why do people sportorized military rifles?
I know some people will put on a synthetic stock on so they don’t scratch up there nice wood stocks while hunting. even as much as it kills me I have a synthetic stock on my Finnish upgrade Mosin Nagant because the original wood is much to bad of a condition to be usable. So I’m buying a wall hanger Mosin Nagant to switch out the stock and maybe use for parts. The people I’m talking about will get a M44 and put on a synthetic stock with a Scope mount, Bi-Pod, Laser and all the Tacti-Cool stuff. I’ve actually seen a mosin like that. The worst was when I was in a gun shop and a guy came in and said he had a old M1903 in original condition his Father left him. When me and a gun shop employee asked more about it. He said sportorized it, Synthetic Stock, Bi-pod and drilled and taped for a scope. I was biting my tongue. I was just at complete aw some one would kill such a beautiful Rifle. Not like it was a 18 year old video game nerd this guy looked in his late twenties. So, any thoughts on why are willing to take away the history of these old rifles?
Posted in Military Rifles
December 1st, 2009 at 10:47 am
I’m with you Reb.
I’m a 1903/Krag fanatic… but when I see these beauties butchered… I just want to throw up.
And it’s not like they took a rifle that was in abysmally bad shape and sporterized it… no. They always go for the nice ones.
At cabela’s one time, I saw this bubba’d up 1903A4 (yes, someone was stupid enough to bubba an A4!!! *pounds head into table*). They wanted $800 for it… and it was in pretty bad shape. I offered them $250 (what it’s worth at that point, I could’ve *possibly* rebuilt it), and they told me it was worth more than the $800 because it was on "Clearance".
Really, it’s horrible what some of these morons do to these rifles. Why couldn’t they get a Mosin or one of the cheapo Turkish Mausers and bubba it??? No, they ALWAYS have to go for the good rifles.
I saw a Krag with a synthetic stock and a cut forearm…………….. tears actually welled in my eyes…. no kidding. It’s really, really, really bad what some people do.
Grrr….
December 1st, 2009 at 10:47 am
I agree, im not a fan of ‘updating’ a classic. Some people sporterize aggressive looking military rifles to make them more polite looking. Others want to add the tactikool carp to make it look tougher and badder, because they cant afford a grand for an AR….
December 1st, 2009 at 10:47 am
Economy, the reason why sporterizing was invented in the first place. That’s also the original reason military arms were imported. When that practice started, there weren’t enough collectors to justify importing tens of thousands of old mausers, caricanos, mosin-nagants, or whatever. But there were enough hunters who were interested in upgrading their 30-30 leverguns to more powerful and long range bolt actions. For many meat hunters, being able to sporterize a military rifle was a real God-send.
The only reason original springfield 1903s are valuable is because 9 out of 10 of them have been sporterized.
Obviously, there are some rarer specimines that we wish would not have been sporterized, but always we look at these things thinking of the value of ‘just this one’ not realizing that if the rare models were all left intact, they’d be worth a lot less and a lot less interesting.
Now, anything rare enough that it shouldn’t be sporterized will carry a pricetag that will prevent it from happening. No one is buying cheap springfield 1903s because they cannot afford a new Remington 700. Same with high end Finnish Mosins, the price keeps those interested in economial hunting rifles away (those guys just go buy a Mossberg ATR or Remington 715)
As far as the guys who want to buy a standard $89.99 mosin and spend another $50 to put a bent bolt and synthetic sporter stock on it, then mount a scope to boot, heck, good for them. I hope they get their deer.
December 1st, 2009 at 10:47 am
I’m not sure that "sporterized" is the right term anymore. In my younger days it was not unusual to get a surplus rifle and replace the heavy, old military stock with a lighter and nicer looking hunting style stock. Additionally, military sights were removed and modern hunting sights or scopes were installed. In other words the rifles were remade to be hunting guns instead of tactical ones. Now days, I see folks taking old military rifles and trying to make them into a modern tactical weapon.
Some properly done sporterized military rifles (into hunting guns) look and function quite nicely. I haven’t seen a well done tactical conversion on an old military rifle that either looks good or even makes sense.
