Thoughts on shellac for Russian Mosin-Nagant

[louthepou]

I'm refinishing the wood on a Russian Mosin-Nagant I have (M91/30).

Stripping whatever was left of the old shellac was easy, simply with denatured alcohol.

I had some shellac here in the shop, so I used it. Even if the coat was thin, after two days it was still sticky. "Something's wrong", I said to myself.

So, did a bit of searching and reading. Shellac (the premixed version, not the flakes on their own) has a shelf life of a few months. Geez, the shellac I had must have been... more than 10 years old.

I stripped the wood - again.

Got new shellac, and what do you know, it works much better.

Pics and data on that rifle soon

Lou

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.

[desporterizer]

I had the same thing happen. If you let it dry long enough, it will harden somewhat but will bubble anywhere the rifle gets hot. Most annoying. Better to mix your own in small batches.

[louthepou]

Well I don't like shellac, never really did (it's a type of bug poo, isn't it? Or bug puke? Anyways a type of secretion).

Nevertheless, since my M91/30 is dated 1942 and was made at the Izhevsk arsenal, shellac it was.

That stuff works great on leveled surfaces. Like a table. but a rifle stock... I find it difficult to even out the coat.

Now, I didn't really play with the dilution; I didn't mix my own; I used off-the-shelf premixed shellac. Still, I'm somewhat happy with the result. I may give the stock another two or three coats later, we'll see.

That rifle is a pretty average M91/30. I like the fact that the 1942 date explains the rough surfaces on the receiver.

I'll be shooting with it tomorrow, can't wait to give it a good try.

I'll try to take better pictures in natural light.

Lou

[Stevo]

Looks good, lou.

Getting an even finish on a Soviet MN, especially a '42 wouldn't really concern me. It was probably originally applied by dunking the whole stock or with a great big brush. If it was too even, it would be out of character for the rifle.

I had a post-war Finn M91 and the shellac wasn't even on it either. It had drips and bubbles.

[louthepou]

Thanks Stevo!

Yeah, it does make sense. Knowing how fast they had to ship these through the door, they likely didn't have the time to try to get that perfect, smooth finish so that the soldiers could use the rifle's butt as a mirror.

Ha, there, how about "I made the finish look a bit rough to be more historically accurate"... :P

Lou

[desporterizer]

From what I have been able to gather, the soviets used rags to apply the shellac.

[louthepou]

Hi everyone,

I did bring it to a local milsurp shoot this past Saturday, and am glad to report it's a fine shooting rifle! I shot surplus ammo (Eastern Europe stuff).

Now, at some point during that day, around the gun rack behind the shooting bench, a few of us chatted briefly. I can't remember who it was, but someone said to me: "You've bubba'ed that rifle". That really got me thinking. For me, that was quite a valuable feedback (that got the hamster in my head running fast for quite a while), I do sincerely appreciate.

Those who know me a bit know that I would never dare to - willfully - bubba a rifle. So the possibility of having bubba'ed one despite my best intentions kind of annoyed a few of my few braincells.

For me, bubba'ing a rifle means: doing something to a rifle that will cause the permanent loss of historical, or heritage, information.

Sanding the stamped marks on a stock would fit that description. Cutting down a barrel would too. And, as we discussed at the range, refinishing a Russian-captured rifle could also - potentially - fit that description.

So last night, as I enjoyed a much-deserved room-temperature Grolsch (I spent the day at -20 degrees Celcius), I submitted my rifle to this bubba jury in my head.

The "victim"
- The rifle is non matching (different bolt number, forced-matched magazine floorplate, came without a bayonet).
- The shellac that was on it before I acquired the rifle was, essentially, pretty much all gone.

The "witness statement"
- My intended use of the rifle is to shoot occasionally with it in all types of conditions: rain or shine, warm or ridiculously cold like yesterday.
- I can't see any mark on the wood, but still I did not sand anything or steam out any dent.
- I wanted to protect the wood, otherwise in my opinion some damage may occur to it in the near future. (A wise old man once told me, when I was a teen, that "You should protect your wood if you're going to stick in in a variety of hazardous environments").
- I used the shellac I could find at my local hardware store even if it wasn't the correct orange-coloured kind - I intend do a few coats with that colour when I get some.

So, all that to say I considered initially what I did to the rifle as required maintenance, not as something that would cause the loss of historical value. Still, I reserve the right to change my mind...

Thanks again for any comment!

Lou

[desporterizer]

There is no correct shellac colour, it was luck of the draw as to what the tint was. Most common was the orange & red tint but I have seen original rifles ( post was refurb) with an almost clear shellac. The only thing that make your rifle look a bit off is it too shiny. Use some steel 0000 steel wool to knock down the shine. Now the next time someone say's you bubba'ed it, explain to the nice folks(as you pound them with the butt end of said rifle) you didn't stain, sand, cut, polish, BLO, or turn down the the bolt so you ain't no bubba.

[louthepou]

Thanks Desporterizer. And I agree with you about the "shine". I should dull the finish a little.

[Stevo]

IMO, lots of "shine" isn't that atypical. The refurb M38 and M44s I bought from TradEx a couple of years ago are pretty shiny.

I do like desporterizer's advice for butt-stroking those who call you bubba. "In Soviet Russia, rifle bubba's you!!!"