doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion Classic & Custom Single Barreled Sporting Rifles @ doublegunshop.com A good topic for discussion.

I received the follow PM.

Michael,

I was wondering whether you would care to address the subject of restoration a little more. You have in the past shown us several examples of fine rifles that you or people you know have worked on. But many of the internet auction rifles people show on this forum may have once been fine rifles, but don't look to be in very good shape now. So my question is this: what is possible or desirable with some of these guns.

My perspective is probably a little off because of my automotive background. In that field a "barn find" is just that: it's only value is it's potential. If it is a quality car worth restoring it gets restored. In the gun world, there seems to be a certain reverence for "patina". Restoration seems to be almost a dirty word frequently associated with fakery.

I guess I'm still a car guy, because if the bore isn't in good shape I don't care whose name is on it. If you think the subject worthwhile feel free to respond in the public forum (or not at all, as the spirit moves you!).

I'll get my two cents in early to beat the rush. I fix what needs to be fixed and leave the rest alone. A "full restoration" will always be just that, with no character or history left for later owners. A good example would be a Parker pigeon gun that came to me with great barrels, a worn receiver and furniture, and the stock broken off at the wrist, with no chance of repair. Yup, a full restoration would have been the easy way out. I chose a top quality restock by Dan Rossiter with skeleton butt that matched the rest of the gun in wear. The style of stocking and forend is "Bo Whoop" including straight grip and 12" forearm with ivory inlay". No refinish of metal was done except screws. The end result was much better than anyone's full restoration. My "restoration" of classic American custom rifles would be similar, mostly addressing bad butt treatments, improper stock finish, and replacement of modern sighting.

I pretty much agree with eightbore except I like Smiths a lot more than Parkers (grin).

I WILL however sometimes add oil to a dry parched stock, just enough to blend in and protect the surface.

I'm a car guy too, and have decided that it's the difference in use life. The car has a very limited use life since it begins to wear out from the first moment of use and gets progressively worse rather quickly when compared to the life of the owner. A gun OTOH will normally last several lifetimes if cared for, and so its battle scars tend to be somewhat charismatic and even legendary at times.

How many 100-year-old cars have you seen with original paint and upholstery? If by some chance it WAS original and even stored in a barn, the finish would be long-since deteriorated to nothing. Rotten leather, rusted paint and pitted chrome, rotten tires and frozen parts, rusted engine rings and bearings, rotten gaskets and rubber parts, you get the picture. But a 100-year-old gun is frequently road-ready as-is, needing only ammunition and a preflight checkover for good safe performance. JMOFWIW.
Regards, Joe

I guess you do what you feel is right with your rifle. I like the restorations that Michael has discussed here - he has the work done by the best people in the country, and the rifle is restored to its former glory. I think that's entirely appropriate. More often than not, factory made rifles have no historical value. Handmade rifles are documents of a mix of cultures and carry more metaphysical weight. One Springfield sporter is no more important to society than another, unless it belonged to a famous person, so why not rebore and chamber it to a caliber you can shoot, if the original bore is shot out? The fact that a great Hoffman or G&H makes my hands shake is no indication of any sanctity as a historical document that should not be tampered with.

I remember a famous gunsmith from Colonial Williamsburg say that he had photos of most of the important Kentucky longrifles found in the past several years, in their as-found condition, since he was often present in the early stages of them being brought to light. Needless to say, their present condition is significantly...ahem..."improved". They disappear into collections and go from restoration to restoration, getting freshened up along the way until they look great. And the price rises accordingly. Often they reappear many years later at a price 10 or 20 times the orginal price with no mention or discussion of any restoration. He thought it would be wicked fun to publish photos of those rifles as they originally were, thus exposing the campaigns of restoration (often re-creation) that no current owner will admit to.

I have no problem making a rifle whatever it takes to make me happy. I generally like some condition, but it just depends on the rifle.

Interestingly, CNN had a little side story a few days ago about vintage cars no being more valuable "as is" rather than restored. I mean as in racoon and pigeon crap all over and the whole works.

Not for me.

I think J.D.'s above statements define the situation pretty accurately.

And if you follow the historical "collectors' groups" of both cars and guns......the pinnacle of cars is an all-out accurate restoration. They have shows and awards for such.

In the gun world, a well-cared for period piece likely has more appeal than the same having undergone a complete restoration.

And of course we also adhere to a "culture" that likely existed before our interest. Guns frequently fall into the same category as antique furniture.......the less you attempt to restore beyond functionality......the more value they retain.

If money was no object, which would you likely restore......Clark Gable's Duesenberg (already been done BTW), or Jack O'Connor's Model 70?

The respective cultures likely dictate you do the car and not the gun.

Having had a foot in both worlds over the last few decades, I have a lot of thoughts on the matter, but will spare y'all most of them. An original and rather presentable car from the 30's-60's should stay that way. You'll often get points for that at a show. (Beyond the 30's, it ain't likely to happen.) I have restored a few ratty 50's-60's British roadsters that would have otherwise be part of a Kenmore washing machine by now, thus saving them for posterity. Likewise, a gun will tell you if it needs 'restoration'. Egregious damage should be addressed and I see nothing wrong with replacing modern parts/Bubba additions with period correct parts. One last thought. If Kermit Roosevelt's African safari rifle turned up in deplorable rusty/rotted condition, then of course a full restoration is called for. Not so much for Uncle Joe's Savage lever gun that he carried while prospecting in the Yukon.

often times, less is more when it comes to restoration. I try to leave as much history and soul in the gun as is possible. The current condition often dictates what should be be done to the firearm. That and budget play the biggest role for most of my clients when determining what will be involved in the job. Here are 2 recently completed guns. The Henry retains much of its original patina on the case hardened parts giving it a much more "original" look and feel while the Jeffery looks darn close to new. The Jeffery required a much more extensive body of work including new wood and having the engraving re-cut. I personally prefer keeping as much original condition as is practical.

the Henry





the Jeffery

You only do as much as required to restore primary function of the item.But that can be tricky, what is the primary function of the tire on your car? Hint: hold air! It can not accomplish any of the other functions with out first completing the primary function.

Craig

I really like Eightbore's description above. I'd like to give his preference the term "conservative conservation", "gentle conservation", or "thoughtful conservation". It is a minimalist's view of gun renovation and it certainly has its merits. You get a gun that is improved to the point of increasing value, but without the negatives of a reduction of value from removing honest wear and character.

In eightbore's world, (and mine on some occasions), we'd target things like tig welding up buggered screws and recutting them. Perhaps a cleanout of the checkering and a few layers of oil if necessary, but not necessarily a ground up restoration of the stock. It's about retaining as much of the condition natural as is possible.

I have guns that would please the minds of eightbore and his kin quite a bit. On the other hand, I do like a ground up restoration to as-new if the gun was a good candidate for that activity as well. In lieu of buying a soulless new gun, there is beauty and history in a completely rebuilt gun by a known maker. There are Brit gunmakers that rebuild their 100 year old guns to as-new, bespoke to the new owner. There is beauty in that as well.

I find that the condition of the engraving, case hardened finish and overall metal condition is what drives my decision to "thoughtfully conserve" the gun versus "holistically restore" a gun to as-new.

I think those that adhere to eightbore's mantra get one additional point of preference: when a gun is thoughtfully conserved very little has been undermined with the gun. On the other hand, once a gun is full brought back to as-new there is no going back and the value/interest of the gun has been permanently altered.

This debate is no different than the collector car crowd. Some want as-new "living legends", others want to compete in the "survivors" class with original paint, original seats, as original as possible in every way. (as you can imagine, there are fewer and fewer of the latter)