doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com Stock Finish - Your Take

Hi all, kind of a lazy Sunday afternoon, so just thought I'd throw this out for some discussion.

Here's the question. What in your opinion are the pros and cons of these types of stock finishes:

Gloss (High Gloss) Poly Type

Satin

Oil

Any old comments will do, it's up to you.

You all have a great day!!

Greg

A glossy finish using Poly makes the wood look like plastic. Given that it is very durable though. Rain doesn't seem to have any damaging effects on it on the outside.When a glossy poly finish gets dinged it really shows up.

Satin is prefered by some. This can be a poly finish as well and very durable also. I personally don't like satin but that's just me.

Oil finish looks good and has a gentle sheen to it but it can be delicate when subjected to rain or crummy weather. There are some oil finishes out that have some poly in them with a drying agent that when built up look quite nice and have some durability to them. These finishes dry unlike linseed oil and have some life to them.

Just my two cents worth.

Regards, Gordon

I personally like a Tru-Oil finish that has been knocked down to a satin. I have seen some guns with the Poly finish that look good, but it is not my preference. Some oil finishes look good. I think it really depends on the period of which the gun is made. Somehow a modern Browning looks good in Poly, but not in oil or a satin finish. JMHO

If you are shooting 10,000+ a year through a comp gun poly or clear coat is needed or count on touching up quite often. Satin looks good but doesn't hold up in my experience.
bill

If you are shooting 10,000+ a year through a comp gun poly or clear coat is needed or count on touching up quite often. Satin looks good but doesn't hold up in my experience.
bill

You should see the book I'm compiling with all the emails back and forth to various friends about finishes. My take=there are as many takes as there are people. Some of the most "hyped" finishes I see no reason to ever use a second time. I also see the most knowlegable people I know keep trying new products, i.e. they haven't been 100% happy with one yet (and several of hte ones they have suggested I don't particularly care for).

This has been something of a progressio for me, so I'm interested in hearing from others any feedback on my experiences.

Oil finishes look nice, but my stocks always show visible water soaking in a real rain (BLO, Tung Oil). Even with urethane/oil finishes (True Oil, pro custom oil) the true "in the wood" finishes always absorb water and facial oil in my experience. For my purposes I would only use this type of finish on a fair-weather gun that wouldn't see a lot of hard use. (I live in the northeast, so I hunt in every weather from warm monsoon rain to zero degrees Kelvin).

Based on those experiences, I started building up the tung/urethane finishes a TINY bit more...it worked great, looks pretty good, but I find that with a lot of use the very thin buildup starts to look spotty much faster than I would have expected--it almost needs to be refinished after one busy hunting season or it starts to look uneven, patchy, etc. (and the dull patches still absorb water and oil like a sponge). This may be the best compromise, as it's still fairly easy to replenish the finish with this level of buildup.

After that, I figured I would try a more built-up finish but I didn't want a real gloss. I tried using 2 of the matte finishes that have a flattener in it, and built it up more than I would otherwise have. I think this could look ok, but my experience was that with the very dark-colored eastern black walnut I used in one case, any scratches in the finish from rubbing out showed up very visibly--forcing me to polish it right back up to a pretty high gloss in order to get the clarity I think the dark wood needs...it looks anything but matte, it's "shinier than the brass bedposts in a $2 whorehouse". The firswt finish (waterlox satin) dried so fast that it didn't self-level at all--I found it very difficult to work with and I ended up building it up thicker than I had intended in order to get an even finish after rubbing out. The other one I tried one of the matte finishes that has been talked about a lot recently (benmatte) and found that it's actully anything but matte--in fact it's pretty darn glossy even when hand-rubbed in--it's great to work with, but I think it's badly named and so far it doesn't really do what I had hoped.
I'll try a different matte finish (suggestions??) again on a lighter colored piece of english walnut before I give up on it, as others have told me this lighter wood won't show the fine haze of scratches from rubbing out nearly as much, but at this point I am still very much searching for the holy grail.

Please let me know when you find it.

