wartime Russian wood finish

Ok - i have a question that has been bugging me - what was the original finish used by the soviet union during ww2?

Most of the soviet rifles I see from ww2 display light coloured wood, but this seems to be the result of postwar rework. Some have a darker, almost redish tone, which i believe was the wartime colour.

but at the same time -
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo..._attacki-1.jpg
this photo was apparently taken in '41 and shows two distinct shades of stock finish....

anybody have any photos of rifles with wartime finish? any primary sources outlining the finish? experience replicating the finish? I'm looking to restore an SVT 40 to wartime colours

I don't think anyone really knows. I've brought up the topic before and nothing conclusive was ever decided. I've also spoken with numerous Russian re-enactors at various shows to get their opinions. General consensus seems to be that they used an oil finish prior to WWII. Sometime either just before or during the war they started using the red shellac although some say after the war. It is accepted that the shellac became a standard for all refurbishments after the war which is why they all have it now. Complicating matters is that the shellac is basically crap and wears off quite easily and quickly so rifles with it that were used lost most of it pretty quickly.

As evidence for all of the above I would look at all Finn capture rifles which appear to not have a trace of shellac on them but an oil finish. Same with Austrian capture rifles from WWI. Most Finn captures would be from the breakup or from early WWII supporting the shellac wasn't in use then. I've seen photos which show rifles with small traces of shellac on them during the war showing the wear problems.

I'm convinced they left the factories with an oil finish or nothing at all in the latter part of the war. The shellac was a Commie make work scheme after the war when the rifles went to storage. Look at RC Mauser's, they got the same crap treatment. This, and the other points Aragorn laid out point in that direction.
Some like to treat the crappy, peeling shellac finish on a $100 dollar rifle as history incarnate. Doing so is fine, just don't handle and never shoot the thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WarPig1976

Some like to treat the crappy, peeling shellac finish on a $100 dollar rifle as history incarnate. Doing so is fine, just don't handle and never shoot the thing.

---

That shellac is certainly a junk finish, only in rivaled poorness by basement sporter finishing work.

I always strip mine back to a more conventional finish, and you end up with a $100 rifle that at least looks like a $200 gun.

Keeping the shellac is like having a classic car and insisting on keeping it rusty "because it's factory installed rust"...

I been messing with some type of true Russian Red Color or close to it. If you go to some Guitar Forums you will find a lot of ways to make this Nice Red Color for what your wanting to put it on.

Frank

I have a wartime dated,1943, Mosin Nagant rifle (U.K. de-ac) which I believe is a Finish capture example as it has the "41" stamp on the receiver but crucially it has never had a full post war refurb. The stock has a natural wood/linseed oil finish. There is no sign of varnish/shellac/stain ever being applied. It just has a general engrained colour that has been achieved by much use/abuse on the battlefield.


Remember, it is said that some Russian tanks left the factory in which they were built in bare metal and went straight into battle, things were that desperate.

I forgot to attach this Picture to show that these guitar colors come pretty close and there very similar to colors used on Russian Red Furniture. I was reading that Nitro Based Stains are very good to use is this true ? Heidelberg Products are suppose to be the best if they sell it here in the States. I know it's very popular in Europe, but a lot of the very nice AK furniture being restored here are by products sold here so I guess it doesn't matter. I'm just trying to get close for the AK furniture I bought. I been going to lumber yards and picking up scraps for free and using that as practice before I use it on the AK wood I bought.

Frank

I think that the shellac finish that Russia applied to it's post war refurbs of WW2 weapons was a much thicker finish, like a thick varnished surface. My U.K. deac AKM has more of a stained finish although the colour shade is probably similar.

I do know when stripping a Mosin Nagant, SVT-40, or SKS stock to bare wood, the Arctic Birch used in their construction is nearly stark white in colour, almost like a beech without the yellow tint.

Like the colour in this photo that is above the stain, call it weathered pine:
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...07/e9718-1.jpg

Surely if the stocks, in at least some case, left the factory with no finish they would pick up/develop a colour of their own in use or to put it another way they wouldn't stay near white for long.

