Ag42b- which finish is original?
- Thread starter chichibabin
- Start date
burnt_servo
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- right in the middle of b.c.
to me the less shiny rifle looks like it may be original .
only because it resembles the rifles I have , and I am fairly sure they are original .
the edges on the less shiny rifle are also sharper , the other rifle appears to be either well used or possibly sanded and refinished .
that said , did they do arsenal refinishing ?
only because it resembles the rifles I have , and I am fairly sure they are original .
the edges on the less shiny rifle are also sharper , the other rifle appears to be either well used or possibly sanded and refinished .
that said , did they do arsenal refinishing ?
The AG-42B's are known to have a few variations in terms of finish, also depending on the date manufactured.
The top one of the bottom two pics looks more correct to me. However, both may be correct if the bottom one was given an arsenal overhaul.
The finish originally should be very much like the Swedish Mauser rifles, with sharp and defined crisp wood lines, with no dulling from sanding.
The very first pic is more correct IMHO.
The top one of the bottom two pics looks more correct to me. However, both may be correct if the bottom one was given an arsenal overhaul.
The finish originally should be very much like the Swedish Mauser rifles, with sharp and defined crisp wood lines, with no dulling from sanding.
The very first pic is more correct IMHO.
Pick a spot on the shiny one's stock, in the mag well or under butt plate, somewhere that is not usually visible and see if alcohol affects the finish. If so, it's lacquer/shellac. which is common on beech military stocks, especially re-furbs. Doesn't guarantee whether the military did it or a civilian owner did.
Do you see this re-fub mark on the stock?
Do you see this re-fub mark on the stock?
Last edited:
Easily comes off with ethanol so I guess it's lacquer. The one with the non-lacquer finish has that stock mark, the other one *might* have it, but it's impossible to tell through the layer of stuff. The stock screws are all staked in place and don't look like they've been messed with, so the rifle probably hasn't been out of the stock, and it's thus less likely it was refinished by someone later on?
In any case thanks for all that gave their opinion.
In any case thanks for all that gave their opinion.
Looks to me like the shiny one has been refinished. The handguard to stock on the other one is perfect as you might imagine it would be, the shiny one has a gap and looks rounded from sanding. The finger grooves on the other one are also nice and sharp, the shiny one looks to be sanded as well as they are rounded on the edges.
Ian
Ian
For posterity:
After verifying with some people at another forum (just in case, somehow, some rifles ended up like this) they definitely agree it's a refinish, notably due to handguard and fingergroove as mentioned here. They even pointed out the rounded buttstock area (which seems very obvious now looking at it). Sigh.
Is there any universe where it's worth my time to refinish it? The wood underneath this crap seems to look like the correct stock so it may at least look better, but a lot of stuff has probably just been sanded off... Obviously I'd be telling whoever buys it that it's been messed with in any case.
After verifying with some people at another forum (just in case, somehow, some rifles ended up like this) they definitely agree it's a refinish, notably due to handguard and fingergroove as mentioned here. They even pointed out the rounded buttstock area (which seems very obvious now looking at it). Sigh.
Is there any universe where it's worth my time to refinish it? The wood underneath this crap seems to look like the correct stock so it may at least look better, but a lot of stuff has probably just been sanded off... Obviously I'd be telling whoever buys it that it's been messed with in any case.
