Do all the Puma rifles has such a cheap finish?

JB · Post by JB » Wed Jan 16, 2008 9:49 pm

I picked up a new Puma 44 magnum. It had a spot of "gunk" on the stock so I used a little lemon oil to clean it. I've used lemon oil on $50.00 to $5,000 firearms with no problems, but the stain started wiping off the Puma. I know they use a cheap hardwood and just give it a walnut stain, but I never dreamed the stain would wipe off. Has anyone else noticed this?

TedH · Post by **TedH** » Thu Jan 17, 2008 7:59 am

Some of them actually have pretty decent wood under that black stain. I stripped mine and finished with oil and it looks a lot better than new.

tcomer · Post by **tcomer** » Thu Jan 17, 2008 9:10 am

Mine did that. Stain would come off on your hands. Took the wood off and gave it a light sanding and shot it with 3 light coats of Min-Wax Satin Polyurethane. Actually looked better after I got done.

Hagler · Post by **Hagler** » Thu Jan 17, 2008 12:35 pm

...my EMF, via Oregon45's refinishing with Tru-Oil:

That black stuff is used to cover up mismatched wood pieces.

Shawn

JB · Post by JB » Thu Jan 17, 2008 1:43 pm

Mine doesn't have the black finish. It's a walnut stain, but it sure wipes off easily.

marlinman93 · Post by **marlinman93** » Thu Jan 17, 2008 8:28 pm

The problem is the stains that they use are merely sprayed on, and no finish over the stain. It's just not too durable, because the light colored wood wouldn't take stain that was rubbed in, and wiped on like most wood.

Nate Kiowa Jones · Post by **Nate Kiowa Jones** » Thu Jan 17, 2008 11:49 pm

you think the current ones are bad. how many remember the late 80's early 90's guns. They were all black and if you removered it the wood neven matched. At least they are doing more in brown now and most have somewhat matching wood.

Griff · Post by **Griff** » Fri Jan 18, 2008 12:47 am

Nate Kiowa Jones wrote:you think the current ones are bad. how many remember the late 80's early 90's guns. They were all black and if you removered it the wood neven matched. At least they are doing more in brown now and most have somewhat matching wood.

I doan know... that's what this one is:

Jason_W · Post by **Jason_W** » Fri Jan 18, 2008 9:14 am

I can't say I care all that much about finish. My guns get pretty scratched and dinged up while busting the brush, anyway. As long as it goes off every time I'm happy.

Paul105 · Post by **Paul105** » Fri Jan 18, 2008 9:36 am

Here are a couple of pics of a .454 Puma I got last year -- the one this replaced had the black, non-descript finish. Just got done shoveling snow, and warming up the wife's truck. These pictures remind me that spring (and gopher hunting) is only a couple of months away.

Paul

Nate Kiowa Jones · Post by **Nate Kiowa Jones** » Fri Jan 18, 2008 4:58 pm

Griff wrote:
Nate Kiowa Jones wrote:you think the current ones are bad. how many remember the late 80's early 90's guns. They were all black and if you removered it the wood neven matched. At least they are doing more in brown now and most have somewhat matching wood.
I doan know... that's what this one is:

But Griff, that was a limited addition gun from that era. Some of those had nice wood but not all. I have one of the "Oakleaf style engraved blue guns that has the really dark wood. They just shined it up with more finish over the dark stain.

Dastook · Post by **Dastook** » Fri Jan 18, 2008 9:19 pm

When I got mine the wood was dry and rough. The fore stock was a little loose and didn't match up perfectly with the receiver. I just put a couple coats of boiled linseed oil on it. Don't know if that was dumb are not but it fixed it. The stock looks great, matches the receiver perfectly and does not scratch easily.

piller · Post by **piller** » Sat Jan 19, 2008 12:43 am

I've had my Puma for a few months and I think I will get some linseed oil. We used that in shop class back in Junior High, and it sounds like a good idea. I'm not really interested in what my stock looks like. It functions great and that is what counts.

gak · Post by **gak** » Sat Jan 19, 2008 12:03 pm

Rossi's gone through a couple of different eras. Before the dastardly black stain of the late 80s through 90s, the finish was actually pretty "normal" and I've had no problems with the number of early Interarms 92s I've had. Wasn't American walnut, but not bad. Some better looking wood than others, but they didn't have the black stain. Just to identify the era, they went to the black stain right around the same time they started shipping most without the saddle rings--whether you like the SRs or not, maybe a signaling of cheapened -- and more mass -- production all around for awhile? 95% of the black stained ones I've seen are without the SR. Before then, although some didn't have them, a good many did.

claybob86 · Post by **claybob86** » Mon Jan 21, 2008 2:24 am

I looked at a Puma at Sportsman's Warehouse today and it looked pretty good. Especially for the price. Both the metal and wood looked a whole lot better than Pumas I've seen before.

txpete · Post by **txpete** » Mon Jan 21, 2008 6:30 am

several years ago I wanted a 92 44/40 and I just really like the round.anyways I went down to our local shop and he had some puma's in 44/40 but in the same rack for 25.00 more he had a navy armys.IIRC it was 315.00 otd.well it was a easy choice

.

getitdone1 · Post by **getitdone1** » Mon Jan 21, 2008 1:25 pm

Recently in Gander Mountain store and looked at several Puma lever-actions. Overall I like the look--well, what the heck, just like a Winchester model 92, or very close. Problem is, without looking very close the butt plate to wood butt fit-up was terrible.

This made me wonder about the gun in general. I'd definitely go with a Browning B-92 or original Winchester model 92.

Years ago had bad luck with a Rossi model 92.

Don McCullough