Is it wrong to modify a common military surplus rifle?

[lionking]

well you said common and plentiful but....

Swede M96 was plentiful for a while,so were Springfields,M1917 and Garand.

I saw a few months ago a excellent Winchester M1 carbine that a owner had carved checkering into the wood

I guess its alright as long as there are no perminant changes to it.

True that its yours to do what you want but today there are so many commercial designs at decent prices it makes no sense to me to try to make a historical rifle into a sporter hunting rifle.

 

[Gewehr98]

He's right, to a point...

Quote:
Originally Posted by g56
Keep in mind that if you bought it under a C&R FFL, you can't make permanent modifications to it, anything you do must be easily reverseable.
Source?

If you purchase a firearm as a C&R, and then modify it such that it doesn't have the attributes that made it a C&R to begin with, then it has lost the C&R status and cannot be sold as such until it is restored back to the configuration that granted the status to begin with. Meaning - it can still be sold as a modern firearm afterwards, but will not get the C&R eligibility. If you never plan on selling the C&R milsurp you modify, or don't mind transferring it to somebody else as a modern gun, then no big deal.

Some folks have gone to the extremes and tried to purchase sporterized milsurps (ie, a rebarreled .270 Garand) and stripped receivers under C&R auspices, only to be denied the sale by sharp FFL holders. Why? That's plainly discouraged by the regs, contact any C&R or retail FFL holder and they can point it out to you where it's written in black and white.

More here:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=210242


I remember the days when I thought there would always be Mausers, Lee-Enfields, Springfields, Krags, Trapdoors, M1 Carbines, Garands, and so forth. They were cheap, everywhere, and I passed up many a pristine example just because I knew I could always find one X number of years down the road at the same prices. Boy, was I naieve.

 

[TimboKhan]

I say no, but it's qualified. First, you can slap a Mosin in a synthetic stock and basically not change anything about the gun. Your making it more modern, but your not doing anything that can't be undone, and I can't see a problem in that. Second, if you have the skills, you can take old crappy military stocks and work them into something fairly pretty. It trashes the original stock, but it beautifies the rifle to a degree that would make anyone proud to own and shoot it. I don't have a problem with that either. However, I cringe when I see what people who don't have the skills can do to a perfectly good mil-surp. I have seen guns that just about made me cry because of their craptacularity. Look people, if you know you can't do it, practice on a 2x4 or something along those lines until you can!

The other qualifier is that I think it behooves the owner of any milsurp to take a little extra time to research the gun before it gets bubba-fied. Using Mosin's as an example again, there are plenty of people who can't tell a Finnish gun from any other Mosin, and while it isn't a ton of money, you are losing money tampering with those guns. There are plenty of plain-jane, run of the mill Mosin's around to tamper with, and it will take only a few minutes of internet research to determine if you should go ahead with your plans or keep it as is.

Personally, I like my milsurps just how they are. I shoot all of them, and I don't mind if they are a little clunky or whatever. They were issued and used that way, and I personally feel that it takes a lot of the fun out of mil-surps to modify them to fit modern needs.

 

[RNB65]

Nah. It's your rifle, do whatever you want with it (as long as it's BATFE legal, that is).

 

[Glockfan.45]

Its your gun do what you want. Even if you had say a WWII Singer M1911 and wanted to gold plate it, and intall a set of pearl grips . I may roll my eyes at you and walk away in disgust but is your gun just the same.

 

[.45Guy]

I just had to dredge this one up. BTW, I never did buy it...Maybe I will yet...

 

[RON in PA]

NO!

 

[swingset]

No.

In 100 years there could be hundreds of thousands of surplus guns for future generations to enjoy.....parts of our past. Instead, because of bubbas making a $200 K98 into a $100 "scout gun", there will be very few good examples left around by then.

Don't believe me? Try to find a minty Krag you can afford. Once, they were "common", and you could buy them by the barrel at Montgomery Ward....and folks cut them up and ruined them.

Either you think about the future, or you think about now. Bubba foregoes buying a $300 Savage to buy a $100 Mosin and putting $250 into it. He only sees NOW.

 

[Koobuh]

I would have to say 'yes', with a caveat.

If the rifle is just a barreled action, in poor shape (due to accidents post surplusing; scars earned in battle should be given due respect), or previously 'modified', I would consider it fair game. There are a couple examples of these in my basement right now, in varying stages of rebirth as project rifles.

However, a virgin (i.e., unmodified by civilians beyond the obscenity of an import marking), good condition rifle should be left alone. There are precious few examples of rifles that were actually improved in real terms through permanent modification.

Also, I wouldn't consider non-permanent additions or alterations to be modification. If it's completely reversible it's fair game by me.


Refinishing is clearly modification, even if it is bringing the item back into original spec. The process removes any character the firearm developed in the course of its lifecycle, from blood pitting to rack marks. Everything 'wrong' with a worn weapon of war is a part of its history- by extension, our own history.
That said, I have little problem with adding your own dings and scrapes to a milsurp, unless the history is too important to lose through basic use.

