MCgunner
Member
Hmm, them might have been carvin's on dat ol' SKS? Oh, well....
It might have once killed American soldiers, but now it kills deer and hogs.
Is it wrong to modify a common military surplus rifle?
- Thread starter B yond
- Start date
- Status
Hmm, them might have been carvin's on dat ol' SKS? Oh, well....
It might have once killed American soldiers, but now it kills deer and hogs.
U.S.SFC_RET
Member
I (rescued) a sporterized 1903A3 from a pawn shop in Colorado Springs, Co and whoever the former owner was sporterized it and paid a little bit more than average to get it done. I bought it in 1984 and still have it. Beautiful Gun. Will I sporterize one? No, because to me it brings discredit to the history of that gun.
Not entirely true.
I take great exception to that stereotype. I'm well on my way to a collection of 200 guns so far. I shoot every one of them, and if I don't, I sell them. The majority of them are either pristine or original milsurps, or specimens I took several years and unknown dollars to restore back to as-issued condition after Bubba "improved" things by taking a hacksaw to them. I enjoy taking the historical firearms out to the range, and letting others shoot these not-so-common pieces of history. Just remember, the CMP isn't going to have M1 Garands forever, I figure they'll run out in just a couple years.
Everybody has the right to take a piece of history and modify it the way they see fit. I won't agree that it's the most intelligent thing to do these days when Remchesters are widely available for customizing, but one does have the right to do so. And there's a HUGE difference between Bubba (See bastardized Mauser above in .45 Guy's posting) and true masters of conversion like R. F. Sedgley or P.O. Ackley. See this M1917 U.S. Enfield? I bought it because of the exquisite amount of work the builder had done to make a hotrod long-range target and varmint rifle, in a wildcat 6mm-270 chambering called .236 Super. I'd hardly call it a Bubba job - Bubba don't do Unertl.
Speaking of Bubba, he has cousins. I saw a Corvette Stingray in Melbourne, FL that was converted to a station wagon, and had a bright red metalflake paint job. Somebody must've thought it was an improvement. It had a For Sale sign on it, so perhaps the owner sobered up and realized what he had done.
The old saying is, "It's your bar of soap and washcloth. You can scrub as hard and fast as you'd like..."
I take great exception to that stereotype. I'm well on my way to a collection of 200 guns so far. I shoot every one of them, and if I don't, I sell them. The majority of them are either pristine or original milsurps, or specimens I took several years and unknown dollars to restore back to as-issued condition after Bubba "improved" things by taking a hacksaw to them. I enjoy taking the historical firearms out to the range, and letting others shoot these not-so-common pieces of history. Just remember, the CMP isn't going to have M1 Garands forever, I figure they'll run out in just a couple years.
Everybody has the right to take a piece of history and modify it the way they see fit. I won't agree that it's the most intelligent thing to do these days when Remchesters are widely available for customizing, but one does have the right to do so. And there's a HUGE difference between Bubba (See bastardized Mauser above in .45 Guy's posting) and true masters of conversion like R. F. Sedgley or P.O. Ackley. See this M1917 U.S. Enfield? I bought it because of the exquisite amount of work the builder had done to make a hotrod long-range target and varmint rifle, in a wildcat 6mm-270 chambering called .236 Super. I'd hardly call it a Bubba job - Bubba don't do Unertl.
Speaking of Bubba, he has cousins. I saw a Corvette Stingray in Melbourne, FL that was converted to a station wagon, and had a bright red metalflake paint job. Somebody must've thought it was an improvement. It had a For Sale sign on it, so perhaps the owner sobered up and realized what he had done.
The old saying is, "It's your bar of soap and washcloth. You can scrub as hard and fast as you'd like..."
Some of take a slightly different approach
I guess according to some folks, I am going to hell. I ain't gonna lose any sleep over it. I have converted, or assisted in the conversion of quite a few "milsurp" rifles, Mausers, Springfields, Arisakas, even Krags. At the time they were as cheap and plentiful as the eastern bloc rifles are today.
Not "bubba-ed", but fine wood stocks, custom metalwork, blueing, etc. Rebarreling, custom triggers, the works. These rifles were not "butchered" they became functional works of the gunsmiths art.
Many people today think that is something disrespectful. I look at it the other way. The rifles are improved, often drastically. These rifles are not really popular right now, and can often be found at the gunshows at near bargin prices.
