Quote Originally Posted by Craig-P View Post
Please, send it to someone who has experience of chequering.
There's about an hours' work there for an experienced chequerer, so it won't cost the earth - but to correct a job where someone has, 'had a go', could cost more than double.
Following a line is easy - maintaining depth and cut direction isn't - neither is selecting the correct cutter angle to suit the LPI, which nobody has mentioned.
Borders are not put on to hide overruns, it's a myth. They obviously can be used in this way but a neat, double or mullered/English border is more difficult to cut than the chequer itself and is a sign of ability, not to hide an overrun ( which can be corrected in a number of other ways ).
If you were closer, I'd do it for you but you're not exactly local sadly.
Cleaning up a infilled chequering pattern with a dulled, single line Dembart cutter is fine - but that needs a correct recut and should be left to someone with experience. Trust me, I have several stocks in for attention right now, all from someone, 'having a go'.
Best, Craig
I hear you that me taking a go will not live up to what a real pro could accomplish. But not sure a professional checking job would look right on a rifle in this time frame. I have hear it said that in the 1920-30’s checking was given to apprentices who weren’t exactly artists of the day? If you look at the current checkering you find a job that looks a bit amateurish? I may spend more time doing this job than the original checkerer and may actually be more in the ballpark of the original? There is the other side of me that says leave it be.