December 1st, 2009 at 10:47 am
In the end, a weapon is a tool. Some men buy a rifle for the history, some buy a rifle BASED on its proven history and success rate for use as a tool. Don’t get me wrong, Some weapons should not be molested by posers who wanna look like bad-asses so they can talk about their guns all day. I am just sayin some guys cant hit the broad side of a barn unless they have lots of technology to do it FOR them. Know what I’m sayin?
December 1st, 2009 at 10:47 am
It’s, in the end cheaper or at least on par than going and buying a brand new rifle. Outside of American guns because back in the day when the got decomissioned they were destroyed there is a lot of surplus out there.
Besides doing things like putting on a syntethic stock and putting a scope on where the rear sight leaf is or putting on bi-pods… All this stuff is not really a permanent change. Could all be changed back to original parts in an hour. The only thing would be if one drilled and tapped the receiver to put on a scope.
Some people are originalists while some are not.
December 1st, 2009 at 10:47 am
It used to be that an old military rifle was "sporterized’ to make it light enough to be lugged through the woods all day. Now, it’s done because the eedjits doing it don’t know any better.
A M1903 in original condition, and the eedjit turned it into a high-tech franken-rifle? He very obviously had no clue as to the true value of what he had.
December 1st, 2009 at 10:47 am
Well I could see the synthetic stock (let’s be honest they are better than wood in the only aspect they are stronger and more durable, but I like a wood stock on a rifle.) Why do people do it you ask? Because people are idiots. You know how the tacti cool phase has taken over everything. It don’t matter if it’s old or not, I have seen old rifles like u said done all up like that. It is sad to ruin something special and historical like that. I can see the tact icool idiot crowd tricking out an AR-15 till the damn thing weighs 24 lbs lol (because that has become common to see and all, most stuff on there ya don’t need.) The reason ppl take old time rifles and do that to them (other than the stock and that’s understandable) they are just ignorant.
December 1st, 2009 at 10:47 am
In this particular case it may provide a means to utilise the rifle without risking a mint original stock. This rather assumes the owner doesn’t tamper with the barrel/action beyond a couple of tapped holes to carry a scope, maybe a new crown & leaves the orginal stock & accessories wrapped up in a heated room.
That said these days a thoroughly decent off-the-shelf rifle that will fulfill ones need at least as well as a sporterised antique will probably cost less than the value loss of modifying a mint piece of curio. So why bother unless for the novelty…
December 1st, 2009 at 10:47 am
I agree with Boondock Saint and Tahoe Guy that it is not right to sporterize a classic like a Springfield 1903.
December 1st, 2009 at 10:47 am
You need to remember that a lot of these rifles were sporterized back in the 40s, 50s, and 60s, because people wanted a cheap hunting rifle that was actually light enough to be comfortable when you have to lug it all over creation. (Most mil-surp bolt-actions weigh somewhere around 9lbs empty.) And since at that time military surplus rifles were cheap and plentiful, say less than 1/3rd the cost of something like a Winchester model 70, people bought military surplus guns, shortened the stocks, gave them new sights, and had a "custom" deer rifle for less than half the cost of a Winchester model 70 or Remington model 700. At that time it made sense because a well done sporterized gun was actually worth more to most people.
Today its just the opposite when it comes to value. Mil-surp bolt-guns are usually worth more in issue condition. However there are still lots of these guns that have already been sporterized. And since the old-timers who sporterized them are dying off, these conversions are showing up on the market as estates get sold… As for people who make new conversions… Maybe they just want a project gun. Or maybe they bought the gun because its cheap (like say a Mosin-Nagant) but find that the sights and stock don’t fit them so they try to make it more comfortable to use and give it better sights. I don’t suppose it really matters though since its their gun.
December 1st, 2009 at 10:47 am
It all comes down to whatever trips your trigger.* All they are doing is upgrading it to suit themselves, and you have to admit they can look really handsome after they have been upgraded.* The History, and the Value of the Gun is not diminished in Value, or Appreciation by those who do sportorize them.* My K-98 Military 8mm Mauser Sniper Rifle is awesome sportorized.* Three (3*) Shot Groups at 100 Yards that you can consistently cover with a Silver Dollar.* Free Floated, and Glass bedded.*
December 1st, 2009 at 10:47 am
Sporterize rifle = ruin rifle. None of my military surplus rifles will be altered from original condition. They don’t make these things anymore, you know! I just went and told my ’03A3, "I’d never do that to you baby!”