Howdy gents, I have been out of town meeting my newest grandson, and have some catching up to do. First, regarding Chuck Bishop's query regarding the type of finish I used, I am not a purist, and may be considered a heretic by some, and if so, so be it. I try and use modern technology and materials to the best advantage whenever possible, striving for durability and good looks in the finished product. After stripping the finish, treating for oil soak and light sanding as needed, I apply a water-thin epoxy resin, allowing the wood to soak up as much of it as it will in about 30 minutes time. This epoxy is applied to all sufaces, inside and out. While some use commercial sealers, or other oil finishes thinned with mineral spirits to seal the wood, I can't help but believe that epoxy forms a better barrier against both future oil soak and moisture protection of the wood than does any oil based finish/sealer. I then fill the grain by wet sanding with a boiled linseed oil based formula with sealers and dryers of my own concoction. After the grain is filled, I use different materials, finishes and techniques to achieve the look desired by the client, i.e. a soft luster, low gloss, or high gloss finish. This client wanted a high gloss to make the grain "pop", so George Brother's Linspeed finish was applied and wiped off.
I wanted to thank both Dean and Robin for the patent info and pics on the reinforcing rod. This info and the discussion it generated was particularly of interest. I seems reasonable to me that quite a few reinforced Parkers which may have had the patent stamp on the butt, which were fitted with their originally thin curved butt plates may have been shortened a bit to have recoil pads attached, and thereby eliminating the stamped patent marks they may have once had. It would also make sense to me that Parkers fitted with skeleton butt plates may have had their patent stamps applied on the belly of their stocks behind the grip cap.
Austin Hogan's comment about the grain in the reinforcing rod being oriented the same as the butt in Chuck's pic, and not at 90 degrees to it for maximum strength, got me to thinking. If the purpose was to reinforce the "curly" or "cross-grained" wood up in the neck or grip of the stock, could it be that the rod was oriented and glued into place to be at 90 degrees to the grain up in the neck or grip of the stock, with no regard to the grain orientation in the butt, where it wasn't needed and made no difference? Any thoughts gents?
|
Hybrid Mode