My take on the Russian Shellac

9388 Views 60 Replies 33 Participants Last post by Richard in NY*, Jan 27, 2014

finestkind

Discussion Starter · Mar 21, 2010

There are always lots of questions about the Shellac that the Russians used on the Mosin Nagants and k98's that have been stored away for years. My belief on this is that the shellac is nothing more than a preservative like we use cosmoline for. The Shellac that has been applied is not a permanent sealant. It appears it was used to proctect the rifle while stored but needed to be removed when the weapon was issued. I know some of it was applied over grease and dirt on the rifles which makes it more prone to flaking off. Just handling the rifles makes the shellac flake off. I beleive that once the shellac was removed then some other type of sealant was to be applied. Anyway my thoughts. Any others?

Finestkind

1 - 20 of 61 Posts

bch7773

· #2 · Mar 21, 2010

finestkind said:
There are always lots of questions about the Shellac that the Russians used on the Mosin Nagants and k98's that have been stored away for years. My belief on this is that the shellac is nothing more than a preservative like we use cosmoline for. The Shellac that has been applied is not a permanent sealant. It appears it was used to proctect the rifle while stored but needed to be removed when the weapon was issued. I know some of it was applied over grease and dirt on the rifles which makes it more prone to flaking off. Just handling the rifles makes the shellac flake off. I beleive that once the shellac was removed then some other type of sealant was to be applied. Anyway my thoughts. Any others?

Finestkind

are you trying to justify removing the shellac and applying BLO or poly?

My take on it... the shellac was there to be the final finish, but being typical russian workers, they slapped it on in order to meet quantity quotas, not quality. So one thick layer of shellac applied over dirt and oil 20-50 yards ago will start to flake when its handled. These rifles were intended to be last ditch ww3 type rifles... they really didn't need a long lasting quality finish.

finestkind

Discussion Starter · #3 · Mar 21, 2010

Not trying to jutify anything - just my belief that it was not meant to be permanent (nothing to back that statement up).

Finestkind

Interloper

· #4 · Mar 21, 2010

I have heard your theory before and I reject it. A heavy wax or grease would serve the same purpose.
These rifles were being put away in the event of a major land war in central Europe. In the two previous World Wars, the Russians found themselves scrambling for arms. Since they planned to have a new weapons system ready for the next conflict, the Mosins were salted away to be used as substitute standard. They needed to be complete, ready for battle, but preserved for long term storage. They did not need to survive the conflict to be used 50 years later. Hell, they would probably be so radioactive after the Davy Crocketts went off as to make them untouchable for decades. The last application of shellac would be all these rifles would ever need.

Bill In Indiana

· #5 · Mar 22, 2010

I don't know if we can say it was meant to be permanent or not, without some evidence, but I think what we can safely say is that it was intended as a sealant for the wood.

Shellac is only as good as what it is applied over. A good oil free surface and it sticks very well. A bit of oil to the surface and it does not adhere well at all. Used rifles would have had a larger chance of having oil soaked into the wood, and as such would be the first to flake off later applied shellac. An arsenal new stock would have a much better surface for applying shellac to, and will hold up better. Another consideration is... Just because shellac is not a very good finish, and has numerous weaknesses does not mean you can judge it against the modern wood finishes that we in the West are used to having available. The Soviets used what was best available to them at the time. (Shellac) Had they been in the West it might have been BLO, Varnish, or some sort of Polyurethane, or other commercial product common now. These were not as common or easy to manufacture for the Soviet Block.

See less See more

Krull

· #6 · Mar 22, 2010

Try the Chinese laq that they used,I've had a few SKS's and that stuff doesn't come off unless you make it come off,shellac sucks and I know this'll PO the collectors but unless you are into collecting it's better if you take it off.

And at any rate.....it'll come off even if you don't take it off with any use.

jaz5833

· #7 · Mar 22, 2010

Krull said:
.........shellac sucks and I know this'll PO the collectors but unless you are into collecting it's better if you take it off.

And at any rate.....it'll come off even if you don't take it off with any use.

Why would it be better to take it off? Unless you store your weapons under combat conditions it could have no finish at all and be just fine 100 years from now.

The oldest MN I have is dated 1899 and although it's probably not in it's original state I'm sure it has not gone through a refurb proccess for least 60-70 years and it still has a beautifull full coat of shellac.

Unless you've ever applied shellac- you'll never understand the ease and speed at which it can be done- and be done by an unskilled worker. (Exactly what was needed and who was doing it)

finestkind

Discussion Starter · #8 · Mar 22, 2010

jaz5833 said:
Why would it be better to take it off? Unless you store your weapons under combat conditions it could have no finish at all and be just fine 100 years from now.

The oldest MN I have is dated 1899 and although it's probably not in it's original state I'm sure it has not gone through a refurb proccess for least 60-70 years and it still has a beautifull full coat of shellac.

Unless you've ever applied shellac- you'll never understand the ease and speed at which it can be done- and be done by an unskilled worker. (Exactly what was needed and who was doing it)

This is why I think Shellac was used. Cheaper then the alternatives. Good supply and could be applied with little to no effort. It is also easier to remove than cosmoline or wax. If the intention was to remove the shellac there would have been a plan to seal the wood with something.

Finestkind

Tony C.

· #9 · Mar 22, 2010

not cheaper than grease or cosmo.

Bill In Indiana

· #10 · Mar 22, 2010

Tony C. said:
not cheaper than grease or cosmo.

Ahhh.... Grease and cosmo are NOT suitable preservatives for wood.

