Restored or nol?

[Sneaky Gun Runner SASS 79775]

Didn't wanna hijcak BMC's addiction problem thread, but he got me thinking.

 

We all have seen some seriously nice firearm restorations. Without going into who is better or who you prefer, do you like a restored gun or do you like em the way ya found em?

 

I know there are a lot of variables here, but I am addressing a gun in good condition, working well, finish mostly gone, but not abused, just used.

 

I can see it both ways, but I personally would love to have a pre-1900 firearm that has aged well. If I wanted one that looked like it came out of the factory yesterday, I would buy a gun that came out of the factory yesterday!

[Buckshot Frank]

If the firearm has value as a collectible, you are better off not refinishing it.

 

With surplus military rifles, I will usually do a very light restoration on them. Basically take them apart, clean them up, possibly touch up some scratches, and refinish the stock with correct finish. Most of these have already been arsenal refinished at some point, so I look at it like I'm undoing some of the shoddy restoration work that was previously done. If it is original (not arsenal refinished), I just clean them up and make sure everything works right.

 

If it doesn't have much collectors value, do whatever makes you happy. Some people like brand new looking guns, some like the well used look. It is your gun, so it's your choice.

 

Edit: I just re-read your post and realized that you were asking opinions on looks. I'm with you; I prefer the well used look but well cared for look to my firearms. I gun is a tool, and I like mine to look like they are used as such.

[rippin kid]

I have my Great Grandpa's Army Colt 45 made in 1888 it's rough. Broken handle, all most no finish left and does not work. Worth big buck in nice condition do I fix it up or hang it on the wall?

[Buckshot Frank]

I have my Great Grandpa's Army Colt 45 made in 1888 it's rough. Broken handle, all most no finish left and does not work. Worth big buck in nice condition do I fix it up or hang it on the wall?

 

I would replace the broken parts to make it operable, but keep the original broken ones. That way, it could always be put back into original condition so the value would not be hurt. As far as the finish goes, leave it as-is. Re-bluing or polishing the finish will degrade the value.

[Abilene Slim SASS 81783]

Generally speaking, if a gun has collectible value and you intend to sell it some day for top dollar, leave it alone.

 

If you want to use it, you can do what's necessary to make it operable again, but you run the risk of lowering its value because the process may alter it's appearance. Repairing a split stock or removing corrosion so part function properly are just two examples.

 

Then you have to consider what the collectible value is. It might be a pre-1900 gun, but it might only be worth a couple of hundred dollars or less. Even if restoration lowers its dollar value, you've not lost much, but you have a cool gun to play with.

 

I like functioning, old guns that look nice. I'll never be able to afford a gun where I have to worry about it's collectible value anyway, so I do what's necessary to make it functional, but not a like-new restoration. The cost of those restorations can often exceed the value of the gun. I only own guns I can play with.

[Just Ed]

I have a Colt that was refinished which destroyed the collectors value.

Here's what they did. Polish the firearm so much that it removed the dates

and the US from the frame. Address missing from the barrel. Really the only

thing left is the serial number which dates it 1882 and a DFC inspectors stamp.

If I understand Turnbull's web site his price starts at $3500 and goes up to

restore a Colt. Running Iron told me if I got the Letter they would restore

the firearm to the letter for $650. I guess I want to know if it's worth it

or should I just shoot it once in a while.

[Duffield, SASS #23454]

I have a New Service 44-40 that someone reblued. The only markings left on the gun are the serial number and part of the rampant colt. They did a beautiful blue job, but got carried away with the polishing and ruined the value. It still shoots good, so I enjoy that and try not to think about the missing lettering.

[Long Branch Louie]

I have a New Service 44-40 that someone reblued. The only markings left on the gun are the serial number and part of the rampant colt. They did a beautiful blue job, but got carried away with the polishing and ruined the value. It still shoots good, so I enjoy that and try not to think about the missing lettering.

 

I used to have a re-blueing business. They may not have gotten "carried away". If a customer wants all the pits gone, the only thing you can do is buff until the pits are gone. If a gun is pitted a good bit and you don't get all the rust out of the pitting, it comes out as little white specks in the reblue job. Personally, I don't like to buff away the markings on a gun, but sometimes people expected me to make a gun look like new again when it was really in poor shape. Polishing and reblueing a gun is dirty, hard, tedious work. It is not easy to polish and stay off the corners and if you're going for high polish, it takes a while and a lot of different polishing grits. Lots of times folks want a "like new" gun but want to pay a sandblasted and dipped price. That's why I got out of the blueing business.

[Crazy Gun Barney, SASS #2428]

Add me to the list of pards with an original pre 1900 Colt that was refinished poorly long before I was even born. his was my Great Uncle's gun and in the early 50's my Great Aunt took his "ugly grey" Colt to get re-blued as a birthday surprise. Heckuva surprise. My ColtThe whole thing was disassembled and then buffed very heavily. So as you can see in the picture, none of the seams between parts are smooth and even. They had even buffed the cylinder so heavily that the notches were too thin to be functional. Well, value was gone and it was a pretty paperweight, so I took it to a smith who had the notches recut. Had the whole thing tuned up and now that old Colt belches fire, brimstone and lead every chance it can!

 

I hate to see a gun that isn't functional. It was designed and built to be fired, so as long as it is safe to do so it should be!

 

 

If you look at the upper right of the screen with the picture of my Colt, there is a "Next" button that shows the first time this Colt was fired in probably 50 years! Nice ball of fire!

[Badger Mountain Charlie SASS #43172]

Well, the only guns that I own that have any historic value are a Remington Rolling block #4 my Grandfather gave me and I doubt that it is worth much to anyone else but me. I also bought a Enfield from Kleins in Chicago in 1962. I cut the stock down and then replaced it and made a sporter out of it. Straightened the floorplate and blued the metal. It now looks like a modern

rifle in 30-06. I used it to hunt back in the day and I still have a lot of respect for it since it was my first big caliber rifle. I sort of wish I had left it alone but I also enjoyed it over the years.

 

So I guess I can't answer your question for you.

[Charlie Harley, #14153]

To keep original or restore? That is the question....

 

The answer depends entirely on what you want to do with it. If possible reselling the gun as a collector piece is your goal, then by all means keep it original.

 

For me, my guns are meant to be loved, used for their intended purpose, carried to the field, and celebrated for their elegance of design. One of my dream pieces is to find a nice Parker or LC Smith that needs a little restoration work, ship it off to Mr. Turnbull to get the full treatment, and then carry it into a dove plot or upland game field to let the piece work it's magic again.