wartime Russian wood finish

[Sentryduty]

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.

Information

Warning: This is a relatively older thread This discussion is older than 360 days. Some information contained in it may no longer be current.

[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?
again stealing pics from wikipedia :P

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

[mdarnell19]

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.

[mdarnell19]

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

[mike radford]

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.

[Schnitzelmahn]

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?

[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.

[Schnitzelmahn]

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 ----------

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.....

[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.

[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.