Inebriated
Member
Doesn't bother me one bit. These rifles are part of history. A history that can't be forgotten.
Your military rifle's past…
- Thread starter Blue Brick
- Start date
- Status
bearfoot
Member
This is an argument often made by anti-gun folks. Please don't make it here - it's a tool, as much as the soldier is a tool of the government who commands him or her to defend (yes, or attack) a nation. Were all Nazi or Soviet soldiers evil just because they were commanded by evil people? Nope. Neither is the implement of battle, whether a Mosin Nagant or Mauser or Garand or Sherman Tank or P-51 or atom bomb. (or Katana sword or English Long Bow or French Trebuchet ... you see my point)
mortablunt
Member
I know for sure that some of my guns were used to kill people. My SVT-40 had some seriously scarred and marked up wood, as well as some 20 odd tally mark carvings in the stock. I have a WW2 era German military jacket. It's got SS camouflage patterns on it. I think of their history and then I think that they are mine now. Being used in battle adds dimension to the character and history of a piece. I sometimes wonder what became of the previous owner and why they parted with the thing.
Bravo Sierra
Member
I've admired a friend's Mauser, captured in Vietnam. It still has the tag. Odds are good it was used as intended numerous times. That is part of the allure, wondering about the history of any particular war rifle.
LJ-MosinFreak-Buck
Member
Nathan,
Though the scars of battle were "erased" as you call it in arsenal refurbishment, there are still scars inherent. Think about it. Every round fired in combat is furthermore engraved in the rifle. In the rifle's barrel. In the rifling. Every individual land. Action. Reciever. And in some cases with M44's, the bayonet.
The scars of battle can never truly be erased from a rifle used in combat because of these things, though they may not be totally visible or detectable, they're there. Unless of course the barrels were changed. But that isn't likely.
Whether arsenal refurbed or not. It makes no difference. The rifles still bear their scars, but live through it in people who no longer use the rifle to their intended purpose. It's why we collect them. They have history. Greater than any commercial firearm, regardless.
Though the scars of battle were "erased" as you call it in arsenal refurbishment, there are still scars inherent. Think about it. Every round fired in combat is furthermore engraved in the rifle. In the rifle's barrel. In the rifling. Every individual land. Action. Reciever. And in some cases with M44's, the bayonet.
The scars of battle can never truly be erased from a rifle used in combat because of these things, though they may not be totally visible or detectable, they're there. Unless of course the barrels were changed. But that isn't likely.
Whether arsenal refurbed or not. It makes no difference. The rifles still bear their scars, but live through it in people who no longer use the rifle to their intended purpose. It's why we collect them. They have history. Greater than any commercial firearm, regardless.
GBExpat
Member
AFAIAC, absolutely not.
I know for a fact that my mauser was used to kill, it was a battle-field pick up in WW-II. It was taken from a French underground sniper who was killed by the nazi's. A Sgt. in Airborne, who was a friend of my dads used that rifle to fight his way back to American front lines after the C-47 they where in was shot down behind enemy lines. He was lucky to survive and the french sniper actually saved his life with that very rifle before being killed. All those vets including my dad are gone now. I have this rifle and a piece of pricelss history. Buy the way, the rifle still shoots awesome. It's a well worn tool that no money can buy.
madcratebuilder
Member
Now that's the right attitude!
These rifles did not kill anyone, the bullets used in them did.
j2crows
Member
I hope my Springfield WAS used by an American to kill an enemy soldier that was trying to kill him!!!
Onward Allusion
Member
I thought of that once upon a time myself. I came to the conclusion that none of it matters. It's an inanimate object. Who ever it may have killed or maimed is long gone and whoever did the act is very likely long gone too - nothing but bones or less. I guess I'm pretty pragmatic when it comes to "things".
Carl N. Brown
Member
Do I sit up at night worrying that my old used car might have been used by a previous owner to haul minors across state lines for immoral purposes or that my current used truck might have been used by a moonshiner? No.
It might be interesting if my 1943 made M1 carbine had been used in combat or if my 1926 made Mosin had been used to drive the German invaders out of Russia.
Biblically speaking, bloodguilt falls on an unlawful user for an unjust killing, not on the weapon used, and there is no bloodguilt for lawful users in war or self-defense.
It might be interesting if my 1943 made M1 carbine had been used in combat or if my 1926 made Mosin had been used to drive the German invaders out of Russia.
Biblically speaking, bloodguilt falls on an unlawful user for an unjust killing, not on the weapon used, and there is no bloodguilt for lawful users in war or self-defense.
Rocketmedic
Member
Stavrogin, you just made me need another M-N. For the killing, it doesn't matter.
Romeo 33 Delta
Member
- Joined
- Apr 17, 2011
- Messages
- 402
The vast majority of my rifles are Milsurps dating back to 1866 through present.
I have no doubt that a good number were used in combat.
That does not bother me, I've been in combat too.
Old guns ARE history and their past lives are an important part of their allure. Not the killing, that's just a consequence of their date of birth and national origin. The history I'm speaking of is what they've seen and experienced. I'd love to be able to have answers from them with respect to: to whom were you issued, did they give you the care you deserved, where were you stationed and when, what happened to you after the fighting ended, where were you sent, how long were you there, are you happy to be here with me now, is your care better now than then, will you be as good a companion for your next caretaker after I'm gone? I think it might be rude to ask if they killed anyone, and I really don't care, though I suspect many did.