Seems to be the issue with the soviets - we can never find historic documents detailing what was used :(

by oil finish you guys mean linseed right? it would explain the variation in colour seen in the two rifles in my first post - linseed darkens with age and holds onto dirt and crap. the front rifle looks very minty. Reminds me of a number of pictures of German troops carrying mausers (which were typicaly treated with linseed) of different shades in the same photograph.

perhaps the wartime finish is the dark spots one sees on your typical refurb - looks almost as though the Russians did a **** job removing the original finish then slapped some crap over it.... another sign of this is that the dark spots are most present in the low spots - like the finger groves on the forearm....anybody have any idea what the dark spots could be from? https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...la_SVT40-1.jpg
again stealing pics from wikipedia :P

anybody got any photos from russian museums? I'm sure they dont have refurbs in their collections

The Russians never used the shellac you see on post war refurbished rifles during the war. Shellac is a cheap finish that wears off almost immediately. And during WWII the Russians had a shortage of shellac and would not waste it on rifles.

On SVTs they used a lacquer. A very nice coating. Here is a factory original rifle. This rifle is dated 1941. As has been mentioned, in 1942 things were very desperate and many rifles probable left the factory with little or no finish.

Attachment 74493Attachment 74492

Here is a picture of a factory original M38 dated 1942. This is not a Finn capture. It also has no shellac.

Attachment 74495Attachment 74494

Here is a factory original 1943 M91/30. Notice the cross sanding much like the 1942 M38

Attachment 74496

And here is a battle worn M91/30 PU sniper. This is a bring back from either WWII or Korea.

Attachment 74499

All these rifles are 100% Factory original matching. Hope this helps.

Here are more pictures of the rifles above so you guys can see some of the other features.

1941 Tula SVT 40
Attachment 74501Attachment 74511Attachment 74510Attachment 74508Attachment 74506Attachment 74505Attachment 74503Attachment 74502Attachment 74500Attachment 74513

1942 Izhevsk M38
Attachment 74514Attachment 74515Attachment 74516Attachment 74517Attachment 74518Attachment 74519Attachment 74520Attachment 74521

1943 Izhevsk M91/30
Attachment 74522Attachment 74523Attachment 74524Attachment 74525Attachment 74526Attachment 74527Attachment 74528

1944 Izhevsk PU
Attachment 74529Attachment 74530Attachment 74531Attachment 74532Attachment 74533Attachment 74534Attachment 74535Attachment 74536Attachment 74537

thanks mdarnell19, excellent pics! I saw a '41 tula svt at the gun shop just like yours, i might pick it up - i might go about restoring it depending on if shellac has been applied and strip the plum colour from the bolt

the finish on your tula svt looks identical very close to other tula rifles i otherwise thought had been shellac.... dare i say it looks identical to my refurbed 1950 tula sks what is the real difference between laquer and shellac?

are the izhevsk rifles finished with linseed or some other oil?

Never strip a SVT bolt of it's blue finish. By late 1941 Tula was bluing their bolts. War time blue looks like a cherry red while post war is purple.

I only collect war time Russian weapons but I do not believe in messing with a post war refurbished rifle. Why do it? Even if you polish the bolt and strip the shellac off you still have a refurbished rifle. And by doing so your rifle does not look factory original. But now it has been messed with and has zero collectors value. And there are still those who collect refurbished rifles. Just except it for what it is, leave it alone, enjoy it and find a factory original rifle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flying10uk

develop a colour of their own in use or to put it another way they wouldn't stay near white for long

---

Funny you mention it that way, many of the 1940-44 produced Soviet rifles I have stripped retain a dark discoloration around the end of the butt, areas the wrist and forearm grasping groove, in other words, where the rifle would contact the ground at rest, and where a soldier would place their dirty hands during use.

It does suggest the original finish was very not very durable or possibly uncoated prior to refurbishment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mdarnell19

Never strip a SVT bolt of it's blue finish. By late 1941 Tula was bluing their bolts. War time blue looks like a cherry red while post war is purple.

I only collect war time Russian weapons but I do not believe in messing with a post war refurbished rifle. Why do it? Even if you polish the bolt and strip the shellac off you still have a refurbished rifle. And by doing so your rifle does not look factory original. But now it has been messed with and has zero collectors value. And there are still those who collect refurbished rifles. Just except it for what it is, leave it alone, enjoy it and find a factory original rifle.

---

Personal preference, i like my guns to looks original without having to pay the cost for a non-refurb. plus there are plenty of refurbed rifles, and arguing that they have history is the same as arguing that bubba's sporter job has history - it very well could, but not in the context of the 2nd world war. plus for historical reenacting if you restore a refurb, sporter, or whatever, you get a rifle that is historically accurate without being overly concerned about carrying it in the field.

