[menotseeu]

I'm hoping this is the proper place to post this:

I’m relatively new to military weapons collections, but have been a gun lover for over 40 years. I have collected weapons such as K98, M24, M48, Enfield Carbine, Enfield NO.4 MK1, Nagant M38 to mention a few. I also have some revolvers and pistols dating as far back as 1850. I have a question that has long bothered me about the collection of these and other fine rifles, revolvers, pistols etc.

My understanding is that upon obtaining these weapons, one should never refurbish, or restore either barrel (or metal) and stock as this causes the value to go down and be less attractive for collectors.

My question is, why is this so? If I buy a rifle, k98 for example that has rust on the barrel or other parts, isn’t it for the benefit of the longevity of the rifle that I re-blue for example? Isn’t it better to stop the rust before it has a chance to eat the metal more? Seems to me if someone has my k98 (one that was reconditioned and rust removed) hundreds of years from now, it would be in much better shape, and firing condition, and higher in value, and demand than had I not done so. Or if the stock has serial numbers or WaffenAmpts stamped into it and one can make them more legible and more lasting by stripping, re-staining, and re-sealing the wood? How would that not do more to preserve the weapon? I’ve never read where it suggested refurbishing instead of letting it continue to rust.

I am only posing this question to get a further education in this matter for future reference. If it sounds like a smart ass question, it is not. I’m trusting that there are many out there that can logically explain and enlighten. Its confusing for me.

Thanks

 

[Fushigi Ojisan]

I'll try to answer this:

Collectors desire one thing over all else--originality. Thats why matching numbers is a huge deal. This includes the original finish, even if its worn/thin, its far preferable to a reblue. The saying I heard is "refinish = 0% original finish".

Also, keep in mind there is a difference between mitigating rust/removing excess oil from wood, and a refinish.

"Restoration" is a whole different argument that centers around making something "right" (defined as "as-issued"). There are purists who think any change made will destroy the provenance/history of the piece, and others who feel its perfectly okay to return it to a state at which it existed earlier.

Now in Europe, since firearms tend to be "working" guns or handed down through multiple generations, its perfectly acceptable to refinish without hurting the original value much.

Can expound more, but I hope this gives you enough to think about

 

[EvilKen2007]

You do as little as you can. Lets say you have a $500 k98 with some rust on it, you use some stainless steel wool and oil and do the best you can.. You still have a $500 rifle.

Take that same $500.00 rifle, spend $200 on a new finish and now you have a $350 rifle and not one worth $700. There comes a point, where replacing certain parts on a rifle adds value. A m1 garand with a shotout barrel is worth about $350.00, find a real nice barrel for it for $150 and now you have a $500 investment worth $600 or $700 dollars.

If it does add value, then don't do it. Destroying a "decent"finish on wood or medal is not adding value, refinished guns in bluebooks are rated way below well used ones.

i'm hoping this is the proper place to post this:

I’m relatively new to military weapons collections, but have been a gun lover for over 40 years. I have collected weapons such as k98, m24, m48, enfield carbine, enfield no.4 mk1, nagant m38 to mention a few. I also have some revolvers and pistols dating as far back as 1850. I have a question that has long bothered me about the collection of these and other fine rifles, revolvers, pistols etc.

My understanding is that upon obtaining these weapons, one should never refurbish, or restore either barrel (or metal) and stock as this causes the value to go down and be less attractive for collectors.

My question is, why is this so? If i buy a rifle, k98 for example that has rust on the barrel or other parts, isn’t it for the benefit of the longevity of the rifle that i re-blue for example? Isn’t it better to stop the rust before it has a chance to eat the metal more? Seems to me if someone has my k98 (one that was reconditioned and rust removed) hundreds of years from now, it would be in much better shape, and firing condition, and higher in value, and demand than had i not done so. Or if the stock has serial numbers or waffenampts stamped into it and one can make them more legible and more lasting by stripping, re-staining, and re-sealing the wood? How would that not do more to preserve the weapon? I’ve never read where it suggested refurbishing instead of letting it continue to rust.

I am only posing this question to get a further education in this matter for future reference. If it sounds like a smart ass question, it is not. I’m trusting that there are many out there that can logically explain and enlighten. Its confusing for me.

Thanks

 

[GunnyUSMC]

You also must look at where the weapon came from and it's history.
The Germans were defeted in WWII. The weapons went to different countrys and were refinished . So this would cause a German Mauser in it's original, or correct, finish to be worth more, such as in GI bring backs.

Now when it comes to Mosins, Ivan refurbed them many times over the years. The ones that were refurbed for long term storage do not bring as much as one that was refurbed and re issued. Now one that has never been refurbed will be worth much more.

When it comes to Finn Mosins most are all refurbed and a mix bag of parts but they have a cool history and are sought after.

What collectors want is Original or what I call Correct finish. When you alter the finish you loose value. There is a differance in cleaning, restoring and refinishing.

Then there are those weapons that are in poor shape and have very little vaule as is. Depending on what you do to it can make it worth more money or just cause you to spend money to make it look pertty.

Now there are those that collect pertty guns and will pay more for an old rifle that has beed dressed up to look pertty. Collector's value well not be high but to the ones that like pertty weapons, they will pay.

Look at the Mitchell Mausers. They have very little collector's value but they aer pertty. The onlt good point about them is if you bought a RC k98 and paid someone to do the same type of work to it, you would end up paying more money then if you just bought a Mitchell.

What is best to do when you have an weapon that you think you want to clean up? Post some good pic's of the weapon and ask questions form the guys that know about them. They will help you with what is best for the weapon and value. But in the end it is your weapon and your money.

 

[jjk308 In Memoriam RIP]

Read Flayderman's Antique Firearms on the Restoration Problem.

Good looking firearms will always sell faster and for more than "original" as long as the restoration is properly done. But a proper restoration may take more time and cost much more money than the piece is worth.

in the pictures below which gun would you prefer?