Sure they're inanimate objects but they don't hold grudges as far as I can tell ... I've NEVER seen, heard or had to clean up a fight in the gun room because a Kar 98k got into it with a SVT-40 over something that happened in the past.
I have no doubt that a good number were used in combat.
That does not bother me, I've been in combat too.
Old guns ARE history and their past lives are an important part of their allure. Not the killing, that's just a consequence of their date of birth and national origin. The history I'm speaking of is what they've seen and experienced. I'd love to be able to have answers from them with respect to: to whom were you issued, did they give you the care you deserved, where were you stationed and when, what happened to you after the fighting ended, where were you sent, how long were you there, are you happy to be here with me now, is your care better now than then, will you be as good a companion for your next caretaker after I'm gone? I think it might be rude to ask if they killed anyone, and I really don't care, though I suspect many did.
Sure they're inanimate objects but they don't hold grudges as far as I can tell ... I've NEVER seen, heard or had to clean up a fight in the gun room because a Kar 98k got into it with a SVT-40 over something that happened in the past.
Tommygunn
Member
I have an M-1 Carbine my father brought back from service in Korea. Don't know really if he got it in Korea, per se, or in America upon returning. It's an Inland with a barrel marked "2-44."
It was most likely used in WW2 and probably also in Korea, so it could have been used to shoot Krauts, Japs, or North Koreans.
Doesn't bother me at all. As has been said, it's soldiers who kill not the gun, the gun is only a tool.
I do wonder what the carbine's story is though ... who used it, when, where.....it has a few "battle-scars." But that's my curiousity whispering in my ear.
It was most likely used in WW2 and probably also in Korea, so it could have been used to shoot Krauts, Japs, or North Koreans.
Doesn't bother me at all. As has been said, it's soldiers who kill not the gun, the gun is only a tool.
I do wonder what the carbine's story is though ... who used it, when, where.....it has a few "battle-scars." But that's my curiousity whispering in my ear.
A gun is not especially made to kill people. A gun is especially made to propel a metal
projectile accurately over a distance. A knife is not made to kill people, it is made to cut stuff. A car is not made to take you to your specific workplace every day, it was only made to go general places.
A gun is made to shoot a projectile. Your gun could have been used by some liberator who shot an occupier about to rape and pillage a town. The next serial number pistol off a line after the one used in a bank robbery could be the one in the cop's hand who stopped the robber. Or it could be the one in the girl's hand who protected herself from home invasion.
A tool is a tool. What is done with it is the owner's choice.
projectile accurately over a distance. A knife is not made to kill people, it is made to cut stuff. A car is not made to take you to your specific workplace every day, it was only made to go general places.
A gun is made to shoot a projectile. Your gun could have been used by some liberator who shot an occupier about to rape and pillage a town. The next serial number pistol off a line after the one used in a bank robbery could be the one in the cop's hand who stopped the robber. Or it could be the one in the girl's hand who protected herself from home invasion.
A tool is a tool. What is done with it is the owner's choice.
OP
OP
Blue Brick
Member
That was not necessary.
swiftak
Member
I'd love to know that my Mosin put a Nazi in the ground. That would make me very happy.
sixgunner455
Member
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2006
- Messages
- 3,052
I have a ~1870 British service revolver I got in Aghanistan.
It is worn out. Somehow, I think that one or two of the rounds fired down that thing's barrel probably impacted with a person.
I have a Khyber knife I got in the same place. It's got blood rust on it.
Neither item bothers me.
It is worn out. Somehow, I think that one or two of the rounds fired down that thing's barrel probably impacted with a person.
I have a Khyber knife I got in the same place. It's got blood rust on it.
Neither item bothers me.
Personally I'm not sure why someone would hope their rifle killed a German soldier. Many of them were normal people, no better or worse than any other soldier during the war.
aka108
Member
All of mine sat it out in some armory so why worry.
Tentwing
Member
I can only echo the sentiment that seems to be running throughout this thread already.
Inanimate objects can never hold blame.
Blame is Responsibility, and Responsibility is the sole province of mankind and mankind alone.
I'm certain that many of the arrowheads in my collections have pierced the chest cavities of men as well as game. Are the Arrowheads to blame ?
They started as flint. Flint fashioned into a tool by a man with a purpose. What that purpose was (to provide food or kill another human) was decided by the man who made and used it.
Holding that piece of flint responsible for the deeds of the man who made is the same as holding a firearm responsible for the man behind the trigger. It is wrong in every way.
My computer keyboard is not responsible for my mis-spelled words. The logic is the same.
Tentwing
Inanimate objects can never hold blame.
Blame is Responsibility, and Responsibility is the sole province of mankind and mankind alone.
I'm certain that many of the arrowheads in my collections have pierced the chest cavities of men as well as game. Are the Arrowheads to blame ?
They started as flint. Flint fashioned into a tool by a man with a purpose. What that purpose was (to provide food or kill another human) was decided by the man who made and used it.
Holding that piece of flint responsible for the deeds of the man who made is the same as holding a firearm responsible for the man behind the trigger. It is wrong in every way.
My computer keyboard is not responsible for my mis-spelled words. The logic is the same.
Tentwing
Last edited:
- Status
