Is it a sin to reblue an older gun?

I'm not necessarily worried about financial value so much as what the gun would mean to a veteran who owned one.
The gun as is bears scratches and signs of wear that don't so much add quality as they do show mistreatment and otherwise poor care for a great firearm.
I want the gun to look as it did in it's heyday.

Yes, it is a cardinal sin.

J/K.

It's your gun - do what you want with it.

Unless of course, it came from a family member who thought enough of you to pass it your way. If that is the case, you'll surely be cast down and smoke a t*rd in hell for taking away it's character, history and lineage.

I kinda like old revolvers with lotsa wear on 'em. If those old irons could talk, the stories they would share.

This question has been debated at great length and no conclusion has been reached, so let me offer my opinion, as an accumulator/shooter, not a collector. Remember its a firearm not a great work of art; it’s your firearm to do with as you wish. If it makes you happy have it refinished or reworked any way you wish. That being said if I were to fall into a collectable firearm of any type that I believed was in need of serious reworking I.E. re bluing, changing sights, or cutting of the barrel, I would offer it for sale to a collector and use the proceeds of the sale to purchase the firearm I wanted in the first place. For me that would be a win – win situation, I have the firearm I wanted and a collector will have the chance to preserve a classic firearm.

Many of the members here will undoubtedly say it should never be done. Others will argue justifications. Others still, will say it's yours to do with as you wish. So good luck soliciting a consensus here. As others have already stated, this subject has been debated here endlessly for years. My question is;

What model revolver are you talking about?

That information may help provide some insights from the group, that you may not be aware of.

Cheers;
Lefty

There is no end to this type of question. I will only offer my personal view. Rare, as in not mass volume production for years at a time, I will do as I please. If I found something like a three inch Model 19, then no, I wouldn’t refinish it. I would leave it as is and buy another gun and maybe think of offering up the rare model to a collector and not a blaster. I have thought about having a four inch 19-4 hard chromed for corrosion resistance since as far as I know there is not a thing in the world rare about the 19-4’s but I also intend to keep that gun until I pass it on to someone else someday.

To me, it has everything to do with whether the wear is normal and honest, or whether the firearm is pitted all over, rusted, busted, and has been abused by somebody who had no business owning a fine S&W. If the former, I will generally do nothing except give the gun good care and catch up on its maintenance. If the latter, I will not hesitate to restore it as best I can. In my opinion, the only time it is wrong to restore a gun in very poor condition is when the story of how it got that way is a part of its historical provenance...especially within a family.

I firmly believe it is silly to take the rigid, purist position that it is always wrong to fix a broken or abused gun, or anything else, no matter what. One size never fits all. I have yet to hear one of these don't-touch-it people persuasively explain why nothing restorative should ever be done, beyond "just because..." or "it ruins the collector value." Who cares about that viewpoint? It's an irrelevant minority one. If they want to pass, fine. 20 reasonable people will be lined up to buy it at a reasonable price; or these days, even at an unreasonable price.

But I have to say that after a very old gun passes a certain age, maybe it should be left alone, to rest in peace. How old? Don't know.

And I don't support those who grind up fine old guns in the restoration process, or those who misrepresent them as original, when trying to sell them. That's fraud. And there's too much of it going on at any gun show, even the more reputable ones...especially on the part of guys acting innocent, who did it, but plead ignorance about the gun's history; "I dunno, just traded some guy for it. Looks pretty original to me." Sound familiar?

Reputable collectors should get together in a group effort to write a book about all the ways to be ripped off at a gun show. I've often thought about that. It would be a thick one, and would have most show promoters in a boiling rage, since so many are willful enablers and knowingly tolerate the abusers who rent tables, show after show, year after year. That is what gun shows have become, in a competitive and often desperation driven market.

Seriously, just when I think I've seen most of the tricks after a half century of prowling shows, I find I haven't. I would estimate that 30% to 50% of all the guns I buy at shows, even now, turn out to have intentionally concealed defects which I was not able to detect until detail stripping the gun at home. Gun shows have become dumping grounds for cosmetized trash. Misrepresented refinishing is a small part of it. Shows and table holders have changed so much in my lifetime. So what do I do? I fix the guns, write it off as part of my continuing education, keep attending shows, and keep trying to detect the rips before I become the ripee.

And if even thinking about buying over the Internet, hang onto your posterior with both hands. Rolling dice at Vegas is lower risk entertainment.

I would say no, unless you have issues that are more than cosmetic.
But the owner has to make that choice, they are the ones that need to be happy.
I will say I've seen great Smiths, Colts and Winchesters "reblued to their former glory", who looked better scratched up than they did with their cheap reblue.

i will admit to being a collector, mainly, but i do enjoy shooting, also. i have a lot of guns that have never been fired, and probably won't be, by me anyway. i also have several guns that are regular shooters, and a few genuine "working" guns that i carry or hunt with.

with all that said, i just have never felt the need to have a gun refinished. after a gun is refinished, it is worth very little to nothing to a true collector.

as for a true working gun, i just figure that whatever condition it is in is "character", and see no need for it to be all shiny, and overpolished.

i guess the mid-ground is the hardest place to make a decision. if a specific gun has sentimental value to a specific person, and it isn't necessarily a rare or unusual piece, i guess i can see where someone might want "that specific gun" to be shiny again, just for old-times' sake. but, even with that slim area, personally, i would just as soon have the gun in the condition that it is in, knowing that every blemish had a story to whoever it meant something to.

the other thing to consider is what you end up with after a refinish. man, lots and lots of them are just unsightly. stampings nearly wiped out. pits remaining, and blued over. incorrect finishes on hammers and triggers. edges rounded off. screw-holes ovalized. wavy surfaces. i have seen several guns that have been refinished that actually look good. back in the day, s&w used to do them, and they are sometimes stunning. colt does a really nice job sometimes. folks like ford's do a nice job. and then there are real masters like chicoine, turnbull, etc. but there are hundreds and hundreds of refinishers out there turning out stuff that i just wouldn't be happy with, especially if i had to pay real money, and then realize that my gun had been basically ruined.

i will add to the list, and say "it is your gun, you can do what you want with it!" but since you asked for opinions, mine is NO refinish!

