Why to people butcher and rape milsurps?

[.308 Norma]

I look at it a little differently.

Unless we're talking about a genuine antique, military surplus rifles were mass produced tools that were often rode hard before making it to the civilian market. I see nothing wrong with a competent gunsmith stripping down a dinged up old clunker to its basics and making something a little nicer and ergonomic out if.

That said, it's no longer cost effective to modify military surplus guns into sporters, unless you can do all the work yourself. I've heard a lot of milsup guns used to be sold out of barrels in gunshops for next to nothing.

Yeppers, that's exactly right. A few days ago, in another thread I posted how I remember my dad picking one of those Carcanos (like Oswald's) out of a barrel full of them at a Army/Navy Surplus Store. I think he paid all of five bucks for it. Yeah, I know five bucks was a lot more money back in the 1950s than it is nowadays. But it was still only about 1/20th of what dad paid for his new Remington 30-06 back then.
Anyway, I remember it took dad a long time to clean the black gunk (I guess it was cosmolene) out of, and off that old rifle. Then he cut the front part of its stock off, sanded it down, varnished it, and had someone mount a cheap scope on it. Then he gave it to my mom to use as her deer rifle. It worked, it killed deer - just not as far away as dad's harder kicking and much more expensive Remington 30-06.

 

[Jackal]

When a surplus 03 was $40 and a Remington was $200, its easy to see why they were modified for hunting. It doesnt take a masterpiece of craftsmanship or engineering to knock over a deer.

 

[Nature Boy]

five bucks was a lot more money back in the 1950s than it is nowadays

$8 to $1, for those keeping score

 

[.308 Norma]

$8 to $1, for those keeping score

Interesting. Then that would set the cost of that Carcano dad bought at about $40.00 by today's prices. Still a bargain! But probably not - I'll bet a Carcano in any kind of decent condition can't be found for no $40.00.

 

[LoonWulf]

Larry's dad's Springfield now has its own history which is valuable to him (though pretty much only to him, FWIW) and which supersedes the potential value that rifle would have today if it had not been altered.
So does Nature Boy's.

When they were altered, it made sense to do so. Clearly and incontestably!

Today there are millions out there already altered beyond any historic value, or original condition value. And an already sporterized model, cut down in the '60s or '70s or whenever, can be picked up for far less than it would costs to build it again. Call it a "post-surplus milsurp"! Available at a deep bargain cost because it isn't wanted any more by the entity that paid for it, just as it was sold the first time as unwanted by the entity that had paid for it.

This is a great post, valid both at the time in which the guns spoken about were modified, and now when someone chooses to modify a gun now. I also agree, every effort should be made to find a gun that isnt original when looking for a project. Sometimes thats not possible, or the items in question are so poorly modified its better to pass, but still the effort should be made imo, if nothing else to respect the other PEOPLE that like the guns as they are.

It also usually costs significantly less to start with a gun that someones taken a hacksaw and drill to, and with most rifles, unless those cuts or holes are in REALLY poorly chosen places they can usually be filled or just ignored.

What gets me for some reason is the terminology used, calling sporterizing rape isnt a very good analogy (yes i play video games, i know what the terms intended to mean in this context, but it still fits poorly). Neither is "rescued" in terms of reverting a sporterized gun, when in fact all they have done is "unsporterized" the rifle. If bubba dun didit, then yes i supposed "rescue" is a fair term, but ive heard it applied to gun that have been dropped into an aftermarket stock, or simply had the sights removed or changed. Again if it makes someone happy to revert them to military dress then go for it, your wants are just as valid as mine.

But your rifles arnt rescued anymore than mine are raped.

 

[amadeus76]

When a surplus 03 was $40 and a Remington was $200, its easy to see why they were modified for hunting. It doesnt take a masterpiece of craftsmanship or engineering to knock over a deer.

That's my point tho... Unless the rifle was trashed, an 03a3 makes a great hunting rifle as is.

 

[Sam1911]

That's my point tho... Unless the rifle was trashed, an 03a3 makes a great hunting rifle as is.

Well, in your opinion it does. However, there really aren't any bolt action hunting rifles sold today with a full length wood stock with handguards, iron sights (only), a magazine cut-off, stacking swivel, bayonet lug, steel buttplate, etc. So, letting the last 80 or whatever years of hunting rifle sales be our guide here, not very many people think those things make a "great" hunting rifle. They could spend a lot to get a rifle without those things, or they could cut them off of a rifle they can get for a lot less.

