Russian SKS Stock Finish Question

[pcke2000]

Anyone here has actually tested if Russian SKS stock finish is really shellac?

Per my research, learning, and discussions, I was told that Russians never used shellac for rifle stock finish (original and refurb) post war. Instead, they used VK-1 lacquer.

Multiple long time Russian SKS collectors have told me that a big difference between shellac finish and lacquer finish is that shellac gives the stock shiny, glossy, and 'wet' appearance. I had no doubt about it until I got my first original finish June 1941 Tula made SVT-40. It is documented and confirmed that 1940-1941 SVTs used VK-1 lacquer finish (pre-war and very early war time: triple layer VK-1). The finish of the 1941 Tula SVT-40 is very shiny and glossy, and actually looks very much like original Russian SKS stock finish. This observation has led to my further suspicion if Russian SKS stock finish is really shellac.

I have no knowledge in paints, so would like to hear other forum members' opinions.

BTW, I also have an original finish 1940 Izhevsk SVT-40, the finish looks very different from Tula SVT stock finish, although Izhevsk also used triple layer VK-1 lacquer (documented and confirmed).

[Phosphorus32]

Interesting question. If you dissolved the Finnish in ethanol, then thoroughly dried the dissolved solids, and touched them with a flame, I would expect a true shellac residue to take a bit of effort to ignite, whereas nitrocellulose solid residue from VK-1 should flash.

[Bob_The_Student]

Interesting question. If you dissolved the Finnish in ethanol, then thoroughly dried the dissolved solids, and touched them with a flame, I would expect a true shellac residue to take a bit of effort to ignite, whereas nitrocellulose solid residue from VK-1 should flash.

I'm not sure what the people of Finland did to you but these seems a bit harsh! 

[Phosphorus32]

Interesting question. If you dissolved the Finnish in ethanol, then thoroughly dried the dissolved solids, and touched them with a flame, I would expect a true shellac residue to take a bit of effort to ignite, whereas nitrocellulose solid residue from VK-1 should flash.

I'm not sure what the people of Finland did to you but these seems a bit harsh! 

  That’s a good typo. I guess I should have said dissolve the Finnish in lakkalikööri 

[Boris Badinov]

From a cursory interweb dive into subject of  Shellac vs Lacquer:

Lacquer is supposedly quick drying -- even in cold weather. Whereas shellac requires much longer drying times depending on climate conditions.

Lacquer can also be applied by spraying, which would seem to be easier than a brushed on, longer drying shellac.

Given year round production,  it seems as if Lacquer might be a logistically better choice. Though I have no idea which-- if either-- application would be more cost effective.

Cracked or chipped lacquer finish is also easy to repair, as the damaged finished dissolves from the thinner in the subsequent reapplications.

Heat and water will also damage -- i.e. discolor -- a shellac finish rather quickly.

Seems as if spray on lacquer is the most logical choice.

Depending on the mixture, high glossy shines are possible with lacquer.