. Am I a moderator? Nope, but I am a member & can express my opinion. I bet there are many members here who have come across a bonafide valuable collectable sometime, somewhere that bubba has poorly refinished/chopped. Many of those folks have no idea the difference between a Sako M39, or a M27rv or a 1942 Izhevsk 91-30? & Gee look how much better the wood would look underneath all that dark reddish brown finish... Original finish on a gunstock.....Well that most likely would be bark from the tree(if you wanted to back that far...) You can't get much more of an original finish than from when it left the care of the country that produced or used the rifle. I have seen very few Soviet or Russian MN's with an original factory finish, tho I do have a 1941 M38 with what is left of an original factory finish.....thus the Soviet refurbs here in the U.S. are just about as close to original finish from the country that produced or used them, as we can get. Restorations? Most collectors shun restorations, as the guns really never have more value than the sum of it's parts. The restorations also will never be as issued by the country of import, thus losing appeal from most collectors.(I however, enjoy restoring certain collectables back into close to as issued condition & could care less what other collectors think...) Flaking shellac? Sure it is nasty - I have one M38 that is flaking shellac - It needs something to keep it from flaking - Mebbe one day I will blend some of the shellac with denaured alcohol, or recoat it with a better grade shellac - Not a priority at this time, heck I hardly shoot the M38....& it is ok as is for now. I surely would not blame folks for fixing a badly flaking shellac finish - I would be disappointed if they used tung or tru-oil or something nowhere close to original.... Why are threads like this one valuable? Mebbe it will teach some members that the original finish on a gun as it came here to the U.S. is a good thing & that perhaps refinishing a rifle is a last resort kind of thing to do. My two muskrat pelts... Pahtu.
Ed Novak		#19	[-]
Posts: 1691 (10/04/08 06:19 PM) Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	This is a very interesting topic. Love/hate relationship with all that shellac. Would love to see the wood under the shellac on my inexpensive 91/30 but I hate to think of changing its appearance from its last handling before it left "wherever" and came to me. I have LEs that I've used mineral spirits/detergent to clean and followed with the traditional BLO so why not do the same to the MN by stripping the sloppily applied shellac and replace it with new? I dunno, the rifle is certainly no "virgin" by any means. Perhaps it is the fact that I bought the rifle expecting exactly what I received and I associate its expected/as received appearance to be MN in character and any change ruins some of the Slavic "flavor". ? I think that Pahtu beat me to the "punch" on this subject and has said exactly what I feel about my MN - if SOG had sent me a stripped and re-shellac'd MN, I'd have sent the thing back in a heartbeat and included a nasty note. Last Edited By: Ed Novak 10/04/08 06:29 PM. Edited 1 times.
m1 talker		#20	[-]
Posts: 6149 (10/04/08 06:59 PM) Veteran member Reply Quote More My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Blocking Invite Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Very interesting thread, guys! As for me, I am more interested in a particular rifles history than whether Joe Blow refinished the stock or not. The Mosin-Nagant rifles that were refurbished and shellac applied to them while in the hands of the rightful owners, whether a battle field pickup, captured arms, or whatever are all original as far as I am concerned. Sure if drunken Ivan slopped vodka diluted shellac on a German Mauser, so what? That is all part of the rifles history. How many Remchesters do you know that can claim any history like that? Sure, a fully original rifle is always best, but we don't see them in that condition nowadays, and if we did, we could not afford to buy them. I think a lot of people get a bit carried away with picking the fly specks out of the pepper in regards to refurbed rifles nowadays. Curt