Third Party Press

Stock color question

D

daytonlawvol

Member
I have a G43 duv 444. The finish on the wood has a reddish tint, almost as red as the durafoil handguard but not as much. Were all G43s supposed to have the blonde color stock and mine was refinished at some point or did they differ according to where they were manufactured? This is the correct matching stock to the rifle, just wondered why I see some with a reddish finish and some without.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Tiger 2 Tank said:
Just depends. We'll need to see photos to accurately tell what's going on.
Click to expand...

The color often varies just like on K98's. Most have red glue, but there are a few white glue laminates out there as well. Generally stocks are blond to brown, but I have seen some with a dark red tint - pictures will tell the whole story. Some stocks were also unfinished (nothing applied), generally these are lighter whereas some stocks were finished or treated in the field and are correct as such. Lots of the real odd ball coloring or polishing was done post-war.

Regards
 
I will say that most, not all, but most G.43 bcd's that I have seen that were actually correct were that red tint stain.
 
8726889b1e9e5096479c757a53f73267.jpg
f17b069a8626e986f57d831aaf27e722.jpg
561ed885c9d22acb2d1c55d13adbe1c7.jpg
7832dc3ce39427b55422039279bbc0f4.jpg
4e2b6d66c5e050c25ee35bd718594d24.jpg



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Looks like a nice red glue stock on a G43 duv44 rifle. Surprisingly this color matches my G41 duv43. If the stock has been sanded probably very lightly. From what I can tell where the stock crossbolt is it still very crisp around that area.
 
Those side stock markings are sure nice and crisp. I "don't think" it's been sanded, but basing it only on those markings. Would be curious about the stock's keel and wrist markings too as that would help confirm that. The stock seems to have had a stain applied to it but unknown if post war or during the war. It most likely didn't leave the factory like that but soldiers darkened their stocks sometimes in the field. Just need a few more stock photos to confirm. My "vote" would be it was stained post war because it looks like the entire stock's nooks and crevices were stained (mainly talking about the area under the scope rail).
 
Tiger 2 Tank said:
Those side stock markings are sure nice and crisp. I "don't think" it's been sanded, but basing it only on those markings. Would be curious about the stock's keel and wrist markings too as that would help confirm that. The stock seems to have had a stain applied to it but unknown if post war or during the war. It most likely didn't leave the factory like that but soldiers darkened their stocks sometimes in the field. Just need a few more stock photos to confirm. My "vote" would be it was stained post war because it looks like the entire stock's nooks and crevices were stained (mainly talking about the area under the scope rail).
Click to expand...

+1

I agree, Postwar stain and or varnish on that stock. I don't think it was sanded.

Two BLM rifles with and without postwar enhancement.











No postwar enhancement.^^^^^^.














Stock that has been sanded and stained. (postwar)^^^^^^.
 
Last edited:
Would you recommend leaving the post war stain or varnish the hell alone or try to remove it?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
IMHO - I'd leave it. Really tough to say and without seeing first hand I cannot confirm a light sanding or not.

During the war troops would darken/stain their stocks with anything available and the coloring could be a result of the same.

I don't think it looks too bad.
 
daytonlawvol said:
Would you recommend leaving the post war stain or varnish the hell alone or try to remove it?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

It looks like Bubba Varnish and if it were my rifle I would remove it with acetone and cotton rags. I had a K43 (AC44) with bubba Varnish on it, I removed it and now it looks great.











Stock is a mix of white and red Glue, one would never see that with the old red varnish that was on it.
 
Last edited:
How much pressure do you use to remove it? I'm interested in doing this but want to do it right. Almost looks like it was put on there to try and match the durafoil handguard


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
daytonlawvol said:
How much pressure do you use to remove it? I'm interested in doing this but want to do it right. Almost looks like it was put on there to try and match the durafoil handguard


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I responded to your PM, just enough pressure to get the old varnish off. Do not use sand paper or steel wool! Soft cotton rag (Old T-shirt works well)

FYI.......Acetone will not remove stain, so if there is stain under that varnish it will remain.
 
Last edited:
Absolutely leave it alone! You will do more damage than fixing it. It is what it is. And, it's not 100% that it's a post war stain job. It more than likely is, but you never know. Just part of the rifle now.
 
Tiger 2 Tank said:
Absolutely leave it alone! You will do more damage than fixing it. It is what it is. And, it's not 100% that it's a post war stain job. It more than likely is, but you never know. Just part of the rifle now.
Click to expand...

++ Don't touch it. I appreciate the hard work Model did on his rifle, but IMHO a rifle just doesn't look right after a finish is removed (some stain remains in the divets, low points, etc. and you end up with a flat/dull finish). The only way to make a post war stained rifle look better is to remove a finish and then apply a finish that is period correct - but then your messing with a rifle twice. The only time I have ever removed a finish is if it is blatantly wrong (eg. Shellac on an RC), however I even leave those alone now.
 
agentcq said:
++ Don't touch it. I appreciate the hard work Model did on his rifle, but IMHO a rifle just doesn't look right after a finish is removed (some stain remains in the divets, low points, etc. and you end up with a flat/dull finish). The only way to make a post war stained rifle look better is to remove a finish and then apply a finish that is period correct - but then your messing with a rifle twice. The only time I have ever removed a finish is if it is blatantly wrong (eg. Shellac on an RC), however I even leave those alone now.
Click to expand...

Actually there is some historical significance to a RC with a shellac finish that was applied by the Russians. I see no such significance to a Bubba post war application of varnish to a German wartime stock. I my case I know the stock was "enhanced" by the Vet because his Son told me so and it was also easy to spot. I just wish I would have taken before pictures of that stock before I removed the Varnish. In my case I know I did the right thing because I have other G/K43's to compare it to.

As far as a flat dull finish goes, many G/K43's had just that because they had no finish on the stock as they came from the factory. Truth be known 75% (or more) of G/k43 stocks unfortunately have been altered in some way by their postwar owners. Very few look like the day they were handed over to the Victors.

I agree that some who try to restore an "enhanced" stock will destroy it do to improper methods, I'm not one of those people.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Military Rifle Journal
Back
Top