My complaint against milsurp rifles
- Thread starter 50caliber123
- Start date
- Status
paducahrider
Member
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2010
- Messages
- 139
Howdy!
I knew the title of this thread would start a war, and it didn't prove me wrong.
I've equal attachment to both military and commercial firearms, and can understand how someone could take a stand for or against either of them.
One thing to consider is the purpose the rifle was built to fulfill.
Hunting rifles seldom make good military weapons(with the exception of the sniper rifle), primarily because they aren't rugged enough to withstand the sort of abuse that unknowing recruits can inflict upon them, even BEFORE they get into battle. Then the differences are even more pronounced.
There can be even be a considerable difference in the required procedure to field strip the two different types of rifles, since the military weapons are built to be maintained under terrible conditions(at least, up until the early ARs).
Conversely, Military weapons of the types mentioned here; most often (Mausers, Swiss, Moison, Enfields, Springfields and Garands), seldom make great hunting rifles without some modifications, mainly to lighten them up a bit, but also to improve their accuracy.
Now I'm not saying that those Swiss or Swedish, or other military rifles can't knock down a deer at three hundred yards, because they most certainly have, can and will.
However, I'd rather tote my little Remington 788 .243 carbine around all day, than lug one of the best examples of a riflemakers art, my Model 96 6.5X55 Swedish Mauser long rifle. That sucker aint lite!!!
If I was stuck in a foxhole, or had to stick a bayonet on either, I'd rather have the Swede.
If I was foraging for food, gimme the Rem.
The both shoot pretty D*****d good.
One comment that will probably incurr the wrath of the "modernists", is to look at the craftsmanship of the Swede M96, a Swiss K31, a Loew 93, or some BRNO built Mauser 98s, then look at more modern "craftsmanship" of mass built guns, and you can really see some differences.
The machining techniques of modern manufacturers didn't even exist in earlier times, yet the "relics" have a proven record for durability AND accuracy, and a smoothness of operation that is, after a hundred years of service, difficult to match, much less beat. The reason for this was that the people who built many of these weapons were truly craftsmen, and that craftsmanship just doesn't exist in every factory nowadays. Automation does more of the work and real hand craftsmanship isn't even taught to many machinists anymore. (I taught at a trade school for decades, and saw the transition taking place)
Early twentieth century gunsmiths made a living converting military weapons into custom hunting rifles. That was before the marketing capabilities of the larger manufacturers turned entirely toward providing for the consumers every wish, needed or not.
You can easily buy a commercial rifle that will outshoot the surplus rifles, but that doesn't mean the old rifles can't still perform every one of their requirements, better than the commercial guns.
It's just apples against pears guys, and the battle will go on.
Thanks for your time.
I knew the title of this thread would start a war, and it didn't prove me wrong.
I've equal attachment to both military and commercial firearms, and can understand how someone could take a stand for or against either of them.
One thing to consider is the purpose the rifle was built to fulfill.
Hunting rifles seldom make good military weapons(with the exception of the sniper rifle), primarily because they aren't rugged enough to withstand the sort of abuse that unknowing recruits can inflict upon them, even BEFORE they get into battle. Then the differences are even more pronounced.
There can be even be a considerable difference in the required procedure to field strip the two different types of rifles, since the military weapons are built to be maintained under terrible conditions(at least, up until the early ARs).
Conversely, Military weapons of the types mentioned here; most often (Mausers, Swiss, Moison, Enfields, Springfields and Garands), seldom make great hunting rifles without some modifications, mainly to lighten them up a bit, but also to improve their accuracy.
Now I'm not saying that those Swiss or Swedish, or other military rifles can't knock down a deer at three hundred yards, because they most certainly have, can and will.
However, I'd rather tote my little Remington 788 .243 carbine around all day, than lug one of the best examples of a riflemakers art, my Model 96 6.5X55 Swedish Mauser long rifle. That sucker aint lite!!!
If I was stuck in a foxhole, or had to stick a bayonet on either, I'd rather have the Swede.
If I was foraging for food, gimme the Rem.
The both shoot pretty D*****d good.
One comment that will probably incurr the wrath of the "modernists", is to look at the craftsmanship of the Swede M96, a Swiss K31, a Loew 93, or some BRNO built Mauser 98s, then look at more modern "craftsmanship" of mass built guns, and you can really see some differences.
The machining techniques of modern manufacturers didn't even exist in earlier times, yet the "relics" have a proven record for durability AND accuracy, and a smoothness of operation that is, after a hundred years of service, difficult to match, much less beat. The reason for this was that the people who built many of these weapons were truly craftsmen, and that craftsmanship just doesn't exist in every factory nowadays. Automation does more of the work and real hand craftsmanship isn't even taught to many machinists anymore. (I taught at a trade school for decades, and saw the transition taking place)
Early twentieth century gunsmiths made a living converting military weapons into custom hunting rifles. That was before the marketing capabilities of the larger manufacturers turned entirely toward providing for the consumers every wish, needed or not.
You can easily buy a commercial rifle that will outshoot the surplus rifles, but that doesn't mean the old rifles can't still perform every one of their requirements, better than the commercial guns.
It's just apples against pears guys, and the battle will go on.
Thanks for your time.
Last edited:
Hatterasguy
Member
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2010
- Messages
- 1,604
I love the old rifles, wood and steel is what a proper rifle is made of.
My recent K31 is great, the metal looks like new! The machining work is amazing, you can tell they were built by old school machinists.
A lot of these old rifles tell a story. Many were built by people in times of desperation. They worked until their hands bleed, making weapons to defend their country. A lot of them have seen brutal combat and their condition tells that story.
I don't own many modern rifles, and don't see myself buying that many. I prefer weapons with a history, also IMHO they hold their value better than the new stuff.
Besides where can you have so much fun for cheap? For $100 you can buy a MN, and they are a blast to shoot. Everyone wants sub MOA rifles, which is fine if your shooting pretty bench rest rifles, but these are all battle rifles, sub MOA means nothing. Simo Hayha racked up 542 confirmed kills with his MN!
My recent K31 is great, the metal looks like new! The machining work is amazing, you can tell they were built by old school machinists.
A lot of these old rifles tell a story. Many were built by people in times of desperation. They worked until their hands bleed, making weapons to defend their country. A lot of them have seen brutal combat and their condition tells that story.
I don't own many modern rifles, and don't see myself buying that many. I prefer weapons with a history, also IMHO they hold their value better than the new stuff.
Besides where can you have so much fun for cheap? For $100 you can buy a MN, and they are a blast to shoot. Everyone wants sub MOA rifles, which is fine if your shooting pretty bench rest rifles, but these are all battle rifles, sub MOA means nothing. Simo Hayha racked up 542 confirmed kills with his MN!
M2
Member
Heard you the first time.
Actually, I didn't, I don't bother reading such long drivel.
If you don't like milsurps, then good for you; but insulting those who do is bad form. You're only looking like a jerk in doing so, and I doubt that was your intent.
But in case it was, I hope the following gives you a bad rash in a place that you can't scratch!
And that is an old pic!
p.s. Before anyone gets excited and points out that the two AKs at the far right aren't milsurps, don't bother, I already know...
Actually, I didn't, I don't bother reading such long drivel.
If you don't like milsurps, then good for you; but insulting those who do is bad form. You're only looking like a jerk in doing so, and I doubt that was your intent.
But in case it was, I hope the following gives you a bad rash in a place that you can't scratch!
And that is an old pic!
p.s. Before anyone gets excited and points out that the two AKs at the far right aren't milsurps, don't bother, I already know...
Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
Repetitious and circular...
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked