Author Topic: Rifle Restoration (Read 9697 times)

Rich N. · « **on:** January 09, 2011, 07:53:47 PM »

The topic on shooting old rifles and the possible impact on value got me thinking about restoration of old rifles. I'm sure this topic has been discussed many times, but I don't recall it being discussed in the time that I've been on this list. I also believe as stated, that we are only the caretakers of these valuable pieces of history, and therefore what is our obligation to preserve them for the future? I know we love to see them in "attic condition" or "in the black", but what if the brass is so black that it is corrosive and destroying the engraving? Are there any standards? I raise this issue because my favorite rifle, a Snyder County Fowler, would be a candidate for a lot of TLC and possible restoration. I've owned the gun for nearly 40 years and it was originally flint but the percussion drum and hammer are gone, it was broken in two and the one lock bolt plate was poorly replaced, and some of the wood is missing near the muzzle. What should be done with this rifle - should it be left as is or restored?

Rich

http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=1z1uxx3&s=7
http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=1z2eixz&s=7
http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=2qtjwwi&s=7
http://tinypic.com/view.php?pic=2k52j6&s=7

Blacksmoke · « **Reply #1 on:** January 09, 2011, 08:28:22 PM »

Hi Rich: Welcome to the ALR forum! There are two opposing views to restoration on old originals. The first states that: in what ever the condition one finds an old gun - let it be! as that is the guns total history what ever it may be. The second view is: When the original maker made the gun he did not intend for it to be abused, broken, or "hacked" by some back yard novice who was ignorant in the skills of gun making. Therefore if the original maker were still alive and came across his earlier made piece which was in very poor condition, his first intent would be to restore it to it's former glory if at all possible and given the opportunity. Also remember this fact: there is not one surviving "Strativarious" made stringed instrument that has not been restored at one time or another! We would not know the "unbelievable sound that a "Stradivarius" violin can produce if we had adopted the first view of my posting.

Needles to say that I subscribe to the second view since I've been involved with the restoration of many original longrifles!

Longknife · « **Reply #2 on:** January 09, 2011, 09:13:02 PM »

This debate will open up a new can of worms!!!! BUT!!!!!

1) If an original piece is in original condition with a nice mellow patina then it should be left alone. But any original piece could usually benefit from an aplication of preserative to the wood and metal parts. Few 'smiths applied ANY finish to unexposed wooden areas, inside lock panels, under but plates, barrel channels etc. These areas need to be sealed as the wood will continue to dry and shrink.

2)If an otherwise nice piece need attention, a break in the wood or a missing, or damaged part then it need repaired and finished in a manner to match the rest of the piece.

3) If a piece is a total wreck, broken, missing parts etc., rust, crust and corrosion etc then a total restoration might be in order by a COMPETENT 'smith.

Each case needs to be addressed on its own, for instance, cost of restoring a belgium SXS shotgun percussion shotgun would greatly out price its value. Properly restoring or reparing a Beck would increase its value, IF DONE PROPERLY....02

bama · « **Reply #3 on:** January 10, 2011, 02:07:37 AM »

That is a nice piece. If you do decide to have work done to it don't let any joe blow work on it. There are colectors on this board that can recommend a good restorer. If it were mine and it been like that for the last 40 years I would think long and hard before doing anything. Since the lock is gone if you could fine a good replacement flint a reconversion probably would not hurt, again be picky about who does the work.

Jim Kibler · « **Reply #4 on:** January 10, 2011, 02:55:18 AM »

The problem with restoration in a nutshell is the value judgements that go along with the process. Sometimes these are made by well meaning, but uniformed individuals. Ideas about what is an acceptable practice change with time as well. When something is changed or lost, most often it's permanent. Think about all the damage that's been caused by suspect choices.

Dphariss · « **Reply #5 on:** January 10, 2011, 03:04:17 AM »

If restoration is desired it has to be done by someone who knows the subjects well. Both the American Longrifle and restoration of such.

