Is patina a problem...

[hkacres]

Ok you all talked me into it. The model 64 is a 1941 and the 94 is a 1951. Ample amount of loving wear on both with no rust!

 

[11Charlie]

Very nice, having something with that kind of history and sentimental value is awesome. Enjoy them the way your grandfather intended you to.

 

[Sgt Nambu]

Here is a M-94 in .25-35W, made in 1909. Bore and mechanically perfect. My moms deer rifle!



It's hard to see in my crappy, iPad photo, but there is no original finish left on the rifle. I'll have to dig out a better camera.

 

[mjbskwim]

Thank you all for your input! I agree that I don't want to take away it's past. Was just trying to brainstorm ways to keep it serviceable for another 50 years! Here are some pics. She is one of my crowning jewels, and my war bring back NPM carbine I got from grandpa...

View attachment 336929 View attachment 336930 View attachment 336931 View attachment 336932 View attachment 336933 View attachment 336934

That looks like most of the others I've seen
Very nice piece,I'd leave it like that. Just make sure to wipe you prints off it every time

 

[Andy54Hawken]

Don't forget knives can get patina too.
These all date from the 1880's to 19 teens and still get used today.
The patina doesn't affect how they cut ...
Andy

 

[clearconscience]

Any antique/old item is ruined by refinishing it or cleaning the history off from it.
Respect the work it's put in over the years and let it be guided by those who shot it before you.

 

[Andy54Hawken]

Any antique/old item is ruined by refinishing it or cleaning the history off from it.
Respect the work it's put in over the years and let it be guided by those who shot it before you.

Mostly true I think. but...
Case in point:
I was offered a great deal on an original percussion rifle a few years ago.
This rifle was rusted badly , had some cracks in the stock with a bit of wood rot , newish ( 1960-70 vintage ) target sights , brass ramrod rod , modern stock varnish finish etc ...

In short it was a historical wreck.

So I researched just what era and type of rifle this once was.
Took away the new active rust , gave it period sights , refinished the stock , glass bedded the stock , replaced old worn lock parts ...
In short made it look like a well loved but still serviceable rifle.

I shot it for a few years , then sold it to a kid starting out down the Muzzleloading trail and who wanted a antique rifle to shoot.

I did tell him just what was done to the rifle and he was very happy.

So what in this case was better , a rifle left alone and untouched to molder and rust away ...
Or refinish it and give it a new lease on life?

Like anything let some common sense , research and intended use be you guide in the end.

Note I am not saying to refinish , alter , remodel etc .., just any old gun , 'cause of how it looks.
But that in some cases , it might be a good thing to do.
Andy

 

[mjbskwim]

I think it fine to refinish a old rifle if YOU want to. It will still have the sentimental value. My T Barker 1900's shotgun is case in point.
My dad refinished it 30 some years ago and it is still loved and y'all have heard stories about my dad using it to feed us as kids.
The refinish can be an honor to the gun and the family member that used it. (as long as you're not planning to sell it)
Everyone's opinion is different.

 

[Xaevian]

That is a nice savage 99. The M designation was to indicate it to be fitted with a Monte Carlo stock, which it does not appear to have. Made from 1960 to 197?. Cut checkering, which it looks like, was done thru 1963. I would guess that it was a 1960 rifle, without the history or lever code, and model DL. Finish wear on the bottom of the receiver is very common, as it is a natural balance point and designed to be carried there. I have a 1963 with a Monte Carlo stock, no checkering, in .308 in about the same condition. Mine has an aluminum round counter. Is yours brass? Thanks for sharing.

 

[Medic!]

That is a nice savage 99. The M designation was to indicate it to be fitted with a Monte Carlo stock, which it does not appear to have. Made from 1960 to 197?. Cut checkering, which it looks like, was done thru 1963. I would guess that it was a 1960 rifle, without the history or lever code, and model DL. Finish wear on the bottom of the receiver is very common, as it is a natural balance point and designed to be carried there. I have a 1963 with a Monte Carlo stock, no checkering, in .308 in about the same condition. Mine has an aluminum round counter. Is yours brass? Thanks for sharing.

Gun Nerd!

You need to speak up more often.
Your among friends.

 

[Xaevian]

Guilty as charged.

 

[Ura-Ki]

I have had the same sort of experiences as Andy with old rusty/damaged firearms and tools! Some I keep as found, and others can only be improved through careful restoration! Case in point, I inherited a few long guns from my Grand Father, these were mostly plane jane, low value pieces he had acquired for fun or projects! One was a 1855 Colt Revolving Rifle! This is a non shooter, and was in pretty rough shape, even when Grand Dad got it, so I didn't feel bad about restoring it to a good display condition, still not a shooter! Then I found a much better one that is a shooter, and I left that one alone, it has almost no bluing left, the wood is banged up pretty good, but it's original! Those two started me on my never ending road of old B.P. and early cartridge long guns, and It's a fun hobby to say the least!

 

[Brutus57]

As museum professional. Patina is fine. Do not Ef with it.

Now rust on chrome...I am not so particular about making it disappear.

Brutus Out

 

[hkacres]

That is a nice savage 99. The M designation was to indicate it to be fitted with a Monte Carlo stock, which it does not appear to have. Made from 1960 to 197?. Cut checkering, which it looks like, was done thru 1963. I would guess that it was a 1960 rifle, without the history or lever code, and model DL. Finish wear on the bottom of the receiver is very common, as it is a natural balance point and designed to be carried there. I have a 1963 with a Monte Carlo stock, no checkering, in .308 in about the same condition. Mine has an aluminum round counter. Is yours brass? Thanks for sharing.

Thanks for the info Xaeven! Although I believe it is a '69. The date code is a "W" I believe. Also the .284 win didn't come out until 63-64ish. And yes mine is also an aluminum counter. Love these rifles! Grew up shooting a .308 version and loved that as well. I will say though, the .284 rocks! And I believe I understood you right that DL=M and M=DL? Right?

P.S. I really want one in 250-3000 someday...

 

[Xaevian]

Yes, as I understand it, all 99M marked rifles are DL model, but not all DL models are marked 99M. Now, of course, I realize you are talking .284, not .358 like I wasn't paying attention . Yeah, pretty uncommon (I've never seen 1 4 sale in the last 3 years I've been looking) and 1969 matches the lever code unless you're reading it upside down and it's an M . I love the 99, though I'm not too crazy about my 1957 99F in .300 Savage. Better trigger than my BLR, but the action isn't as smooth. Waaaay ahead of its time.

 

[jbett98]

I'm all for patina. Every time I look in a mirror I see more of it.