Refinishing 91/30 stock

[Catch22]

I've come to acquire a 1936 Tula 91/30 that has not been refurbished. There are no refurb marks on it anywhere, and judging by the patina, wear of finish, and condition of the stock, it seems to be the case. It's an older import, with the CAI stamp toward the muzzle of the barrel.

I've managed to clean the stock up and get all the grease and grime out of the wood. If it had the red-tinted varnish on it when it was imported, it's been long gone. It looks like it had more of an oil-based finish, but it's hard to tell with as much grime that was on/in it.

I'm wanting to reach out for some expertise on how to restore the finish the closest possible to what they would have done in '36. Did they use an oil-based finish like BLO or something else?

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.

[Aragorn243]

That's a question it seems no one can answer to anyone else's satisfaction. Most people are convinced that the crappy shellac is what they applied to all their rifles as the finish of choice. I personally believe that the shellac was applied only at refrubishment and was intended as a protection during long term storage and never expected to hold up during actual use. This thought seems to be supported by the little evidence we have that we can see. Finnish rifles, even in original stocks do not have a trace of shellac on them. All are oil finished. As all were captured or aquired prior to or during the early phases of WWII, it indicates to me at leas that they did not have the shellac prior to 1943. My "For Collectors Only" book also mentions an oil finish on the stocks.

Now you could argue that the Finns simply removed all the shellac or that is simply came off during use and they never re=applied it. It gets hard to argue when 98% of all rifles you see these days are covered in that red shellac.

That your rifle has no indications of a refurb and is missing the shellac also seems to support that it was not an original finish, what you have now is the original finish.

If it were mine, I most certainly would not cover it in shellac when it now has none.

[Catch22]

Based on what I'm seeing, I agree with you on the finish. My brother has a refurb with the shellac on it and it's not what I'd call a "good" finish whatsoever. Maybe if it's maintained and reapplied on a regular basis.

I used no stripper whatsoever on this thing and never found any indication of a finish other than an oil-based one. Being new to the Mosin Nagant world, I wanted to make sure before I started applying. I know it's a common gun and all, but I don't want to ruin the value it has, be it historical or monetary, as I bring it back to life a bit.

Thanks for the input!!

[jjjxlr8]

If it really is an unrefurbished stock, you shouldn't do anything to it. Many people will pay very good money for non-refurbished Russian stocks. They are not common.

Can you post some good photos if it?

[Catch22]

It's too late not to clean/strip it, as that's already done. Part of the reason I cleaned/stripped it was due to some cracks that needed repaired. There are several that had already been repaired (had some kind of black adhesive used for that, but it looks like someone did a good solid job of it). It also has an "A" that someone has carved into it.

What I did NOT do was take sandpaper or abrasives to it to clean it up. After having redone a stock on an Enfield previously, I did enough research on that one to know better to sand a milsurp stock.

Here are some pics...

[IMG][/IMG]

[IMG][/IMG]

[IMG][/IMG]

[IMG][/IMG]

[jjjxlr8]

Thanks for posting some photos. Looks like a neat old rifle.

Please don't judge all shellac finishes on the post war Russian refurbs. These are not representative of a good shellac finish. When shellac is applied to bare wood, it is very durable and looks more like a very old (hardened) oil finish. The shellac is cut with alcohol and it seeps into the wood grain much like an oil finish. I believe that shellac was the original finish on these rifles, but it's different than the thicker, sloppy post war jobs where it seems very little preparation was done to keep the shellac from flaking off.

Since it's already stripped, you could use a modern shellac (tinted or not) or if you are going for a certain color, use a stain and then a coat or two of amber shellac. Just make sure you cut the shellac with de-natured alcohol unless, of course, you are going for that thick post war look.

[Catch22]

I have no doubt that done right the shellac is a good finish. I'm like you, I think they just slathered it on during refurb.

I opted to go with a BLO rub. So far it's looking pretty good. A tad darker than what was on it, but it's making the cartouche and imperfections pop out well.

What sucks is some of the detail of the cartouche has diminished while I was cleaning. Not much, the fletching on the arrow more than anything. However, I can see the date stamp under the star better now.

[Catch22]

The finished product...

[IMG][/IMG]

[IMG][/IMG]

[IMG][/IMG]

[jjjxlr8]

Looks well cleaned, but it appears 'naked' to me. If you are going for the 'original' look, it needs to have more sheen, either from an oil finish or shellac. The wood looks like it has very nice color and I would suspect with a coat or two of a 50/50 mixture of amber shellac and DNA, the rifle would look more original. Maybe just some additional coats of BLO? I've never used BLO, so I don't know if it gets more glossy with multiple coats.

Here are some photos a a 1938 Izhevsk for reference...

[Aragorn243]

You put enough coats of BLO on it and it will look like the shellac. I've managed it with two rifles. I can't tell you how many coats it was but I kept it beside my chair and rubbed a coat on every night while I watched TV until it hardened and shined. I'd guess somewhere around 30 coats. If it gets scratched, just put another coat on.