I also collect and shoot military rifles in issue condition. There is a great before and after thing there. I have a number of milsurps, and no plans to convert any of them. Not because of the money, or because of their historical significance, but just because I have no reason to.
I have a good friend who does just the opposite, when he can. He finds the "bubba-ed" guns, and restores them. We get a kick out of comparing, an issue 1903A1 Springfield (his) to mine, which is a .25-06, custom wood, deep luster blue and polished steel, etc.
Perhaps part of the current desire to preserve milsurps is because most of the best ones are gone, and civilian rifles are better then the used to be. When we sporterized k98s, 1903s, 1917s, and others, we wound up with a rifle equal to or better than what was available from major US makers, and often at less cost.
Those days are gone, and the cheap common milsurps available today
cannot be made into the same class of rifles. Nice guns, yes. But not the quality sporters of yesteryear. I don't mean to upset some of the kids out there who think their M 44 carbine is the greatest thing ever, but you just can't do the same things to it that we did to make our guns. Not and get the same results. You put enough work into a 98 Mauser, or a Springfield or the Enfield, and you can match the high grade guns that came out of Griffith & Howe.
I guess according to some folks, I am going to hell. I ain't gonna lose any sleep over it. I have converted, or assisted in the conversion of quite a few "milsurp" rifles, Mausers, Springfields, Arisakas, even Krags. At the time they were as cheap and plentiful as the eastern bloc rifles are today.
Not "bubba-ed", but fine wood stocks, custom metalwork, blueing, etc. Rebarreling, custom triggers, the works. These rifles were not "butchered" they became functional works of the gunsmiths art.
Many people today think that is something disrespectful. I look at it the other way. The rifles are improved, often drastically. These rifles are not really popular right now, and can often be found at the gunshows at near bargin prices.
I also collect and shoot military rifles in issue condition. There is a great before and after thing there. I have a number of milsurps, and no plans to convert any of them. Not because of the money, or because of their historical significance, but just because I have no reason to.
I have a good friend who does just the opposite, when he can. He finds the "bubba-ed" guns, and restores them. We get a kick out of comparing, an issue 1903A1 Springfield (his) to mine, which is a .25-06, custom wood, deep luster blue and polished steel, etc.
Perhaps part of the current desire to preserve milsurps is because most of the best ones are gone, and civilian rifles are better then the used to be. When we sporterized k98s, 1903s, 1917s, and others, we wound up with a rifle equal to or better than what was available from major US makers, and often at less cost.
Those days are gone, and the cheap common milsurps available today
cannot be made into the same class of rifles. Nice guns, yes. But not the quality sporters of yesteryear. I don't mean to upset some of the kids out there who think their M 44 carbine is the greatest thing ever, but you just can't do the same things to it that we did to make our guns. Not and get the same results. You put enough work into a 98 Mauser, or a Springfield or the Enfield, and you can match the high grade guns that came out of Griffith & Howe.
I'd say NO, but keep the original military stock... you can always sell it to someone looking to un-bubba theirs.
TimboKhan
Member
I too take exception to that statement. I collect my mil-surps specifically to shoot them! If I can't shoot it and have fun with it, then I don't want it. As it happens, I like my mil-surps to stay in their original form because I appreciate the history behind them, but I still shoot the crap out of them.
Monkeybear
Member
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2006
- Messages
- 1,178
Some people have an emotional attachment these rifles and believe they should be left as is. There is nothing remotely wrong with this way of thinking. However some people just see rifles and they modify them and create a rifle they want instead of the rifle others think they should be happy with. Group A sees a history or collectors value or something of that nature and Group B sees some wood and metal that together with proper ammunition can make loud noises and put holes in things.
If you are a rifle collector/enthusiast first then the rifle comes first and changing an out of production rifle must seem a lot like ruining it. If you are a shooter first then the rifle comes second and the most important thing is that the rifle carries and shoots the way you want it too. For those that are shooters first and collectors/enthusiast second modifying a mil-surp sees a lot like a good idea if you shoot with it better afterwards.
Me personally? I like to leave the rifles alone, they are fine as is. I enjoy them for what they are and see no need to change them. I enjoy seeing someone elses nicely sported mil-surp as well and it don't really do anything to me one way or another to see an altogether ruined rifle.
