I don't get sporterizing...

[BrocLuno]

OK, I'll take another stab at this. I get my sporters as partially complete ''bubba' jobs that never made it to the range or the field for whatever reason. I like fooling with machine tools and I like fooling with rifles. Since I was in the service, I've seen my share of finished box stock military rifles. I currently have two Garands, one M1917, one 1903A3 (that my uncle sportered and then decided not to use), one Arisaka LD (that pop brought home from the beaches of the SP). These stay mostly stock cause they can and likely should.

The 1903A3 will likely go back to Mil-Spec as it's 90% original metal and fittings. The existing Fajen stock will go under another 1903A3 action that has already been cut up. Maybe a used barreled action off GB or Auction Arms? That'll be two rifles out of what I have now?

I also have three other M1917's (all Eddystones) awaiting their trip through the shop - all bought for less than $75. One will be a 270; one will be a "Tacticool" semi-sniper 06 with lots of toys like bipod, flash hider, scope, etc.; one will be a 375 H&H hunter. They are projects I want to build and will be a fair bit cheaper than buying the equivalent. But, I agree, it ain't about the money.

AND, I five more Arisaka's that have already been whacked. One is a true sporter already built that needs a bit of tinkering, bedding and a new scope base. The rest have been butchered pretty bad, so they will get sorted out and maybe tweaked to a somewhat different profile or arrangement. Average cost for these is in the $60 range

And I have one Enfield No4 that was sportered before I bought it and is stone gorgeous. I could not leave it behind at the gun store. It tugged on my desire lever for a week before I went back and bought it. Somebody spent upwards of a grand or two (?) doing it, and then it languished away to be eventually turned in on some modern magnum thingy.

OH, and I have a custom built 22-250 on a Mauser action with a Shilen #8 contour barrel with minor engraving and slow rust blueing that is a range and P-Dog toy. You could not buy that rifle anywhere in a catalog. You could duplicate it, but you probably don't want to?

I don't much care for battle sights, I was OK with them 40 years ago when I was humpin my Mattel Rifle, but not so much nowadays. I prefer scopes, so right there is one reason to mess it up. I also don't always like mil-spec triggers, so there is another reason to tweak a rifle.

I like stock work and resin and bedding and finishing and installing butt pads. I like making things fit me. I like modern hi-tech finishes that are heat catalyzed. I like fooling with old steel and welding and filing and emery cloth and such. I like my lathe and drill press(s) and other shop tools. Some of the rifles I tinker on I give away to friends who can finish if they are keen on one I have partly done.

I want to try making a "straight jacket" type barrel system. I think composite barrel technology is a cool thing and I want to experiment with it. Thin profile military long barrels like a couple of my Arisaka's (30") will be fine for an external tube and composite fill. I can cut them down to any number I choose as the muzzles are all pretty worn, but the rest of the rifling is strong

The above reasons are why I do it. It's like a hot rod (which I have built my share of). Only difference is they never made millions of Boss 302's or Gen 1 Z28 Camaros or 57 T-Birds. They did make millions and millions of military rifles. So it's even a better starting point as there is no shortage of "chassis" to fool around with

And they are small projects that can go to sleep while I wait for a part to show up at the right price, delay while inspiration takes its course, or whatever. Building a small block takes up a lot more room. Building a boat even more.

If guns weren't fun we wouldn't be here sharing our views. We get your non-desire and that's OK, but we're not you

 

[Freedom_fighter_in_IL]

Shows how much you know. SOCOM 3 is a PS2 game.

You're also ignoring some of my general responses and you're all taking this rather personally. I don't have a problem with you, but even with all those cookie-cutter responses I just don't see the point in turning a very good general purpose rifle (which is adequate for hunting) into an average hunting rifle (which is inadequate for anything else). It makes it less practical, not more.

I'm speaking as a former hunter. When I hunted, the rifle was always the least important part of the hunt. Why do you hunt? Do you do it to test your rifle or to test yourself? Bone stock milsurps were always good enough and, after all, a good craftsman never blames his tools.

