doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com Why weren't old doubles sealed inside?

Rather than take over the thread on how to seal old doubles when restocking or refinishing, I've wondered for many years why the careful makers of fine old double guns didn't seal the insides of the wood at all where they were inlet to the stock or under the fore end iron, or at the end of the butt stock.

Maybe the really best guns did seal the hidden parts of the wood, but I've never seen an original old double gun, ever have any sealant or finish on the hidden insides of the wood, that I've ever taken apart.


Was it merely economy of manufacture?

Or was there some arguable reason they didn't?

Any information or opinions on this would be much appreciated.

I don't know why old doubles were not sealed inside, or were they ? Or some of them with something not now so apparent.
I have a book in front of me called The Shotgun Stock, design construction & embellishment. Author= Robert Arthur. Printed in 1971.
Page 153 Chapter 20, under the heading Gunstock Finishes, I read this.

"The next step is sealing, the sufficient application of some moisture resisting agent to all surfaces of the stock, both inside & out. The finish itself, as well as the sealer, should be as waterproof as possible."
O.M

With all respect, by 1971 the only American doubles made were the Model 21 Winchester and the Stevens 311, and maybe the reissue of the L.C. Smith. I've never had any Model 21's apart, but every one of my pre 1913 L.C. Smiths and all the 311's had no sealant whatever under the lock plates, in front of the butt plate, or under the forend iron, that I could see, anyway.

By 1971 they had super glue to seal the stocks, and polyurethanes, even Tru Oil and Linspeed.

Even my modern Citori and Beretta over and unders, have no sealant in the hidden parts of the wood, nor does my BSS or any other modern double I've owned.

I'm not saying no factory double gun was ever sealed under the visible parts of the wood, but I've had a bunch apart and never seen any trace of sealant or finish of any kind there.

By 1971 the custom stock makers were sealing the insides of the wood, but even then, I don't think the factories were as a usual practice.

Why?

The only rational reason I can think of is that time has always been money, and since the customer wouldn't take the gun apart before he bought it, they left anything he couldn't see unfinished and unsealed.

But then again, when Parker and Fox and Ithaca and L.C. Smith were all head to head competing in the market place, you'd think one of them would have dabbed just a couple of coats of their finish on the inside of the wood, then advertised it.

So maybe, they thought the wood needed to breath inside?

It's always fascinated me, every time I've taken some old gun apart.

Could be the makers all knew that their guns needed some kind of permeable wood surface to soak up the gallons of oil it's future owners would slather onto/into every metal surface?...Geo

992B,
Out of curiosity I pulled the butt plates off a couple of my modern Merkels, sure enough no finish of any kind. I wonder why as well.
Karl

The only reasonable conclusion considering the pervasive evidence. That and the "Why Bother" factor of course

It's cheaper not to do it. Plain and simple.

Don't assign a higher motive when a lower one explains the situation.

Possibly they were

Thanks to M D Christian for the following:
"This was submitted to Handloader Magazine, Jul/Aug 1970 by Harvey A Donaldson who said it was told to him by Frank Lefever, son of D.M. Lefever. He stated this was the method used in finishing stocks by Dan Lefever and other U.S. gunmakers and gunsmiths including Billinghurst, Brockway, Morgan James, and A.O. Zischang."

1. Place the stock in a sheet iron tank with enough linseed oil to cover stock. Stock was left for a day or so depending upon density of the walnut, a harder denser grain wood requiring longer than a more porous grain wood. Next was to remove the stock & stand to drain & leave for several days at least. Very Important: let stock dry completely; this first coat must be completely oxidized by the air before proceeding.

The rest of the process is about 2/3 down here under "Maintenance and Restoration"
http://lcsca.clubexpress.com/content.aspx?page_id=274&club_id=43784&sl=858381813

I can only speak for the gunmakers pre WW1:
I think we are looking through the lens of people who are interested in preserving these guns for eternity.
This was not the gun makers aim in the C19th and early C20th: they needed re-orders and repairs to keep their men working, restocking and re-barrelling were not just a service to their clients, they were good earners.
We see the effect of 100+ years of oil soaking, they really didn't intend the stocks to go beyond the use of a single user/owner, perhaps 50 years, more likely replaced or 'handed down' by 10-25.
Getting a really special gun restocked or rebarrelled was not a big deal financially. Most of the owners of quality guns were wealthy, some very wealthy, and labour was cheap.
You only need to look at the significant number of modest boxlocks that have been rebarrelled to see the effect.
I suspect that the number of guns that we assume to have 'original' stocks is far smaller than generally thought.

I don't put finish on the "Pet and pest" side.

As in, the only thing that will ever see it is either a pet or a pest.