For example, I have a basically new M39 that probably never left its rack for longer than it took to load onto a pallet headed for AIM's warehouse. It has dings, and scratches, and gouges from the transport, and I have decided to leave all of them. They are a part of its history, and I'm enjoying the heck out of the rifle in it's original form. The most I would do is trigger shimming and possibly some stock reinforcement with bedding material- though the latter only if it become obviously necessary.

 

[Ash]

Yes. Just because it is temporarily easy to get does not make it common. For instance, 11 years ago, Finn Mosins were easy to get. As a result, some very rare (and yes, a rifle that is one of only 3,000 ever made, is RARE) rifles were butchered. I have seen many forever butchered rifles that are one of a handful left in the world. But, they could be had at Roses cheaply.

If Bubba wants to sporterize, he should at least keep it to himself and not drop it off at a pawn shop 6 months later, only to butcher another one when the mood strikes him. One Bubba can butcher 20 or 30 milsurps in a lifetime.

Ash

 

[MCgunner]

Half the fun of mil surps is making 'em more useful for hunting. I've modified a Mauser and an SKS for hunting, another SKS I tacticooled. That's what I got 'em for. I paid for 'em, they're mine, and in the words of Eric Cartman, "I do what I want."

That said, the military guns I've "sporterized" have fallen short of what you can buy off the shelf from Savage, Remington, Ruger, etc for hunting. It was just a phase I went through, I think, but I know others that sporterize mil surps for fun as a hobby just to be doing it. Nothing wrong with that I don't think. Some folk's "butchering" is other folk's "improving". I don't care how rare it is, if I wanna sporterize it, I ain't gonna ask your permission. It's my money, my rifle, and my spare time. A raw mil surp rifle is pretty worthless to me.

 

[Bwana John]

Yes, it is wrong.

Bubba is as Bubba does.

 

[kfranz]

No, it is not wrong. Stealing is wrong. Breaking things that belong to others is wrong.

Sporterizing a mil-surp may be financially foolish, and it might cause said firearm to actually be less useful than when it started, but it isn't wrong.

 

[MrTwigg]

Please, nothing permanant !

Even the most common Milsurps have a history, and this is why I buy them.

 

[MCgunner]

I don't really know why anyone should care WHAT I do to any mil surp bein' as it's mine. If I'm a bubba, I'm one of many and I'm a college educated bubba. The SKSs I've done were add ons, though I drilled and tapped the receiver of one SKS to install the scope mount. SKSs are so common even those that think it's sacrilege shouldn't care about one Norinco mil surp. That one's a fun gun and I've kept it. In fact, I might take it to the stand with me tomorrow morning. Been hunting with my Contender last couple of mornings.

Anyway, I bought this Spanish 93 small ring Mauser with the intention of doing minimal work to sporterize it. I refinished the stock, had a smith mount scope mounts and turn down the bolt. It was already turned down, but had to be reshaped. A little bit of the stock had to be relieved for this, of course.

I had a 7 mag at the time, big 26" barreled bulky Savage (still have it) and a .257 Roberts. The idea was to get a mil surp in a decent mid range caliber to fill in the gap between the two. Now, of course, I could have loaded the 7 down a bit, but this Spanish Mauser had a very handy 20" barrel and short action, nice. I could have gotten it in a conversion to .308 Winchester, but opted for the 7 Mauser original for $60. Now, what I didn't count on was that it was rifled rather fast and only shot well with 175 grain round nose Hornady bullets. But, that's okay, I theorized on hogs and deer out to 250-300 yards, it would be a hammer with those long, blunt bullets. I got good hunting accuracy out of it, 2 MOA, effective to about as far as I'd be shooting. The gun, while heavy, was handy as all get out in a stand, very short, and was a handsome, rugged piece. I never shot anything with it because after building it, I won a Remington 700BDL in .25-06 in a door prize at a local gun show. I traded that rifle for the little stainless M7 .308 I now own and really, really like. So, I sold the Mauser to a friend who wanted a rugged, effective, cheap rifle. I got $150 for it. I spent $60 on it and the smithing was about 60 so the gun set me back $120 without the scope I put on it. That's pretty cost effective for such a rugged and reasonably accurate hunting rifle IMHO. If I had a need in my collection of hunting rifles that a sporterized mil surp could fill cheaply and effectively, I'd not hesitate to build another one. It don't have to cost much, ya know. You don't necessarily have to do a lot of work to a mil surp to build an effective hunting rifle. A scope is pretty much a must, but beyond that, it don't have to be fancy to be effective.

That said, I don't think I'd want that old Mauser and give my Remington M7 back. That little gun is LIGHT as well as handy and 1 MOA accurate in what is a quite effective caliber. But, if you went to buy a stainless M7 instead of winning a gun and trading for it, it'd set you back a lot more scratch than that mil surp Mauser did. I basically don't care about the gun's former use. What I'm lookin' at is something I have use for. I'm a hunter, not a historian or museum curator.

 

[Mr White]

GOD WILL STRIKE YOU DEAD AND YOU WILL BURN FOR ETERNITY IN HELL IF YOU MODIFY ANY MILITARY RIFLE IN ANY WAY!!!!

