Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Gunsmithing Wood grain filler and stain

I’m about to finish a Bastogne walnut stock it has a little figure but is very light in color. I’ve found a stain that will be exactly the color I want but the problem is if I stain the stock all the finish instructions I’ve read say to sand in the finish to fill the pores. I’m concerned sanding will lighten the stain or worse make it splotchy.
Question has anyone used spar Varnish to fill the pores then stained? I’ve seen a video we’re the spar varnish is applied let dry then sanded flush with stock, and repeated until pores are filled. Could you then stain the stock and then apply the oil finish without all the sanding? I don’t know how the spar varnish filled pores would look under the stain or if the oil based stain would affect the spar varnish. I don’t have a scrap piece of walnut to practice on and don’t want to trail an error on the stock. Any help appreciated

You can attack the problem in at least 2 ways.

The first is to fill the pores and apply a dye stain to color the surface. Multiple coats will likely be required to get the desired shade. No sanding allowed at this stage. Then apply the final finish. Oil, polyurethane varnish, lacquer or what you like. The first coat should be sprayed so as to not mar the stain coating by rubbing.
Dye stains come in two types, water based and spirit ( alcohol) based. Either type will work. A water based stain might be best assuming you raised the grain prior to the final sanding.

The other way is to fill the pores by whatever method you chose and finish sand the surface to make ready for finish. Then apply the finish tinted with a spirit based dye stain of the desired color. Each coat of finish intensifies the color because more stain will be on the surface. Spraying is the best method to get uniform color. This is the method Winchester used in the old days to darken sap wood to match heart wood on their production walnut stocks. They used lacquer because is was easy to spray and dried fast, helping maintain production rates.

Dye stains are better than the traditional oil based ground mineral stains found in hardware stores because they do not emphasize scratches and unfilled pores as much. Plus dye stains can be lightened by wiping with a rag wetted with the dye solvent.

Pores can be filled by using a regular paste type filler used by many wood workers, tinted if desired. This one is good: https://www.woodcraft.com/products/behlen-pore-o-pac-paste-wood-grain-filler-natural-quart . However, the filler solid is ground silica(sand) and is hell on steel checkering tools. You can use a liquid resin like spar varnish, but unless you allow it to dry for a few weeks, the pores will reappear when it finally dries out completely. Epoxy does a good job since it cures fast and doesn't shrink later. I prefer sanding-in, using a polyurethane finish like Minwax Wipe-on-Poly: http://www.woodworking.org/WC/GArchive99/1_20waltcunfin.html

RAN

Why would you use any stain? It will darken when the finish is applied and turn browned naturally with UV exposure.

A good easy finish is spar varnish with oil added repeatedly as the finish is used. By the end the finish is mostly oil. It will look like an oil finish and repair easily like oil.

Start with a tiny can and apply heavily, allow it to soak in then wipe completely dry. After two coats refill the can with quality finishing oil from a quality paint or art supply store. Repeat until happy.

Testing can be done in the barrel channel...

Because I don’t like the light color of the wood. Same reason I have paint on my truck. I guess they could have just clearcoated the metal and it still drive the same but I prefer the paint.
Seriously though have you ever seen the vintage English rifles? Most were stocked with plain English Walnut that was very light in color they used stain or something to get the dark brown color you see. Alkanet root juice didn’t get it that dark. If you’ve ever seen one of these stocks with the finish removed they were not much darker than a pine board no amount of rubbing clear oil would get that dark not in 100 years.
The cheek piece on the stock is way to thick imo I guess I’ll sand and finish the cheek piece until I find what works then sand it all down to the finished profile and go from there.

No. geezzz I have never finished a stock or seen what old rifle stocks look like...

Other than sapwood, bastogne is not a light-colored walnut...

Really just a matter of taste or opinion. I really prefer the darker look of the old Pre War 1 type finishes. I know a lot of people are anti stain on a rifle stock and these same people will saw the stock square and glue a piece of rubber on it. Recoil pads on rifles are an abomination imo but people still do it.

I do not stain raw wood since I can't control it and sometimes it is too dark or creates splotchy spots. I sand in finish to fill the pores, I then use Laurel Mountain stain (alcohol based) until I get the color I want. Afterward, I proceed by adding additional coats of finish but no more sanding.
Phil

Just smiling and shaking my head slowly...