Inadequate for anything else? Can you please explain this drivel to me. My mind can only accept so much circling. How would it be inadequate for anything else? If properly done (and mine as well as most the other people's posting in here are) they are MORE accurate, lighter, better to come to bear, and flat out look better. Now just HOW is that inadequate for anything else? They still go BANG! and, for most of them, they will go BANG! and hit the target! The original versions are actually the ones that are LESS adequate for sporting purposes or target purposes.

Also, most of the pro-"sporterizing" arguments are actually pro-"customizing" arguments. The former I define as altering a rifle to make it more suited for hunting/sport, the latter as altering a rifle to make it more suited to the user.

You are beginning to sound like a troll here. To make a rifle more suited to the USER is making it more usable in the field for hunting! An ill fit rifle is a rifle waiting to miss, or even worse, INJURE a big game animal. And 99.9% of old mil spec rifles are ill fit to most people period. Basic rule of shooting "find a rifle (or build one) that fits your particular form" Length of pull is a VERY key ingredient to this. Improper cheek weld= bad shooting. Improper length of pull= bad shooting. Improper for-arm= bad shooting. Improper balance=bad shooting. I could go on and on but I am starting to think you don't read or comprehend basic shooting.

I have hunted for over 40 years. Pretty much everything edible or predatory on this continent has fallen to either my rifle, bow, or handgun. I subscribe to the belief that ALL animals, either edible, predatory, or nuisance deserve our very best effort to make a clean and quick kill. Going out with an ill fit rifle is NOT doing our best.

 

[LoonWulf]

The only way i see sporterizing as making a gun less shootable, is the fact that cutting weight increases recoil. Just lopping and thinning up a military stock and barrel can cut some 1-2lbs off the weight of a gun. My Nagant with its stumpy stock as a bit of a beast, and im not overly recoil sensitive. With a pad installed, and the correct length of pull, Its just as comfortable as it was before i knocked off the extra weight.

As an aside, id rather have a stock that is too short then too long.

 

[HDCamel]

Inadequate for anything else? Can you please explain this drivel to me.

For starters, sporterizing usually throws the inherent balance of a military rifle (most of which are/were used for drill rifles) COMPLETELY out of whack. A better balanced gun has ALWAYS been a better shooter in my hands for any and all situations. It doesn't matter what else is done with it. If the balance is gone, then I have to work harder to get it on target. I can't really describe it any other way than it feeling "unnatural". Certainly you can bring a lighter rifle to bear faster (coarse adjustment) but actually aiming it while it's there is a chore (fine adjustment).

Removing the irons and adding a scope pretty much negates any close range applications.

Shorter length of pull makes for easier manipulation of the bolt allowing for faster follow-up shots, in my experience. Keeping your elbow in tight means that when you grab the bolt hand your shoulder opens up allowing the butt of the rifle to drop which acts as a gravity assist when opening the bolt. Keeping your hand under the natural balance point means the rifle pivots at your wrist which you can easily keep at roughly the same position as when firing. Closing the bolt closes your shoulder and raises the butt up again with the sights roughly lined up.
Not really good for standard hunting, but a charging animal requires quick, accurate, repeated fire.
You can learn to shoot a rifle accurately with short LOP (I did), but shooting quickly with a poorly balanced rifle with a long LOP is an exercise in futility.

Put simply, a sporter might be great for dropping a deer at 400 yards, but it's terrible for a charging bear at 40. A box stock surplus CAN (not necessarily a good idea to try) drop a deer that far out, AND be far more effective against that bear.

Versatility is the key.

 

[LoonWulf]

adjusting a rifles point of balance is as simple as removing or adding weight depending on your preference. I personally like guns to balance either right at the front action screw (in general), or a tad father forward. It makes them easier to carry inhand, and steadier to shoot from most field positions. Cutting 8"s and the whole stock forward of the sight off my nagant moved the balance point a bit to far back for me, ill be hollowing out the but a bit and possibly putting a few ounces of lead in the for end. When it gets its new stock ill likely have to adjust it again. As for short range shots with scopes, i can shoot just as well at 10yds with a 3-9 as i can with open sights, and Im faster. Its all about use and practice.

