wartime Russian wood finish

[Schnitzelmahn]

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

[mdarnell19]

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.

[WarPig1976]

lacquer and shellac on

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

[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. 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.

[Sentryduty]

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.

[Schnitzelmahn]

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?

[Sentryduty]

Based on the author's own statement:

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.

[Flying10uk]

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.

[Sentryduty]

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.

[mdarnell19]

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.

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.