Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Savage Collectors What the heck is "London Oil Finish"?

Oil with varnish mixed in, the exact proportions closely guarded by whichever old bewhiskered craftsman was mixing it, not to mention the odd metallic compound added here and there to provide mystical qualities. Sometimes a bit of beeswax was melted in and the mixture applied when warm so everything stayed in solution. Secret is to fill the pores first- that's where the extra labor and higher cost comes in. In the olden days varnish was applied and sanded right back down to the bare wood surface taking fastidious care to not sand away the varnish in the pores. Repeated as necessary until the pores are 100% filled and the surrounding wood is bare. (Nowadays varnish is still used- I do- and epoxy is a great substitute. The problem is with varnish it can shrink over time and telegraph through the finish to reveal miniscule pore craters. That's why you should let it cure for a while before oiling to make sure you don't get tricked. Epoxy fixes that but is a royal PIA because it's so hard.) Then the oil/varnish mixture is applied. Wax with a good paste wax when done.

I've yet to meet a proprietary pore filler that beats varnish or epoxy, but they are easier to apply, for sure. (But like all things in this man's world you get what you pay for, and there is no panacea for plain hard work.)

Of course all this works best on thin shell walnut stocks (English/French/Circassian/etc. walnut) with miniscule pores. Our American black walnut with its Grand Canyon-like pores is a bigger challenge.

Sometimes old recipes called for shellac instead of varnish, but to my way of thinking then you're getting into the realm of French Polishes, and besides who wants shellac on a gun stock. (Think about the real possibility of it getting wet when hunting, and harken back to what a wet drink glass does to a shellaced table top- turns white.) On the other hand, if it's an exhibition-only kind of masterpiece, why not?

Listed in the #60 catalog, 1916 I believe. Don't see it in any other catalogs that I have information on.

It's not the standard "Extra finish", that's listed also.

Extra finish on stock - $2. London oil finish - $2.75.

$235 for a 22 rifle in 1915 is quite the price, so probably reflects extra labor in London finish and other add ons. A plain model 1914 was a lot less in 1915. What would $235 be in 2019 dollars?

The ordinary stock on the straight American rifle is not polished. It is simply varnished. Some high-grade stocks are likewise varnished with a glass-like finish. A varnished stock is an abomination. It looks well when new, but a few weeks of field service covers it with scratches which cannot be obliterated by any amount of rubbing with oil. And when the varnish is worn off such a stock it absorbs water and warps badly. The best stocks are finished or polished simply by repeated rubbings in of raw linseed oil, this finish being given the trade name of "dull London oil finish." Well done in this manner, the stock shows its grain beautifully, has a dull, rich, velvet-like surface which persists, resists dampness splendidly, and if it becomes scratched the scratches can be almost entirely obliterated by a rubbing with raw linseed oil. This is the finish which all stocks and forearms should have.

Ran across this last night.

Col. Townsend Whelen in his "The American Rifle", published 1918:

water fenestration... ministrations.