• If you are having trouble changng your password please click here for help.

Wood refinishing or leave as is?

One more from the peanut gallery.

You have replaced parts on it, the barrel is pitted. It has minimal value to a collector, and any one buying is someone who wants a period shooter. And truthfully not many of those around these days.

I would follow @CTS Tactical advice. I wouldn't do a full blown refinish, where you strip the wood, take out all the dings, clean up whatever checkering there is, stain it, refinish it. I would get some mineral spirits , 4 ought (0000) steel wool and clean up as much as I could. Then I would apply 2 or 3 coats of Tru-oil or similar finish, avoid anything with polyurethane. Lightly sand between coats. Then call it a job.

Doing that much will basically have zero effect on the value, and you won't be too out of pocket in time and money.
 
Something tells me if you grandfather knew his grandson restored the gun and made it look nice, he would be very proud. He would probably say "that old thing? didn't know it could look that good".

I would take the stock off, use Naval jelly and steel wool on all the rusted parts, then blue with Birchwood Caseys cold blue (follow instructions on bottle). Strip stock with wood stripper, then refinish with stain and Tru Oil. Make it purty again.

If you don't plan on selling it, who cares if you hurt any collectors value.

Rosewood
 
My dad, a WWII veteran, was with me browsing at a gun store about 15 years ago and I pointed out the section of the gun rack that had the old milsurp rifles.
I showed him an M1 Garand whose stock looked almost black --it appeared to have been soaked and Cosmolene or contaminated with other gun oils over the years.
I asked dad if some of the M1 rifles he used in basic training and saw troops carrying in Europe in 1944 and 1945 had such colored wood.
He said no, they would've ever been issued to troops in that condition, with that color. All the M1 grand see used or saw had considerably lighter colored wood which he observed was because they were fairly new --the oldest ones probably only four years old by the time he encountered them.

So, that's the basis of my belief that if you want to restore a weapon's finish, either the metal or the wood, to match a particular period in history when that weapon was most fully utilized or historically significant, you should go for it!
 
So, that's the basis of my belief that if you want to restore a weapon's finish, either the metal or the wood, to match a particular period in history when that weapon was most fully utilized or historically significant, you should go for it!

You have touch om an ongoing debate among historical preservationists without even knowing it.

If you have an artifact, especially a "working" artifact, and you restore it to its original condition, are you really showing the history of that item.

The examples with which I am most familiar are wooden working boats. They can be restored to like new, almost yacht like condition, but is that an accurate representation of the maybe 100 year history of that craft, I'm not suggesting that there is one answer - as I said it's an ongoing debate,

Some maritime museums have gone so far as to restore one side of a boat, and leave the other side in an "as found" condition.

Anyone who have ever watched the Antiques Roadshow knows how they feel about refinishing and removing the patina.

Again I'm not suggesting that there is one correct answer. We are not exactly discussing a Chippendale dining set, and refinishing it won't have much effect on the value, if that is what you are looking for,
 
Thank you again. Yes, as a fan of older cars, they have can the same issues with over restored cars. 1000 point cars that were never that nice from the factory. Super nice but not truly original.
For now I'll probably just clean it up nicely and take it to the next family get together and let everyone shoot it.
 
Back
Top Bottom