Not trying to start any kind of flame here , I would honestly like to know. Why is it that Americans look with disapproval at restored/refurbished firearms while people from other countries restore their guns to RETAIN value ?

Mike

I can not answer you question cause I do not know. But I will say that I would prefer to keep a rifle in it's antiqued condition if it is 100% correct. If it is a rat already, then by all means RESTORE...!!!!!


Mike...

Personally I like restored when ya bring life back in to something,,,As long as it is kept as close as you can to orginal
I have always enjoyed mine and the time end effort i put in them ,
I see restored Cars Hold and Obtain values.
Steve

I agree with 6mm's observation. Americans focus on the virginal and unrestored when it comes to firearms and wooden antiques. Wonder where it comes from? There was a guy nearby who ran a yuppie rod and reel and English shotgun shop. His English doubles were works of art, yet, according to him had been refinished (expertly) several times; as commonly practiced in the UK. You ever priced a top grade English shotgun? Now that said do I have safe queens that rarely see the light of day? Yup.

I agree this is certainly a difference between the two sides of pond. And it very much reflects my preferences. I really dislike refinished/restored/refurbished guns. Maybe it's just tradition being passed on and I absorbed. Guns have been my main hobby since I was a small boy and I have consistently witnessed dealers/collectors holding their nose when a refinished gun came along. I really like the crispness and sharpness of an original gun. To me, a receiver can have about no finish and still be crisp and sharp.

Call me anal but a refinished gun doesn't have a place in my safe anymore.

That last 99G I had redone was out the door about 4 days after it was finished.

3 Montreal Home Guards that were sporterised all left the house at $250 a pop to.

I've got one reblued one here - and I'm not exactly overjoyed about. And Joe, it's an EG of all things! I got this rifle from an old guy down in Texas. It was his pride and joy. He had it many years and never fired because it was a minty gun (that he thought all original). I was interested in it because it had a nice vintage Lyman Alaskan scope in Stith mounts. I had pictures of the gun and when I talked to him on the phone I raised the possibility that could it be reblued? That question stunned him - as he had never even considered that possibility. So, he offered to take it to a friend who was a gunsmith for an opinion. The gunsmith said that while he certainly could be wrong, in his opinion, it had been reblued. The guy did knock some money off it and I went for it mainly because I felt the scope and mounts were worth close to what I paid. So, that's how I have one sitting here. I haven't been in a hurry to do anything with it. I should put the scope and mounts on Fleabay and then sell the rifle as a shooter.

I have the "restored car to restored rifle" comparison conversation with several friends quite frequently. Bottom line is that each market will accept what makes the largest collections more valuable(why I can't think of the correct spelling is beyond me). I don't mind buying refinished firearms if they are for just a shooting or hunting. I have several pre-64 M70's that have been reblued or have different stocks on them. At the price I paid, I can have a custom rig built and be way ahead on the money.

If I have a gun that is in excellent condition... or even in very good condition, why restore it? On the other hand, if it is rough looking, then I'd restore it in a New York Minute.

But then, I'm NOT a "collector", but rather a hunter/shooter. As long as a gun is restored in good taste, then I wouldn't mind owning it one bit... but a sloppy restoration job has no place in my gun safe.

That said, I have to admit that every firearm I own is in excellent condition. Only one of them has been added to... a Simmons ventilated rib was tastefully added to my Model 42 Winchester pump gun (the .410 version of a Model 12 Winchester) ... but only one has been fully "restored"... that being my Dad's old Remngton .22 rifle that was the first gun I ever shot when I was just a young boy.

Dad didn't take care of it... and, many years later, I found it in his closet all rusty and nasty-looking. He said that he no longer wanted it and gave it to me... so I had my gunsmith give it a very high polish job (in the white), then give it an excellent, super shiny bluing job. The bolt was polished to a bright silver as was the bolt-handle. I had the barrel and the tubular magazine "bobbed" 4 inches which removed the front sight. Meanwhile, I refinished the stock with a dozen coats of Casey's Tru-Oil rubbed down with rottenstone and oil between coats... and that was after I "raised" the wood's grain with a damp cloth and sanded down the "whiskers" of wood that was raised until the walnut stock was as smooth as a baby's behind.

