What are the advantages to sporterizing a firearm (if any). Why would anyone do it if they don't have to?
It made some sense back when a surplus Enfield was $12. Lots cheaper than an off the shelf option. Nowadays even beat to shit milsurp is worth something and many cost more than many entry level economy hunting rifles.
>many cost more than many entry level economy hunting rifles
Weighs less. They do it because they don't care about the gun's history/what it was, and think they're never going to sell it, or that the gun isn't worth much so it doesn't matter if it gets butchered because there are plenty others out there.
Reasons why people do it
>Don't care about history of firearm
>"EUGH WOOD'S TOO HEAVY BETTER THROW FUCKING POLYMER ON IT"
>They did it at a time when the gun was extremely plentiful, like if you were to sporterize a Mossberg Patriot, no one would give a shit because they're still making them. They're plentiful.
>People pick up a rifle not knowing what it is, just thinking it's an old wooden rifle not worth anything, they turn it into a project and scrap all the old parts.
I hate the idea of sporterized rifles, at least old milsurp ones.
I'm trying to fix an old Mauser sporter that I got at a gunshow in Nebraska a while back. Just recently got a stock for it, and now just gonna find the old barrel, safety lever, and trigger assembly.
>don't care about the history
>were plentiful at the time
Kind of sad how ignorant some people are. Like this one video I saw of a guy with a Mosin, "These will always be an easily buyable and cheap weapon..."
In Kansas they're going up. Bought my first one a year ago for $160, and this newer one recently for about $190 Checked around many places and that was definitely one of the cheaper prices.
Back in the day, the people sporterizing were the people who humped that same rifle all across Europe. There is nothing inherently wrong with sporterizing a rifle. You have to realize that most people aren't gun autists like anons on /k/, and they value a lighter rifle in the bush than muh history.
No, I'm saying that the concept of sporterization was founded by men coming back from the wars and modifying the most readily-available rifles of the times (which were milsurp) to be more handy for hunting. Most people didn't exactly have a ton of money to buy as many guns as they wanted.
I find it amusing that you think you know better than the people who actually USED those rifles you care about so much in combat.
>cherrypicking guns to try to pretend you weren't wrong
I can find you a mosin, a mauser, an enfield, a krag, an arisaka, a 1911, and plenty of other old surplus guns for cheaper.
Not that anon, but p-please find me a mauser and an arisaka
You're missing the point of sporterizing these rifles. They were dirt cheap and plentiful after WWII and there was plenty of ammo. Cutting the rifle up and scoping it was cheaper than buying a new sporting rifle.
really? you're actually this incapable of doing anything yourself? you were wrong. I don't know why this is so hard for people to admit.
the krag you won't find for cheap unmolsted for cheap, atleast not spending 30 seconds on armslist. now can you fuck off?
Confession I guess, I want to turn a mosin into something like this...
or this....eventhough im often against sporterizing.
>I don't mind sporterizing if its done tastefully.
alternatively, you could just take a bone stock mosin, add a long eye relief scope on the provided 3/8 dovetail, add a rubber buttplate, and attach one of these. That way if you want to sell it ever, you don't have to try to pass on a version of a gun most people aren't interested in and you won't have butchered a gun with some history.
apparently they have pictures of almost exactly that, except they used a scout mount instead of the 3/8 dovetail already on the gun.
I wouldn't be selling it, and the shorter length is what is appealing. It gives off a Safari express rifle vibe which tickles my autism in all the right places. In Canada, we see a lot of sporterized Enfields going for dirt cheap as well, usually 150-400.
>the shorter length is what is appealing
so take an m38 or m44.
I.. I don't actually know. I didn't notice that before. They're probably just something they added on to them to make the safety easier to use. I found replacing the shitty firing pin spring made mine incredibly easy to use though.
Only pussies sporterize anything.
Now, if you end up in Civil War 2.0 and your (insert rifle here) has too much weight on it, by all means cut the fucker down and carve your name in it.
>Is that a scope ring welded to the bolt on the top one?
>.. I don't actually know.