I dont hunt dangerous game, and likely never will. I DO hunt deer, in very close cover (mangrove, and keawe forest). Ive left powder burns on deer Ive shot, and believe it or not, ive killed one with a stick.

I just thought of something that Military dress arms DO have on a sporter, If you ever have to use your rifle as a club or spear, your better off with it as it came issued....Reason this came to mind, the stick incident likely wouldnt have happened if i could have hit it with my rifle.

 

[83Enforcer]

Hey Enforcer,

Absolutely love your Swede. I need to find out about the scope mount. Who makes it?

I live in Canada, it can't be sent here but maybe I can find a Canadian dealer.

Thanks,

Walt

wjt

Glad you like it; the mount is called the XS/Clifton Scout Mount. Made by XS Sights Systems. Here's the link

http://www.xssights.com/index.php?nID=scopemounts&cID=Scope%20Mounts&pID=scopemounts

Here is a post I did on how to mount it on a M96. This is my second M96 6.5x55 scout rifle.

http://www.scoutrifle.org/index.php?topic=832.0

You should have no trouble getting the XS mount in Canada. Good Luck!

Rod

 

[wjt]

Thanks for the info, enforcer. I'll look for one over here.

It's too bad that the 9-11 tragedy has put a fence up between neighbours.

Walt

 

[451 Detonics]

I use the XS lever rail on a Marlin 336, great sight system. I would think any of their products would be top shelf.

 

[Freedom_fighter_in_IL]

Shorter length of pull makes for easier manipulation of the bolt allowing for faster follow-up shots

I can empty my 10 round magazine, AIMED and well on target, in 15 seconds or less with all my sported Enfields. No problems there for me and I am VERY gorilla armed with feet for hands.

Like Loon_Wolf, I have dropped deer at knife range with my 2.5-7x40 Nikon on one of my sported. The only time I have had to "defend myself" against any charging animals with them were on hogs and I had no problems whatsoever getting a quick sight picture and dropping them at my feet. Only Bear charges I've had to fire on was while Salmon fishing and I had my .44mag on my hip then. Black bear charges are rare for me. Im usually bigger than the black bears where I hunt Brown bears on the other hand Whole different story. Thats what I had my handgun for while fishing. This whole "need to be able to defend myself against bears" is so overblown out of proportion it's damn near hilarious. 99.9% of the time a bear will be in another zip code the minute you are spotted or smelled. Unless you surprise a sow with cubs or get close to a bear's downed game, the odds against you getting attacked are astronomical.

As Loon_Wolf also said, it just takes practice as it does with ANY type of firearm. COULD I get used to a short LOP? Sure I can and have shot them. The question is WHY would I when I don't like it and have the ability to fashion a stock that fits my own particular form.

 

[HDCamel]

"Gorilla-armed" eh?
I suppose if your arms are that long then you absolutely need a longer LOP.

I would define myself as average build. A little overweight (Freshman 15 that never went away) but otherwise average. It's possible that my build is SO average that a milsurp designed for a theoretically average person fits me perfectly.

I didn't mean just bears specifically. The word "bear" just sort of popped into my head. I've not had a violent encounter with a bear except, like you, once when I was salmon fishing, but I HAVE had to deal with a moose charge and a VERY unhappy mountain lion. The former with an actual hunting rifle, the latter with a box stock 1903. Judging from my attitude, I think you can guess which situation I'd rather re-live.

 

[Ignition Override]

dirtyjim:

Even though my latest FR8's dinged stock has nice character and color, and only military looks appeal to some of us, I must admit that your rifles and the others on this thread are quite attractive.
Those rifles were fortunate to have fallen into very skilled and dedicated hands.