---------- Post added at 02:38 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:35 PM ----------

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sentryduty

Funny you mention it that way, many of the 1940-44 produced Soviet rifles I have stripped retain a dark discoloration around the end of the butt, areas the wrist and forearm grasping groove, in other words, where the rifle would contact the ground at rest, and where a soldier would place their dirty hands during use.

It does suggest the original finish was very not very durable or possibly uncoated prior to refurbishment.

---

could have been linseed oil, it tends to hold onto dirt since it doesnt seal the wood.....

I think that it is important that we as collectors, between us, retain at least some Soviet rifles which have not been fully refurbished purely as an historical record if nothing else. The vast majority in Soviet hands at the end of the war appear to have been either scrapped or refurbished. I strongly suspect that the reason for the Soviet refurbishment of its own and captured weapons wasn't just to have a vast store of weapons to hand in case the West suddenly decided to invade but at least in part to provide employment to it's people.

I have heard it suggested that the Germans in WW2 achieved the dark brown stain seen on some K98 rifle stocks by soaking the stocks in the used engine oil which had been drained from the sumps of diesel engines. There is probably no way of finding out if this was definitely done but would be a plausible explanation why some laminated K98 stocks are a dark brown colour while others are a blonde.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flying10uk

I think that it is important that we as collectors, between us, retain at least some Soviet rifles which have not been fully refurbished purely as an historical record if nothing else. The vast majority in Soviet hands at the end of the war appear to have been either scrapped or refurbished. I strongly suspect that the reason for the Soviet refurbishment of its own and captured weapons wasn't just to have a vast store of weapons to hand in case the West suddenly decided to invade but at least in part to provide employment to it's people.

I have heard it suggested that the Germans in WW2 achieved the dark brown stain seen on some K98 rifle stocks by soaking the stocks in the used engine oil which had been drained from the sumps of diesel engines. There is probably no way of finding out if this was definitely done but would be a plausible explanation why some laminated K98 stocks are a dark brown colour while others are a blonde.

---

they were issued bare (a good example is the one on the k98 wiki page in the swedish army museum, it was donated by nazi germany in 1940) and linseed oil was applied by the soldiers once issued and was part of a soldiers maintenance of the rifle (Care of Weapons / der Erste Zug). but thats another topic :P

There must be some explanation for the vast difference in colour between the light blonde laminated K98 stocks and the dark brown laminated K98 stocks. Either different woods were used in the production of the laminated stocks or the stocks were stained by some sort of method after production. This staining could have occurred at the production stage or after issue of the rifle. If the German Army/soldier used the used Diesel engine sump oil method to stain the rifle stocks I believe it highly likely that the Russian soldier may have copied the practice.

going back on topic, what is the difference between the lacquer and shellac on soviet rifles?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Schnitzelmahn

Personal preference, i like my guns to looks original without having to pay the cost for a non-refurb. plus there are plenty of refurbed rifles, and arguing that they have history is the same as arguing that bubba's sporter job has history - it very well could, but not in the context of the 2nd world war. plus for historical reenacting if you restore a refurb, sporter, or whatever, you get a rifle that is historically accurate without being overly concerned about carrying it in the field.

---

Feel free to do what you want but I have seen people take what they thought was a refurbished SVT rifle (because of their lack of knowledge) and "restore" it to make it look pretty all the while ruining what was a original rifle. And they did this because they didn't know what the stock finish should look like and that it should have a blued bolt. Thus, they become bubba.

Comparing Soviet refurbished rifles to "bubba's" guns is not fair. Sure they are not WWII original any more but these rifles fought in many other conflicts throughout the cold war. And that makes them history. I have seen Vietnam bring backs, and Afghanistan bring backs that were refurbished rifles. So by your standards these should be made "pretty." In the 1950's and 1960's many men used your same logic to take original WWII German rifles and make them "pretty" and in the process ruined many fine firearms and ruined history. You are free to do as you like to your property but realize that every SVT you take and make "pretty", you are decreasing the value of the rifle significantly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Schnitzelmahn

lacquer and shellac on

---

Exactly that. One is Shellac the other Lacquer.
Lacquer Finish vs Shellac | DoItYourself.com

The Shellac finished rifles that were a product of the postwar Soviet refurbishment programme are important historic pieces in their own right which should be preserved. I have several weapons (U.K. de-acc) that went through the programme although they didn't finish my PPSH41 in Shellac for some unknown reason. I think that there is general agreement that the Soviets didn't use Shellac during WW2 but less certainty on exactly what if anything was used. I believe that it is a distinct possibility that sump oil may have been used to stain at least some Soviet rifle stocks during WW2 and that the possibility shouldn't be totally dismissed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flying10uk

The Shellac finished rifles that were a product of the postwar Soviet refurbishment programme are important historic pieces in their own right which should be preserved.

