Varnished stocks

[Merc]

Bubba couldn't beat a sword into a plowshear. He'd screw it up somehow. The shellac on wartime rifles was done by shooters who wanted to protect the wood. It's kind of ugly now but it was done with the best intent and it has some good history. Nitwits who insisted on lopping off forearms well...
There was a Swedish proprietary 8? I'd like to hear about it.

Not that I care that the thread took a Mauser direction. But I would like to get some opinions on preservation vs. improvements.

I can say that the varnished stocks that I saw were not being preserved. If that was the case, then the dents, dings, cartouches and inspector marks would still be visible. No, these stocks were heavily sanded so that nothing remained.

My 1943 Remington 03-A3 that I bought from Cabelas Gun Library in Wheeling, WV a few years ago was preserved in a very heavy coating of cosmoline that took some serious time to remove because it had hardened over the past 70+ years. The rifle was rebuilt after WW2 because it had several Smith Corona parts here and there plus a M1903 Springfield extractor with a worn claw. I found NOS replacement parts on the Internet and it’s now as good as it can be (and no varnish). All measurements are nearly perfect and it shoots well.

My question: It’s obvious that the former owner left the rifle in its post war, cosmoline covered condition. I cleaned it and made it into a parts correct shooter. Would you have left it in its original condition?

It’s interesting the direction this thread went once I mentioned the 30-06 Mauser, almost as an after thought. We’re all learning a few things about the Mauser’s history.

[ikesdad]

What the op saw in 30/06 was probably a 1950 Belgian. 20,000 were made for Belgian naval forces

[Art]

[QUOTE=Merc;555562]Not that I care that the thread took a Mauser direction. But I would like to get some opinions on preservation vs. improvements.

I can say that the varnished stocks that I saw were not being preserved. If that was the case, then the dents, dings, cartouches and inspector marks would still be visible. No, these stocks were heavily sanded so that nothing remained./QUOTE]

OK, here's mine.

The people in the military who used the WWII and Korean War era rifles for their intended purpose, for the most part, weren't interested in preserving them in their original condition. In fact, the people I knew who actually fought the war, had no further interest in the weapons they used in battle. They did look on the surplus military weapons as mostly the basis for something else. Bubba was probably a WWII or Korean War vet. When I bought my first milsurp, a fresh from FTR No.1 Mk III* SMLE my father who saw action in the Philippines, was frankly flummoxed. He saw it as an instrument solely for taking human life and he'd seen enough of that. I did "bubba" it since a whole industry, back then, was created to help folks do just that. It now sports a nice Bishop walnut stock, a Williams Foolproof receiver sight, had the charger bridge and original rear sight removed and a nice blue job. I killed my first deer with it and a few more. My brother's best friend's father, who had the Barton torpedoed out from under him during the First Naval Battle of Guadalcanal was a big hunter and the owner of some fine firearms. His DCM M1903A3 was taken out of the USGI wood and dropped into a Fajen stock. Other than that it was unaltered and became his backup deer rifle. I could go on but I think the point is made. Interestingly one of the most "bubba-ed" rifles is the SKS 45 even in its most collectable forms.

I personally think a collector should own at least one quality post war "bubba" job, some of them are actually very nice.

I own some nice milsurps I would never think of modifying any of them today, they're just to valuable in their current form and I appreciate what they symbolize. I shoot them all. I also have a bit of remorse about the Enfield, but just a bit.

A while back some No 4 Mk 1 Enfields were imported in the original factory mummy wrap. Many collectors didn't unwrap them considering them more valuable in the true new old stock condition and its hard to argue with that. I bought one and occasionally shoot it. Either course is ok IMHO

So I respect the attitudes of the users of these weapons who had little use for them in their original configuration when they were done with them in the military. I understand that to most folks up until the 1980s they were just an inexpensive basis for a deer rifle. I also understand that military surplus rifles are drying up and preserving them should be a pretty darn high priority and would discourage folks from modifying any of them now. Heck, the rifles have become so valuable in their original form that, again IMHO, the current form of "Bubba-izing" is passing them off as original by "correcting" them including the use of dummied up cartouches. Mitchell's Mausers anyone???

My devalued $.05 worth.

[dryheat]

You are absolutely right, there was some very good work done on milsurps. The Model 30 is a rifle I'd sure like own. That and a few others.