 

[Joshua M. Smith]

I just dont get destroying a piece of history for what is almost entirely a cosmetic change. All it does is limit the availability for those who didn't get in early and drive the prices up to insane levels (Mosin-Nagant's for $400!?).

No, there are functional changes, and it makes the rifle unique (and valuable) to the shooter. Additionally, if the number of people modifying milsurps was as huge as you seem to think, I'd be a millionaire. It's a real good thing I enjoy my work!

Go find me a FORGED and MILLED production rifle with a WOODEN STOCK in a full .30 caliber for the amount I can modify a Mosin-Nagant, say, cost of gun included.

The preservationists' cry of "But you can buy a new hunting rifle for less!" fails to take into account the quality of the receiver, bolt, and other parts.

I don't have any MIM or stamped on any firearm I use for serious purposes. I use cast only on static parts, and the cast must come from a reputable manufacturer.

My squirrel rifle from Savage ran something like $400 new, and it cannot hold a candle in quality compared to, say, a Romanian Training Rifle M69. I've already had to repair the trigger, trigger and sear mating surface, and the cocking knob on the bolt.
The thing's less than 10 years old.

The M69 I had cost something like $70 and was just as precise and not nearly as cheap as the Savage. Were I to do it again, I wouldn't buy the Savage and would have kept the Romanian.

The reason I wanted the Savage? I'm a lefty and was shooting a lot of prone at the time, and I was tired of reaching up and over the 'scope to work the bolt. (Yes! I 'scoped it because I was shooting squirrels at 75 to 100 yards!)

Just out of curiosity, did you sign up just to troll with this thread? If it was a genuine question I do understand, but honestly, it looks like you're trying to stir up some crap.

Josh

 

[LoonWulf]

That's my point tho... Unless the rifle was trashed, an 03a3 makes a great hunting rifle as is.

except its stock is really clunky and overly long, and the stock sights while good arent nearly as good as a scope for most hunting situations.
It IS a functional hunting rifle for those guys good with open sights, and or willing to work within the limitations.
New stock, scope mount, sporter bolt and short throw saftey and youve taken a decent gun for hunting and made it into an excellent hunting rifle. Which you could have bought over the counter for less, but thats not the point for most of us that are really into it.

 

[Dog Soldier]

The practice of removing the "Battle Dress" from MilSurp is as old as the Musket. Hunters do not need a thick wrist full banded stock with a bayonet lock.
After every War it seems tons of MilSurp was made Hunter friendly. When the Krag .30-40 was sold through the DCM they were made Civilian Friendly as NRA rifles. Many Mauser M1898 actions were converted to Sporters and sold by various suppliers.

 

[Nature Boy]

It's next to impossible to find a bluing job on a rifle that's as nice as the one on my dad's 03A3, which was done back in the day. Too labor intensive, takes too long, too many environmental regulations, too expensive (or so I'm told).

Have any of you looked for a local business that does plating lately? Good luck

 

[Dog Soldier]

The Model of 1903 was nicely blued. The reduced cost high production Mdl. of 1903A3 that I own are not "Salt" blued. They are more "Parkerized". It sounds like your's is better than the ones I own.

 

[Nature Boy]

The Model of 1903 was nicely blued. The reduced cost high production Mdl. of 1903A3 that I own are not "Salt" blued. They are more "Parkerized". It sounds like your's is better than the ones I own.

My dad had it blued as part of it's transformation from MIL to CIV

 

[ColtPythonElite]

Have any of you looked for a local business that does plating lately? Good luck

I live 15 miles from one.

 

[Joshua M. Smith]

I live 15 miles from one.

Do they have an FFL?

I know plenty of plating places but few which do guns.

Josh

 

[ColtPythonElite]

Not a clue if they have an FFL.

 

[peacebutready]

Well, if you need your milsurp fix on rifles in original condition, perhaps a bit more rough than usual conditions, head over the J&G Sales, and pick up one of the Spanish mausers they have before they too are all gone. Calibers are 7x57 and 308. They also have some Yugo sks's that are super nice, if not spendy.

Are those Spanish Mausers the ones that a person shouldn't shoot .308 but only 7.62 NATO through them?

 

[MosinT53Hunter]

Are those Spanish Mausers the ones that a person shouldn't shoot .308 but only 7.62 NATO through them?

