Wood is a cellulose sponge, containing harder structural elements, but a sponge, nevertheless.
As an oversimplified example, imagine taking a sponge off the kitchen sink and trying to apply a permanent 'seals all finish'. If you look at the end grain with even 10X magnification, no matter how dense and solid wood may appear to be, the anatomy is evident.
ALL of the discussions and recipes and results and arguments are subordinate to the actual structure of wood, which is NOT what we fondly perceive as a pretty and homogeneous solid material. The extant gunstock finishing literature and discussions rarely, if ever, discuss this aspect: the finisher is applying a thin skin of a sealing material on a much bulkier, completely porous material, that was once filled with water, but is now mostly hollow where the water once resided.
In past discussion there have been hundreds of 'surefire' and favorite finishes discussed. Some work much better than others. Some finishers can make a formulation work for them, that would be a PIA for another fellow. Ted S's application is typical of the simpler ones which I have found to have both performance and aesthetic value. But it's certainly not the only finish that works, to the satisfaction of application and performance for each person. Nor, do I think,is there any such material and procedure that would fit that description.
Note that I do not compare beauty, glow or dazzle or other properties of the optical window which folks so lovingly apply to the wood. One could use rubbed-in human skin oil and eventually get the pores filled, with a sorta greasy shine.
In order to seal the wood, the interior cell walls, vessels, and other permeable membranes need to be prevented from taking up water again, which they happily do so at the slightest opportunity. Even soaking the wood for a long time in a tank of finish MAY not accomplish that. It may not provide complete permeation. As well, you have just added substantial weight, and none of us will live long enough to find out how long that finish-logged wood will take to cure hard.
However, for the general weal and finish tinkerers everywhere, may I suggest:
Vacuum Impregnation of the stock, with a hard marine varnish [Pro-fin], and then after fully filling the interior vessels and cells, a Vacuum Extraction of a certain percentage. That percentage of 100% interior sealant coverage will have to be determined by experimentation, and probably measured by weight of the wood before and after [as a suggestion].
Now, the ideal which I am striving to achieve, is that all the porous material within the wood to have been exposed to finish, and 90% or so of it be drawn right back out. Then the stock is set to cure. In effect the WOOD SKELETON has been fossilized with a highly water repellent material, that is compatible with almost any surface treatment which the finisher wishes to apply: to his own artistic and aesthetic satisfaction.
Over in the custom rifles forum, there have been been finishing topics and knowledgeable contributions. Especially so, has been one by SDH-MT, who has been pursuing the perfect finish for as long as he's been working. ;~`)For many years, in my trade as furniture build/repair/restore/conserve guy, this finishing discussion has been playing in a mind-loop. There is never going to be any one answer, or technique, or material that will suit all purposes and applications, let alone the emotional needs of the user.
However, to get a wooden stock to be as stable and waterproof and have as durable a surface as one could want, my conclusion is that whatever one wishes to use for an exterior skin is of little account, COMPARED TO the vast, cavern-filled core.
At this point, however painful it will be, one must become acquainted with Bruce Hoadley's easily accessible work "Understanding Wood". Well, OK; at least look at the pictures. The anatomy of wood is simply not solid; it is a hardened skeletal sponge. Keep the liquid and vapor water out of that, and the final finish is mostly just cosmetic.
As to the actual subject of finishes, there are wonderful, scientifically based comparisons of the qualities each component and mixture brings to the final visual top top film. Look up about any good Wood finish book published in the past five years or so, and use the tables of comparison. I know that this presupposes rational thought being applied to a highly emotional subject. That's IS lot to ask, considering the elephantine discussions that 'finishes' have previously engendered.
But I tell you straight and true: without a simple, science-based understanding of the properties of wood AND the properties of finish and finish components, then we are merely having a good 'hot stove and campfire', anecdotal, shoot the b-shix, good ol' time. I say this not to denigrate any contributor's experience, accumulation of recipes, wonderful results and the like. It is just that such an art as that to which we all aspire, is in the end, a technical matter.
If it is true that Francis Bacon developed the idea of scientific observation and Western Civ refined it into a knowledge revolution, then perhaps it would make sense to start an inquiry into "What is wood?" and "What comprises a finish?" with the current publications of scientists and industrial standards.
The TRVTH is out there.
[Thank you, Mulder and Scully]