Appears to me you are somewhat of a one trick pony. You are shackled to the natural color of the wood with no option, or in your closed mine, there is no option...none to do anything with the color of the stock. Even though gunstocks have been stained for as long as there has been gunpowder or a gunstock lol.
I got the answer I needed in a pm so I’m squared away on the finish. Thank you for trying to help given the limits you have placed on yourself.
I guess we’d all be a lot better off if Mauser,Wesley Richards, Holland &Holland and the like would have just stuck with the plain old bare wood. Then you wouldn’t be left slowly shaking your head. I’m mad about it for you and they should be ashamed

Sure would be a shame to stain a nice figured stock.

It would. I doubt stain was used on this one:

http://forums.nitroexpress.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=330785&an=0&page=0#Post330785

Maybe someday they will find a cure for Dunning-Kruger. You can hope at least.

Sitka speaks from experience. Below are pics of a Rem700 270 I put together for my daughter, the stock from a piece of blonde Bastogne Cecil Fredi gave me. Before finishing it was the color of the whitest maple blank you could imagine. I was tempted to stain, but Cecil made me promise to go without. He obviously knew best. Just about any conventional finish is going to have a certain amount golden-brown tint to it. In this case it was enough bring out the fiddle and contrast.

I think we have gone completely off the rails on this subject.
What I was asking was if anyone had used the spar varnish grain filler technique and then stained a stock. I want the grain filled without having to sand the finish to fill the pores. Several threads and even a video already on the subject but non specifically addressed the stain after varnish. Another gentleman was kind enough to pm and assured me it would be no problem to stain after the varnish. Problem solved.
At that point we have somehow got into a debate about stain?
To clarify I have no interest in the Zebra striped orange or yellow stocks that are all the rage. I much rather prefer the PreWar 1 Mauser sporters Rigbys etc and Said so. Non of the 1900 era rifles I’ve owned or seen in person had a lot of crazy figure. The finish was dark usually brown maybe a hint of red. The stock I’m working on has very little figure it mostly has the vertical stripes along the butt stock very similar to Jim Corbett’s .275. It is too light in color hence it will be stained no matter how many people are upset by this lol.
Maybe a couple of pictures for those that are not understanding
The first pic is a Mauser model B stock in original finish from 1912 the second pic is another Mauser model B with the finish removed. No amount of sunlight or polyurethane will get that stock to the same color. The stock was the same color before stripping. The last pic is what I think looks like a cartoon stock drawn by a second grader not what I would want on a rifle. Like I said it’s all about preference. I do not and will not want a straight combed zebra striped swirly orange stock so I did not buy one.

I'm not crazy about staining either, and caution folks to use aniline dyes when they feel they must. In this case, the OP is asking a specific question re: protocol for staining after pore filling. While I wouldn't do it if in his shoes, it'll work ok. I do applaud his use of varnish to fill the pores first, and on second thought with thin-shell walnut the pores shouldn't be as dramatic as with black walnut and wouldn't take as much varnishing/epoxying and sanding to accomplish said filling.

I'm not a big fan of oil finishes either, but again the OP wasn't asking about the validity of that finish, so I'll refrain from criticizing.

We have to remember a couple things about Best Grade English guns and their finishes. One, they were bought, owned, and used by rich guys. Two, in the course of owning/using said guns, those guys adhered to the protocol of sending their toys back to their makers for touchup/refinishing either as injury/wear happened or as a matter of course every few years whether they needed it or not. My point is, the issues concerning gun finishes that we strive to avoid or conquer were moot to that class of men who commissioned those guns to be built. While a warm oil finish over a tastefully stained gun stock presents nightmares to we home craftsmen in terms of application (don't burn through to bare wood whatever you do) and repairs involving finish matching (not to mention water fenestration from heavy field use), the original owners of those delectable British instruments didn't give a rat's patoot- "not my problem, old chap, I like the hand rubbed oil finish, what, and if it costs me a few bob every five years to have it maintained I'll take it out of the household budget."

The other thing about those guns is: they're all really old now and their finishes have oxidized (darkened). It would be fun to ride the Wayback Machine to see what they really looked like 100 years ago.

Bastogne can be a bit variable in texture, being a hybrid between claro and a thin-shelled walnut. Most is fairly fine, but far from all.

Outstanding points on old guns and their patinas.

