Comments on: why do people sportorized military rifles?

By: Mr. Gregg Andrews

Mr. Gregg Andrews — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 16:47:21 +0000

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….

By: Tahoeguy

Tahoeguy — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 16:47:21 +0000

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….

By: akluis

akluis — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 16:47:21 +0000

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.

By: Michael

Michael — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 16:47:21 +0000

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.

By: Johnny Dangerous

Johnny Dangerous — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 16:47:21 +0000

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?

By: Fatefinger

Fatefinger — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 16:47:21 +0000

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.

By: archerdude

archerdude — Tue, 01 Dec 2009 16:47:21 +0000

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.