Preserve or Restore

[only1asterisk]

I have come to be the guardian of a rifle that has been in my family for 4 generations. It is a Winchester 92 made in 1901. It has wear and tear from 70 years of hard use, but also shows great care. The hammer spring needs to be replaced and the magazine tube is loose at the muzzle. There is a bit of finish missing at the muzzle as well, but the rest is fairly intact. The gun has some collector value, but this is not an issue as it will never be sold.

I've been considering turning it over Doug Turnbull for a full restoration. The cost of the work will be more than the current value of the rifle, but I'm not worried about that either. Be sure to give me your thoughts and opinions.

 

[Dr.Rob]

I'd preserve the rifle in its present condition... truthfully if it's that old you should have it 'looked through" before firing anyway, by someone far more learned than me.

That being said, if the metal will hold up to it... you might as well keep shooting it.

If you don't care about altering the 'value' as a collecter, then why spend the $$ to have it 'restored'?

Make sure it's safe, keep it free of rust and oil the stock once in a while it may last another 100 years.

 

[only1asterisk]

If you don't care about altering the 'value' as a collecter, then why spend the $$ to have it 'restored'?

I guess I have the desire to see it put right. I wouldn't leave my grandfathers house without repair even if he build it with his own hands (he did). I'm going to have the rifle repaired and I will probably shoot it from time to time. The question is, do I stop at the bare minimum of required work, return the rifle to like new or something in between.


David

 

[victory]

wear gives a gun character. Keep it in good working order and don't worry about the wear.

 

[Freedomv]

The rifle has "History" that I would not want to erase.

When ever you look at or handle it you may find yourself immagining/ remembering who has carried it and where it has been etc.
I'm sure that there are many stories of hunts etc that should be handed down with the rifle.

Vern

 

[Evil_Ed]

I voted to preserve. If it was me I would get it restored to 100% working order but try and leave the finish intact the way it is, that gun earned those marks through use and it adds to the overall character of the gun if you leave them in place.

 

[J Miller]

If I had inherited a rifle like that, I would do what the original owner might have done. In other words, I'd get the hammer spring, magazine problem and any other mechanical needs repaired. Clean it thoroughly and then go shoot it.

I wouldn't even consider "restoration". From my viewpoint, restoring a gun like that destroys all of its history and personality.


Joe

 

[Gunsnrovers]

Depends on HOW the wear came to be.

I've seen some family guns that have a history of use. Worn stocks, handling marks, etc. To me, that is history and not something I would touch.

I have seen others that have shown neglect. To me, that is something I would correct.

Broken bits I would replace period.

Depends.

 

[Feanaro]

I would replace what needs replacing. No matter how pretty, valuable, or old I think of firearms as tools/adult toys. If I can't use it then I don't want it. I'd replace the tube and springs. I might hang on to those parts though, if only because I'm a pack-rat. How bad is the finish? Just some wear on the muzzle? If so, I'd leave it be. It's still functional and it preserves some of the history. If the finish is worn down to the metal, restore. Call it "honest wear", "history", or whatever else you want. To me it's badly worn finish that needs redoing. Then you can add some more history.

Someday I'm going to inherit a shotgun that my grandfather used(still got one more generation to kill off ) and if it's badly worn, I'll restore it. It's what my grandfather would do.

 

[JohnBT]

I voted, but that was before I got to the part about doing a real honest-to-goodness ground-up restoration. I say restore it and then wear it out again.

Also check out www.ronsgunshop.com

JT

 

[deputy tom]

As we say in the bicycle collector's arena,"it's only original once.It can be restored over,and over,and over...".The choice is up to you.I suggest you don't change what hasn't been changed in four generations.tom.

 

[Firethorn]

Another vote for replacing or repairing the broken bits, and leaving the rest alone.

Who's going to look for the original spring? Do you think that the Model-T's the collectors drive around still have their original oil filter? And while I don't know what fixing the magazine tube would entail, but as long as you're not replacing it, it shouldn't affect the value.

I know that I'd value an operational, maintained weapon more than an unsafe, broken 'original'.

*edit:replacing or repairing