-
Contributing Member
To Sand or Not to Sand
I've been here for a while now, shared some of my rifles and my projects, read a lot of info and opinions but still can't say I've seen a definitive reasoning behind the sanding or not sanding issue.
I get that original markings are important to collectors. So cartouches, military inspection marks, etc should be preserved as much as possible.
I also understand that some people simply don't know how to sand wood and any attempts they may try are considered extreme bubbaing.
Here's the rub I guess. Re-arsenald rifles probably had their stocks sanded. I've seen this with the Nagants and a Greek service 03A3 which I currently own and would expect it to have occurred with some of the other rifles. Many rifle stocks are overly large when new probably to enable this refinishing to occur without having undersized butt plates, etc. And knowing the military, and the desire to have everything spotless clean, I would expect that some stocks were sanded by the individual troops to remove dings. Not having served in the time of wood stocks, I don't know if this is or isn't the case and we had no need to sand plastic stocks.
General consensus is that cleaning is OK, BLO is OK, mild steel wool is OK, but don't get that sandpaper anywhere near it.
I'd be very interested in hearing the opinions of shooters, collectors, etc here with your reasons for and against the dreaded sandpaper.
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. |
|
-
-
10-26-2010 04:54 PM
# ADS
Friends and Sponsors
-
-
-
-
Legacy Member
not to sand
I like that patina color on walnut, if it is on a Lee Enfield, M1 Rifle or 1903. Just finding wood parts such as handguards with a nice old patina color is difficultAttachment 16654Attachment 16655Attachment 16656
-
-
Legacy Member
-
Thank You to sakorick For This Useful Post: