G43 Stock Rejuvenation

Brian, as I stated in an earlier post, it is his rifle and he is more than welcome to do whatever he wants to it. But that is not the point.

First of all, the owner of this rifle was wrongfully advised by a 'trusted friend' that mineral oil would be a suitable way to refinish the wood. Had he been told beforehand that mineral oil would degrade the wood fibers and glue causing his stock to delaminate over time, I have a pretty good feeling he would have taken a different approach.

What's done with this rifle is done. My post was meant to be informative in hopes of preventing new or unfamiliar collectors from making the same mistake. It's no different than teaching someone why putting low octane fuel in a car that requires high octane fuel is a bad idea. Learning how to properly take care of and maintain a historical rifle is equally as important.

As for the whole "should" thing...Your views are overly simplistic... and clearly extreme if you think something as historically significant as the Mona Lisa is okay to throw in a furnace just because whoever owns it at the time feels like burning it. Many historical buildings, and artifacts have been lost with your same mentality. The Mona Lisa is actually a great example, Brian. The Nazi's thought the same thing back in 1945 when they were in possession of the painting. Had the Allies not shown up in Altaussee when they did the Mona Lisa as well as a slew of others would have been a pile of ash years ago. Unfortunately, 1000's of other priceless paintings were destroyed when the Nazi's decided to torch what they couldn't take with them.

As much as I would like to, I can't take my rifles to the grave. These rifles are historical and we are only their caretakers until they are passed down to the next generation. I would like to think that someone who was shown how to properly take care of a rifle would want to utilize that knowledge to preserve it. If they still decide to slather mineral oil on the stock after knowing the detrimental effects it will have, it's their rifle and power to them. But what a shame that would be.

I can't afford to "buy up as many originals as possible." Sure I could start a not-for-profit foundation but I doubt that would do much good. You know what will help though? Hopefully this thread when a new collector searches for how to refinish a G43 on google.
 
First, I agree that it would be a shame if this was done unknowingly and based on poor advice. Life is a series of lessons and if the OP learned from this one it may be that his friend is not so trustworthy with his advice as thought, or maybe not. That's not for me to decide. Either way, this is a fairly insignificant and relatively painless lesson, in the Grand Scheme.


Meridius said:
As for the whole "should" thing...Your views are overly simplistic... and clearly extreme if you think something as historically significant as the Mona Lisa is okay to throw in a furnace just because whoever owns it at the time feels like burning it. Many historical buildings, and artifacts have been lost with your same mentality. The Mona Lisa is actually a great example, Brian. The Nazi's thought the same thing back in 1945 when they were in possession of the painting. Had the Allies not shown up in Altaussee when they did the Mona Lisa as well as a slew of others would have been a pile of ash years ago. Unfortunately, 1000's of other priceless paintings were destroyed when the Nazi's decided to torch what they couldn't take with them.
Click to expand...

That's a terrific Straw Man argument. Nazis in control of stolen property is a completely different scenario than a person in a Free Market economy freely and rightfully purchasing an item (any item) and doing with it as they see fit.

If this Widget is so important, somebody else "should" be buying it so the present owner doesn't destroy it. If they choose to destroy it without telling anyone, C'est la vie. The previous owner should have been more careful who they sold it to. Somebody "should" be out there yelling from the roof-tops "Don't burn the Mona Lisa! We'll pay you $10,000,000 for it!" and if the guy says that's not enough, they make it $15 million, or $50 or $100... or the thing just isn't important enough. It shouldn't have been sold on the Free Market if it was that important.
 
It's the disregard for historical significance, Brian. Regardless of how the property is obtained, destroying or ruining something that is historically significant is in poor taste to say the least. How the property was obtained really doesn't matter when the end result is the destruction of a priceless artifact. What the Nazi's did during the war is simply an extreme response to your extreme example.

Clearly this rifle is not stolen and it is clearly no Mona Lisa. This rifle is not an extreme example. It is not a priceless artifact. It is, however (or was), a rare and very well preserved historical rifle. It's originality was ruined, its value was lowered and I highly doubt the owner did it knowingly.

Instead of focusing on what is important here, about teaching what a collector can do to preserve their rifle, you are sidetracking the topic completely. No one is telling anyone they don't have the right to do what they want to their rifle. For the sake of this thread quit making it about what you can or can't do with your property. No one here is questioning that right.

Guess what, I ruined the wood on my first Mauser when I was 15. I wish I knew then what I know now. These posts were meant to be informative and nothing more.
 