To echo what has been said, a common model with lots of ready parts available is an easy one, yes, re-do it. An uncommon one that is destined for the graveyard (rust pits, wrong or missing screws,missing parts, no grips or broken ones, zero finish) yes, re-do it if money is no object or you have the skill. Parts are usually the search for the "holy grail". I have spent as long as 3-4 years searching for the right part only to learn it was worn out after finding it. But, restorations often take on a life of their own and that becomes more of the hobby then collecting. Guns with a known history should be left alone. Collectables that are functional should not be refinished. Collecters can zero in on a refinish in about 30 seconds. In the final analysis it IS your gun!!!

All you pantiwaists, beating around the bush, always afraid to offend someone. Forget it. Refinishing a gun is generally just stupid. Its a waste of time and money. After you get done doing your damage, the gun is worth less and you're out the money. None of us want your garbage, nor will we pay you anything near what you've got in the now tarnished gun. If you pay for a refinish, its just like flushing the amount you paid down the toilet. Plain and simple. Sure, its your gun, just like its your money. Flush away. We'll all know you lack common sense.

Yes, I own refinished guns. Generally pretty scarce ones that I sure wish the prior owner had used some sense on before he had it done.

The rule of thumb is just sell your unrefinished gun, put the couple of hundred bucks with it, and buy one that still has its original finish. Wait, on second thought, consider if you really deserve such a fine gun.

How's that for staking out a position!

There are few guns out there that will appreciate to the point where they will send the kids to college or pay off the house. They made lots of most every model. If someone doesn't want you to re-blue it, sell it to them. If it is going in a museum, leave it as it is. If you want it to look new, then spend the bucks and have the job done right. The comments about it never being worth what you pay for the re-conditioning are probably correct.

Unless you have the gun that shot Jack Ruby, re-finish it if you want. Seriously, these are inanimate objects, not your children. I HATE having a gun that looks used. I sold my old service model 64 when I retired, and a few years later, I found a very nice 64 for a great price. I bought it, then sold it later. It bugs me to see guns that have loss of blueing. I had a very nice model 10 that had blueing loss on the barrel, and I was gonna refinish it, but I sold it before I did. I stumbled onto a 99% 19-2 with a mirror bright blueing, and I love it. Life is too short to have ugly guns. I would only send it back to the factory, though. No aftermarket blueing for me.

Usualy I am against refinishing a gun from a financial stand point. Yet lets say you inherited a rare fine car like say, a cord or auburn speedster. Your uncle had left a bunch of minor easily fixable dents in it. What would you do? Drive it around with the dents in rememberance to your uncles bad driveing? Maybe we should get real here?

If you like the gun and refinishing will make you like it more, then refinish it.

Kevin
2330

feralmerril said:

Usualy I am against refinishing a gun from a financial stand point. Yet lets say you inherited a rare fine car like say, a cord or auburn speedster. Your uncle had left a bunch of minor easily fixable dents in it. What would you do? Drive it around with the dents in rememberance to your uncles bad driveing? Maybe we should get real here?

Click to expand...

So damned true!! I'm really not worried if some knuckle-head gets ripped off once I'm dead because he did'nt do his homework.

i have had a couple of guns refinished in nickle.
they weren't rare, it is real humid here, and i think nickle looks better than blue on certain guns.

There is a special place in Hell for those who would be so shallow, emptyhead, selfish and thoughtless so as to only please themselves by making a collectible gun "pretty" in their eyes....

This Hell is so horrible that Dante~ himself could not write of it....

IT DEPENDS.....

I'm a shooter, first and foremost. I know what my firearms
Should look like. If they've gotten to the point where they don't look
like my ideal, ie., banged up, pitted, and no blue left, I'll get to work
with the 400- and 1200-grit paper and make them look like they should.
Luckily for true collectors, I can't afford even the abused specimens.
So far, I've only had to do two of them. Puts them back in my
"favorite shooter" classification.
TACC1

I told this before. Let me again. About 40 years ago I was in a terrible motorcycle wreck that it was a mirrical that I lived. I was single, shoved out of the hospital in almost a full body cast. My best friend and wife took me in untill I could function. In appriciation I gave my buddy a nice S&W 1917. Latter we were deer hunting and met another friend thats a gun guy. Bill went and pulled his 1917 out of a sample case from when he had sold amway. The gun was totaly frosted with light rust probley from some chemicals that was impregnated in the leather case. Bill hung his head like a dog. My friend had a ffl and said let me send this back to the factory for a reblue for you. When it came back it had the finest reblue I have ever seen on a smith! Now, it had been military, but now it was bright blue with perfect lettering. If I recall right the cost was something like $16s! This was about 1971. I have no doubt from any viewpoint that bill did the right thing in getting it reblued. It had been completely rusted, but caught right then.

I just don't care what anybody elese thinks.
If I want it nice and shining & fixed up --I don't care that it belonged to Jack Ruby---I do with them what I want--which is to make them reliable and good looking shooters.
I would not have bought jacks gun in the first place.
Blessings