Maintenance and the Collecting of Milsurps

I write this thread with the aim to learn and understand. Your input and views will be helpful and may assist others, so please share your thoughts.

Recently I’ve bought several items from collectors, to improve my collection. Mostly rifles, but other items like bayonets.

Being a little mechanically minded, inquisitive (and frugal,) I will strip, clean and inspect every item I receive. Inspection may reveal repairs or replacement parts required and that will initiate that maintenance task. The replacement part may be a 2 week or 3 year search. It’s part of the game. I must disclose a technical appreciation of mechanical things and have employed it, in particular a detailed working knowledge of rust control and effects, for several decades, as a professional.

What strikes me as confusing, is the common condition of almost every artefact I’ve bought from another collector. They’re dirty. Filthy in some cases and certainly questionable as to their serviceability. Caked in old grease, crud, dirt, mank, grub, goo, unidentified stains etc… Certainly not the condition that a soldier would present the said item to the staff at the Armoury or Q Store on return.

As an ex-serving member, it was drilled into me that every returned item was to be stripped, cleaned, lubricated and reassembled prior to handing back. Even unused clean things received the same treatment. I believe this was always to ensure that soldiers never had that rare commodity called ‘spare time’ where they might get up to devious behaviour, like relaxing, or worse still, thinking.

So my question to the entire audience is: why is it that the majority of collectors, that I’ve come across, are immune to the concept of preventative maintenance?

The thought of not pulling a rifle (or any mechanical artefact) apart on receipt, stripping to base workshop level and cleaning, inspecting, lubricating and reassembly is quite foreign to me. It’s an essential element of understanding the artefact you have and the condition it’s in. As a collector, it’s a requirement to properly preserve the artefact in a suitable and sustainable condition. The belief that evidence of some ‘cosmoline’ on the artefact means the whole steel assembly is consistently covered, protected and in good order is quite at odds to reality, to me.

The statement that “…that’s a nice patina…” always irks me to no end. That patina is simply the product of rust, which is a chemical degradation of steel back to its constituent elements. In other words, patina is a sign of loss of material and degradation of the artefact in front of your eyes. No museum accepts unchecked rust on an artefact, as they know well that rust never sleeps and will destroy the artefact in time.

I’m not suggesting that an aged artefact, say an 1882 Martini-Henry rifle, with signs of localised rust attack should be bead blasted, polished and reblued. Not at all. I’m suggesting that for artefact preservation, all active rust needs to be passivated and/or removed, to ensure no further destruction of the artefact occurs from rust. The preservation of the original condition, and removal of degrading or destructive corrosion seems to me, to be a self-evident requirement.

Let me know your thoughts I really am curious to understand why some people seem to think that evidence of progressive deterioration is attractive and do not wish to prevent further loss of the original artefact.

There is a notion among many collectors that they are collecting "history" and to remove rust and or dirt is to remove "history" from the rifle. These collectors are very forceful in their beliefs. I frankly don't get it either but it is what it is. I look at a rifle and while I see a piece that has history, I don't have a clue what that history is other than a very basic series of assumptions based on the nation it's from, the year it was made and perhaps a few other markings. True history like paperwork which follows the item is generally quite rare and again only provides a glimpse into a short period of time for that item.

One aspect of an items history that can be seen is whether it has been cared for or abused. I consider allowing active rust abuse and that is a bad history that won't continue in my personal care. Certain collectors no longer want my item, I could care less, there are plenty of others that do.

I suspect some of them sit around coming up with stories about this spot of rust began at the battle of Stalingrad as there wasn't time to wipe down the rifle and a lack of lubricating oils. More than likely it's from sitting in a closet with a small leak in the plumbing that wasn't caught right away.

Some of the worst can be found on Facebook groups who feel free to criticize anyone that doesn't adhere to their personal beliefs. I just witnessed a spell of it on a Mosin Nagant group which I always find humorous as it is one of the most common rifles out there, the vast majority have been refurbished and sitting in storage for the last 70 years.

I want my firearms to be in the same condition they would be in the care of the soldier, clean, functioning and rust free.

I knew a man years ago that collected Winchester rifles of all calibers and years of manufacture. He had a Kennedy repeating rifle, somewhat scarce...and he was adamant that he didn't clean his rifles, that was just taking away from them over time.

I on the other hand strip mine and completely examine and clean them. Any rust found will be removed. Not abusively, carefully and like it was my service rifle...and my life still depended on it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 22SqnRAE

What strikes me as confusing, is the common condition of almost every artefact I’ve bought from another collector. They’re dirty. Filthy in some cases and certainly questionable as to their serviceability. Caked in old grease, crud, dirt, mank, grub, goo, unidentified stains etc… Certainly not the condition that a soldier would present the said item to the staff at the Armoury or Q Store on return.