If you are a rifle collector/enthusiast first then the rifle comes first and changing an out of production rifle must seem a lot like ruining it. If you are a shooter first then the rifle comes second and the most important thing is that the rifle carries and shoots the way you want it too. For those that are shooters first and collectors/enthusiast second modifying a mil-surp sees a lot like a good idea if you shoot with it better afterwards.
Me personally? I like to leave the rifles alone, they are fine as is. I enjoy them for what they are and see no need to change them. I enjoy seeing someone elses nicely sported mil-surp as well and it don't really do anything to me one way or another to see an altogether ruined rifle.
American By Blood
Member
I'm not going to go out and gather signatures for an anti-bubbaing ballot inititative, but that doesn't mean I have to be OK with it. As Gewehr 98 pointed out, each milsurp is common until they run out and each is possessed of some degree of historical significance. Permanently altering a milsurp is akin to finding a Crusader's Bible in Jerusalem and adding "nekkid ladiez an' sumpin' about Dubya bein' da sekkin comin' " to make it "better."
I wish I could find it, but some months ago there was a thread in this section of the forum about a bubbaed milsurp that a poster was restoring to something closer to its original state. That's alteration I can approve of.
I wish I could find it, but some months ago there was a thread in this section of the forum about a bubbaed milsurp that a poster was restoring to something closer to its original state. That's alteration I can approve of.
Cuts both ways for me:
I've sporterized a couple of Mausers, but they were types made in the MILLIONS, and more importantly the markings had been ground off, stocks were junk, etc. No collector value, whatsoever.
On the other hand I bought a WWI SMLE, that had been slightly Bubba'd, just the stock cut, which I've acquired the pieces for, so I can restore it to "original" condition.
I've sporterized a couple of Mausers, but they were types made in the MILLIONS, and more importantly the markings had been ground off, stocks were junk, etc. No collector value, whatsoever.
On the other hand I bought a WWI SMLE, that had been slightly Bubba'd, just the stock cut, which I've acquired the pieces for, so I can restore it to "original" condition.
cracked butt
Member
Hack away, take the belt sander to it, and make sure to put a few coats of tru-oil on it afterward- it just makes items in my collection a little bit more scarce and a little bit more valuable.
30-40Krag dude
Member
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2005
- Messages
- 23
they are certainly pieces of history, BUT history does NOT END after the war is over. the entire life of the firearm is its history. whether is was defending a country, or putting food on a familys table.
military arms are kinda like people. many of our fathers and grandfathers have been in through war, and it was only a small portion of thier life. the same holds true for your collection. I say get out there to shoot and enjoy them however you see fit. add your own chapter to history.
besides, if nobody ever messed with them we would all have common boring rifles
military arms are kinda like people. many of our fathers and grandfathers have been in through war, and it was only a small portion of thier life. the same holds true for your collection. I say get out there to shoot and enjoy them however you see fit. add your own chapter to history.
besides, if nobody ever messed with them we would all have common boring rifles
Owen
Moderator Emeritus
So ya'll are gonna crucify me if I send my Eddystone to A-Square?
How much of that Eddystone is left?
Can it be restored back to issue condition?
Eddystones, btw, have a reputation for cracked receivers due to overtorqued barrels, compared to those M1917 U.S. Enfields manufactured by Remington in their Ilion plant or the same rifles built by Winchester. Before you unscrew the barrel from that Eddystone, be darned careful.
Can it be restored back to issue condition?
Eddystones, btw, have a reputation for cracked receivers due to overtorqued barrels, compared to those M1917 U.S. Enfields manufactured by Remington in their Ilion plant or the same rifles built by Winchester. Before you unscrew the barrel from that Eddystone, be darned careful.
Last edited:
Critter183
member
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2004
- Messages
- 185
I added a Lyman peep site to my M93 spanish mauser, only because I figured it was never going to be a collectible since the numbers didn't match. I paid $69 for it. It was made by the Lowe Armory. It had a duffle bag cut in the stock, which I fixed by doweling it, and replacing the cleaning rod with a long bolt I made to hold it all togther tightly. Apparently it came home as a souveniere during the Spanish American War.
First time to the range with the original site, I got a 3 round cloverleaf at 50 yards. They were so close that through my spotting scope, it looked like one hit on the paper and 2 total misses.
I peep sighted it and planned on sporterizing the stock. It's a nice piece of wood, but needs a good refinish.
All that said, I can kick myself in the ass for putting the peep site on it now. I wish I had just left well enough alone. Sad. Very sad.