Dan

Jim Kibler · « **Reply #6 on:** January 10, 2011, 03:23:47 AM »

Restoration done by some of those considered the best of their time is often cursed years later. That's the problem, and the way I see it, there's no easy answer.

greybeard · « **Reply #7 on:** January 11, 2011, 06:57:37 AM »

Would someone with a bunch more knowledge than I have been able to glean in my 76 years in this planet please give me a real good technical defination of just what patina is???

rich pierce · « **Reply #8 on:** January 11, 2011, 05:59:39 PM »

No. Ha ha ha.
One definition of patina is the effects of oxidation, exposure to the elements, time, etc, on the original finish applied to wood, metal, etc. If you look at what sculptors do with bronze statuary, they treat the castings with various salts, etc to produce what looks like normal oxidation.

Old "attic" condition guns will have "patina" on the metal and sometimes on the wood. That patina you can interpret as rust on iron, and darkening on brass. Often it will be thick, almost a crust on brass, for example. Old gunstocks may be all dried out, or may have areas of the finish that are dull, rough, and look built up with "gunk" while other areas may be worn down through the finish. Collectors may often refer to the patina as the variation in original finish, from oxidized, to worn off. Look at this late West Virginia rifle, at the gunk on the buttstock, that is worn off at the wrist to smooth and lighter color. That gunk is soft enough to dig at with a fingernail. At the back of the lock there is more. So, I don't have a technical definition, but I know it when I see it.

Shreckmeister · « **Reply #9 on:** January 11, 2011, 06:05:20 PM »

I once asked a long time collector about his thoughts on restoration and he expressed the view that all he will do to a rifle is put some white oil on the metal parts to stop any further degradation of the metal and put some renaissance wax on the wood. He said, I am only a temporary caretaker of this rifle. If the next guy wants to polish it up, that's his choice, but I don't know whether the next guy is going to want it original or shined up. Once shined and repaired it can't be undone.
Another aspect relates to one of my rifles. It has a broken wrist with a tightly wrapped cord repair. The repair method is interesting and appears to be pre 1900. If we were all to go and repair all the guns, there would be no evidence of how repairs were done in the day and that bit of history would be lost.
I guess it all boils down to personal preference. It's your gun, if you like it
shiny, shine it up, if you like it to speak of it's history, leave it alone.

Roger Fisher · « **Reply #10 on:** January 11, 2011, 06:38:45 PM »

Quote from: greybeard on January 11, 2011, 06:57:37 AM

Would someone with a bunch more knowledge than I have been able to glean in my 76 years in this planet please give me a real good technical defination of just what patina is???

Blood & Crud = Patina

Dphariss · « **Reply #11 on:** January 11, 2011, 11:32:52 PM »

Quote from: richpierce on January 11, 2011, 05:59:39 PM

No. Ha ha ha.
One definition of patina is the effects of oxidation, exposure to the elements, time, etc, on the original finish applied to wood, metal, etc. If you look at what sculptors do with bronze statuary, they treat the castings with various salts, etc to produce what looks like normal oxidation.

Old "attic" condition guns will have "patina" on the metal and sometimes on the wood. That patina you can interpret as rust on iron, and darkening on brass. Often it will be thick, almost a crust on brass, for example. Old gunstocks may be all dried out, or may have areas of the finish that are dull, rough, and look built up with "gunk" while other areas may be worn down through the finish. Collectors may often refer to the patina as the variation in original finish, from oxidized, to worn off. Look at this late West Virginia rifle, at the gunk on the buttstock, that is worn off at the wrist to smooth and lighter color. That gunk is soft enough to dig at with a fingernail. At the back of the lock there is more. So, I don't have a technical definition, but I know it when I see it.

The black gunk on the stock is the original oil varnish that has blackened due to exposure to sulfur in the air from the burning of coal. Since it is worn away in the high wear areas these are not blackened.
Or so I have been told.
Its less common on western guns where there was less coal use/lower population, no steel mills etc etc.