No, it's a ring piece that is meant to clamp onto the safety knob for easier manipulation. I forget who makes them.
Really interested in the scope mounts...
I have no problem with sporterizing guns that are fubar to make them usable again.
I'm not sure how much they had to lop off of the barrel, but I would have probably tried to get an m38 or m44 stock to put on it instead.
there's a 3/8 dovetail underneath the rear sight. you remove one pin, then slide off the rear sight, and you've got yourself a usable 3/8 rail. Pair it with a long eye relieve scope, and you have a scout mosin that's completely reversible if you ever want it in its original configuration.
or you could get one of those scout mounts, which is made by brass stacker. same guys that make the pouch.
either way, you're not doing anything permanent to the gun. using the dovetail is just cheaper.
Too bad about all the tears that come from making a rifle more suitable to put food on the table for generations. Not saying people should chop up everything they come across but As long as they aren't butchered idgaf.
Funny how this "much history" is applied to rifles and not vets eh.
Not even the guy you're talking to, but
>I find it amusing that you think you know better than the people who actually USED those rifles you care about so much in combat.
Come on now. Being a grunt counts for absolutely jack shit when it comes to being knowledgeable about firearms.
A small minority of soldiers ever actually fire a weapon in combat.
Average American WWII Soldier:
>live on farm in BFE Nebraska
>rushed through boot
>pushed onto a ship
>spend six months guarding a truck depot in France
>get cycled back home
>go to college on GI bill and have impressive amounts of sex with wife, inadvertently creating the worst generation of Americans that ever existed
Next time you think the average soldier knows anything about guns, spend a day at a shooting range in a military town. You'll come to new conclusions very quickly.
There are zero advantages to it. The people who chop up rifles rarely know what they are doing so it never comes out how they see it in their mind. They think that it will be vastly better than how it was before, the way the designers and engineers envisioned it. Kind of like that 17 year old's riced out '95 Civic. It looks and sounds like shit, but to they think it's so cool.
In the end all the bubba fucked guns get thrown into the closet, under the bed, in the basement, in the attic because bubba found out that his hacked up monstrosity he created never lived up to what he wanted it to be and he finally goes out and buys a Remchester that he really wanted.
>I find it amusing that you think you know better than the people who actually USED those rifles you care about so much in combat.
Knowing how to shoot a gun and knowing how it actually works is completely different. Your typical Ex-GI won't know that chopping the stock and/or barrel up most likely will destroy the zeroing of the sights for instance.
In one chapter of Hatcher's notebook he talks about how after WWII there was a lot of former soldiers opening up their "gun customization" shops and didn't have a clue about what they were doing.
That depends. Going full retard like in your pic, maybe. But a few tasteful mods? A bent bolt, a decent scope mount, shaving down the weight by chopping and recrowning the barrel and removing that ugly ass wood barrel furniture; your sporterized nugget could be your favorite gun, if you understand what really makes a gun better, and what is just tacticool faggotry.
Isn't it. History isnt one point in time of a person or objects life. A sporterized rifles gets a new life after the war and continues to be useful and people will bitch because it's not original.
A man goes to war BARELY a man and either come back changed or absolutely stuck in the war and people bitcj about that for differ reasons but wont do shit about it.
And half these tards would be drooling on themselves if the guns we're modified IN theatre but afterwards? Heresey.
"Hurr it's ruined because they removed 12 inches of wooden heat shield, what's to protect the hands after long exchanges with deer?"
Ill shut up before I ramble too far down the hole
I didn't suggest that they sporterized them to improve the weapon. They did it to cut down on a bit of weight. The post I was replying to suggested that those who sporterized their guns were too weak to carry them on a hunting trip when manly men carried them across Europe, when in fact it was those same manly men who did the sporterizing.
Personally, I prefer the look of a full-stock milsurp rifle, but I don't get rump-roasted at the thought of people doing it to theirs, because I am not an autist.
I feel that sporterizing is a result of the incessant need to spend money on new, shiny things. It's the same reason people buy shitloads of accessories and end up dumping 1000$ into a 700$ AR15. They like to spend money, they like new, shiny things, and some folks confuse "new and different" with "better".