First time to the range with the original site, I got a 3 round cloverleaf at 50 yards. They were so close that through my spotting scope, it looked like one hit on the paper and 2 total misses.
I peep sighted it and planned on sporterizing the stock. It's a nice piece of wood, but needs a good refinish.
All that said, I can kick myself in the ass for putting the peep site on it now. I wish I had just left well enough alone. Sad. Very sad.
Critter183
member
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2004
- Messages
- 185
I have a Remnington 1917
Rebolted by the armory, all R stamped parts except the wood, that's an Eddystone. What a gorgeous rifle. I am trying to find an R stock for it now, and a blued bolt. The bolt that is in it is parkerized.
Rebolted by the armory, all R stamped parts except the wood, that's an Eddystone. What a gorgeous rifle. I am trying to find an R stock for it now, and a blued bolt. The bolt that is in it is parkerized.
Frog48
Member
Depends on the rifle in question. Some yes, some no.
Owen
Moderator Emeritus
It's pretty much original. I's my dad's first gun, which he left me when he died. Barrel stamped 11-18, so it probably wasn't over there.
Barrel looks like a sewer pipe, bad headspace, missing swivels and barel band.
Other than that it's original.
It has sentimental value to me, because my dad bought it out of a barrel in a hardware store when he was 13 or so.
It doesn't shoot, it's incomplete.
I'd have it turned into a safari rifle, in say, .375 H&H (haven't really decided yet). No it wouldn't be reversible. A-square is hardly a bubba company, and the M1917 action has some unique features that aren't available in other actions. e.g. the interupted thread locking lugs, which provide enormous levels of extraction force.
Barrel looks like a sewer pipe, bad headspace, missing swivels and barel band.
Other than that it's original.
It has sentimental value to me, because my dad bought it out of a barrel in a hardware store when he was 13 or so.
It doesn't shoot, it's incomplete.
I'd have it turned into a safari rifle, in say, .375 H&H (haven't really decided yet). No it wouldn't be reversible. A-square is hardly a bubba company, and the M1917 action has some unique features that aren't available in other actions. e.g. the interupted thread locking lugs, which provide enormous levels of extraction force.
Critter183
member
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2004
- Messages
- 185
On your M1917, the front end of the stock is a stamped letter. Is yours stamped "E", "R" or "W"?
If it is an R, I'll buy the wood from you.
If it is an R, I'll buy the wood from you.
joab
Member
I'm a shooter not a collector
If modifying a gun makes it more shootable to me then it gets modified
If I feel guilty about it I'll buy two and leave one unmolested
If modifying a gun makes it more shootable to me then it gets modified
If I feel guilty about it I'll buy two and leave one unmolested
Sell it to me, Owen.
Seriously. I can rebarrel it to good headspace with a NOS USGI .30-06 barrel, and the missing barrel band is no big deal. Art Alphin at A-Square probably already has more than a few U.S. Enfields with the ears ground off that he'll sell you as a Hamilcar or Hannibal with the money you made from selling me that military specimen.
I've done the same for other poorly-maintained U.S. Enfields, Springfields, Lee-Enfields, and M1 Garands. This Z-prefix 1903A4 was found in Florida as a deer rifle with a cut-down barrel and poorly-fitting aftermarket stock. I spotted the serial number and restored it back to as-issued condition with a new March 1944 barrel, original scope, mount, rings, and semi-inletted reproduction Type C stock. Look at it - after the Saving Private Ryan phenomenon, is anybody going to argue with me that it didn't warrant restoration?
Seriously. I can rebarrel it to good headspace with a NOS USGI .30-06 barrel, and the missing barrel band is no big deal. Art Alphin at A-Square probably already has more than a few U.S. Enfields with the ears ground off that he'll sell you as a Hamilcar or Hannibal with the money you made from selling me that military specimen.
I've done the same for other poorly-maintained U.S. Enfields, Springfields, Lee-Enfields, and M1 Garands. This Z-prefix 1903A4 was found in Florida as a deer rifle with a cut-down barrel and poorly-fitting aftermarket stock. I spotted the serial number and restored it back to as-issued condition with a new March 1944 barrel, original scope, mount, rings, and semi-inletted reproduction Type C stock. Look at it - after the Saving Private Ryan phenomenon, is anybody going to argue with me that it didn't warrant restoration?
Owen
Moderator Emeritus
seeing as how the used guns on gunbroker seem to be going for $2500+, are you sure you want to take that deal?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked