Question about iron stains on new stock

[oldarcher]

I have encountered a small problem on a Hawken that I am building...the tiger stripe maple is very porous and it is picking up a larger amount of grey metal dust from the furniture than I am used to seeing. I am at the 500 grit sanding phase and was wondering if there is any trick to keep the dust out of the pores of the stock. I would normally remove the furniture at this point and dampen the stock and go to 1000 paper....but I am even picking up discoloration from the paper...any thoughts? THANK YOU

[cmac]

I have had this problem and it normally doesn't show through. Sometimes a large eraser pulls it out where as paper just works it in more

[T*O*F]

Flood the affected areas with carburetor or brake parts cleaner.  It will flush the schmutz away and evaporate with no ill effects.

[Acer Saccharum]

....Or try Schmutz-Away.

Good tip, Dave.

[draken]

Acer, is Schmutz-Away a real product or was it meant as a joke?   

[Mark Elliott]

I think sanding a stock to 500 grit is extreme, not less 1000 grit.    Of course, you could avoid the whole problem by carefully scraping instead of sanding.   You may still get iron filings down in the wood fitting your patchbox.    I have gotten the gray iron stain on my guns before during the whiskering process.   If you are staining with AQ,  I have found that the iron in the stock is a non issue.   It will just be turned red and blend with the stain.    Rub it down with a white ScotchBrite pad is it is too dark after staining. 

I am going to make an editorial comment here that I know I shouldn't but I am going to do it anyway.   I can't believe how picky some of the builders are on this board.   Have you guys ever looked at the original guns?   I have,  taken quite a few apart and worked on a few.    When it comes to things like the inlets being tight where you could see it,  they were very good, but I think a lot of you would be aghast at the work you couldn't see.    Lock mortices and barrel channels were just hacked out in order to get the part in there.   File work was finished only on the surfaces you could see.   The bottoms of the barrels often looked like they had filed them with a rasp.    Surfaces were not symmetrical including lock panels.    Usually, they lined up when viewed from the top,  but not always.   They just got it close.     Thimbles were not filed exactly the same.   Again,  they got the design the same but the execution wasn't identical and they did not finish a 1/16" that wasn't seen.   Usually,  they just cut right through the web when inletting barrel tenons and thimbles because the ramrod was going to cover those things.   As to finished surfaces,  they just smoothed things out, getting rid of most of the tool marks, but not all.   The background of carvings was not flat and smooth. even in the best carving.  It was smoothed out using chisels or knives and left a little rippled.  Just lighten up some and build these things in the workman like manner they were built.   If you do,  your guns will look like they came out of an 18th or 19th century shop and not a Japanese auto plant.     

[oldarcher]

Hi Mark,
I agree that the old guns were not as "perfect" as we make them today. If I lived in a log cabin without electricty and indoor plumbing I think that my concerns about stripe color, etc would be extreme. However today we have all of the advantages of modern technology and most all builders use at least some of them. I attempt to build as perfect rifle as I can, I make enough mistakes and errors on my own without accepting poor workmanship when I can avoid it. As far as the grits of paper that I use on finishing....it really depends on the hardness of the wood. Some material can be scraped satisfactorly, some wood is more difficult to deal with and requires a different preperation secquence. One thing for sure...the more time you spend removing faults in prep, the less time you will have to spend in final finish as you will have a great surface to work with. The rifle that I am currently building has a 50 year old NOS tapered Large Barrel and a 30 year old "porous" tiger maple stock. The wood was in a barn and suffered the extremes of temperature and humidity of an Indiana climate for all that time and IS very porous. I lost a lot of the plank because of twist and splits.
There are really two reasons that I am as fussy as I am (even working as carefully as I can I still have never been satisfied with my work and always try to improve) is that I would like to be proud of my work, not make excuses for it.
My original question was answered by the many kind responses and I intend to try some of them.
Thanks for your opinion.
PS, I drive a Toyota
 

[FL-Flintlock]

....Or try Schmutz-Away.

Need to send a train load of that to Washington DC. 

[FL-Flintlock]

I can't believe how picky some of the builders are on this board.   Have you guys ever looked at the original guns?   

Have you seen what passes QC on alleged "high-end/custom" modern stuff, especially guns? 

[Acer Saccharum]

Let's keep topic on track, please. Or I'll have to get out the Schmutz-Away. (fictitious product)

[Gaeckle]

Let's keep topic on track, please. Or I'll have to get out the Schmutz-Away. (fictitious product)

RATS!!!! Now he tells us.......no Schmutz-Away??

What's next, no such thing as Chicken Fingers or Buffallo Wings?

[T*O*F]

I'll have to get out the Schmutz-Away. (fictitious product)

It is not a fictitious product.  It's source is a closely protected secret.  It is only available in New Yawk city, and selected retirement communities in FL and AZ.  Ya gotta know somebody to get it.

[snowdragon]

If you use aqua fortis as a stain, it will dissolve that residue and you'll never know it was there. Just a thought. Bill

[pathfinder]

Some of the wet/dry "sand paper"will shed the oxides used as an abrasive. it usually blend's in during the whisker/staining process.

Mark's comments are kinda in the realm of the question. Use of THAT fine a paper wasnt used "then"(not being available has NOTHING to do with it)so they didnt have the issue.

