Mil-surp malice?

[eastwood44mag]

Why is it that so many gun-owners scorn mil-surps?

I just heard someone the other day, while looking at a K98 with full German markings, say 'well, that's worth $20.' Goes on to call various another mauser a POS, etc. Kind of irritated me, so I just left.

But seriously, why is it that mil-surps are so despised by so many? They serve as the basis for MANY "sporting" firearms. No one would call a Colt 1911 a POS, yet a Mauser, whose action is the basis for most hunting rifles, is garbage according to these characters.

I don't get it. Sure, they're not pretty, and they're old, but they work REALLY well, they don't cost as much as a new equivalent, and they're battle-proven. I think that says something for them, but it seems like I'm alone.

Anybody? Buehler?

 

[General Geoff]

I've never personally seen anyone scorn a mil-surp. In fact, many of my friends and even I actually prefer milsurp rifles to commercial stuff, if it's available.

 

[Geronimo45]

Mall Ninjas?

 

[doubleg]

I personally think the K98k is one of the most attractive looking military rifles ever made.

 

[Wes Janson]

It must be admitted, though, that there are an awful lot of milsurps out there that have seen more than their fair share of wear and tear. While I definitely do like most of them, when I see one that looks like it's been used as a hiking stick for the last three-quarters of a century, I just can't find it all that interesting.

 

[Geno]

I agree that many people are anti-mil-surp. No big deal in my mind. The fewer people who wnat them leaves more for me.

Re: many new sport rifles being based on Mil Surps, even our 03 rifle was based on the Mauser 98. An article I read about 10 years back maintained that the 03 rifle was based on the engineers having reviewed a 98 Mauser. They were told to take the best of the 98's attributes, and improve where they could.

Upon review, they are alleged to have responded there was not much room for improvement...the rifle was made about as good as could be made. The sole other consideration was for the enginners to make sufficient changes to avoid allegation of direct violation of registered status of patents, etc.

So the story went. That and 50 cents will get you a coffee.

 

[Limeyfellow]

Re: many new sport rifles being based on Mil Surps, even our 03 rifle was based on the Mauser 98. An article I read about 10 years back maintained that the 03 rifle was based on the engineers having reviewed a 98 Mauser. They were told to take the best of the 98's attributes, and improve where they could.

All they did was some minor changes to avoid paying copyright infringement to the Mauser company. Didn't work either as they had to end up paying it till WW1 broke out.

 

[DMK]

ignorance

Someone can make the argument that it doesn't fit their needs (not light enough, not accurate enough, not pretty enough, etc). However to call a milsurp a POS is just ignorance or worse, elitism. Even the worst quality ones have some historical value and most are very well made.

 

[Geno]

Cool info...thanks. You know, fair is fair. If the rifle had been ours, we would have done the same...forced payment.

 

[Daemon688]

Well, tell that to all the 03 C&R guys!

 

[Jim K]

FWIW, the M1903 was a combination of the U.S. Model 1898 (Krag) and the Model 1893 (Spanish) Mauser. It seems likely that the designers of the M1903 never saw a Mauser 98, in spite of a lot of uninformed ranting about patents. In a fairly extensive search of the SA reports and notes for those years, I could find no mention of any Mauser other than the Spanish Mauser (Model 1893) or the "old" Mauser (Models 1889/1891). There are many differences between the Model 1893 Mauser and the Model 1898, but none of the new features (those exclusive to the Model 1898) show up in the Model 1903; the only one that does in a way (the bolt sleeve lock) is of an entirely different construction.

Jim

 

[Ethereal]

Milsurps ARE underappreciated

To me it seems kinda sad and I see why people get mad when some idiot can't appreciate the history and quality of some of these fine pieces. These are rifles that have put in their time and were very successful during their period of use. Now they're thrown into crates by the dozens and pawned off at sporting goods stores and gun shows. It'll be a sad day when they're gone for good and I for one will take the second to enjoy shooting a classic.

 

[Titan6]

Because you can't sell a $109 Mosin for $189 due to the internet? Just a guess...

 

[pacodelahoya]

I'd be willing to wager that those who scoff at milsurps shoot their own guns a total of 4 rounds a year, three to sight it in and 1 for the whitetail, then back into the closet it goes.

I like milsurps because I shoot a lot and generally the ammo and the guns themselves are relatively inexpensive.

 

[Jim K]

Far from being junk, military rifles were always the best that a nation could afford to make or buy. Cost was generally no object when national security was involved. While collectors may say that this or that military rifle was inferior, that is almost always the result of viewing with hindsight; those who tested, approved, and ordered that gun believed they were getting the most suitable rifle for the use of their sons in defending their nation.

Unfortunately, many of the people who denigrate military surplus rifles have an ax to grind; they own, or work for sporting arms manufacturers. It is not widely known, but the portion of GCA '68 which banned importation of military surplus arms was written by lobbyists for Winchester, which wanted to eliminate that competition.