Once the dozen coats of Tru-Oil was applied and rubbed out betweem each of the 12 coats, the stock took on a soft sheen that was beautiful and the refinished, polished and blued metal made the overall "look" of the little rifle outstanding.

But... other than the added ventilated rib on the Model 42 and the total refinishing job on Dad's old Remington .22 rifle, all the rest of my guns are "original"... not because I don't like a refurbished gun, but because none of my other guns ever needed to be refinished.

Naturally, 'most anyone would prefer to have a gun that was in excellent, but original condition. Unfortunately, "excellent condition" is not always the "original" condition. I can understand why "collectors" want a gun in "original" condition... but to a hunter/shooter/gun nut like me... a quality refinishing job on a good rifle, shotgun or handgun just makes the firearm LOOK better... and, to me, how a gun LOOKS is more important than whether or not the gun's finish is "original".

Butttttttttt... that ain't how some gun-nuts look at it... and I can understand why even if I don't always agree with them.


Strength & Honor...

Ron T.

Ruff guns that have been restored look restored to me and it is something I don't like. I've looked at Turnbull display rifles and they look restored to me. I also know that I have probably looked at older guns that have been restored that I could not tell were restored.

Most has to do with the quality of the work and the cost. Too few can do the work and and most of the time it is just cheaper to find an original.

i fully understand the want and cost for an original in perfect condition.....even the interest in an original with som use, sometimes the look of a well used but loved rifle can be finer than if it had be expertly reblued. but if yah have a rat that you want reblue/refinish by all means go for it. the 99 in 300 that ill pick up from the pawn shop at the end of the month has a mismatched buttstock that ill prolly look to replace. i have a hard time justifying safe queens to the wife...........if im going to buy something that looks good and am just going to let it sit in the safe she would rather i buy some artwork for the wall. to ME guns are a tool to be used and enjoyed for what it is, a safe queen that never gets out and shot to me seems like a waste. i plan on refinishing the newest 99, why? cause i want to. its not going to hold much collectors value but i can refinish it and have it look and be used for a fine hunting rifle. ill prolly be strung up for mentioning it but imm half way thinking of sending both the receiver AND the lever to Turnbull for color case hardening just cause i love the look of it and it makes a nice contrast to my stainless serious hunting tool type rifles ive got.........i would never do that to an original gun i though held collector value(though i would still shoot it) but for a rat why not? its my rifle and if i want to color case harden the receiver, its my rifle.

I like the heretic out of Montana.

Yeah, you tell 'em...


Mike...

tuition keeps goin up...

Whats the difference in restored and refinished? I always felt that restored was just a term to make a refinished gun sound more apealing. On a "restored" gun is the bore the same as when it was new? Is the action as tight? I have always felt that a gun that will refinish to look good would have to be in good enough condition that it should have looked fairly good before. I have noticed that a lot of average quality refinished guns being sold on line are now described as restored. Here's an interesting "old restoration" it's not a Savage but I think it shows how the term restored is starting to be used. Old Restoration Notice the "nice" upgrade to a pistol grip!!!

Wow that buttstock is some kind of "different".

The rest of the gun looked pretty good to me really.


I guess I am of the opinion that if a guy wants to do anything to his firearm, have at it!!! He paid for the thing, he owns it, if he wants to re-do it, why not??

It will only lose value in the eyes of a collector who may or may NOT ever even have the chance to purchase it anyway.

I personally would not mess with a truly outstanding original condition gun, but, beyond that its fair game, if its beat to snot with no finish left it not worth anything to a collector anyway, and never will be.

Just my opinion of what I would do, mind you

I have to side with the guys who say it is yours do what you want to with it.

I personally do not, and would not, own a gun that is not going to be fired. What is the point? If you don�t shoot it, it�s not a gun it�s a club! And I am sure several of you have some very nice clubs in your safes. I have no interest in them. They have no story and no history. If the old rats could talk you know they would have some stories to tell.

