Does a budget bolt action such as the Ruger American surpass

>>32455916
finnish m39 is far better and so is a 1903 sprinfield. Alot of guns are better.

>>32455929
Can't beat a Savage 10

>>32455929
>>32455939
Surely modern technology and methods of producing make products superior to old rifles such as those?

>>32455929
1903 springfield start at $900 and up

>>32455916
a finnish nugget and possible some mausers will hit the marks of, cheap(ish), accurate, and rugged

>>32455929
On top of that:
K31
No.4 Enfield
Any Swedish Mauser
vz24

All will outperform a Ruger American, Savage Axis, etc. for the money. The issue is ammo availability and optics mounts. If you reload or can stomach harder-to-find ammo, and you're fine with iron sights, go milsurp. If you need optics and commonly available ammo, go for a new rifle.

Milsurp also has the bonus of historical value and the simple joy that is retracing the life of your individual rifle, but that's a subjective thing. And whatever you do, please don't try to Bubba a milsurp gun into something it's not. Like I said, if you want a new rifle, get a new rifle. If you want the uniqueness of milsurp, get that. Don't try to force one to be the other.

File: f3k1911a.jpg (104KB, 800x520px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 800x520px

>>32455916

A K-31 or Schmidt-Rubin is better in every way, except for accessories (optics, rails, etc) and ammunition availability.

....and I guess weight, if you're not into lugging around a 9lb Swiss watch.

>>32455916
It surpasses some milsurp in every area but there are at least a few surplus rifles that surpasses it in each category.

>>32455962

In theory, but modern stuff tends to be built with more of an eye on cost of manufacture. Plus, the guys at the factory are paid vastly more nowadays.

Back when the M39 or 03 or various Mausers were being made, labor was cheap and rifle tooling plentiful. You could afford to have a guy fit parts and polish internals. Not to mention your actual tooling investment and requirements were much lower.

>>32455967

$900 for an 03? What kind of drugs are you on?

>>32455967
>$900 and up
More like $650 and up

>>32455916
In general:
Most milsurp have a 3-4 MOA accruacy. See pre-ww2 Mosins, most mausers.

Some of your better milsurp will have a 1.5-2 MOA accruacy. See Swiss surplus or a fully finned nugget.

Some of your worst milsurp will have 5+ MOA accuracy. See wartime Russian Mosins and Carcano 91/24's

Compare this with the advertised accuracy of the budget modern rifle.

>>32455916
short answer: no
Long answer: noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

>>32456242

Unless you have a war-emergency Mosin or some beater Mauser, I'd wager most Milsurp is going to be indistinguishable to your average schlub from a pure accuracy standpoint.

Sights and sighting adjustment on the other hand are a whole other matter.

A shitty carcano is going to be minute-of-deer even if it's been fucked with.

>>32456349
Probably should have stated war emergency level. You are right.

Carcanos are a 3 MOA guns in general (I listed the military cut down 91/24 for a reason). Most people just use wrong sized bullets in them so they get minute of deer as you say.

>>32455998
> in every way, except aiming past 100m and firing it after 1 week of SHTF

>>32456411

No one said the Schmidt-Rubin was a good SHTF rifle, that wasn't the question.

>>32456349
This. A Mosin that hasn't had its bore totally shot out should be doing about 2-2.5MoA. Mausers and SMLE's should be around 2MoA, with No.4's and Swedish Mausers around 1.5MoA. A well-kept K31 firing GP11 should be at or below 1MoA. My personal K31 shoots about 0.7MoA from a bench.

It's all massively dependant on condition, mind you, but the whole "all milsurp is inaccurate" thing is very much a myth. If the rifle is in good shape, it should at least perform as well as a modern offering, discounting special circumstances like last-ditch Arisakas and whatnot.

File: Belgian-Rifle-Mauser-Mle.1935-POV.jpg (54KB, 1000x475px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 1000x475px

>>32456471

Indeed, the saying really ought to be "Most people aren't accurate with Milsurp"

Soldiers must have had amazing vision back in the day, Pic related

>>32455916
I don't see much budget mil surp anymore. Even Mosin's go for $200+ anymore.

I'd say the mil surp would be a sturdier gun less prone to damage, but not as accurate as the modern design. Keep ammo availability in mind too.

>>32455967
>>32456057
>>32456064
A friend of mine has been looking for a 1903, and I've been been keeping an eye out for them at local gunshows. Cheapest I saw was $800, and it was in rough condition. Others were around $1200, and a couple were $2000+. I wanted a M1 Carbine but I'm not about to pay $900 for it.

>>32455916
>Ruger American
>lightweight barrel
>rotary mag

I love mine to death, but I'd bet your average WW2-era service rifle can withstand much more torture.

Outside SHTF the Ruger will stomp almost all milsurp on accuracy. The trigger alone makes an enormous difference.