Interloper

· #11 · Mar 22, 2010

I repeat: They would not have sanded and refinished the stocks if they had intended to refinish them again. Except for the cosmo, these rifles were ready for battle. The soldiers who were carrying them would have been flash fried in the first wave anyway. They only needed to look nice while they were shipping out.

See less See more

Vulch

· #12 · Mar 22, 2010

My take on shellac: it's original finish for these rifles. It is stated as so in Russian documents (лак = shellac type varnish). It wore off quickly in combat. Original turn of the century rifles have been found with original shellac on them, and coming from several countries. It is original.

Shellac as a FINISH will be also found on Norwegian rifles - later Krags (early were oil. Refurbished rifles were shellac'ed, as were the german left-behind K98's. It's a special mix of shellac) also Swiss rifles - later K31's - and some other nations.

kenb

· #13 · Mar 22, 2010

I don't see why people insist the shellac was not intended to be a perminant finish. What was the intention after it was to be removed? If you've ever seen shellac on a non-refurb rifle it holds up rather well. I've seen well-used Finn capture M91/30s with still solid coats of original shellac. I think the intention during refurb was to apply the finish in a manner comprable to the original, just as they reblued the metal to a "like new" finish. It just wasn't taken into account that the wood was no longer new, it was soaked in oil and therefore the finish didn't hold up well. This problem was probably not apparrant for quite some time after the finish was applied so the people brushing it on never knew.

jaz5833

· #14 · Mar 22, 2010

Check this out.

From: SHELLAC – A TRADITIONAL FINISH STILL YIELDS SUPERB RESULTS By Jeff Jewitt (antiquerestorers.com/Articles/jeff/shellac.htm)

ADVANTAGES

1. Non-yellowing when compared to varnish and cellulose-nitrate based lacquers.

2. Quick-drying. Many shellacked items can used the same day or shortly thereafter.

3. Wide variety of colors available.

4. Superior adhesion -- no other type finish can surpass it.

5. Excellent hardness -- it can be sanded and rubbed out well.

6. Excellent as a sealer coat to raise the fibers of the wood for subsequent sanding. Also seals in finishing contaminants such as silicone, waxes, dirt and oils.

7. Ease of repair. Because shellac re-dissolves in alcohol, scratches and other minor surface imperfections can be invisibly repaired by re-applying shellac to the damaged area. The new shellac melts into the old shellac allowing for perfect repair work.

8. Ease of removal. Old and new shellac can be removed with denatured alcohol which eliminates the need for harmful and toxic strippers.

9. Can be wiped on (padded), brushed or sprayed -- all with good results.

10. FDA approved -- safe for food utensils and children's toys.

11. No unpleasant or toxic fumes.

DISADVANTAGES

1. It re-dissolves in alcohol so perfumes and strong alcoholic beverages like whiskey will mar the surface.

2. Forms white rings on contact with water. This is more of a problem with shellacs that have wax and old shellac surfaces.

3. Tendency to show scratches. The resistance to scratches can be improved by a simple waxing.

4. Has a shelf life after mixed in alcohol.

5. Not resistant to alkaline compounds. Alkaline chemicals such as lye and ammonia discolors and mars shellac because of its acidic composition. These chemicals are frequently found in household cleaning products.

6. Sensitivity to heat -- shellac starts to soften at about 150 degrees F. Hot items can mar the surface.

Keep in mind that some of the disadvantages, like scratching and marring with alkalis, are easily repaired because of one of shellac's great advantages -- its ease of repair.

Particular interest to me is #6 on the advantages list. It would make perfect sense for this topic.

See less See more

Musky

· #15 · Mar 22, 2010

I personally like the way my Mosin Nagant 91-30 looks with the shellac on it. Mine is a 1943 refurb, with brass end caps and eyelet for the dog collar sling and a great shooter to boot.

See less See more

Tony C.

· #16 · Mar 23, 2010

Bill In Indiana said:
Ahhh.... Grease and cosmo are NOT suitable preservatives for wood.

hmmmm, tell the US (pre-m16), yugoslavia, and so many others....

nothernug

· #17 · Mar 23, 2010

Tony C. said:
hmmmm, tell the US (pre-m16), yugoslavia, and so many others....

I'm not sure which way the Yugo shellac supports. Though we can't account for it as oil was supposed to be the official finish, a number of pre-WWII Yugo Mausers appear with shellac finishes, carefully applied and obviously original. John Wall has postulated the same theory as this threads original poster. I don't know or care to guess either way.

But I can offer one thought not so far mentioned that kind of blows the theory out of the water, I'd say. Ever see a Mosin with Cosmo on it? Virtually every nation that stored obsolete weapons against future need, slathered them in some blend of cosmolene, including the Russians. But nobody else bothered to put a largely oil proof protectant (shellac) on the stocks first. Why in heck would the thrifty, no- make that cheap!, Russians? Just doesn't make any kind of sense, historically speaking.

Vulch

· #18 · Mar 23, 2010

What it all boils down to, IMHO, is:

IF your rifle has shellac on it, LEAVE IT ALONE.

If your rifle does NOT have shellac on it, LEAVE IT ALONE.

Simple really.

milprileb

· #19 · Mar 23, 2010

Well, leaving it alone is just fine if one does not shoot the weapons and just collects. Vulch has good points IMHO. No contest .

On a weapon with flaking deteriorating shellac or none at all: seems to me some sort of preventative
maintenance of the wood would be a good idea to protect the wood while the weapon is in use.

I use Howards Feed & Wax for this purpose. Does no harm, does protect wood

ubersailer

· #20 · Jan 22, 2014

I've come to the conclusion that garnet shellac is the correct shellac...it's natural and nothing needs to be added and it looks identical.

1 - 20 of 61 Posts

This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.