---

That's because most collectors are not shooters, or ex-services. They are obsessed by originality (falsely in most cases) at all costs.
Go and have look on the K98 forum and you'll see they pretty much never shoot these 'collector' rifles. My Lee-Enfield No.4T came from a collector, who never fired it, although it wasn't dirty or caked in cosmo or anything.
Back in the 1990's a guy I knew had a massive collection of WW2 British uniforms, equipment and several vehicles, including a Daimler Dingo, and a Universal Carrier. The 'carrier' was very original, but it never ran right or would break-down frequently large because a lot of the flathead ignition was old ex-mil stock and parts, and despite plenty of new made flathead V8 parts available, he would simply not fit any of these parts to make the carrier a better runner, as it would not then be 'original'.

While its great to collect and preserve...............its better to collect, preserve, maintain as it was designed and of course......use.

But, in my opinion, one also needs to avoid what I call the "tarted up look" and others may call the "civi refurb look". In other words cleaning and refinishing an item to a standard that would never have happened when it left the factory or when it was in service.


In the late 1940's, shortly after WW2, my father was given, by an ex British soldier, some German army badges and insignia some of which was new and some used. Among the items were tunic epaulets some new, some used. One of the used epaulets had what may have been dried blood on it and therefore my father washed it after receiving it. Should he have washed it? My father did and I probably would have too but some collectors probably would not have.

As example I have (7) M1 Garand's in my possession that I check every winter for corrosion and run a wet patch of CLP down the bore, they are all in shooting condition and will remain that way until the next person begins to care for them.

I too strip, clean and inspect all items upon arrival before allowing them to be placed in my collection.
If i can improve it without comprising the original integrity of the item then i will.

And as long as it's done correctly and properly I'm all for it, I will always research a project throughly before I commit to anything major.

I also agree all corrosion should be addressed and preservation is more important than dirty history. See quite a few No4 rifles with gunk and Cosmoline all over them and it looks terrible like it's not maintained.

Forgotten Weapons had a No.4(T) on an episode and spent the whole video thinking about how I would clean it. Yuk, sort it out!

Ah, those people are a particular sore spot. I find the notion that this kind of neglect is permissible to be abhorrent.

Previous owner neglect of maintenance is a source of never ending frustration. I have ended up with several items which were left unmaintained in the name of being original. Nothing is more aggravating than taking the woodwork off a new acquisition and discovering numerous active rust spots. Especially when the former owner turns around, horrified, and accuses you of risking a valuable artifact because he didn’t see fit to take the wood off for *the 25 years he owned it* because he didn’t want to lessen its “history”. That attitude is selfish, and if left unchecked would lead to a dearth of historic rifles within a few decades. Unmaintained steel inevitably rusts.

In short, I’m glad to see I’m not alone in these feelings.

I mainly collect Milsurps firearms, I too always strip, study, carefully clean and lubricate them.

That way you conserve these pieces and develop a deeper understanding of them.

My recently arrived M1A1 Cabine was absolutely filthy, it took the by part of a week to deep clean and properly conserve it.

By way of example, the woodwork was black with filth and clogged and choked by layers of hard boiled linseed oil.

It took carfully applied red scotchbrite
(totally non destructive) and warm water to remove all this rubbish, free up the grain and let the American Walnut finally breathe again, this was followed by a full half bottle of Raw linseed oil.

The transformation is astonishing, the wood comes back to life and you can see the full beauty of it.

I completely disagree with those who would leave such as piece as is.

I can honestly say I'm surprised to see more in favour of clean and maintain than to preserve the dirt.

On the flip I have seen No4 rifles with a super high gloss varnish finish. You ruined it!

Stopping any further spread of rust is priority, light oiling and a wipe down whilst trying to preserve the patina is important to me my 1916 303 was a good learning curve with a brought over the phone for $100 some 18 years ago yep all there she's good to go faaark me dead not even close when I picked it up what a sorry ar*ed sight but basically intact cost nearly 9 times its price to get it to where I wanted it. (I discovered it was a 5 MD thats why I took it)
There are those that seem to think highly polished oilers and shell cases are the go they are not they were only ever shiny when brand new even then shiny stuff is just what an enemy is looking for as dirt and trees are not shiny unless wet!
Anyway me I do try and preserve as much of the patina as possible without it looking like its to go out on a parade ground for inspection by the OIC.

Cleaning a stock from crud build up and oiling it up is mandatory but you dont have to go over board with the unissued look if its clean to handle and oiled properly they look good, all my shooters are just oiled up I dug allot of crap out of the hand guard flutes on the 4's all had a light rub over with 0000 steel wool then oiled and there you go they look good.
My 1920 Lithgow's fore wood and top guards are in the white and never been sanded down from the time they were replaced, were they replaced in service I don't know did a gunsmith replace them I don't know I have just left them as is and done as above and left them its part of that's rifles story why should I change it a 99 year old rifles appearance just to suit some one else's view.