Hmm, more like .308 low powder reloads. Just depends. The guy that reviewed one from J&G Sales used regular factory rounds, and it held up alright. But it is an un altered military old school mauser for under $300, gunsmith models go for about $150. I bought a 7x57 one, and its good, lots of patina and history all over it.

 

[amadeus76]

Just out of curiosity, did you sign up just to troll with this thread? If it was a genuine question I do understand, but honestly, it looks like you're trying to stir up some crap.

Josh

Legitimate curiosity brought about by my recent interest in old military rifles... And I used to be here a lot under a different sn (mostly in the blackpowder section). Unfortunately, it's been awhile and I couldn't remember my login so I made a new account.

 

[amadeus76]

except its stock is really clunky and overly long, and the stock sights while good arent nearly as good as a scope for most hunting situations.
It IS a functional hunting rifle for those guys good with open sights, and or willing to work within the limitations.
New stock, scope mount, sporter bolt and short throw saftey and youve taken a decent gun for hunting and made it into an excellent hunting rifle. Which you could have bought over the counter for less, but thats not the point for most of us that are really into it.

I disagree... Mausers can be clunky, but Lee-Enfield and 1903 stocks are pretty svelte. I see your point about scopes vs irons, but I also think scooes are overused for most hunting ranges. I use a scooe when I'm shooting past 300meters, but that's it. Under 300 and I use irons. But that's just me...

 

[dh1633pm]

I took a No 5 Rolling block that was rusted and crappy and made a beauty. Crappy stock, bore full of gunk that cleaned to a pitted mess. Its collector value was nill. Now after a year of work, its a good shooter returned to service. Although a bit different. Still have a full original No 5. That one will stay as is.

 

[illinoisburt]

Not knocking anyone, as I have my share of older guns but all are shooters. I don't collect firearms for their own sake, I just enjoy shooting them and therefore have a bit of a collection. When it comes to enjoying range time, it's a no brainer to pick up a sturdy centerfire and gobs of ammo for less than the cost of a new commercial gun by itself

If folks hadn't bought them up, modified them, broke them, lost them, etc these old guns would still have zero value. We can think back to when each of the various milsurps were sitting in huge supplies and could be had for a song. The reason they were so low priced was because other than a few collectors there was no demand for them. These were bought and paid for originally by governments. Being obsolete, they no longer held any value and we're offloaded for scrap prices.

You might also happen to notice whenever these guns were brought to market in mass they tend to be regarded as junk. Cheap = inferior in most people's minds. Shockingly enough, a lot of these deals sat for years even at dirt cheap prices. It's only after everyone and their brother has bought them up creating a shortage that prices rise and folks start singing their praises.

If we had 10 million WWII garands taking up shelf space at local stores across the country right now with $1000 price tags I can guarantee you would not sell but a fraction of them. The ones that did sell would have to be cream of the crop condition or have some special significance. It's only the scarcity now that drives the price and demand for an original (just like lots of other stuff).

 

[Joshua M. Smith]

Legitimate curiosity brought about by my recent interest in old military rifles... And I used to be here a lot under a different sn (mostly in the blackpowder section). Unfortunately, it's been awhile and I couldn't remember my login so I made a new account.

In that case, welcome back!

Regards,

Josh

 

[AlexanderA]

I am guilty of sporterizing a Mk. III Lithgow SMLE. This was in the 1960's, before I knew any better. Back then, that was the "thing to do." The NRA even published guides on how to do it.

Today, I am sorry I did it. Today, the trend is in the opposite direction. People buy sporterized milsurps with the intention of restoring them to their original configuration. I've done that too.

 

[LoonWulf]

I disagree... Mausers can be clunky, but Lee-Enfield and 1903 stocks are pretty svelte. I see your point about scopes vs irons, but I also think scooes are overused for most hunting ranges. I use a scooe when I'm shooting past 300meters, but that's it. Under 300 and I use irons. But that's just me...

Ive never honestly held an smle in military garb, they certainly LOOK a bit less clunky than other guns. I do agree that the 1903, especially the strait griped stocks, feel better many of the other milsurps. Preference wise i still prefer to swap the military stock out for a sporter style stock, but beside being full length and weighing more they do work pretty well.
300yds is an impressive shot for an open sighted gun, I actually envy you that ability. Im not confident outside of about 150-200 with any open sights, which is what leads me to mount scopes on anything that might get shot outside of about 100yds, again this is personal preference.

and as a note, Josh makes some great sights that dont detract the value of your milsurps. Ive shot two nagants with his sights on them and they were both MUCH easier to shoot than with stock sights.