[QUOTE=Ronald Scott;287976]"Tuesday, October 22, 2019
"Keep the following AWAY from ANY organic stock finish:
"- Silicone, in any form, be it spray, oil or cloth
- Rem-Oil in any amount, or really any gun oil for that matter
- Gun Scrubber, this stuff will dissolve even some synthetic finishes and some plastics


This surprises me as I recall my first trip to Ilion and both Babe and Lawrence told me they wipe the entire gun (metal and wood) down with Rem-Oil. I have done this for 20 years with no obvious ill effects.

I use High-Pressure lube which is used on lathe dead centers. It adheres very well to metal, will withstand very high temperatures, and doesn't effect finishes. I wouldn't recommend its use on guns other than hinge pins. It can be found at industrial suppliers such as MSC and probably Amazon. You will probably avoid making mistakes you didn't want to make by following Dewey Vicknairs advice, however, I think he prefers custom work as opposed to restoration.

Anyone else use Renaissance Wax on gun exterior metal?

I love Vicknair’s writing style. Very entertaining. I used Murphy’s Oil Soap one time based on a recommendation from this forum. It just made a mess and seemed to have removed some of the original finish. I’ll never go near that stuff again. Since then I’ve just left the stocks alone or had a professional like Chris Dawe or Brian Dudley do the work. But, I’ve heard a lot of good things about Timberluxe. I’m going to order a bottle and see what it can do for my 1878 hammer gun stock that previously got soaped.

Murphy’s and automotive polish!

How about his analysis of American made shotguns? I would imagine pretty controversial in this group.

How so? There was not much negative said about Parkers. And his thoughts on the other makers are spot on. Especially Smiths and Win 21s.

It goes to show that everybody has an opinion and many opinions differ.





.

You are right. I just reread the section on American made doubles. I remembered it wrong. He rips L.C. Smiths and Winchester Model 21s apart more than he criticizes Parkers. The only small criticism of Parkers is: "From a design standpoint, I would never refer to one as "hellishly" complex but they certainly are needlessly complex. I wouldn't be surprised to find that the designer got paid by the part. The early guns used a complex, multi-piece linkage to translate the toplever motion to the single under bolt.
With all of the pivots and contact points in this linkage one would imagine that wear would "stack up" and result in much play in the mechanism. One would be correct."

Well, in the interest of "completeness" since we're quoting Dewey, he did have this to say as well ....

And this, actually .......

SRH