On a lark (and from a suggestion from Chuck in California) I tried Min-wax wipe on poly in satin. I used it on a $400 Tobin 12 gauge, that I didn't really care about, with rather plain wood.
Following the directions, I built up a coat at a time for most of a month, knocking it down with steel wool between coats. The last coats were knocked down with various grades of wet-or-dri paper, out to perhaps 1200 grit. I rubbed it with a Birchwood Casey stock sheen of some sort at the end, but, didn't like the look, so I rubbed again with 3M "Finese-it" auto body polish, to which I added a bit of rotten stone from a shaker.
From a distance of 5 feet or so, it mimics a rubbed oil finish. It is water-proof as a wood finish comes, and hard as a rock. It much improved the figure of the rather plain wood. To say I was pleased with it is an understatement.
On a gun that gets used, polyureathane is almost mandatory. On a gun that gets talked about being used, use whatever traditional oil finish you want. They aren't weather-proof.
Best,
Ted

Hi all, great posts!! Say Ted, I just love that last sentence of yours, just great!

Anyone else?

All the best!

Greg

I have been using Watco Danish Oil Finish for some time. It has a soft finish, drys in a reasonable period of time and easy to apply..
THis is a Parker that was BAD, no figure apparent at all when I received it.

I second the Min-Wax wipe on Poly. It comes the closest looking like an oil finish, but with the resilience of the plastic cover.
That being said, I finished more wood with Tru-oil than anything, being easy to use and looking OK.

I use African Express London gun finish the most. I have done several stocks in it and have had great results. You can also modify the look from high gloss to satin based on how you apply the finish during the final few coats. It tends to help bring out the grain in wood as well.

Are you guys familiar with "Gunstock Finishing and Care" by Donald Newell? It is a must for those interested in finishing gunstocks. It has almost every trick in the book and discusses all kinds of different finishes.

Stallones,
I too like Watco Danish Oil. I usually slurry the finish in with 400 grit wet/dry and then wipe off with a clean cloth. I have used this on furniture and it really gives it a nice smooth sheen. I usually top the furniture with Tung Oil, sometimes up to 20 coats. I have used it on gunstocks doing it the same way, and then finished with a mixture of tung oil, linseed oil, spar varnish, japan dryer and some mineral spirts. Have also used True Oil and 0000 steel wooled the final finish to soften it.
Nice job on the Parker.

Ted,
Use the gloss poly first, apply thin and then for the finish coat use the satin. The satin is dilluted and doesn't have the properties of the gloss. Also if you use the water based poly it is a harder finish, as the dryer is water, not mineral based.

As far as being waterproof, they are all water resistant. Unless you coat the entire stock (inside) it is all irrelevant as to being waterproof as water will seep into that wood.

Something to consider:

Synthetic sealants effectively 'seal' the wood and don't allow it to breath. A proper oli finish does need a spot of oil rubbed in after a lot of rain but is harder wearing than many give it credit for.

You cannot stop moisture getting into the wood - it will get in!

Allowing it to get out evenly and gradyually through a proper oil finish gives it beter recovery time and the finish will go back with very little efort. Also, scratches and dents are easily dealt with.

I have to disagree with Ted; I hunt with all my guns in any kind of weather and they all have Tru-oil finishes. I find it easy to use and with a pleasing satin finish. After the gun has dried from a rain hunt, I rub in a coat of a mixture of 1/3 each Tru-oil, artists cold pressed linseed oil and turpentine. By the way, David (Furman), either you are exaggerating the cold Northeast temperatures, or you mean 0 degrees Celsius.0 degrees Kelvin is the same as -273 degrees Celsius...absolute zero! It doesn't even get that cold here in Wyoming :<).
Joe

I also disagree about oil finishes being poor in wet weather. They have used them in England (where it is known to rain from time to time)for who knows how long on better guns than I have without the stocks getting water stained. I think the biggest problem is people do not maintain the oil finish. I have oil finishes on all of my shotgun and rifle stocks and have no trouble with this type of finish. I have used these guns in all kinds of bad weather from down poors and ice storms, to snow storms.

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]

John M,
I am interested in hearing how you vacuum impregnate a sealer into the stock. I have used heat in the past to help draw oil deeper into the wood. As I do not have a background in polymer and coatings it is hard to understand how some of the sealers work better than others. All I can do is trial and error. Using a marine varnish as you suggest, are there any problems with using oil finishes, as they might not be able to be drawn into the wood very well due to the internal skeleton has been sealed through the vacuum process?

