masking tape - removing it from walnut stock

[Singer B]

ssgross, you really put it quite well here:
"My objective is to preserve all the dings and service life, but look and feel like a rifle in service, carefully maintained by a soldier or marine whose life depends on it, and not like an antique only brought out for show and tell."

Guys, there is no universal answer - it depends on the present-day purpose of the artefact in question. Museum-passive or range-active.

If it is a bullet hole in the jacket of the asassinated Archduke Franz Ferdinand, in a museum, then I think we would have no difficulty in agreeing that the hole is a part of history, and sewing up the hole would be a mistake.
- The purpose of the jacket is to serve as a historical exhibit, not as a jacket to be worn.
....
If it is a rust on a gun that has been stored badly, and one which is to be used again, then the rust is not a "part of its history", just neglect.
- The purpose of the gun is as a tool, to be used.

- And in between, there are endless shades of gray. One example:

I have a Sharps 1863 New Model rifle. It is one of around 500 rifles where not only the unit, but also the name of the soldier who carried it, is known. And I can and do shoot it. Proper maintenance has therefore been carried out so that it continues to be functional. The external metal surfaces are almost black - natural oxidation over a century and a half, not red rust. Sometimes I feel inclined to remove this patina, but stop because that is a completely non-functional aspect of the rifle.

So my personal point of view is that it is (in order of importance)
1) vitally necessary to stop degenerative processes (rust, rot).
2) necessary - for functional and safety reasons - to conduct proper maintenance of the gun if you wish to use it again.
3) acceptable to remove later, non-original finishes such as modern varnishes, if they hide or obscure the original surface (search for "treacle rifle" to see what I mean).
4) unnecessary to refinish surfaces, if such refinishing is purely cosmetic. Clean - yes. refinish - no.

Very well said sir, I completely agree with you. Each piece has its story to tell, and since I shoot everything in my small collection, I maintenance them as needed. If a project gun comes to me as a "bubba" or sporterized gun, then I work with the owner to determine what type of piece they are looking for: a complete refurbishment to like new or a functional refurbishment to what it should look like today. Either way, since the financial value is already gone, it simply becomes a labor of love. If I would add one thing to your post, it would be the consideration of the monetary value of the piece and how that value would be impacted by various restoration techniques.

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.

[painter777]

That 'TAPE' might be a week old.
Because the rifle is from 1922 doesn't mean squat.

I've learned from this post to read the OP closely and note the dates.

[Badger]

I'm exhausted ..

Thread Closed ...