---

There is an important distinction to make here, a good number of Surplus Soviet weapons have changed hands repeatedly from the time they left war stock, until the time they landed in the possession of the private owner it is difficult to determine exactly who made what refurbishments.

We know there are shops that turn out modern MN Sniper rifle replicas converted from bog standard rifles, these shops and middle men are known to do their own reworking and forced matching of the guns, where required.

The Canadian market have been flooded with these MN, SVT, and SKS rifles over the past decade and who is to say what is purely original Soviet refurbishment, and what is just commercial based electro-penciling, shellacking, and black paint dabbing for market.

It should be noted that Canadian market guns are not import marked so there are no hallmarks to ID a new import vs an original refurbished gun.

I prefer to strip away Russian bubba's barn-grade shellac and brush paint metal touch ups, remove underlying rust and make good with an appropriate treatment to ensure I, and the next series of owners will have a serviceable rifle.

Some of these guns arrive with the shellac falling away like a snake shedding it's skin, and rust bubbling under paint dabs, which is no way to leave a commercially surplused arm with no traceable historical provenance. If a person has a known original, of course treat it duly, otherwise maintain it t prevent ruin.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flying10uk

I think that there is general agreement that the Soviets didn't use Shellac during WW2 but less certainty on exactly what if anything was used.

---

from 7.62x54r.net:

Q. What is the original finish on Russian/Soviet stocks?
A. Shellac was used from the earliest production to the latest, probably because it is inexpensive and simple to use although it is not as durable as some finishes. Mosin Nagant stocks that appear to have an "oil" finish have just had the shellac worn off.

opinions?

Based on the author's own statement:

Quote:

---

In the short amount of time I've spent collecting Mosin Nagants I have learned a lot from some excellent resources on the internet and off, as well as from observations of my own collection. With a subject as varied as Mosin Nagants there will always be more to learn and I don't consider myself an expert by any means.

---

Without seeing any particular references stated, I would have to consider it single sourced reporting and therefore unreliable, not necessarily incorrect data, simply unconfirmed.

Resources I would like to see that support the assertion that all finishes were Shellac would be a collection of period documents, or chemical lab testing of the finish composition of know refurb and original rifles. However I do not expect either of those to materialize so for the time being I take it all with a grain of salt.

All my soviet manufactured weapons with the exception of the Finnish capture Mosin Nagant rifle I have purchased from U.K. dealers who have imported them direct from eastern Europe. The only work that the dealer has done to them has been to deactivate them and get them certified at a U.K. proof house in order to make them legal to sell to collectors in the U.K.. The finish is exactly as it was when it came out of military storage in Eastern Europe. I also have 2 Thompson SMGs that came via this route, were originally lend lease weapons, and look in almost brand new condition.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flying10uk

The finish is exactly as it was when it came out of military storage in Eastern Europe.

---

Ours vary, I have seen some guns on their 3rd or more force matching, some serials properly struck out and restamped, some are struck out, restamped, struck out again, and electropenciled. All of our semi-auto soviet rifles have to have their magazines modified to only hold 5 rounds before import, this is done in a variety of manners, rivets, welded plugs, limiting rods, etc. Our guns are certainly getting tinkered with along their path, SKS's with original chrome bolts, others with black paint slobbered all over the chrome, bayonets in every finish from bead blasted, to gold, to black painted, not standard work.

Other guns have been clearly reworked but lack the appropriate Russian refurb stamps, original refurb is a hard thing to pin down, and hardly worth worrying over.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sentryduty

Based on the author's own statement:



Without seeing any particular references stated, I would have to consider it single sourced reporting and therefore unreliable, not necessarily incorrect data, simply unconfirmed.

Resources I would like to see that support the assertion that all finishes were Shellac would be a collection of period documents, or chemical lab testing of the finish composition of know refurb and original rifles. However I do not expect either of those to materialize so for the time being I take it all with a grain of salt.