I have not made a vacuum box. However, my initial thoughts are that it would have to be sturdy enough to stand drawing an atmosphere, or so, of pressure.

As to coatings, go thee to a library and order in some of the newly published finish books for the woodworking fraternity. I'd suggest a getting few, as each author has their own ideas about preference3s and usage. Then just start comparing the tables of finishes. As well, reading thru a couple of them is giant leap for stock-finisher kind.

After vacuum impregnation and extraction the wood will not be a solid chunk of fossilized finish. With enough trial and error [scientific method ;~`)], most of the initial sealant varnish will be pulled right back out of the wood. In a lab, it has been demonstrated that it is nearly impossible to extract all of a liquid finish from a piece of sample wood. With some more trial and error, the minimal required residual amount needed can be established, by means of measurements of microscope and scale.

The exterior pores should have plenty of 'tooth' to take stains and finishes to achieve the final look. However, the traditional filling and polishing process should go quicker, as the fibers and vesicle walls are already sealed.

A dye could also be incorporated in a pre-finish impregnation vacuum process to stain the wood. As well, a tint could be given to the sealant varnish. Great colorants are on the woodworker finishing marget today. Lots and lots of mebbes, eh?

Unfortunately for my own continued participation, I have all the joys of self-employment, with very little time to follow up this suggestion. It's been in mind for at least a decade, every since I saw at a conservation seminar, the results of some impregnation/extraction tests of stabilizers used on historic wood

So, I end as I started: for the general weal. Finish tinkers and those of inquisitive mind are welcome to the idea. My own life is full, so even tho I think that the idea has merit, it is quite unlikely that I shall ever do more about it than to post it here and offer it as I have.

Happy hunting, one and all. Feel free to E-mail me, or get my phone number if you wish to discuss this. However, first read Hoadley and a couple of modern finish books, as most the answers to questions already lie within them. OTOH, if you just want to talk 'guns', what da heck? After 9PM, West End of lake Erie time,pliz.;~`)

Powder smoke and a dog; what more for happiness?

Yeah, right: I already thot of THAT! ;~`)

Min-Wax Wipe on Poly is my current favorite. I apply it using the sanded-in method. After the last 600 grit sanding with all pores filled, I wipe on a thin coat of satin and that's it. No rubbing out needed as it leaves a thin uniform film with just the right moderate gloss for me.

OB

What about the checkering with the Min-Wax? How do you deal with that part of the refinishing process?

binko

John, Why a vacuum box? Could not a vacuum BAG be used, the same as vacuum-bagging a boat during the fiberglass lay-up process?

Personally, I long ago settled on an English red finish, using Behlen's blood red stain, then about 20 coats of Tru-Oil, knocked back with 400-grit dry paper after every 7 or 8 coats. Once I've achieved the coverage I'm happy with, I put it away for at least a month, until it's gotten as hard as it's going to get. Then I knock the shine off it with 0000 steel wool, used very judiciously, until I end up with a satin finish. I do not, and would not, own a gun that I don't hunt and shoot with. I've never had a problem in maintaining a Tru-oil finish, rain or shine.

What do you mean "min wax on poly?" Is that a finish over a finish?

Nope, I meant Kelvin. Bottomed out the thermometer the other morning, so I figure it had to be colder than a witches...hence my "off the charts" temp rating, always wanted to see absolute zero from the comfort and privacy of my living room. Purely subjective, but I'm sure there's a grain of truth to it:) (Not unlike this duscussion) Reality it was only -32 F, but who's counting?

I'd post the picture of my frozen beard, but already got made fun of on another board for my visible (and frozen) nose hairs, and you good folks just don't need to be subjected to that.

I have no desire to refinish my stocks every time I'm out in the rain...or even every season. My guns are fancy by my standards but they are not high-grade and while well-cared for they donot get babied--for me, a stock finish should be relatively durable...barring anything catastrophic I think a finish should last several years at the inside before I need to redo it or touch it up.

Above comments about the emotion involved seem spot on to me--I invest a lot of my time and energy in this, so I want to like my finish in all respects in addition to gaining function. It won't ever be perfect, but we all have different wants and needs and there's no reason any of us should want or need exactly the same thing. And we haven't even gotten to aesthetics yet...

