Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Guest gary@r&g

Opinion on originality of finish

11 posts in this topic

Found this forum while researching. I recently acquired a 1941 Johnson from the estate of a retired Marine. WWII and Korea Vet. Many of his guns had the stocks refinished but in a gloss finish. The Johnson has an original finish but looks like it may have been sanded. In addition there is rouhness under the finish on the reciever. Looks like rough casting to me. I offered it to a collector who took it to his expert who thought it was a restoration. Any opinions on the originality of the finish?

johnson.sized.jpg

aaaaa_036.sized.jpg

aaaaa_037.sized.jpg

aaaaa_031.sized.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You've come to the right place. The experts on this forum will be able to give you the straight scoop.

I'm not one of the experts, but the JSAR receivers were not polished, so a "sand" finish is more or less consistent with originals.

The stock looks like it may have had a coating of linseed oil or similar, based on the shine. But the lack of externally visible inspector stamps or markings on the stock is not in itself proof that it has been sanded.

I'll quit while I'm ahead. The real experts will be along shortly.

You have a nice weapon, just the same. Count your blessings, these firearms are fairly scarce and growing in value every day. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally, had I "acquired" this rifle, I would keep it!

With the exception of some minor rust that shows on the sight and receiver, which is easily cleaned up, the pics you sent show a very nice rifle...keep it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The receiver lettering is nice and sharp, so I doubt that the metal has been refinished. As to the wood, I have seen a couple of JSARs with this high gloss finish and believe it is "after-market". The wood itself appears original. Note that some of the JSARs imported from the Netherlands in the '50s were in virtually mint condition. This may be one of those. Unless you really want to dispose of this rifle, I'd keep it. A rifle in this condition is only going to grow in value.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I forgot to mention this is a 30-06. Arent all the Dutch guns 7mm? Thanks for all the input.

Gary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Dutch rifles were .30-06. I believe the Chilian were 7x57mm.

You might remove the barrel and look for the Netherlands acceptance stamp.

Keep it, they are hard to find.

B.T.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Black Tom brings up an excellent point that I keep forgetting about! The Chilean Johnson's were in 7-mm, but the barrel collar is still marked .30-06. This might be a dangerous "flaw" for novice collectors. On top of that, the Navy Arms imports (which I believe were marked), were in excellent to mint condition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The rough metal is OK, but I would like to see a better picture of the writing stamped on the top of the receiver. From the photo it does look a little weak.

Is the rifle as dark as the pictures show?

The close-up doesn't look like the metal has been reparked, but to my eye the finish looks a little dark. It could just be the photos.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the ways I look for original wood finish is to remove stock and examine color on the inside. Originals were dipped in oil and then buffed on outside to set finish. The color should be same inside and out. Removing the butt-plate often shows difference in color. Also original stocks often show cross-grain sanding on the stock. The factory movie shows the stocks being sanded across grain on a wide belt sander. Original finish doesn't seem to be as important to Johnson collectors as with the M1 fanatics. The metal looks good. Nice rifle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0