Duracoat

>>32062573
Absolutely not. Keep the patina dude, that old gun has seen things and been places. Don't take away the character it has with duracoat.

Or paint it, I'm just an anonymous faggot on a Chinese kite-flying image board.

>>32062639
I second this

>>32062573
No, not at all. I would leave it be or detail strip it and hot blue it properly

Please don't fuck that thing up like that. Or do, I've already lost my faith in our failed species.

The finish on that doesn't even look that bad. It's of the "honorable wear" as opposed to "Bubba tried taking an angle grinder to the gun and slipped" kind. Keep it the way it is.

>>32062573
Duracoat is shit, though. There are a lot of West German Sigs currently being sold as surplus that were duracoated due to some contract stipulation, and they all look like shit today, even the ones that were barely carried. This is a finish that does not show holster wear elegantly. Go cerakote, blued or parkerized.

>>32062639
>that old gun has seen things and been places.
It appears to be a newer production Mark III, which implies it's less than 30 years old, probably mid-90s production.

>>32062700
>>32062727
The man just wants his gun to look purdy.

>>32062967
I'm not sure if OP's pic is the gun in question, but if it is I'd still say not to Duracoat it. It looks perfectly fine. If anything, do what the other anon said and re-blue it.

>>32062573
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_IeMl6R8fc

tempted to do this to my beat up 1903

>>32062573
You might as well rattle can it you fucking mong. At least cerakote is fucking ceramic based, so while you look like a complete tool itll not wear and hold up to some abuse, but duracoat is basically fucking rattle can bed liner. Gimmicky bullshit so you can feel like a special snowflake.

>>32062573

If that's the actual one you're looking at I'd keep it like it is. Otherwise get it Cerakote'd. Cerakote comes in a gunmetal blue that looks pretty nice.

File: 20160531_003340.jpg (1MB, 1899x1394px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1899x1394px

>>32062573
Mine looked wayyy worse than that, so I cleaned it up and scrubbed the exterior with some fine grit sand paper and steel wool.

(1/2)

File: 20160905_021136.jpg (829KB, 2195x1504px) Image search: [Google]

829KB, 2195x1504px

>>32065946
(2/2)

After the cleaning and scrub

>>32062573
No. Even just economically it's a bad idea. A decent condition old gun will be worth much much more way down the line than a refinished one in perfect condition.

Imagine if somebody had some rare piece from WW1, in a little rough condition and then refinished it in 1950. What do you think the price difference between the refinished one and if whoever did it had just left it alone would be?

>>32065970
That actually looks good

>>32066368
This.
As a collector of milsurp, the two names of my existence are sporters and refinished guns.
You may think you are improving your gun but in truth you are killing it's value


If you want a pretty high-power go buy a brand new one. If you want a cheap gun to shoot buy a police trade in whatever (few will bitch if you fuck with those).

>>32066867
>tfw i found a $300 1903 springfield at cabelas in great condition, sporterized

>>32067247
Bubba an his damn hacksaw I swear. I found one for $400 that only had the stock cut up.

>>32067267
>>32067247
I found a Mk.3 Enfield at my LGS that Bubba had completely obliterated, it boggled my mind how a human being could fuck up a gun that badly

I haven't had a single good experience with Duracoat.

>>32062639
this