Buying K31. Walnut worth extra price?

[Jackal]

Hi everybody! I am looking into adding a K31 to my arsenal and am wondering if the walnut stocked version is worth the extra $50.00. Is there any advantage such as accuracy or quality that justifies the extra cost??

 

[Davo]

Its all cosmetic, but they are good looking rifles either way.

 

[chrisbob]

If the walnut makes it look better it may increase resale value later. If that is something you might do in the future.

 

[jd46561]

#1 pic - Walnut , #2 pic Walnut, #3 pic Walnut, #4 pic Beech. I prefer Walnut for looks. But thats all, they both function the same.

 

[Jackal]

WOW, nice pics JD, thank you. Which is the least common? i.e. which is more scarce and likely to go up in value.

 

[DMK]

The walnut stocked rifles are the earlier years. I can't remember the cutoff, but at some point they made beech stocks almost exclusively (though I'm sure a few walnut stocks appeared here and there). I also believe more beech stocks were made.

 

[Technosavant]

I want to say the switchover to the beech stocks happened in 1946. I could be wrong, but I think that's when it was. My 1944 production has a walnut stock.

Walnut, IMO, is prettier, but has no functional improvement. I don't think I would pay $50 more for walnut, but I did pay $20 more. Since walnut stocks tend to be (from what I can tell) more collectible, I would think that they might be more likely to have matching numbers (receiver/bolt/magazines). That's just a guess. The only reason $50 might be worth it is if you are guaranteed not only a walnut stock in good condition, but also matching numbers and a troop tag.

 

[DMK]

I want to say the switchover to the beech stocks happened in 1946. I could be wrong, but I think that's when it was.

Yea, the cobwebs in my brain are agreeing with you.

 

[Ad Astra]

Walnut is way prettier, though the rifle may be slightly older. $50 more sounds like a lot; mine they were $20 more but I got some streaked beauties. Got a beech one so ugly it might get a black duracoat paint finish one day.

 

[Jackal]

*Correction, price is $40.00 more for walnut.

 

[jd46561]

Thanks Jackal. I think on swissrifles.com, they were saying 1945 was the start of Beech.

 

[dm1333]

go for the walnut

I have two Enfields, one is a 1942 Fazakerly (sp?) and the other is a 1943 Savage with a Black Walnut stock. The Savage is much prettier even though neither has been refinished. I paid less for the Savage but would have paid more if necessary, I am planning on stripping the stock and then refinishing in tung oil without removing any of the dings in it.

Don

 

[Jackal]

I am buying it to shoot paper with. When i buy, i usually like to buy once. So from a shooting standpoint, any difference in handling or weight? Probably gonna order from Aim Surplus.

 

[dm1333]

There shouldn't be any appreciable difference

Walnut is a little denser than beech but you shouldn't be able to notice the difference in weight or handling. Let us know what you decide and how it shoots. My Savage is not only prettier the two groove barrel is gorgeous and the rifle is a tack driver. People make fun of me for liking these "old" rifles but they sure are fun to shoot.

Don

 

[270Win]

My '41 Walnut stock is in a little nicer shape overall than my '47 Beech, perhaps due to the denser wood, but their both beautiful woods and weight is nigh identical.

If asked the same question, I would probably say No, walnut isn't worth $50 extra dollars. But the point raised about scarcity and future demand is a good one - they might be worth more someday. But $50 more?

 

[jd46561]

Now there are some beautiful Beech rifles. Here is one I almost got to buy , but the guy decided not to sell at the last minute. :banghead:

 

[Ascot500]

Actually, I think beech is more dense than walnut.