And I've heard the comment more than once when looking over an original firearm,most recently a Dickert,"No way would this even be allowed to be jugded at Dixon's".Sure,it was tounge in cheek,but it's close. Some guns are SCAREY fine!

[Dphariss]

I have encountered a small problem on a Hawken that I am building...the tiger stripe maple is very porous and it is picking up a larger amount of grey metal dust from the furniture than I am used to seeing. I am at the 500 grit sanding phase and was wondering if there is any trick to keep the dust out of the pores of the stock. I would normally remove the furniture at this point and dampen the stock and go to 1000 paper....but I am even picking up discoloration from the paper...any thoughts? THANK YOU

Don't polish the metal while in the wood.
Sanding to 600 wet or dry will greatly reduce the time needed to get a good finish on the stock. Rough wood is a major factor in this. If sanded to 600 the finish need not be used to fill imperfections in the wood surface.
Not traditional but it works good.
Dan

[Dphariss]

Some of the wet/dry "sand paper"will shed the oxides used as an abrasive. it usually blend's in during the whisker/staining process.

Mark's comments are kinda in the realm of the question. Use of THAT fine a paper wasnt used "then"(not being available has NOTHING to do with it)so they didnt have the issue.

And I've heard the comment more than once when looking over an original firearm,most recently a Dickert,"No way would this even be allowed to be jugded at Dixon's".Sure,it was tounge in cheek,but it's close. Some guns are SCAREY fine!

When looking at orginal rifles one must take into consideration that it may have  been refinished at some point, perhaps by the owner.

Dan

[Mark Elliott]

I use scrapers, a traditional wood working tool, to finial shape and finish my stocks.   Sand paper NEVER touches them.    I was just shaping a forearms yesterday.    After planing to rough shape.  I smoothed the contours with a couple of scrapers.    One entire side of the forearm took about 2.5 hours.   When I was done, I had a glass smooth surface with a few ripples and maybe a few scraper marks.  This was quick, easy, period correct, smoother than your 1000 grit, AND no pores full of dust and smutz.   I do use high grit abrasives when I turn pens because it is easier to use with the work on the lathe.  However, the final finish is NEVER as good using abrasives as it is by scraping.   Scraping gives you that glass like appearance where it seems that you can look INTO the wood.   

[FL-Flintlock]

I'll have to get out the Schmutz-Away. (fictitious product)

It is not a fictitious product.  It's source is a closely protected secret.  It is only available in New Yawk city, and selected retirement communities in FL and AZ.  Ya gotta know somebody to get it.

I go to "The Villages" tomorrow for an MRI, I can pick some up if you need to restock. 

[Dphariss]

I use scrapers, a traditional wood working tool, to finial shape and finish my stocks.   Sand paper NEVER touches them.    I was just shaping a forearms yesterday.    After planing to rough shape.  I smoothed the contours with a couple of scrapers.    One entire side of the forearm took about 2.5 hours.   When I was done, I had a glass smooth surface with a few ripples and maybe a few scraper marks.  This was quick, easy, period correct, smoother than your 1000 grit, AND no pores full of dust and smutz.   I do use high grit abrasives when I turn pens because it is easier to use with the work on the lathe.  However, the final finish is NEVER as good using abrasives as it is by scraping.   Scraping gives you that glass like appearance where it seems that you can look INTO the wood.   

I use scrapers for shaping to and various other tools like gouges.
But thinking they make a smoother finish than properly used 400 or 600 grit seems to indicate someone who has not tried the 600 grit.
When properly done the stock will be shiny before finish is applied, there is no change when water based stains are used.
Not HC?  The firearms I make have my name on them, they are not museum quality replicas so making them just like a 18th c firearm is not an issue. They are a continuation of the art not a replication of the 18th c. Can I make them like this? Sure. But I spent so much time making guns for people that expected modern levels of finish that ripples, waves in surfaces and fuzzy spots are not acceptable.
I sand wood to a smoother finish than I do barrels and similar to what I do for parts to be color case hardened.

Dan

[pathfinder]

Some of the wet/dry "sand paper"will shed the oxides used as an abrasive. it usually blend's in during the whisker/staining process.

Mark's comments are kinda in the realm of the question. Use of THAT fine a paper wasnt used "then"(not being available has NOTHING to do with it)so they didnt have the issue.

And I've heard the comment more than once when looking over an original firearm,most recently a Dickert,"No way would this even be allowed to be jugded at Dixon's".Sure,it was tounge in cheek,but it's close. Some guns are SCAREY fine!

When looking at orginal rifles one must take into consideration that it may have  been refinished at some point, perhaps by the owner.

Dan

And re-done poorley! Refinishing doesnt fix sloppy inletting or bad moulding.

[David Price]

Oldarcher,
Go to your local hardware store and buy some oxolic acid.  It is in a powdered form, very cheep.

Disolve it in in boiling water, and apply it whle it is hot with a small paint brush.  It will remove all those stains in the first ten seconds.  Be sure to rinse the wood with clear water after.   It works like magic, it will make the wood as clean as new.

David Price

[PPatch]

Oldarcher,
Go to your local hardware store and buy some oxolic acid.  It is in a powdered form, very cheep.

And be careful using it, Oxolic acid is toxic to we humans. Eye protection, rubber gloves and all like that.

dp