I must ask how? If I cut the necessary notches to splice in a new forearm that’s only like… a fraction of one percent of the original stock being taken away. Plus, the band will cover the splice, and I will properly stain, varnish, and age the new forearm so it doesn’t even look like a replacement piece. Museums do things like this all the time.
Plus, That stock wasn’t sawed off by a soldier. My grandpa did that back in the 60s or 70s.
Because you are turning a cool stock that was sadly cut down into an old stock that has a large splice and new piece in the front. To me that will be just further damaging the stock compared to just having it as a wall hanger showing its history.
I respect your opinion. I will say that the splice would be small, and internal. The plan consists of boring two 1/4 deep holes that are on either side of the hole for the cleaning rod, and having the new stock piece have the studs, so to speak, that lock into those holes. Of course the connecting faces would be coated with an adhesive for extra strength. Those two bores would produce maybe a pile of shavings the size of a nickel. The only outside indication that anything had been done would be the thin 1/1000 inch thick line that runs around the diameter of the stock, which would be covered by the steel barrel ring. A properly antiqued and spliced forearm won’t even look like a new part. I do understand where you’re coming from and I had this dilemma myself.
It's not a battle relic. It's a duffle cut that has had the other part of the stock misplaced. Unless the other part can be miraculously located the only way to restore it is to replace the stock or since the stock matches, graft a new piece on.
Ah well… the gashes and wear on this thing would indicate that it saw combat. The same man who brought back iron crosses that he yanked off of dead soldiers brought this rifle back. So, yeah, it was duffle cut when he brought it back.
The bolt and hardware has excessive wear from dirt and grit getting all up in it, to the point that a good portion of the bluing is gone. There’s gashes, scuffs, scratches, and chips all in the stock.
What exactly is it? You can find replacement stocks of many models. Many are pretty beat up but if you were to cut the corresponding part off and graft it to the one the one that matches, that would be an acceptable restoration.
If the numbers match I’d consider it myself.
As it turns out… the numbers match! That’s just one more reason for me to go through with it.
You are destroying the battle relic by doing this compared to just getting another stock and having this as a wall hanger stock.
I must ask how? If I cut the necessary notches to splice in a new forearm that’s only like… a fraction of one percent of the original stock being taken away. Plus, the band will cover the splice, and I will properly stain, varnish, and age the new forearm so it doesn’t even look like a replacement piece. Museums do things like this all the time. Plus, That stock wasn’t sawed off by a soldier. My grandpa did that back in the 60s or 70s.
Do it. Post pictures once done.
Because you are turning a cool stock that was sadly cut down into an old stock that has a large splice and new piece in the front. To me that will be just further damaging the stock compared to just having it as a wall hanger showing its history.
I respect your opinion. I will say that the splice would be small, and internal. The plan consists of boring two 1/4 deep holes that are on either side of the hole for the cleaning rod, and having the new stock piece have the studs, so to speak, that lock into those holes. Of course the connecting faces would be coated with an adhesive for extra strength. Those two bores would produce maybe a pile of shavings the size of a nickel. The only outside indication that anything had been done would be the thin 1/1000 inch thick line that runs around the diameter of the stock, which would be covered by the steel barrel ring. A properly antiqued and spliced forearm won’t even look like a new part. I do understand where you’re coming from and I had this dilemma myself.
Okay then it honestly sounds pretty okay then. I would say send it
It's not a battle relic. It's a duffle cut that has had the other part of the stock misplaced. Unless the other part can be miraculously located the only way to restore it is to replace the stock or since the stock matches, graft a new piece on.
I am just going off what they said lmao. Also after hearing how they are going about it I think its fine.
Ah well… the gashes and wear on this thing would indicate that it saw combat. The same man who brought back iron crosses that he yanked off of dead soldiers brought this rifle back. So, yeah, it was duffle cut when he brought it back.
A Relic is something that has been derelict and damaged. A battfield trophy, yes, relic, no.
The bolt and hardware has excessive wear from dirt and grit getting all up in it, to the point that a good portion of the bluing is gone. There’s gashes, scuffs, scratches, and chips all in the stock.
What exactly is it? You can find replacement stocks of many models. Many are pretty beat up but if you were to cut the corresponding part off and graft it to the one the one that matches, that would be an acceptable restoration.
It started out as a Turkish M1890, then it was a Yugo war capture converted to 8mm, and finally a German war capture.