---

There is no original war time documents giving this information. And there never was. Nor does there need to be. I posted several high quality pictures of original guns from 1941 to 1944 and there is clearly no shellac used.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Schnitzelmahn

from 7.62x54r.net:

Q. What is the original finish on Russian/Soviet stocks?
A. Shellac was used from the earliest production to the latest, probably because it is inexpensive and simple to use although it is not as durable as some finishes. Mosin Nagant stocks that appear to have an "oil" finish have just had the shellac worn off.

opinions?

---

This website is very much out dated and should only used as broad strokes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Schnitzelmahn

Seems to be the issue with the soviets - we can never find historic documents detailing what was used :(

by oil finish you guys mean linseed right? it would explain the variation in colour seen in the two rifles in my first post - linseed darkens with age and holds onto dirt and crap. the front rifle looks very minty. Reminds me of a number of pictures of German troops carrying mausers (which were typicaly treated with linseed) of different shades in the same photograph.

perhaps the wartime finish is the dark spots one sees on your typical refurb - looks almost as though the Russians did a **** job removing the original finish then slapped some crap over it.... another sign of this is that the dark spots are most present in the low spots - like the finger groves on the forearm....anybody have any idea what the dark spots could be from? https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...la_SVT40-1.jpg
again stealing pics from wikipedia :P

anybody got any photos from russian museums? I'm sure they dont have refurbs in their collections

---

I have been in a bunch of Russian Museums. The Soviets refinish pretty much everything, including most of their museum pieces. They want them to be pretty and impressive. My pictures are on a dead computer about 3 or 4 back from this one, 2002,2004,2006 trips of 16-21 days. Most of the pictures are not so good since almost everything is behind glass or plexi.

This subject was beat to death on gunboards. The evidence that an oil based finish was standard until post war and Shellac was the norm upon refurbishment, even on guns that need next to nothing. A few of the PUs imported are largely original, matching original numbers, except maybe a scope change but almost all got a coat of shellac. The shellac is often on lots of the metal too.

Could the post war soviet decision to apply Shellac to their rifle stocks, during post war refurbishment, have something to do with it being thought at the time that it may help to preserve the wood while in long term storage??? Some of these storage sites were allegedly Salt mines in the Ukraine?

Yes, preservation for possible future use was definitely a goal. They had countries in mind that would help spread Communism, not to mention issue to the masses if Nato marched into East Germany and beyond. Many went to Viet Nam, not to mention many others. K98ks that are typical Russian Captured, mixed numbers, numbered stock on right, Shellac are well known and quite a few have capture papers, not to mention period pictures of most anything Russian, Chinese, Check, Hungarian(especially the M52 Hungarian PU was apparently more widely used than Soviet ones, probably another attempt to conceal origins).

Watch the first few minutes of the movie "The Green Berets" with John Wayne. They got quite a few things right in that movie regardless of what the critics said. The critics were like David J., anti-Nam war and biased. The movie will mention some of the weapons and ammo, plus their origins

so I picked up that refurb 1941 tula svt, and can't tell if the finish on the stock is original or redone or both....

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo.../OYntiuL-1.jpg

more images 1941 tula Svt 40 arsenal refurb - Album on Imgur

Could you post some pictures of the metalwork markings, please. It is likely that the receiver will have some sort of refurb marking/s and the stock may too.

Yes the stock has been refinished. It is not the factory original finish. But I can't tell from the 1 picture if it is a refurbished finish or done post war by a individual. Please post more pictures.

its arsenal refurb, no doubt. the receiver is 1941 tula with force matched parts from rifles of different factories (for example, my muzzle break has a podolsk mark) . refurb stamp appears to be 7th grau arsenal (square)

curious what the finish is - perhaps half assed refinish or something else? stock could be from a arsenal other than tula.....

for more pics, check the imgur link, there are pics of both sides of the stock should give some better idea where it was originally made

Can you see any square or rectangular boxes with a diagonal line through them markings on the woodwork and/or the metalwork? You often seem to see these markings on post war soviet reworks and if my understanding is correct it is a refurbishment marking.

yes, plenty of square markings on all parts. they do not have a line through it but the square is the symbol for the 7th GRAU arsenal

this image should tell us what factory the stock was originally made in.... what is the mark in the rectangle near the toe of the stock? there is a similar mark on the front sight post that is polodsk marked...

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo.../2QRSdxC-1.jpg

It looks like your stock was a Podolsk stock before it was sanded and used for refurb. It looks like the BC in a square that is found on original Podolsk rifles. Can you confirm it is a BC in the square with is actually vs. Here is what a original looks like.