They are in a totally different league than many which we see at Memphis area gun shows having pitiful results.

You can imagine the sad results of a guy's old Yugo 48 or maybe Enfield #4 at the Southaven show, with a bolt which looks like it melted in a volcano, turned down so much that you couldn't quite get a finger under the handle.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

I would define myself as average build. A little overweight (Freshman 15 that never went away) but otherwise average. It's possible that my build is SO average that a milsurp designed for a theoretically average person fits me perfectly.

Actually, military rifles are not designed for the average person. Because it's easier to adapt to a short stock than to one that's too long, stocks are designed for people below average in height and arm length.

Conversely, tanks and armored fighting vehicles are designed for the 95th percentile -- the tall people, because short people can fit into a space designed for a bigger person, but not vice-versa.

 

[HDCamel]

I guess I'm just easily adaptable then...

 

[Art Eatman]

"...sporterizing usually throws the inherent balance of a military rifle...COMPLETELY out of whack"

Not a reason in the world why it would. The most that's been commonly done to the receiver and barrel is shortening to around 22" or 24", which is a quite common length on factory sporters. Restocking is a common thing, given the hundreds of posts here about replacing wood with "plastic", etc. And no reason that installing a scope would do anything to the balance.

Granted, Dumbbubba can wreck an anvil with a fly swatter, but any halfway competent gunsmith can do a quality job in sporterizing a MilSurp.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Amen. I have a couple of sporterized rifles.

One of them, Bigfoot Wallace, is my "heavy" rifle, a custom '30 Springfield in .35 Brown-Whelen (the most radical form of the Whelen.) This rifle was built by CW Fitch of Phoenix in the later '60s or early '70s and that man knew how to build a rifle. The rifle has beautiful balance, has the proper stock design to deal with the admittedly heavy recoil, and so on.

The other is one of the '96 Mausers sporterized by Kimber back in the early '90s. And it had a lot of things wrong with it -- bendy, plastic stock, horrible trigger, and so on. But I got it cheaply enough so I could restock it, add a Bold trigger, a better scope and so on. And in terms of balance, it is better than the original long-barreled M96.

 

[BrocLuno]

After my previous post, I see that the subject of fit and balance has brought out a decent discussion. I'm 6ft and 240". I have gorilla arms and big hands. Short LOP just puts the bolt in my eye or cheekbone during cycle unless I get close to 14" All my Mil-Surp sporter projects end up around 14" My shooting buddy is 6'3" and he like them long too. So we get to swap among his projects and mine. Short folks need not apply.

Balance? I agree that it should be a tad further forward than the front action screw.

Scope can't shoot close in - what you been smoking? Close in at less than 25 yds is pointing al-la shotgun. Beyond that, all my scopes will put the hairs on the right region. Shoot with both eyes open and you'll see that circle and hairs superimposed on the animal just fine. It's when you are trying to see beyond a 100 yds that a good variable will help. And the BDC reticle in my Nikons makes longer shots more fun

I see that we are fundamentally different folks. OK, but don't think that all rifles need to be left alone or configured for your tastes. Your sensibilities do not govern my actions.

The military has been tweaking their own systems right along. We just tweak ours for different reasons.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Couldn't have said it better myself.

When I customize a rifle, I make it to suit me, not the average person.

That said, I have a rack full of Springfields and other militarys that I will leave as-is. By sporterizing a Springfield or similar rifle, you can spend $500 to turn an $800 rifle into a $300 rifle.

 

[Freedom_fighter_in_IL]

Well, lets just have a look at some other really nicely done sported's shall we

Now pardon me but this one is just a butt ugly bubba



And I am sure this one would make some of you purists just hurl



And then this one is just so God awful ugly that it will want to make you smack your mammy




Anyway, just sayin. Not ALL sported jobs are what most of you guys are calling "bubba'd" There are SOME "Bubbas" that know what the hell we are doing and you would be LUCKY to have one of us be so kind as to build a work of art for you!