>They did it to cut down on a bit of weigh
Do you know how completely insignificant that amount of weight is? I know, muh ultralighter every ounce matters.
and do you really think all the rifles that are getting chopped up today are being chopped up by people that carried them? how many US vets do you think carried a fucking mosin or mauser or lee enfield?
Better is a subjective term. You think something is better when it's in its original condition. What you fail to realize is what the fuck difference does it make to you that other people do what they want with their shit? Keep getting mad that people have the freedom to do whatever they want to their inanimate objects because MUH HISTORY. Once you realize that your life does not change at all because all the milsurp rifles are gone you'll live a much happier life not worrying about petty shit.
To argue that sporterizing old military rifles is not only acceptable, but beneficial if done right and done to a gun that doesn't have collector value.
And in my opinion, the wood barrel cover on the 91/30 is ugly as fuck. On the m44 I like it, but the 91/30 just has too much wood.
>what the fuck difference does it make to you that other people do what they want with their shit?
Because they then try to sell their shit and mark up the price. They reduced the number of intact examples of that gun by 1, and then they didn't even want it after they fucked it up.
>hey guys, why are you upset that I just painted eyebrows on the mona lisa? Once you realize that you life doesn't change at all because this painting is different you'll live a much happier life not worrying about petty shit
>it achieves nothing
It literally makes the gun lighter by removing unneeded wood. Soldiers tend to roll around and drop things a bit more often than the average fudd hunter, they don't need that much wood to prevent the barrel from getting fucked.
Back then, just like now, milsurp was typically cheaper than new production guns. So whatever their motivation for sporterizing, there wasn't this modern concern about ruining some historical artifact because that shit was like 10 years old and everyone and their dog had one. It would be the equivalent of getting outraged every time someone buys a plain AR and puts some faggy handguard on it.
A bent bolt and a scope mount makes a good gun into a great gun. You shave off the weight on the barrel to balance the weight of the scope and mount. You end up with a package roughly the same weight, instead of 10-20% heavier. You can enhance the function of the weapon, but you have to make compromises somewhere.
There's a reason bolt action rifles don't come with 90deg bolt handles anymore.
That could work if there we're hundreds of thousands of mona Lisa's created to arm people as quickly as possible.
Do you get made when people buy old ALICE gear then add kidney pads, frames or malice clips to them
That has nothing to do with the conversation, nor does it prove the theory that "it does nothing"
You just have to accept that there are morons in the world who decided to cut up a stock because they wanted to, even if you don't see the value in why yourself.
OP said no nuggets or sporterized guns. You linked to two sporterized krags, a crate of nuggets, and a few of the shittiest guns you can get, that being the arisaka, and an Ishapore enfield.
I never responded to OP. and I only linked one krag, which I specifically said you might not be able to find instantly for cheaper than the cheapest entry level scoped hunting rifle.
the statement I responded to was
>Nowadays even beat to shit milsurp is worth something and many cost more than many entry level economy hunting rifles.
For shooting within 100yds?
Hah. I hope you realize most hunters don't take a shot past 70yds. The "great rifle" with a drilled receiver and scope you're talking about is only beginning to become useful past 300yds.
If you have the shot, and you're reasonably confident in your abilities, then why not take it? Why waste effort and time trying to get closer when you don't need to? I put the bullet right through his heart, by the way, so don't give me that "it's unethical to take a shot past 200 yards" bullshit.
Besides, 250 is not excessive, >>28445578
Here's a perfect example of a well-done sporter.
First- most folks these days have never seen the work of the GODS from years past. All you've been exposed to are shit from gunshows that were bubba'd. Look at this Mosin- that's a practical rifle that would be perfect to hunt deer with. Clean, simple, open sights- just minimalist perfection.
they don't look bad. But I don't really understand the purpose when you can buy things that look exactly like that already, and shoot a lot better. I guess maybe if you're too poor to afford them?
agreed, a fatwa on all non guacamole avocado products.
>mfw California rolls
heh, another guy from /hm/. small 4chan