Gunboards Forums banner

1 - 2 of 2 Posts

·
Platinum Bullet Member
Joined
·
163 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
These subjects have been kicked around here quite a bit over the last few weeks. At the risk of trying everyone's patience - I ran into a good example this morning concerning the Russian's use of shellac as an original finish. Some folks have inferred that the "lack-of-shellac" (I kind of like how that sounds) indicates a given Russian rifle may have never had it, while others have indicated it WAS the original finish, and the lack of evidence for it today on a rifle is probably indicative of the fact it has worn away - flaked off over time, etc.

This morning I was tending to the needs of an updated dragoon. The stock is as bare as you will ever see a Mosin. Not a hint of any formal finish (shellac or otherwise). I took the action out of the stock and while inspecting the wood could not help but notice what was clearly shellac still remaining under where the rear barrel band has rested for decades. It has the classic red-shellac look as can be seen in the photos below. The first photo simply shows how bare the stock looks upon initial inspection, while the second photo shows the very thin, faint remnants of shellac under the rear barrel band area. I doubt these photos will change a lot of folks' mind, but thought I would simply share them as a good example of what was clearly the original use of shellac on what, upon initial inspection, looks to be a stock never having an ounce of a formal finish. For what it is worth.......
 

·
Copper Bullet member
Joined
·
1,738 Posts
Very cool! Knowing (well, reading) how the desert sands of Iraq wear the metal finish off of duty weapons in short order, it doens't surprise me that the shellac could wear off in a similar manner... especially after decades or more of hard use.
 
1 - 2 of 2 Posts
Top