All four of the 99�s I own have been shot by me or soon will. Just waiting on that 303 ammo to come in.

When I received my latest, the 1899-B the wood was in pretty bad shape and the numbers didn�t match. It took me about 3 seconds to decide to restore it with a new bluing and a new set of wood. I am sure many on here will think that is horrible but when it is done I will have a vintage rifle that looks sharp that I will hunt with and be proud of. I will never try to sell it as original as I have never sold any of my guns.

To me guns are tools to be used and passed down from generation to generation with stories right along with them!

That Marlin looks like the Butt stock is oak. Don't look like the Marlin factory walnut to me.

Regarding refinish vs restore: I collected military rifles for a while. When I obtained an addition I usually repaired cracked wood, replaced broken or badly worn parts, cleaned and stabilized rusted areas, cleaned internals thoroughly, re-lubed and sometimes added a light coat of tung oil or linseed oil to the furniture. "Refinish" to me is just that: prep metal, re-blue or repark, strip the wood and apply new finish. etc. These would be in addition to and beyond a restoration effort.

When I buy a sporting rifle or shotgun I take the restoration approach. Fix cracks, replace non-factory items with factory issue (sights, swivels, etc) and replace broken, worn or buggered parts. Don't see a thing wrong with that.

I want to add that even though in many ways, I lean toward being a fussy collector, don't get the impression that everything I have is a bunch of mint safe queens. Aside from the hunter/shooters, many of the rifles I have that I consider part of my "collection" are far from mint. Many show honest use and finish wear. Many of these are favorites as they have great personality and character. I don't think I could ever get this same feeling about a refinished gun. And for me, how I feel about a rifle is most of the ballgame.

I don't know why the comparision is always made between collector cars and guns when it comes to restoring, compare them to antique furniture - original dinged, dented and worn originals with all the character are worth far more than anything refinished. In the recent antique car sales they have commented on how desirable nice original cars are and that many restored cars are selling for less than they estimate the restoration may have cost. My favorites are not the ones in the nicest condition - just original used but not abused. I don't like extra holes or other modifications but I don't mind normal wear from normal use - I actually like that better than a gun that I am afraid to touch for fear of putting any marks on it and lowering the value.

I'm about on the identical page as you Gene. An all original vintage rifle with some honest and mellow wear can be just plain great. The other thing you allude to that I agree wholeheartedly with is that "safe queens" are not immune to wear. We've all heard of a "safe ding" There is almost nothing I hate worse than to accidently ding some 99% collector gun. I haven't done it a lot, but man, it hurts when it happens! Then you look at it and say, yeah that gun would be perfect if it weren't for that one ding A couple weeks ago I had a friend come over and he was handling a Ross sporter I have that is over 90 years old. It is a strong 99% with almost no blue wear on the bolt. He worked the action several times and inside, I was In many ways, the 99% guns can really be a particular burden

I guess this depends on how you define rat...some "honest and mellow wear" does not make a rat in my mind...but a cut up rear stock with a 4 inch pad and three tang crack and has been drilled and tapped, little or no blueing left and the wood that is there has a half inch of polyurethan on it, winchester rear sight....thats a rat and a prime candidate for a new "factory style" stock and a reblue, replace the butt plate and sights to orignal. WILL NOT be a profitable exchange but will make a nice gun and should have some real value in pride.
We could get to splitting hairs on what is a rat but I agree with you..I have an EG that has some normal wear, blue is more brown now, and has been drilled and tapped and I would never restore it...except for the D&T its just character...