I'm sidetracking the discussion? This from the guy who resurrected a long dead thread JUST.... Oh, never mind. That's rich. Ok, you win. It's just not worth my effort.:rolleyes:
 
Ok, Brian. Great attitude. You are more than welcome to spare me your "efforts."

This thread came up in my search to remove a oiled finish from a G43 just like this one in an attempt to restore it. This thread was about refinishing a G43. My comments were also, surprisingly, about refinishing a G43. Relevant? Sounds like it.

No one here was questioning the rights of the owner in regards to his property, yet somehow this thread has sadly evolved into a discussion about just that, thanks to you. I would say that's sidetracking, no?

It's unfortunate that a few comments about historical preservation and wood treatment relating to the topic at hand have turned into this. It verges on ridiculous. Based on the fact that you think this is about 'winning' or 'losing' makes it pretty evident you could care less about what was originally trying to be said here and more about picking a fight over something that was never being discussed in the first place. You have too much time on your hands my friend.
 
Last edited:
Holy zombie thread.

First of all, mineral oil is not a finish. I did not refinish anything.

Second of all, if you saw this rifle in person, you would have no idea I did anything to it at all if I didn't post it here. That's the point of mineral oil.

Third- the stock was in bad shape, not aesthetically, but physically. The wood needed to be cared for. It was painfully obvious that it was in brittle shape. I guess I should take a notoriously overpowered 8mm rifle to the range, and let it slam around in dried out brittle wood? OK...sure.

I am probably one of the largest purists on this forum regarding milsurps, but purism will not get in the way of preserving a rifle however I think fit. So don't drop the whole Purist Book of Cliches on me, it is not needed. Nor is it even pertinent or relevant to what's been done here.

I don't care if you think I destroyed it. I don't care if you think I did something improper. You are fully entitled to your opinion, and to voice that incorrect opinion loudly.
 
Last edited:
I also find it funny that you mention historical significance & originality, blast mineral oil, and then recommend Howard's feed & wax. I don't recall the 3rd Reich ever calling for the use of that particular product. I'm not sure though...I've yet to read Himmler's or Dietrich's treatise on stock preservation and originality.

And for ye doubters...
The g43 next to two other German WW2 laminate stocks that have had nothing done to them. Does the g43 actually look refinished? No. Because it's not refinished. It looks exactly like it should.

IMG_5218_zps5af5af50.jpg

IMG_5217_zpsfd6c7f77.jpg

IMG_5219_zpsfcde0f5d.jpg
 
Howard's feed and wax is a wood preservative that will protect the wood while leaving the original finish completely intact. It is one of the few products that will do so, and you will find that many others who collect these rifles agree (try a google search). It is not a stock refinisher. Mineral oil is, and despite what you claim, has been used to refinish the stock on your rifle. Neither were used by the Germans. The difference is one is a preservative and the other is a refinisher. Your stock is dry because the moisture (not oil) has evaporated out of the wood over the years.

You mention caring for your stock so that the dry wood isn't damaged at the range... Yet the use of mineral oil will result in exactly what you were attempting to prevent. A petroleum based product such as mineral oil will degrade the glue in your laminate and the wood will begin to separate over time. Your wood will also continue to darken as the years pass.

As for comparing your G43 to your K98 stock... would the average collector be able to tell it had been refinished? Maybe not. Would a knowledgable German rifle or G43 collector be able to tell? Absolutely. German rifle manufactures each finished their rifles differently-- BLM, Walther and Gustloff Werke each have their distinct characteristics and nuances. With exception of early BLM rifles, these rifles exhibit later war finishing techniques and do not share the same boiled linseed oiled (not the same as home depot BLO) finish as the K98 you are comparing it to.

Everything I mentioned was based on many years of collecting German rifles and recent knowledge regarding stock preservation. You are happy with your stock refinish and that's all that matters, my comments were not meant to offend.
 
I thought I read that the Germans wiped down their wood and leather with Balistol, which I think has mineral oil in it.
 
Here is a post from another forum regarding ballistol:

"IMHO, very poor idea for a stock for any kind of conservation, even worse idea for leather, which Ballistol was and supposedly can be used for. Good idea if Ballistol is all you have and you're marching, in combat, and living outside ca. 1939-1945, storing firearms outside and in tents, and want to make your stock water resistant and don't care about preserving it. Those were the circumstances of its original use. They used Ballistol on slings and such as well and it waterproofed but will also destroy them eventually."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top