Dan

greybeard · « **Reply #12 on:** January 12, 2011, 12:26:04 AM »

A number od years back when I was activley collecting British M L sporting guns I traded into a single barrel Ebenezer Hollis rifle with a patent # on the gravitating safety on the lock foreward of the hammer and patent # on the improved trigger set up. The only problem with the gun was a 1 inch piece of wood chipped off the toe. A couple of years later I got an old broken stock with lots of burl and it matched nicely. I trued up rhe break and using white chalk was able to spot the patch in near perfect. Glued it up shaped the patch a light app of weak aquea a little heas and a perfect match. Rubber abiut 4 coats of true oil in ans a gentle rub with pummice on a piece of felt with a touch of BLO and done . A fwe years later when I was giving my gtns their ammual checkup I thought I saw faint scratch on the toe of that gun . Upon closer examination with an eye loupe I realized it was the repair that I had done a few years prior. The collection has since been passed on to new custodians and I don't know who the new owner is but if he finds the repair all I ask is dont swear at me. If it will make him feel better he is free to take a hammer and nock the repair off if he can find it. I personally liked it better after the repair.

GrampaJack · « **Reply #13 on:** January 12, 2011, 03:05:21 AM »

I'm a "leave em alone" guy mostly but in this case I would suggest that the lock really needs to be fixed, the wood around the breach needs some attention and possibly the area at the muzzle. The rest should be left alone other than some wax. The guys are right, this kind of work needs to be done by a person with experience. The wrong piece of wood set around the breach/lock will look worse than it does now. I think it's a great gun and I am confident that the fella who built it would do at least that much for it. Jack

paxtonboy · « **Reply #14 on:** January 12, 2011, 03:50:50 AM »

The purpose of a gun is its ability to shoot. I would replace the lock but do NOT remove any wood, make the lock fit the inletting. Then you can always bring it back to "original found condition". Scott

Curt J · « **Reply #15 on:** January 12, 2011, 04:06:18 AM »

I believe that each gun needs to be looked at individually, when it comes to cleaning and restoration. Patina is a good thing, rust, corrosion and dry rot are not. My Henry Tope rifle, which can be viewed here in the Library, was found within the last ten years in the top of an old barn. It was so filthy that you could barely tell that it had a patchbox, nor could you begin to identify the wood. The barrel was covered with rust scale and the bore looked like the inside of a brick chimney. I could have left it just the way it was found. If I had, I would never have known that it was the only signed rifle by this maker that has ever turned up (and he worked about 30 miles from where I live) because the script signature was hidden beneath the rust and dirt. I would never have known that it was stocked in very nice tiger-striped maple, because the wood was totally black with soot. I would never have known that the bore was actually quite good, because the farm dirt that was stuck to the old grease that had been placed there well over 100 years ago, would still just look like rust. I'm not saying that careful cleaning is always the right thing to do, but in this case it certainly was.

On the other hand, I have a grand old Plains rifle, by J J Freitas, Springfield, Illinois, that turned up in California. It shows lots of use, but not abuse, has a makeshift repair, no doubt done around a campfire, and looks as though no one has touched it since a buffalo hunt in 1880. It is one of those guns that makes you say "If only it could talk!" I would not clean or restore this rifle in any way, under any circumstances.

Dphariss · « **Reply #16 on:** January 12, 2011, 08:05:01 PM »

Quote from: paxtonboy on January 12, 2011, 03:50:50 AM

The purpose of a gun is its ability to shoot. I would replace the lock but do NOT remove any wood, make the lock fit the inletting. Then you can always bring it back to "original found condition". Scott

It is one thing to shoot an original that is still in shooting condition. I have a friend who has one such but only shoots it now and then since vent erosion is a concern.
Modifying a gun to make it shootable is probably not a good idea. Enough guns were "modified" for this purpose in the early 20th century. This entailed all sorts of things such as improving the bore by reaming and re-rifling. This destroys the original bore and changes history for people who would research such things as bore size and rifling twist. A lot of original rifles have replacement locks. Are post service life replacements because someone perhaps removed the lock to keep the kids safe or keep them from shooting the old gun and the lock became lost.
Restoring rifles to flint making percussion rifles flint to make them fit some collection is questionable as well. It actually destroys history for the researcher.

So for the most part old rifles need to be preserved, they don't need to be shot.