PS. Those were all featured on Chuck Hawks page. 2 of them being, well lets just say I'm glad he liked them

 

[skeptical_in_Ohio]

This thread has me thinking about a Mosin-Nagant...

Hi all-

I'm a novice at most of what I'm going to ask about, so please be gentle with advice and comments (but do please offer them).

Over the past year or so I've gotten into shooting, and have rather enjoyed it, and have bought a few different things for different shooting experiences and I've liked them all.

To point, I've been reading with fascination this thread, because one thing I've not done yet is shoot a rifle with what I'd call a serious round (e.g. 30.06 or 7.62 X 54r), and I've not shot anything with a scope. I'd like to do so, but a $3-400 plus firearm (for a good one) seems overkill given that I'm mainly doing this for fun rather than put meat on the table. Also, my wife has been rather patient with my new hobby, so I'd like not to go nuts in terms of just buying something (although if it could be kept under $300 this might be an option - and easier for me - an admitted novice, though one that generally can figrue stuff out).

I'm not devoted to the notion of a military rifle, but AIM surplus is jless than an hour from me and has round-receiver 91/30's for $80 (from what I've read less desirable to collectors - probably why they're cheaper). I don't want permanently alter an old military rifle, but I get the idea that what I'm thinking might work, and I'd like opinions/advice.

I was thinking of a multi-stage plan to end up with something suitable for long range target shooting, but that can be returned to bone stock easily.

First, I'd purchase the rifle and take it to the range and shoot it a few times over the next couple of months. That should be fairly straightforward, although I'd like to avoid for now using surplus ammo due to the corrosivenes of it.

After this, if what I've read is right, I'll be wanting a recoil pad fairly quicklly. I've seen one that bolts on (rather than slides over) the stock (also designed to add an inch to the stock length), but one could always remove it and return the firearm to original. I've seen these in the 10-15 dollar range.

Second, iron sights beyond 100 yards for me won't work long term (and I've never shot with a scope, which I'd like to experience). I've seen ways to mount a scope to the 91/30; one at Amazon included a mount and a scope for under $60 that appears not to alter the firearm permanently, but I don't know how good this setup might be - reviews were mixed. Assuming that this would not work, is there a way to get a solid scope mounting platform in a minimally-invasive way (i.e. maybe leaving a couple of holes drilled and tapped by a smith, but no more)?

Of course, a scope would also likely mean replacing the bolt but I've seen them available for as low as $55, and I could keep the original to put back on as need be.

Hence, if my math and thinking are right I'd have something that could be returned to stock easily while yet modified to my needs/desires for a touch over $200, doable in stages.

Please feel free to comment/offer advice/etc.

Thanks for your time and attention.

 

[BrocLuno]

Sorry, but once I'm done cutting, hacking and filing - there is no way to go back to bone stock. The reasons for me to "sporterize" have to do with things that the military configuration does not offer like glass bedding. Once you go down this route, going back ain't really feasible.

I suggest you look for a rifle that has already been altered. There are hundreds of thousands of them out there. Maybe 1/2 of all service rifles have already been tampered with? They offer plenty of parts that already fit together and a good starting place. Then build your target rifle. You are not hurting anything of value to speak of and you can change it over and over as you chase the sub-MOA dream target.

To get sub-MOA out of an old military rifle or action, you will need a good barrel, a good chamber and crown, a good stock with bedding, and an adjustable trigger as starting points. Then it's hobby time hand fitting, free floating, adding pillar bedding or improving the recoil restraint surfaces, etc.

Your choice of sights - mil-spec, target aperture, or scope - based on the class you want to shoot? It's fun looking for stuff to make it work, and then fitting it all together. Not a budget buster with careful shopping and maybe some donated parts along the way.

I'm becoming a fan of the Arisaka as a very sensible design. Sort of the Toyota Camry of the Mauser derivatives. In bubba cut down form, it's a very light and quick pointing rifle. In long rifle form it offers as much as 30" of barrel to play with so lots of relative velocity for the powder charge.