Jim

 

[MrTwigg]

Typical Fudd attitude.

 

[fletcher]

Only thing I can think of is that they're not the modern tactical precision .0000001 MOA shooting laser sighted suppressed firearms , but they're cheap, and FUN!

 

[Morglan]

The "one-word" answer to your question is this:

ignorance

 

[Hoppy590]

i feel modern guns are CRAP compared to even a war era mosin or a 35$ t53. they cost way too much. offer useless gimmick options and are made to be "lightweight" aka plastic and light castings. i dont need a "steel alloy hot casted computor designe reciever" for a cost of 600$, throw a block of steel into a bridgeport for 200$.

sorry, we all know my prejudices.

 

[Black Adder LXX]

I guess some people aren't history fans? I can't speak for them b/c I'm soon to be a cruffler myself.

 

[Bezoar]

the reasons are most commonly the following:

Tactical enhancements of the modern age are not supported by the platforms. To get that nice tacticool picatinny rail based accessory, you have to get a custom stock that has the rails. That can cost some big money, sometimes more then what the actual rifle is worth.
Second, the school of thought on "spray and pray" is not doable with a bolt action rifle that only holds 5-10 rounds in the magazine.

And last but not least, political correctness. Many people are afraid to go buy something that might offend jews, blacks, hispanics, and so on. For example buying and using a properly marked german k98 would be uber bad for the politically correct as that would offend the jews, and get you labeld a racist.
Its true, why do you think so many companies that sell vintage and reproduction german/third reich items always have a disclaimer that says "we do not endorse or aprove of the NAZI party, we are merely selling this item for its historical nature".

 

[Noxx]

Because you can't sell a $109 Mosin for $189 due to the internet? Just a guess...

Actually you can still turn Mosins around pretty regularly at a decent profit. I haunt the local sporting goods stores, where they sell the beat to heck Izhvesk and the serial matched Tula for the same $89. You can clean em up and send em on their way, or just keep a closet full of the good ones.

For example buying and using a properly marked german k98 would be uber bad for the politically correct as that would offend the jews, and get you labeld a racist.

Might change that to "anti-gun nuts who happen to be jews" or something similar. Personally I'm a big ol' jew and I own a proper K98 as part of my WWII collection (still looking for a deal on a Johnson, anyone? Bueller?). I do see the intent of your statement however, I find SS militaria pretty repugnant personally, but then I don't hack on people who collect it out of military interest either.

Anyway, on to the point.

Why is it that so many gun-owners scorn mil-surps

I'm going to guess the same reason plenty of car nuts scorn a '66 VW, or the Harley guys and their raid anti-japanese sentiment. I mean, who cares if the '69 Honda CB750K utterly changed the world of motorcycling, it's a rice burner, and therefore junk, yeah?

It's a sad tendency of narrow minds to assume that an item that doesn't cost much, or that is very common, is "junk", and in the case of older items it's a terrible and disrespectful blow to history and those who have gone before us.

Personally, I love sitting on my back porch cleaning up a 1940 soviet Mosin, wondering a little about the russian kid who trained with it, or carried it to the western front. The Krags, the Garands, the Mausers... many of them never saw outside the armory door, but plenty of them from the proper years went to war in the hands of kids like the boy next door, or yourself even, when you were young.

Something to think about every time you pick one up, and that tangible connection not only to our collective past, but to our collective youth, is well worth the $89.

 

[Prince Yamato]

i feel modern guns are CRAP compared to even a war era mosin or a 35$ t53. they cost way too much. offer useless gimmick options and are made to be "lightweight" aka plastic and light castings. i dont need a "steel alloy hot casted computor designe reciever" for a cost of 600$, throw a block of steel into a bridgeport for 200$.

That's how I feel too, actually. I see a $1000 bolt action hunting rifle, with half the wood of a K98 on it (to make it "light-weight" of course) and I say, "what can that do that a K98 can't". Yeah I know the newer ones have scope mounts, but in all honesty, how many of the guys shooting those rifles really need the scope mount. Granted, I'm no hunter, but I'm guessing most people aren't hunting beyond 200 yards. In that case, why use a scope at all? It kind of cheeses me off that the $1000 hunting rifles don't even have iron sights. I mean, cripes, if I'm paying $1000 give me some back-up sights at least!

May I also add that I think the Fudds are pretty much confined to the Baby-Boomers and older crowd. So on the positive side of things, we younger folks (30 and younger) who generally don't hunt as much, prefer military weapons; this current crop of mosins will probably been in better condition 50 years from now than many of the Mausers bought after WW2- we won't be bubbatizing anything.

 

[Im283]

I think it is an elitist thing. How do they justify their $600 Remington when you can get a $99 Mosin that shoots just as well if not better.

 

[Steve in PA]

Its because they have absolutely no idea what they are talking about. They only "think" they know about guns, when all they know is what they read in Field & Stream.