T 53

[NOTABIKER]

i wanted a simi beater T-53 to shoot my corrosive and give my Romanian M-44 a break. i got one in the box PP. the usual fair. very dark nicked up wood [ no cracks or chunks missing]. bluing 30 %. bore nice. picks unnecessary it looks like a J&G add. i will still pamper it after every shoot. the wood will never look real nice. unlike Russian referbs the chinese just kept the parts together and stored them as is. so at least you get a correct matching beater.

[Armistice]

Sweet. Did you get lucky with a stamped stock?

[NOTABIKER]

the stock has the SER # stamped on it in BIG Numbers like a SKS. is that what you mean. i love the very dark wood but i cant leave all those dings and nicks as is. i will sand it and use a very dark stain to hide the ugliness. i will not try to get all the blems out of the wood, that would be impossible. i just took it apart right away. i do not ever remember the year it was made.

[GOEX FFF]

the stock has the SER # stamped on it in BIG Numbers like a SKS. is that what you mean. i love the very dark wood but i cant leave all those dings and nicks as is. i will sand it and use a very dark stain to hide the ugliness. i will not try to get all the blems out of the wood, that would be impossible. i just took it apart right away. i do not ever remember the year it was made.

Sorry, the purist in me can't resist.

What you think that every bump, dent, blemish and scratch is "ugly", what you'll be doing in reality is taking away part of the rifle's history and decrease it's value in both spectrums...historically and financially, especially on a matched piece. IMO, there's nothing uglier than taking sandpaper to an original stock. It can never be "fixed" and will always look like a sanded down stock.

As always, it's your rifle to do with as you please. But it's also the responsibility of us folks who try to preserve history to suggest otherwise.

[knucklehead0202]

Sorry, the purist in me can't resist.

What you think that every bump, dent, blemish and scratch is "ugly", what you'll be doing in reality is taking away part of the rifle's history and decrease it's value in both spectrums...historically and financially, especially on a matched piece. IMO, there's nothing uglier than taking sandpaper to an original stock. It can never be "fixed" and will always look like a sanded down stock.

As always, it's your rifle to do with as you please. But it's also the responsibility of us folks who try to preserve history to suggest otherwise.

perhaps what he's doing IS preserving history. ever think of that?

[GOEX FFF]

perhaps what he's doing IS preserving history. ever think of that?

I've been part of the Milsurp C&R world for nearly 25 years and have had this conversation for most of those years many times over..so, yep I've had plenty of time to think about it.

Sanding down a stock, slathering polyurethane or what have you over it's historical character is not preservation. It's not preserving anything historically original. It only becomes yet another piece that has been sent through the proverbial sandpaper grinder.

[Armistice]

How many T53's were made? It's not like he's sanding down the only one in existence

I HAD to sand my T53 down because the coating used was pealing off and would be very uncomfortable to hold/ shoot. Perhaps that is also what NOTABIKER is doing

I am a purist as well, and hate when people modify these old battle rifles, but there are times when a sanding and a new coat of stain are in order to make shooting more enjoyable because I don't need a rifle splintering up my fingers. It's not a museum/ collection piece; it's a shooter

Shoot the hell out of it, John!

[GOEX FFF]

How many T53's were made? It's not like he's sanding down the only one in existence

I HAD to sand my T53 down because the coating used was pealing off and would be very uncomfortable to hold/ shoot. Perhaps that is also what NOTABIKER is doing

I am a purist as well, and hate when people modify these old battle rifles, but there are times when a sanding and a new coat of stain are in order to make shooting more enjoyable because I don't need a rifle splintering up my fingers. It's not a museum/ collection piece; it's a shooter

Shoot the hell out of it, John!

Of course its not the only T53 in existence and its a bit of a stretch I was implying that. The fact remains, it destroys what the rifle has carried with it for the past 50+ years. I have a non import, matching Nam bring back T53 that shows every bit of jungle use. There's no way I'd ever run it through the sandpaper mill to make it look. "pretty". Call me crazy, but I prefer its historical value over it giving me a splinter at the range.

[GOEX FFF]

And... I get it when someone feels like what they're doing is an "improvement" by refinishing a milsurp. I did it to the very first milsurp I ever owned many, many years ago to a non import, matched 1942 FAZ No.4 Mk I Enfield. Sure it doesn't look "as used" as it did when I got it for $99 bucks.
But I kick myself every time I pull it out of the safe. They made millions of em' too and its a shootin' work-horse. But it will never be worth what it could have been these days because of what I thought was an awesome thing to do at the time. I've learned my lesson.

[Armistice]

Some people go once step farther and think the cosmo shouldn't be removed. There're all kinds of people with different thought processes

/threadcrap/high jack

Yah, NOTABIKER, I meant the SN stamping in the stock. I know my T56 has it, but can't recall if my T53 has it

[BroncoBob]

My T53 looks like crap, the stock is ugly, chipped, beat to hell with non matching numbers so it stays the way it is. Nothing more then a crap shooter.............

[Lucky Scott]

I have a T53 with all matching numbers and no import stamp. Looks like it has been thru a war, and probably has. To me that is the charm of the rifle, that "Been there, done that" kinda look.
But, to each his own.

[NOTABIKER]

Sorry, the purist in me can't resist.

What you think that every bump, dent, blemish and scratch is "ugly", what you'll be doing in reality is taking away part of the rifle's history and decrease it's value in both spectrums...historically and financially, especially on a matched piece. IMO, there's nothing uglier than taking sandpaper to an original stock. It can never be "fixed" and will always look like a sanded down stock.

As always, it's your rifle to do with as you please. But it's also the responsibility of us folks who try to preserve history to suggest otherwise.

you are right and i do leave the others alone. i purposely bought a rough 150 dollar T-53 so i would not feel guilty refinishing the wood. it will still look beat to crap, just not as beat to crap. i made sure not to sand the cartouches.
above all i am the one that has to look at it.
also the way things are going they all will be forcibly scrapped in the future anyway.

[Armistice]

I should just strip mine and redo it. I don't like the MinWax I used

[NOTABIKER]

the hand guard is very dark and not to bad looking. i think i am going to first use a reddish stain, then use a very dark stain over it. i want to replicate the hand guard. right now i think i might use Tung oil as a top finish. i like shellac but it dries so fast it is hard to put a thin coat on before it starts to dry up.i want it to almost be black. that is how it looked out of the box. somebody 10 years from now might appreciate that i saved this rifle stock from the Termites.