I refinished my stock on my SKS.

MikeInOr said:
I would advise against refinishing military weapons.

The first centerfire rifle I ever owned was a M1 Carbine. The first thing I did before even shooting it was sanded off the marred up original finish, steamed out all the dings and dents then put a new beautiful finish on it. I was very proud of that beautiful M1 carbine... but the longer I have owned it the more I regret having refinished it. I removed a good bit of history of the weapon. The sweat and blood that was soaked into the stock. Some day I will buy a stock from that matches the original manufacture of the M1 carbine to put it back in a more original status... if I can find one.

This is just my experience, they are your rifles and you can of course do what you want with them.

Cheers!
Click to expand...
I get that. But, I picked up an Ishapur one time, $80 as it sat on the gun-show table all weekend, and the wood was so beat up no one wanted it. I picked it up and worked the action. Dang, it put a Krag to shame. The wood on it was so thick, that I was able to take it down to where there were no dents, dings or gashes. Also re-did the metal, as it had a thick coat of "choo-choo-train" black paint on it. (it had a beautiful parkerized finish underneath, but I did re-paint it black, which is "correct" for that rifle.) Anyhow, it's now one of the most beautiful rifles I own, stock seems to be rosewood or teak or something, don't know. It also had unit/rack numbers on it, I had an artiste friend duplicate those in their original location. Preserved that bit of history. So, in that case, I'm glad I did. On the other hand, I would not refinish my M1, or a Czech Mauser I have with "battle scars". It's never occurred to me to refinish any of my Short, Magazine, Lee Enfields, and I have a Lithgow that looks like it was in the desert shooting at Rommel. !!! My favorite hex-receiver 91/30 is well worn and battle scarred, but mechanically excellent and accurate. I'd not refinish it. So, to my mind there are exceptions. Most mil-surps I have owned have not been badly beat up. The Ishapur was a bit too beat up and ugly, a little too much history which looked more like storage history than use in the field. However, I'd do it again with that rifle.

Having said all that, I think the SKS's are more "fair game" for refinishing than relics from WW1 or WW2. ?
 
About 35 years ago I used to go to all the shows with a friend of mine who was an avid trader and seller. He'd take 2 or 3 tables and at that time I was not really into firearms as I am now.
There was an ammo dealer we called "Fat Steve" really nice guy who'd also sell guns. He had Chinese SKS on sale for $60 each with the bayonet. He must have had 300 boxes stacked up behind him, My friend said to me, buy 10 of them they'll be worth money, he did... I didn't 🥺
 
Ugly Sauce said:
I get that. But, I picked up an Ishapur one time, $80 as it sat on the gun-show table all weekend, and the wood was so beat up no one wanted it. I picked it up and worked the action. Dang, it put a Krag to shame. The wood on it was so thick, that I was able to take it down to where there were no dents, dings or gashes. Also re-did the metal, as it had a thick coat of "choo-choo-train" black paint on it. (it had a beautiful parkerized finish underneath, but I did re-paint it black, which is "correct" for that rifle.) Anyhow, it's now one of the most beautiful rifles I own, stock seems to be rosewood or teak or something, don't know. It also had unit/rack numbers on it, I had an artiste friend duplicate those in their original location. Preserved that bit of history. So, in that case, I'm glad I did. On the other hand, I would not refinish my M1, or a Czech Mauser I have with "battle scars". It's never occurred to me to refinish any of my Short, Magazine, Lee Enfields, and I have a Lithgow that looks like it was in the desert shooting at Rommel. !!! My favorite hex-receiver 91/30 is well worn and battle scarred, but mechanically excellent and accurate. I'd not refinish it. So, to my mind there are exceptions. Most mil-surps I have owned have not been badly beat up. The Ishapur was a bit too beat up and ugly, a little too much history which looked more like storage history than use in the field. However, I'd do it again with that rifle.

Having said all that, I think the SKS's are more "fair game" for refinishing than relics from WW1 or WW2. ?
Click to expand...
The wood on both my Isheys is pretty good, no need for a refinish I think-
IMG_0163.jpg
My BSA, on the other hand, is at the head of the que for some TLC. 😊
 
NIGHTLORD40K said:
The wood on both my Isheys is pretty good, no need for a refinish I think-
View attachment 1181158
My BSA, on the other hand, is at the head of the que for some TLC. 😊
Click to expand...
Oh yeah, those are decent. Mine was...not. !!! Seriously, it sat on a gun-show table the whole weekend for $80.00. No takers. I bought it the last hours of the last day. The second and third rifles both have rounded front sight ears. ?? Third one has a rounded .303 mag. ??
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

L
  • Locked
My first stock refinish (SKS)
2
Replies
25
Views
1K
magsnubby
M
T
  • Locked
Help me with refinishing my SKS
Replies
4
Views
754
Tim Currie
T
L
  • Locked
K31: Refinish stock or not?
Replies
8
Views
661
cracked butt
C
T
  • Locked
SKS Stock Finish?
Replies
7
Views
1K
briansmithwins
B
C
  • Locked
sling question for yugo sks
Replies
2
Views
558
carlrodd
C
Back
Top