Not sure I agree with the logic behind the patina and age being the reason for the stock color. H&H, WR, Rigby were the high end rifles even in 1900 the prices were out of the commoners reach. Mauser however made several grades of sporter with differing grades of finish both wood and metal. The Mauser model C is an example it was a military M98 action and sometimes stepped barrel the stocks were plain and some had almost zero color but was the same straight grain English walnut.
And if the elite owners of the high end rifles had them maintained regularly wouldn’t that have slowed or stopped any finish deterioration?’And I’m sure there were more Military personnel using the British Sporters than rich aristocrats. And these military personnel used them a lot harder and had a lot less disposable income to send there rifles back to London from India or Africa for a touch up. Yet the finish color is the same. I’ve seen Rigbys that had been owned by English nobility that had the same color as one owned by a British officer in India. Why the same color? One rifle looks like it hasn’t been out of its leather covered trunk case the other looked like it had been thru hell, same color( on what finish remained on the working gun). The queen of England herself had a Rigby .275 built during WW2 it looks no different in color than a 100 other rifles?
Simply a case of people getting an idea in there head and believing it to be fact. I’ve owned Mausers that were over a hundred years old with oil finishes and in noway was the wood compromised from not being sprayed with some plastic finish in 1901. If you have convinced yourself the oil finish is a water sponge that’s fine. Explain the thousands of rifles that are still functioning just fine with a oil finish. Rifles that spent decades in hard use in India or Africa in all kinds of weather. I’m not talking about the plastic spray finished orange swirly rifle that you only take out of the gun safe when the humidity is less than 40% I’m talking about real working rifles that were in the field for months at a time for years. Real rifles with stocks shaped and fitted for iron sites and quick handling,
Not overweight straight combed cartoon colored rifles with giant scopes an inch of rubber on the butt just to be able to hit a deer at 100 yards lol. I don’t need a time machine to know what a rifle looked like when it was built I already own a few. Find a real one with some finish missing or take the stock off and look inside the inlet time is not what caused the color period.

If all old gun finishes looked unique and based on storage, care, and handling, and different from a freshly finished oil stock you might have an argument.

All old finishes look fairly similar despite storage, care, and handling. And despite arguing for both sides your prime contention fails.

Dunning-kruger is real.

Be aware that the British military personnel who carted sporting rifles off to the colonies for personal use were officers. The officer class came virtually entirely from the money class- promotion up from the enlisted ranks was unheard of and practically impossible. (You needed private income in order to purchase your uniforms, pay your mess bill, and buy all your own kit including sidearms.) Enlisted men got paid pennies per day and could no more own a Rigby/Holland's/Westley Richards/etc. than they could own the Crown Jewels.

I still say we can't look at the artifacts from 90-140 years ago with modern eyes and see what they looked like new unless said artifacts were kept in a dark temperature controlled vaccuum from the minute they were finished. It is fair though to want to try and create the look of something that has aged.

If you start making any sense this conversation may fade away lol. The stocks do look different from a freshly oiled stock if no stain is used. The fact that most of them have the same finish color is proof they were finished the same. If a stock from 1900 looks the same as a stock from 1940 what does that tell you? If age is making them darker wouldn’t the extra 40 years make the older stock different? If a stock that was sent back to the original builder every few years for refinish and some were drug around India and Africa for decades and the finish is the same color what does that tell you? In your mind you believe air and time have somehow conspired to make the finishes the same color? How do you explain the light colored wood were the finish is worn off if nothing but oil was used no stain just oil?
Most importantly this is not an opinion the light colored genuine Mauser model B stock in the photo above is mine it is in my gunsafe as I type this. The finish on that stock, what was left , looked identical to the other picture. Do you really believe in your tiny mind that you can make that stock look like the other picture without stain? Here’s your chance to prove me wrong, or go back to reading your word of the day calendar lol. What will make that stock turn that dark brown without stain? Air and a hundred years ain’t gonna do it.
I already see logic has no place in this discussion. It is possible that the polyurethane or whatever you have been sniffing has started to cause problems? Your saying rich people owned these rifles so when did the finish get away from them and turn dark brown? If only rich people owned these rifles and the original builder did the maintenance wouldn’t the finish be close to original? The rich vs poor owners really doesn’t matter it only proves lack of knowledge of vintage firearms and there owners. I’ve owned several originals and some were in rough shape I guarantee no super rich person would let there personal rifle get that rough, yet the color was the same.
Did a minwax stain salesman touch you in a “bad” way or something ? Stocks were stained.... my stock will be stained, Rigby,H&H they all used stain let what happened to you go. You cannot change the past.
Also I think your word of the day calendar is stuck on the same word as yesterday “dunning-Kruger” I have another one for you instead “Consanguinity” I think you are familiar with the term.