A pic taken a few years ago of my meagre 303 collection top - bottom 1916 5MD Lithgow MkIII, 1920 Lithgow MkIII, 1945 MA MKIII, 2 x 1942 Savage No.4's, All original 1944 M47C No.4 T with its original MkIII 32 scope.
All they have all had was a little stainless steel wool & WD40 on the odd rust spot and BLO/Turps mix after a light rub down with 0000 steel wool (The wood parts only) then just wiped down re-oiling every now and then.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scout Sniper

I can honestly say I'm surprised to see more in favour of clean and maintain than to preserve the dirt.

On the flip I have seen No4 rifles with a super high gloss varnish finish. You ruined it!

---

My pet hate on a milsurp .... Quite often the varnished look is purely down to incorrect use boiled linseed oil, eventually giving the wood a hard Glos finish...

To be fair, I think this mainly comes from post war target shooters who had absolutely zero interest in these rifles from a collectors perspective...

They were simply inexpensive (and plentiful) rifles for target shooting and hunting at a time when Joe avarage didn't have disposable income.

So they got the same treatment as the shotgun, boiled linseed warmed up and palmed on...

I would say that many of the rifles that sit in our collections today, might well have not survived if it hadn't been for the post war target shooters and hunters giving these rifles a purpose.

It's very satisfying removing all that crap though, that's for sure!

---------- Post added at 11:36 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:30 AM ----------

Lovely collection Ron, a credit to you.

Thanks for the comments, folks, will leave this running before responding. Good insight coming through.

The only observation I can make is, no matter how hard one tries to hit middle ground, some one will still interpret an extreme, as if that's the point of the discussion... :madsmile:

Whether it is an old firearm, motorcycle or automobile; some collector's just don't get that maintenance is required at regular intervals; even if your not actually using it.

Very true Shaun, if anything it's worse with vehicles, they literally die if there not used regularly.

"...why is it that..." No NCO giving 'em that look. Mind you, a milsurp can come from a place where nobody cared. The Sudanese AR-10's that came through the shop long ago, still had desert in them.
"...items like bayonets..." Those have gone up in value at a much higher rate than their rifles have.
"...collector, who never fired it..." There are lots of 'pure' collectors who do not shoot anything they own.

I'm on board with CAREFUL and EDUCATED disassembly, cleaning, inspection, repair as needed and service to spec. Unfortunately, I'm on the receiving end of many rifles; especially Lees, where these rules weren't followed and more damage was done disassembling and assembling them incorrectly, mostly to the forends so I get dismayed a bit by folks who just dive in but are clueless as to what they're doing. Buying books and researching properly beforehand is a necessity in my opinion. I could write a book full of horror stories about guns i've had to put right here after the well meaning owners took the process a bit too far with limited or no knowledge of what they were doing. Just my two cents after 20+ years of it.

By means of a sample of evidence of my frustration and failure to comprehend the attitude of some when it comes to cleaning, inspecting, repairing, lubricating and preserving, the attached photo is the residual dirt and slime left from filtering about 1.5 litres of kerosene. The kero was used to soak and clean four Lee Enfield sized rifle bolts. The match is for scale.

This filth was inside the working parts of rifles. Probably indicative of the level of work they actually did.

I'm still struggling to comprehend how any barely rational individual can believe (with such vehemence, usually) that this deleterious material can improve or enhance the mechanical safety and serviceability of any machine component.

Perhaps, with some very astute observations above, we are coming closer to understanding the limitations of the perpetrators of this mechanical maintenance crime? ;)

That's sum serious crud!

To me maintenance doesn't mean constantly cleaning a firearm. Realistically cleaning is only really needed when accuracy or function is affected. Believe it or not carbon doesn't harm a firearm, some of the best condition firearms I have made nice again are old .22s that were used a ton over years and never cleaned. Once the carbon was wiped off and the bore cleaned, poof they looked pretty good (I wouldn't say excellent, the finish was long gone thanks to those years of use).

More damage tends to be caused by over cleaning than under cleaning. Broken parts, stripped screws, overtightening, damaged crowns, etc. I accidentally broke the firing pin retainer on a Swiss 06/29 Luger by taking it apart when I didn't have to (which was a pretty expensive mistake).

Not to say that this means to not oil or to put away the firearm wet or anything, simply that most people clean a firearm significantly more than they need to.

One of the best parts of this hobby is picking up a piece that needs to saved and preserved. The research is the "hunt" for how to correctly preserve this piece of history. As an example, a friend brought me an Arisaka Type 99 he had just obtained and wanted me to strip it down and detail clean it as I had done with several other rifles. Before starting, I did my research which mentioned the importance and significance of Type 99s that still have staked receiver screws. This rifle was one of those and therefore it received the best detailed cleaning that could be accomplished without dismantling it and breaking the staking on those screws. Nothing in my safes goes unused during the year, even if it is a minimal 10 rounds or so. After all, the second best part is experiencing the feel of these firearms when they do what they are designed to do.