Food for thought:
Pretty much every ex-military gun out there that is in the hands of collectors has seen some form or 1st, 2nd or even 3rd line work via armours. The Un-touched Milsurps are in museums, pattern rooms or buried on an old battlefield somewhere. Ones in pristine condition were likely never issued (but most likely have seen 3rd line repair) or have seen further refurbishment after service.
Some of these old armours and civilians alike continued and continue to work at restoration of old stuff. In many cases this work is easily replicating the differing lines of military repair and could easily pass as 'original'. So what is original? What came out of the factory, or what came out of the military stores upon surplusing?
I look at it like this: the wood is deteriorating the moment it is cut down in the forest. Most preservation methods originally used on military gun stocks are pretty poor performers (tung and linseed oils and shellac for the most part).
The grime, dirt, and further oils that have embedded in the stock from use are deteriorating that wood further.
Cleaning and preserving the wood using period methods and materials with modern museum methods of restoration work should not remove the value, as leaving it alone will allow it to continue to deteriorate. If you are at all concerned with devaluing it though, best to leave it alone as my line of thinking appears to be in the minority amongst serious collectors.
Pretty much every ex-military gun out there that is in the hands of collectors has seen some form or 1st, 2nd or even 3rd line work via armours. The Un-touched Milsurps are in museums, pattern rooms or buried on an old battlefield somewhere. Ones in pristine condition were likely never issued (but most likely have seen 3rd line repair) or have seen further refurbishment after service.
Some of these old armours and civilians alike continued and continue to work at restoration of old stuff. In many cases this work is easily replicating the differing lines of military repair and could easily pass as 'original'. So what is original? What came out of the factory, or what came out of the military stores upon surplusing?
I look at it like this: the wood is deteriorating the moment it is cut down in the forest. Most preservation methods originally used on military gun stocks are pretty poor performers (tung and linseed oils and shellac for the most part).
The grime, dirt, and further oils that have embedded in the stock from use are deteriorating that wood further.
Cleaning and preserving the wood using period methods and materials with modern museum methods of restoration work should not remove the value, as leaving it alone will allow it to continue to deteriorate. If you are at all concerned with devaluing it though, best to leave it alone as my line of thinking appears to be in the minority amongst serious collectors.
