Printable View
On this super high res "monitor of goodness" (it's not mine) The wood shows very well through the grunge. Gotta be beech! Little "white" highlights all over. Again, I think it's best to try a good cleaning before having a go with the stripper. If it doesn't clean up acceptably, THEN strip it. However, that means the grain will probably be raised, leading to further actions that can degrade the rifle further.
That's it from me on the wood, y'all drive on.
Agreed - before using gel stripper, get some methyl hydrate (methylated spirits, rubbing alcohol, etc. - all the same thing) and a piece of clean cotton t-shirt rag and give the stock a good scrubbing with that first. It might clean up - who knows. This is the least intrusive thing to try first.
With the gel stripper I use, that is quite simply not true. There is no degradation of any kind.Quote:
Originally Posted by jmoore
However, it is wise to be cautious, as we live in different countries, so the gel strippers may have a different composition. All I can say from plentiful experience is that the gel stripper one gets here most definitely does not raise the grain. As far as I can see, it doesn't even penetrate hardwoods to any significant degree. But I never leave it on for more than a few minutes anyway. The action on varnish is so fast that it is almost a brush on/wipe off process. But please note that I do not use anything with water to remove the stuff - that would raise the grain on a freshly stripped surface.
DaveN. As you may well be worried by this exchange of opinions, I suggest you first try out the gel stripper + non-aqueous removal agent on an old piece of painted timber.
Patrick
Oh my. Patrick, I have all of the respect in the world for you and your "take it slow" ideas, the same with Claven. But under no circumstances am I fan of any type of stripping of the finish. I guess that puts me in a one in 1,000,000 situation. I have seen too many antique guns and pieces of furniture as well ruined by the use of strippers - and have even done it myself so my statements are based on experience. Dave, it is yours so it is up to you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick Chadwick
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick Chadwick
We agree on the wood, it is beechwood, a common gunstock wood in Northern Europe (Prussia through Scandanavia) and also heavily used in England and other parts of Europe when the need was great and standard woods (usually walnut) were not available. Oak, while used from time to time is a very poor choice for gunstocks.
---------- Post added at 07:12 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:09 PM ----------
Good suggestion Claven. :thup: Hopefully the use of strippers can be avoided.Quote:
Originally Posted by Claven2
When I stripped it (yes I said stripped it) it showed a nice grain but also it showed how beat up and dinged and scratched and gouged it was. Amazing what some grunge can hide. I would say that 60 or 70 years as a lamp was not so good for this 1803 danish. I showed my friend after three steps and we concluded that this rifle was stained and after sanding (yes I said it) and a new coat of stain (holes are plugged) all the blemishes are either gone or very minimized. It was so bad that when you wiped it with a rag or paper towel it would have lint caught in all the ruff spots. On the bright side a flash light was dropped down the muzzle and it looks real promising. I don't know what else to say, I appreciate all everyone put in, to helping me. Thank you very much.
Photos?
Claven2, please take a look at the thread on the Argentine rolling block (restorer's forum). We need your advice!
Dave, sorry you felt that you had to resort to stripping and sanding the gun but it is, after all and for the time being, yours so it's treatment is up to you.Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveN
You do need to correct your use of the term "1803 Danish". Until 1814, Norway was united with Denmark and the pattern arm you have was originally called the Danish M1803, however, after defeat of Denmark-Norway by Sweden in the Napoleonic Wars Norway gained independence from Denmark and formed the separate nation of Norway. Late in 1814, Norway went to war with Sweden and upon loosing the war became loosely associated with Sweden until 1905. With the building of a Norwegian nation, Kongsberg Arsenal started manufacturing arms, obviously based on the Danish pattern. Since your gun is plainly marked with the "K under Crown" representing manufacture there, the arm is a Norwegian M1821/41/51, not a Danish M1803 even though it was based on the Danish pattern. Sorry, just trying to clean up terminology so that others will be able to understand what you have.
Thank you that was good to Know. I'll read that several more times as it was more than I new of that part of the world, and my best and favorite subject in school was history. As far as the stock goes It was stripped and lightly sanded just to smooth its rough surface but not removing what I call battle damage. It just looks cleaner ,smoother and easier on the eyes, but still some what the same. When I'm satisfied the stain has dried and the holes are covered I'll post some stripped pics and stained pics.
I just wanted to thank you for sharing with us Dave. and thank the experts here for all they've contributed. This rifle is one of the most interesting 'finds' I've seen in years, and it makes me feel good to read where so many members have unselfishly helped with research and hard earned years of knowledge.
It's been interesting to follow this thread, and even thrilling at times -
Especially when experts identified it as a very rare rifle!
(The only way it would have been more exciting would be if I'd found it at a secondhand store myself!) ;)
I'm looking forward to seeing the stock after you've repaired the holes, etc, and hope you'll post photos of all of your results as you go along.
Thanks again Dave, and also to everyone involved,
~ Harlan