Dan

greybeard · « **Reply #17 on:** January 13, 2011, 05:53:56 AM »

If a gun owner in say 1850 had their rifle gun freshed out and recut the rifleing that is part of the history of the gun and we will never know what the original bore size was so studying bore size and twist may have nothing to do with the intent of the builder.. and so if 70 yeare later
(1920) the gun is freshed out and recut that is also part of the guns history and we will never know what it was originally or what the twist was. In some of the early publications there are copies of daily accounts and freshing a gonne was common. If Bill Large JJJJ ranch and machine shop recut one in after 1900 we must accept it as part of the history of the gun. Bob

Dphariss · « **Reply #18 on:** January 13, 2011, 07:32:24 AM »

Quote from: greybeard on January 13, 2011, 05:53:56 AM

If a gun owner in say 1850 had their rifle gun freshed out and recut the rifleing that is part of the history of the gun and we will never know what the original bore size was so studying bore size and twist may have nothing to do with the intent of the builder.. and so if 70 yeare later
(1920) the gun is freshed out and recut that is also part of the guns history and we will never know what it was originally or what the twist was. In some of the early publications there are copies of daily accounts and freshing a gonne was common. If Bill Large JJJJ ranch and machine shop recut one in after 1900 we must accept it as part of the history of the gun. Bob

Freshing, the usual repair, does not change the rifling twist, nor is it likely the change the land groove ratio since the original rifling set these.
I know most rifles were recut if used very much. But reaming smooth and then rerifling with modern rifling and what ever twist the person doing the work does confuse the issue. They could, for example, ream and rifle an original smooth rifle if the wall thickness was adequate.

In the PAST when it was far harder to get new barrels and locks etc there was some justification in refurbishing old guns. The people doing this were trying to keep a tradition alive which has had its rewards as well. The shooting they did with original rifles is also valuable in that it gives us some sense of the accuracy of original guns. So its a trade off. However, with the available components today there is far less justification in modifying complete or nearly complete rifles into shooters. They need to be preserved.

Yes, people can make original rifles into shooters who can stop them? The advisability depends on the individual gun.
This is another discussion where one can meet oneself coming from the other direction.
I have a 1850s percussion rifle right now that needs work, its been worked on and the barrel shortened at the breech about 4" and the patent breech thrown away and replaced with a drum its a "shooter". Work could have been done in 1870 or 1970. Some modern welding has been done to make the "hook" fit the standing breech. So I wonder if I should make a patent breech to match the standing breech?? I doubt it will shoot accurately with the drum as has been shown by attempts made by the man I got it from. It needs a guide starter fitted too since its a picket rifle and really is just a shooter but will not shoot well with the picket without it...

??

Dan

Blacksmoke · « **Reply #19 on:** January 13, 2011, 07:24:15 PM »

Dan & Ed: You both make some excellent points regarding the restoration of of old longrifles. Yes each opportunity to restore has to be examined carefully and not without a lot of research on the original maker, if he can be found! I have a old Kentucky that has been hanging on my wall for a number of yrs. now, which is in "almost destroyed' condition.

However I will not be doing any restoration on it till I find who made it and exactly where it was made. It has a wonderful "oral" history which if true would make it a likely candidate for restoration. But I will not touch it till I find out who made it and , hopfully find some of his other work. This is some of the criteria that I adopt before I will go ahead with the project! Hugh Toenjes

mr. no gold · « **Reply #20 on:** January 13, 2011, 11:00:34 PM »

We have drifted off topic a bit here, so I am going to address your original post. Yours is the first Wetzel gun that has ever come to my attention. It can be considered to be a rather rare gun, in my opinion. Given that, and the fact that it is a nice piece, if it were mine, I would have a reasonable restoration done on it without much delay. There really isn't a whole that is required to put the old girl right.
Some excellent people have recently been recommended on the Kopp post here, so you might want to contact one of them. The lock area seems to require the most attention based on your photos. Anything else can be left as is.
When you get it fixed, hope that you will post some more photos. Would love to see all of it.
Best-Dick

News:

Author Topic: Rifle Restoration (Read 9697 times)

greybeard

greybeard

GrampaJack

paxtonboy

greybeard