Just read the ariticle in the new Rifle magazine by Pearce concering Restoring Antique Firearms. He says that if an antiqure firearm has not been altered in any way it should not be refinished or customized, but that if it already has some sort of modification done its okay to either refinish it or modify it. Well, if the first theory is true, then wouldn't it hold that if you got ahold of an antique that had something done to it the only proper thing to do would be to replace what was changed with an original part and leave it as it is.

Should antique guns be modified or customized? Because a person owns a valuable old firearm, should that person be allowed to change or customize it; or because it is historical should it not be changed or customized no matter who owns it.



Blue

Blue you trying to start a fight here?

I would say "it depends....."

There are so many factors, including the persons own philosophy on whether a gun is meant to be used or simply looked at, or used as a historical reference.

And of course some classifications change, for example a springfield 03 that was sporterized in the 40's or 50's has a unique character unto itself.

Now I think those are cool, but I wouldn't hack up a minty mauser 98 of some rare vintage to get a useable action..

More often than not restoring antique firearms will deteriorate the (historic) value.

It certainly is not unethical and clearly is a personal thing.....however it does affect the resale value.

Personally, I wouldn't hesitate to use the action only in a custom rifle from a M-70 or a '98 Mauser.....it's purely a matter of choice!!!

For the most part, I agree with what Brian Pearce said in his article. The only antique rifles I own are a trio of Model 1892 Winchesters in .44-40, and they are in 100% original condition. One of them is well-worn, but with a lot of history to go with it, while the other two are in superb condition and little used. The "well-worn" '92 won't be retouched or restored in any way, and of course neither will the other two.

I am trying to purchase my great-grandfather's Model 1892 .44-40 rifle from a second-cousin of mine who lives in California. My great-grandfather bought his rifle (2nd-hand) in 1903 and it was his only rifle until his death in 1953. He actually used it in self-defense, and for all of his hunting, from jackrabbits to deer to bear. That rifle has an amazing history, and of course if I end up in posession of it, it won't be retouched or restored no matter what!

Pearce is right - many restoration projects destroy a great deal of history, and mostly for the sake of cosmetic gratification, which is an idiotic payoff. Refinished rifles are seldom worth as much as original rifles, either. Worn metal and flaked, dented walnut tells a story that shouldn't be lost to history, especially at the hands of those who have no heart, soul, or vested interest in history.

The rifles that SHOULD be restored are those beaters or parts guns that are ready for the scrap pile.

AD

Refinishing antique guns will alert the AGBI and they will come pound on your door and haul you off. You could be faceing 25years to life in Prison max or face house arest and forced to do comunity service restoreing old pot hole roads or paint old antique bridges under the suppervision of armed guards.

Roger and Allen

Roger - I never voted democratic in my entire life, mainly for the very same reasons that most people do vote that way.

Allen

We see a beautiful old Packard or 55 T bird driving down the street and we inquire of the owner and he states that they were rusted hulks that he restored, and we praise him for keeping a " sense of history".

I often wonder, some of these old guns seem so darn valuable, and they are traded between collectors so many times that more than likely nobody remembers their history anymore. If they are so valuable then why don't the gun companies make them today so that everybody can have one!!!

Most of these old guns were just tools when they were first purchased. Why do we revere the guns so much, but could care less about the hammers and the shovels and the plows, etc.

Blue

Firearms were meant to be used and enjoyed. A proper restoration will increase the longevity of the firearm, often for several generations. The trick is to use "proper" techniques that are authentic to that particular firearm. This tends to be expensive, but it enables the next generation to use a firearm that would otherwise become a "wallhanger," or worse. We owe it to the firearm's maker as well, to keep their creations alive.

Firearms with direct historical significance are usually found only in museums, so they are not an issue at our level.

As for value, a quality restoration will enhance most firearms, but possibly detract from others. A little bit of research will determine which is the case. If you are a collector, it is important that you know what you are collecting. You will need to know the difference between a restored firearm and a fraudulent one.

I think restoring is alright as this would increase it's longevity, I mean the sphinx has been restored a couple of times, was it right to have done that ?? I say yes as it may not be here if we had not have done that.

I recently restored a first year (1913) 16 gauge Fox Sterlingworth. It had a lot of history all right. A dog chewed the stock at the toe and the repair was made with a piece of ebony to which a Pachmyer white line pad was expoxied. The forend had been given the same ebony treatment. The barrels were down to bare steel and had lots of historic rust pits. The color case was completely gone from the receiver. The only history that I could see was one of use, abuse and neglect. Now that it has been restored to its original condition, one can see what fine gunmaking was like in "historical times". And ya know, I don't feel one bit unethical. But I will agree with the others, it all depends on the gun and the owner. I've got a couple old Winchesters that belonged to my great grandad, and I'm leaving them just the way they are.

I once went to Wall Drug where they have the original axe that George Washington used to chop down a cherry tree as a young man.

It was very carefully displayed behind some glass in a display case. There was a posted description of the axe next to the display case that dealt with how Wall Drug came to acquire this most sought after piece of American history.

I read in the description that over the years several people have undertaken the job renovating Washington's axe when it fell into disrepair.

Apparently the axe head has been replaced 3 times and the handle 4 times, yet this is the original axe George Washington owned.

The old gun is your property so you can do with it as you wish. I have a few old ones that I don't shoot much. I just like them in their orginal condition.

Since I like the old M70's I get a little upset when somebody wants to make one into a custom but what the heck. Many of them have steel or aluminum buttplates anyway.

For instance two of my safequeens are pre 64 Featherweights. One is a 30-06 and the other a .358. Try shooting one of those with a tee shirt in the summer.

It is your gun. Do with it what you want.

muck

Did you make 'em an offer on it?

AD

IMO, the only time restoring an "antique" firearm would be unethical, is if the firearm is restored for the sole purpose of falsely representing it to be in original, unrestored condition to increase its value. Otherwise, if you legally own it, you can restore it, destroy it, or use it for a fence post.

Having said that, restoring a collectible firearm is usually "unwise" IMO and often done out of a misguided intention to improve it.

I have 'restored' guns already. I do not like stocks without finish that will crack and degrade further. I do not like bare barrels that are prone to rust. I don't care a bit if someone claims i destroyed its antique value, its funtional value is what i am after.

I certainly dont think its "unethical" to restore older guns but can detract from the value of some. This is not always important though. An example is my grandads pre-64 Model 94... by most this gun would have been in 90% condition, and thats great, but it is a gun I would never sell, and its monetary value is not a concern of mine. This is a gun I "restored", did alot of work on it. I hand stoned the action, did some minor border work, and hand stocked it myself in a wonderfull blank. It took me along time to work on this rifle, it looks good, and I have and do hunt with it without guilt. I think my grandad would have been proud.