Attachment 74895

yes, can confirm that is the BC mark in on my stock

so any theories on what the dark spots in my stock are?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Schnitzelmahn

so any theories on what the dark spots in my stock are?

---

It's called mineral streaking. Your stock is made from Baltic Birch wood 'a.k.a' Russian Birch 'a.k.a.' Arctic Birch.
There's some oil stains mixed in too and probably some remains of the older finish that wasn't completely sanded off.

what was the original finish on polodsk rifles?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Schnitzelmahn

what was the original finish on polodsk rifles?

---

Same as Tula. Some sort of Lacquer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mdarnell19

Same as Tula. Some sort of Lacquer.

---

This recently came up over on gunboards and the author of the recent book on wartime Mosins confirmed from russian documents that the original finish was mordant applied to the wood so that pigment would stick to the birch (notorious for not staining well), then some type of reddish stain, and finally 3 coats of nitro-cellulose lacquer. There was a short period during the height of the war where other finishes were tried and used, such as some type of tree-based tar, which did not perform well, and for a while an oil finished was briefly used. Then they went back to lacquer. The tinted shellac stuff is post-war.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Claven2

This recently came up over on gunboards and the author of the recent book on wartime Mosins confirmed from russian documents that the original finish was mordant applied to the wood so that pigment would stick to the birch (notorious for not staining well), then some type of reddish stain, and finally 3 coats of nitro-cellulose lacquer. There was a short period during the height of the war where other finishes were tried and used, such as some type of tree-based tar, which did not perform well, and for a while an oil finished was briefly used. Then they went back to lacquer. The tinted shellac stuff is post-war.

---

Yes! Alex, myself and RyanE have been discussing this for years and have been trying to tell people. Now we have the proof. Thanks for sharing the info here.

You guys have missed the crucial issue of: where does shellac come from? Answer: India

When did the first treaty with the soviet Union and India originate? Answer: 1953


TRADE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA AND THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS [1953] INTSer 16

You will note that item # 7 is shellac from India, which is where most of the worlds supply of shellac comes from: (India and Thailand)

As such it is very unlikely that the soviets used shellac for finish in a big way much before 1954, as it is not a item that comes from the Soviet Union, but were literally full of the stuff sometime after December of 1953.

One last bit of evidence that prior to 1953 there was not a lot of shellac in the soviet union: the account of Kalashnikov's first AK (made circa 1946) says when the first model was complete, it was finished with blued metal and lacquer on the wood.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frederick303

You guys have missed the crucial issue of: where does shellac come from? Answer: India

---

That is a massive bit of detective work, and explains a lot, thank you for providing it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sentryduty

That is a massive bit of detective work, and explains a lot, thank you for providing it.

---

One thing to consider is that today you cannot get the type of nitro used prior to 1974 when VOC-Nitro was banned in most of the world. Nitro lacquer and high quality de-waxed shellac are indistinguishable once dried.

The "nitro" sold today is actually acrylic lacquer mixed with 5% nitro - which is the maximum legally allowable by EPA. The older stuff gave people all sorts of cancers when the solvents off-gassed and were breathed in - part of the reason why life expectancy for a male in the 1940's was in the mid-40's. That and lack of fall arrest, smoking, farming accidents using machinery with no safeguards, automobiles with no safety features, legal drinking and driving, and a lack "do not place over head" warnings on plastic bags.

If one was to restore a mosin stock today and make it look as-new, a few layers of a high quality pre-mixed amber shellac over good reddish stain will look identical to the pre-war finish on Mosins. The issue today is that all the shellacs we have access to are high gloss, so you'd want to knock the finish back by hand rubbing it with some talc, or lightly buffing with steel wool to render the finish satin.

Frederick303's detective work is certainly appreciated, and that shellac is a pretty poor finish. I hold that it was applied to protect the stocks from absorbing the cosmoline the rifles were packed in. Some Canadian members may recall a batch of M44's collectors source brought in from Albania, the stocks were quite "punk" where the grease was allowed to be absorbed.

I have a refurbished 1943 91/30 PU sniper with 3 distinctly different colours of shellac. The standard tint on most of the stock, with darker brown shellac applied (with a brush i might add) at a later date, past the finger groove and on the hand guard it is dark burgundy, and it does not adhere well, it has been "repaired" in one place, and it comes off to reveal a "golden" oil finish like Mdarnell's original 91/30. Ive been really tempted to strip it and oil it, this is a good thread but it still hasn't helped me make up my mind.