Old dark and rough bores can be rebored to another caliber/cartridge. There are services that do this regularly. Or folks like Pac-Nor will make you a new barrel to spec minus final fitting and chamber cutting. That's the place where some of your desired accuracy comes from.

Military chambers pre-M16 were generally cut a bit loose so that dirty or wet ammo would still chamber and fire on the battle field. This leads to too much "jump" for the bullet entering the throat. If you want tight groups, you need to tighten up these specs such that you seated bullet will be near or touching the lands when chambered.

If using a Mil-spec barrel in decent shape, just have it set back into the action and rechambered. It will get you closer to your goal. But it won't go back to bone stock that way. And adding an adjustable trigger won't either. The sporters you've seen in this thread are not going back. My 1903A3 will because Uncle never hacked any of the metal, he just restocked. But my other sporters are too far away from stock to go back. Likely, your will too

 

[mudbugmitch]

There are many opinions here on this subject. I would just like to add mine. I just picked up a sporter Mauser .30.06 for 50 bucks. How can you beat that.
It was nicely done back in the 60's. Don't know much about them but love them .

Mudbug

 

[we are not amused]

Turns it into a hunting rifle instead of a club? I dunno.

Beautiful Krag! Love it.

I agree.

When I was pretty young, Dad let me fire his unaltered 1903 Springfield. It knocked me on my rear. He then let me fire his 30-40 unaltered full length Krag. Even though I had to lean way back to hold the very long barrel up, I merely staggered under the recoil. Dad then found a old beat up, but unaltered 1898 30-40 Krag carbine. I could shoot it with out leaning back to hold up the barrel, and the recoil was much more manageable.

This was my deer gun for the next 40 years. Lately, the use of bi-focals has made the old rifle's iron sights less effective, and I recently bought another Krag for conversion to use with a scope. It was a "sporterised" model, or I wouldn't consider altering it.

I own several Krags. My Dad's unaltered full length Krag included. I recently took it out and fired it. It was just as I remembered it. Long, heavy and clumsy. Still, given the use for which it was intended, it was a fine military weapon for its day. Still, the thought of lugging that heavy, long piece of iron up a mountain, or through thick woods, to hunt deer or elk, would give me second thoughts. The unaltered Krag carbine suited me very well, as I was shooting at deer at a maximum of 300 yards, usually much less.

While I would never alter a old military rifle with collectible value, such as an original Krag or pre WWII Springfield in decent shape today. I don't condemn those that did, and given the huge number of very cheap Mauser's and Moisin-Nagants on the market, I would not hesitate to alter one of them today. Otherwise, they are just wall hangers, occasionally hauled out to shoot at a range. All very well from a collectible standpoint, but as a useful hunting gun, not.

 

[Lone_Sheep_Dog]

I don't get it either. If you want a hunting rifle, why not just buy a hunting rifle? You could just sell the military rifle to fund a new hunting rifle if you don't appreciate the history of the gun.

 

[jimmyraythomason]

If you want a hunting rifle, why not just buy a hunting rifle?

You will find the answer to that question in the previous 6 pages of posts.

You could just sell the military rifle to fund a new hunting rifle if you don't appreciate the history of the gun.

Most of them HAVE NO significant history.

 

[we are not amused]

I don't get it either. If you want a hunting rifle, why not just buy a hunting rifle? You could just sell the military rifle to fund a new hunting rifle if you don't appreciate the history of the gun.

Back when most of the alterations of military rifles took place, they were very cheap compared to a new hunting rifle, and gunsmith labor to alter them was much cheaper than it is today.

A cheap Mauser or Moisin-Nagant is far cheaper than a Remington 700, and with a little work can be made into a decent hunting rifle. Given todays gunsmith prices, it may not be cost effective, but if you are willing, (and capable) of doing the work your self, you now have a very decent hunting rifle, at far less cost than a cheap purpose made new rifle.