It's only the black body effect that keeps upstate NY from reaching absolute zero. But wind chill makes up for that. I like thinned Tru-Oil; works at low temps.

IMO: You can enhance the weather proofing and longevity of any stock finish by applying a good wax to it before outdoor use. I've personally used Flitz's Gun Wax with good results and have had a couple of guns survive a really good drenching without requiring a refinish.
Jim

I'm experimenting with a new finish I call "Cheater's Slakkum." It consists of boiled linseed oil, Japan Drier and just a dash of spar varnish thinned in turpentine. It gives a softer "glow" than Tru-oil and can be rubbed on more thinly for the final coat without leaving streaks. I rubbed this over Min-Wax Wood Finish (basically a stain/sealer) that was applied to the stock years ago and I didn't want to strip for sentimental reasons. The "Cheaters" built up more rapidly than I expected, presumably because of the sealing effect of the Min-Wax. For the ultimate in cheating, a neutral colored sealer might work better -- linseed darkens wood considerably, especially if it's an old can that has sat in your garage for 20 years and developed a lot of character.

Tru-oil works well but you have to live with the fact that it's a compromise between linseed oil and modern finishes. Near as I can tell, it's just a blend of linseed and polyurethane, thinned with mineral spirits. Most of the commercial "tung oil finishes" are about the same thing, based on the smell and they way they handle. I think Tru is designed to dry relatively fast so that it's possible to finish a stock with three or four coats over a weekend if you have to.

My Question?

Minwax Wipe-on Poly is a commercially available finish.

Ok...Thanks.....

That's not cheating. Bump up the proportion of spar var and you have a standard finish for exterior architectural woodwork.

Hi Ron,

Good question on the bags. I had dismissed them in earlier thinking on the count of possible solvent damage to the plastic. As well, I have been kinda stuck on the welded steel box because I wanted to put some heavy atmospheric traction to the interior of the stock vessels.

However, since this really the first time I've put this to paper, more questions than answers are bubbling up from my mental finish 'ferment pool. F'r instance: it is very difficult to get finish to permeate across the cell structure. How do I know?

Because I tried. There was a client who had a custom floor made of lumber cut from first growth walnut barn timbers. There were problems of finish, and actual tensile hardness. First I prepared as nearly perfect flat sawn and cabinet scraper'd samples as I could make. Next, I tried a couple of application methods, including extended puddling. Several dyed solvents were tested,using timed application techniques, Then, the wood was cross-sectioned and examined under the microscope against a grid.

My results indicated that even 100% dyed alcohol and acetone, were limited to a penetration of a three, to at the very extreme, a dozen cells. However, going from the end grain, as most of know, is like unto soda straws sucking up a soft drink. When I started thinking about stock wood, I really thought a 'magnum blaster' vacuum box would be needed to get X atmospheres.

However, your question caused me to consider two things: at what point in the stockmaking is it necessary to 'fossilize' the cells AND how deeply into the wood does this process REALLY have to extend? So: consider that the stock is very nearly finished, except for the very final line refinements and sanding. The inletting is complete.

Now, there is abundant open cell walls, tubes, vessels including end grain into which the finish may readily be wicked by vacuum. With a vac bag, there also would not have to be a total immersion pool. Also, whatever finish is being used, will be thinned to a predetermined state, and so will likely 'run' deeper than straight varnish.

Now I must go, but questions of 'how deep?' needs to be addressed. Also, will a 'shell' of finish [say 1/4 to a 1/2" deep]cause differential expansion and contraction stress against the 'core'? And, if this is such a good idea, why is it not more explored and part of the lore and literature? Is it it necessary or even desirable, given that a great many folks are pairfecktly satisfied with the finish they presently apply?

Adios.

JohnM, It all sound very interesting. But why not use pressure in and vaccuum out. Pressure treating gets preservative almost to the center of a yellow pine 6 x 6 if done well. However every solution may present an unintended consequence. Let's say we can get every cell and vescicle and bit of xylem and phloem of our cellulose sponge coated with a bit of our impervious finish of choice. Then we go hunting. And we fall and dent our masterpiece. How the hell do we steam that dent out now? I only ask this to keep those brain cells churning. They say it prevents Altzheimers you know.