Clear enough?

call me a purist... or an a$$hat , but that's how I feel.

 

[Essex County]

I collect Mil-Surps and none of mine are permently altered....But this is still America and you still have the freedom to do what you wish with your property. As I get older and grouchier I resent the elitest collector attitude " That nothing should be touched". I don't chop mine up becasse I don't want to and it makes no financial sense....Grouchy Old Essex

 

[JesseL]

How old does a thing have to be before it's wrong to alter it from it's original condition? How rare does it have to be? Where do you draw the line?

Is it wrong to turn a 1977 Super Beetle into a baja bug? How about a 1948 split window?

It is impossible to preserve the artifacts of the past 100%. People will modify alter and even destroy their possessions until it is obvious to the general public that these items are rare and valuable.

It's supply and demand in reverse. The supply of pristine old milsurps will dwindle until there are only enough to meet the demands of collectors willing to preserve them.

For the people that hate to see old guns bubba'd, buy as many as you can afford NOW. Accept that the ones that are altered or destroyed are not yours and will only serve to increase the value of what you have.

 

[kfranz]

but that's how I feel

The original post noted the strong "feelings" often associated with this sort of discussion, and indeed asked for the "feelings" of THR. I guess I screwed up in my first post, because I answered based on my thoughts rather than my feelings. That is primarily due to the fact that I have no feelings for milsurp arms. I own a fair number of them but try as I might, I just don't get the "feeling" thing. I wonder sometimes where they've been and in what role they were used, but wondering is thinking rather than feeling. I've altered one or two, and didn't feel anything other than a little disappointed that I didn't do as good a job as I'd hoped to because I'd listened the part of me that said "get it done" rather than the part that said "take your time".

Personally, I'll save the feelings for looking at my sleeping children and stick to thinking when it comes to altering mil surp rifles.

 

[mp510]

Generally I'll say yes. Previously I would have said the opposite. I can recall in the 1990's, Enfields were a dime a dozwen, and it was popular/acceptable butcher them every which way. Anyhow, today, they are running dry, and cost significantly more. I can't help but know that todays Mosins and Mausers will do them same. Anyone else remember the $99 Swedish Mausers?

 

[Mr White]

GOD WILL STRIKE YOU DEAD AND YOU WILL BURN FOR ETERNITY IN HELL IF YOU MODIFY ANY MILITARY RIFLE IN ANY WAY!!!!

Clear enough?

call me a purist... or an a$$hat , but that's how I feel.

I probably should have appended that post with a or a . I'm really not that hardcore about milsurps.

My position on milsurps is one of... Its your gun so you're obviously free to do what you want with it but I'll never permanently alter any of mine.

Even if the guns are dirt cheap and a dime a dozen now, in 30 or 40 years when my kids get them, they might be worth a good piece of change. But its not really even about the money. Its more about that feeling (sorry kfranz, I have feelings, albiet completely different ones, about my guns and my kids) of connectin with the past that I get from shooting a gun that's exactly the same as the gun shot by that poor grunt hunkered down in some muddy foxhole in France, or around Stalingrad, or in Helsinki.

 

[SuperNaut]

This thread really makes the perverse side of me want to slaughter some sacred cattle.

I chop my bikes, cars, guitars, and guns.

 

[rbernie]

My attitude towards many of the responses in this thread is simple - if you want to presume to tell someone what to do with their personal property, then you better be prepared to pay them fair market value for it and take it off their hands. Calling them names and denigrating their choices without walking the walk in some fashion (infusions of time, effort, intellectual capital, and/or money to secure and preserve these historic artifacts) is decidedly NOT High Road....

I do not chop or alter MilSurps. I have bought altered MilSurps for the purposes of making them into useful things. I have sold MilSurps at a loss (e.g. my gorgeous 1901 Gustaf and my FN49) rather than give in to my urges to chop them or make them into things that they were not designed to be.

But I say again - you cannot tell someone else what to value; you can only work to safeguard that which you value. Sniping from the sidelines without walking the walk is, well, sooner or later going to be seen for what it is.....

 

[sefus]

I use the same methodology on modifying milsurplus as I do for cars. If it was a piece, do what you want. If it was a nice original, dont cut it up, it should be enjoyed for what it was/is.

Part of why I like my SKS so much is that its got all the carvings on the stock that some board soldier did while on watch some night or sitting around a camp fire. Neat history there.

I am so impressed with how my beauty of a M44 shoots (besides the darn bolt) that I'm looking for another in worse shape to put into a synthetic stock and mount a scope to it.

Most the time though I see people doing things that throw off the carriability and balence and simplicity of a good surplus firearm, trying to make it something its not, and that doesnt make sence to me.

 

[CarlosU]

If I go to hell because I had my gunsmith mount a scope and turn the bolt on my all matching 6.5x55sm M96 small ring then so be it. I will take my 96 with me and enjoy every moment of it.

At the end of the day its your weapon do with it as you may and be happy with your decision.

Collectors collect
Shooters shot

We both enjoy.

Carlos