Interesting thread.
"The straight bolt is replaced with a bent bolt, the barrel is shortened, the stock is shortened, the hand guard tossed, the receiver is drilled and tapped for a scope, etc. There's no imagination there. Just destruction. It's a violent attack on history for no good reason."
Well, I totally disagree with that assesment. For the most part, all of those things improve the handling, shootabilty and usefulness of a rifle. I have several well done sporters, and feel they are a huge improvment over the originals as far as shooting, hunting and general handling, not to mention looks. I have no desire to own a modern Remington or Winchester sporter, and that's most definately not what I'm trying to accomplish with a Springfield or Mauser sporter. They are fine actions, and have history and class. Being in military form isnt the only valid incarnation of them, or their history. I do like the original '03 Springfields and 1917's, but not more than a good sporter as far as actually shooting and hunting with it. I had a military Mauser. I felt it was a chunky clunker compared to a good sporter, and sold it. I almost sporterized it. It was a mismatched mid WW2 German gun of no particular value other than a functional example of a Mauser. I had maybe $180 in it. I got my money back out of it and aquired a very nice Whitworth that I truly like, for less than it would have cost to sport the '43 gun. As far as Mosins, the first one I saw many years ago deeply impressed me. If it was a choice of using, not street value, I'd happily trade a whole boatload of mosins, in any condition, for a good Mauser or Springfield sporter. Better yet if the boat was going to be out in stormy seas. I had no idea anyone would ever actually like them when I first saw one. My opinion hasnt changed since then. They may be the new inexpensive utility guns of the day, and serve for that purpose, but if someone wants to sport one, it sure doesnt bother me. It would have to be an improvment.
Now, a clean WW1 Sht LE No1 Mk III is interesting in original condition, but I still want to build a really good early 1900's British sporter on an early LE action. It will probably mean using a complete gun to achieve. There's only about a zillion of them floating around.
The "no gunsmithing" scope mounts are generally an abomination. Poor positioning, bad cheek weld, not as stable as a good solid mount on the receiver. I prefer a proper mount. Well done scopes are fast as anything to handle and shoot if they are fit properly for the user (part of what good sporter stocks are about, making them actually fit the shooter).
There was a quote, I believe it was from McBride in WW1. He mentions a captured German that had a light sporter rifle. It was said that he laughed at the Brits and Americans rifles, as his was so much lighter and faster handling, and was a joy to see and use in comparison. That's about how I see it. Well done sporters are a joy to handle and use, heavy clunkers of military rifles are something to be endured, if nothing else better is available.