That's the key to the whole arguement here. Defining the terms. To me sending out the metal for a reblue and replacing or refinishing the wood a restoration does not make. That to me would more define refinished as that is what was done. Some may also want to call it an up grade and they may see it as up grading the appearance of the gun from the condition that they aquired it in. Depending on what all was done there are those who might also call it a "custom." Nothing wrong with that if that's what you're striving for. On the other hand, a true restoration involves restoring the gun, as closely as possible, to the condition that it was in the day it left the factory. That's a far cry, and considerably more expensive, from just sending it out for a reblue. When you send a rifle to Turnbull you're going to get back a work of art and an excellent example of the skills involved in the operation of a good restoration shop. You're also going to spend a ton of money and end up with something that many will consider more akin to a fake than a collectable firearm. To some its worth it and to others it isn't. If there wasn't a demand shops like Turnbull's wouldn't stay in business. The only one who can decide how far they want to go with a particular firearm is the person who owns it. That's why this is an area where we're pretty much just going to have to agree to disagree. Everyone's points have merit in their eyes and as long as they're talking their money, their gun and what they plan to have done or have had done its their business. The rest of us can air our opinions but ultimately its not our gun, our money or our decision. Once that decision has been made then the only thing left for the rest of us to decide is how important it is to us to slam someone for doing something that we disagreed with. Appearently that's pretty important to some of the folks that come here. Perhaps they should invest their time more profitably by determining how and where they want to spend their money in pursuit of their firearm goals. Others here are true gentlemen and their conduct shows it.

Restored and refinished have totally different meanings. You can always spot the refinished rifle. A properly restored rifle can't be told from original without extensive and probably micrometer examination. And,it remains totally functional and frequently in continuing extensive use. The British system of restoration is a whole different ball game from a new hot blue, preceded by a rough hand on a buffing wheel, and fresh coat of varnish on the wood. North American collectors basically can't tell or know the difference and so want untouched firearm even if the firearm is in a continuing state of degradation. Cripes , even antique paintings by old masters should be properly cleaned and restored if you want to get the best dollar for them. Bet that stirs your pot!

Don't make me no never mind long as its not my gun. I do tend to prefer a proper restoration to Bubba's refinishing but that's just personal preference. Actually I tend to prefer the European model but that has never seemed to gain too much traction here. Given that someone's gonna have something done to their gun I'd rather see it done correctly but then unless I'm paying for it I really don't have anything to say about it. All y'all do whatever you want with your guns and I'll do the same with mine. Same with cars, paintings or anything else of value.

Last year I picked up what I call a rat. 1899 A in 303. Barrel was
rusty with some pitting outside,rifleing was gone for the last few inches and the front sight had been repaired by brazing. Wood has
normal dings and splits with sling studs. most numbers matched but not all. I had the barrel shortened to 22 inches, the steel bead blasted and blackened (dull) (the finish, not me). I will put a scope on in and I have ordered a laminate (black and white) stock
for it. Also had 6 holes drilled on the end of barrel (3 at 4 oclock and three at 8 oclock) (Seemed like a good idea at the time.)

If I don't like the way they work I'll make it a 20 inch. Almost forgot, I added a saddle ring. When the stock is done I just might add a compass if I can find one. This rifle will be MINE!
Made the way I want it!
You can call it what you want. BUT IT'S MINE!
I wouldn't dream of doing this to a good origional gun!

The way I see it the disdain of non-original guns is good for everyone involved. If you are an uptight collector with way too much money into your collection such talk is a firewall to your investment. If your a low life bottom feeder who finds value by your own measure and nothing else, then such disdain makes non-original guns much more affordable. It is a win-win. So I say heap scorn on all guns that have extra holes or extra whatevers. No one looses at this game. RP

excellent point rikker99, excellent

Thank goodness for "non-original" 99's. Otherwise, those of us who love to hunt with them couldn't afford them!

mpmax - I hadn't thought of it that way, but that is an interesting and valid perspective. If all the 99's out there were in original shape and high condition, the collector's safes would be filled with them and far fewer would ever have the opportunity to hunt with one. So, next time I see a 99 with the stock cut and a pad added, I won't say it is a darn shame. It just means that someone is going to pick themselves up a heck of a fine hunting rifle

De-lurking for this one.

I lucked into a "Swedish Rat" (Re-imported from Sweden). It was almost as bad as the rat he described here. Cut-down stock, modified original rear sights, Swedish front sight, bluing very worn and color case hardening pretty much gone.

I found a replacement stock, got a few key parts together, and sent everything to a company that does outstanding work on Broomhandle Masuers and Lugers. Other than having to remove the blueing from the lever, the job was actually quite good.

Its not going to fool any experts, but it looks great now.