Why Sporterize Milsurp Rifles?

[tahunua001]

I have seen swedish mausers turned into very practical scout rifles. I've seen Japanese Arisakas turned into absolutely beautiful sporters. I would take those custom rifles over a factory sporter any day. some of these rifles have already been bubba'd and no longer savable so I would love to turn one of these into a good custom sporter, however I don't have the skills, money, or time to do it so I don't, but I won't begrudge anyone that does take on a project rifle.

 

[44 AMP]

The worm can reopened...

Believe it or not, but there's those who look at just about any rifle and see it as nothing more than a tool.

That's true. And for those that butcher any rifle, to see the real tool, they should look in the mirror.

But DO NOT confuse Bubba's hack job with all sporterizing.

Also, don't make the (common) mistake of applying your current values to the past. As many have said, these rifles were nearly as common as, and nearly as cheap as dirt. (although the cheap part isn't quite as true as it seems)

Looking at the old ads from the 50s, seeing the guns for $15-$30 does seem really cheap. Until you see that a decent blue collar "working man's wage" brought home around $50 a week. And a new station wagon cost $700.

They got cheaper, as time went on, usually not even quite doubling in price, by the 70s when the average take home pay had, or more.

here's where the cheap part comes in, You could take a milsurp, and build it into a nice custom rifle (including rebarreling), with a decent scope, for about $100 less than a new Remchester of similar quality (or even less "quality" than your custom build) without a scope!

$150ish for a nice scoped Mauser, with a custom stock, hinged floorplate, bent bolt, drilled and tapped, scope safety, and adjustable trigger, with a Weaver scope, base, and rings vs. $250 ish for a Rem 700, Win 70, Ruger 77, or Savage 110 (rifle only, no optics or mounts). And a Weatherby Mk V was $450!

That made sense to me then, still makes sense to me now.

Another side of the coin is, that in those fondly remembered days, a well done sporter was a matter of prestige, and pride. We DID turn sow's ears into silk purses.

But today seems like all we hear is "Shame on you!". (and that's when the milsurp fanboys are being nice...)

Why did we do it? Because we got something as good, and often better than what we could buy from commercial makers, for a LOT less money. Plus we got EXACTLY what we wanted for features, and nothing we didn't.

And if we hadn't done that, in large numbers, the "rare, valuable" issue condition milsurps would be neither rare, nor valuable.

really, you milsurp collectors ought to be thanking us!

 

[Mike Irwin]

Surplus rifle prices had started to rise quite a bit by the time of that Klein's ad.

Remember, in the 1940s a lot of guns simply came back with GIs as souveniers, and many thousands were released into the surplus market that way at very reasonable prices.

Remember, too, that right after World War II there was an ENORMOUS wave of consumer purchasing, the likes of which has never been seen before or since.

The consumer markets had been largely shut down for 15 years, first by the depression, and then by the war.

After the war people had tons of money and American manufacturers couldn't make products quickly enough to meet the demand. That's what fueled a lot of the rifle conversions in the late 1940s and through the 1950s. People wanted firearms, but they couldn't find them, or they didn't want to pay the inflated prices that Winchesters, Marlins, Savages, Smiths, etc. were getting in the hyper consumer market at the time.

 

[Hawg]

There are probably more sporterized than unsporterized G33s now, which is why the un-cut ones go for about what I paid for my '99 Subaru...

That's undoubtedly true but it it weren't sported I wouldn't have it and it is a very, very nice action. The smoothest and tightest Mauser action I've ever seen. My F.N. isn't this smooth and tight. It still has the waffenamts on it so the history is still there, its just in a more useful configuration now......Or will be when I finish the stock.

 

[Slamfire]

I believe that America’s culture is primarily a creation of corporate advertizing bureaus. You can see how holidays that predate the triumph of predatory economic rationalism have been perverted from their historical meanings: Christmas is a commercial event based on the idea that if you love someone, you will buy them something and the more love you have, the more money you will spend. Easter has something to do with chocolate bunnies. Our calendar is full of commercially created holidays, “traditions” which only exist to create sales for one economic sector.

For well over a century the primary source of information for shooters has been through the print media of Gun Magazines. Shooters have been “trained” and “educated” by what they read, little realizing that these magazines and their writers are nothing more than shills for themselves and the firearms industry. If you go back to the magazines of the 50’s and 60’s you will find many articles, by gunsmiths, advocating “sporterizing”. These guys were drumming up business for themselves and for the aftermarket accessory business.

Back then, if you bought a military rifle, you would experience immediate peer pressure to sporterize the thing. We all have seen the results of this, some guy would hear about “sporterizing” from his buds, he took the action out of the stock, and sawed off the stock forward of the upper band and tossed the upper handguards, then reassembled the rifle. This was the basic hack job and got people off his back. Sometimes the owner would put more money into the rifle, paying to have the bolt handle lowered and scope mounts installed, and during this process the owner discovered that gunsmithing was expensive. We all have seen these rifles in gun stores, the project ended at this point, because the owner gained enough knowledge to price out the total cost of a conversion project. Rarely did anyone take a military action and have the full gun smithing conversion of stock, (inletted and checkered of course) new barrel, or file drawn original barrel, scope mounts or Lyman 48, safety, bent bolt, new trigger, etc, etc. When someone did this they found that the cost of a full gunsmithing conversion was more than a new Rem 721 and often a new pre 64 M70! No one ever told the public that the new rifles were built out of better, stronger materials, or cautioned that these old actions had been through one service life already, instead, shooters were sold the “romance” of the things. Humans are not rational creatures and people are easily lured into expensive projects, a couple of bucks at a time, and by the end, you have sunk some real money into a project that you will never recover when you sell the thing. I have been one of them, probably will be suckered into more. In for a penny, in for a dollar!

To me what this whole thing shows how susceptible the public is to advertizing and how traditional media shapes and molds our behaviors.

 

[James K]

FWIW, "sporterizing" was not confined to the post-WWII era or to Spanish Mausers.

After the American Civil War, hundreds of thousands of "old junkers" (i.e., .58 and .69 caliber Rifle Muskets) were turned into shotguns, barrels reamed smooth and stocks cut down. That, folks, is enough to make modern collectors cry!

Jim

 

[4V50 Gary]

We had to sporterize Mauser 98 rifles as part of our educational process.

1) First semester we removed the barrel and trued the bolt face and receiver face. We then turned a barrel to the contour of our choice, ensuring that the cylinder portion had a crisp edge. The barrel was fitted with minimum headspace.

2) Second semester we polished off the scratches and dings on the receiver. We fitted a Chapman swing type safety to the bolt shroud. First we had to anneal the bolt shroud and mill a slot for the safety lever. The shroud also had to be milled out for the safety plunger and spring. Afterward the lever had to be hand fitted. A plug had to be machined and fitted to cover the hole in the shroud that is above the safety lever. The bolt handle was either cut off and a new one that we made on a lathe was welded on or the existing bolt handle was bent by forging it back. The trigger guard was slimmed down and polished. For a cleaner look, we made plugs for the set screw holes and welded them in place. We also made an extended magazine release button for it. A timney trigger was installed and adjusted to no greater than 3.5 lbs with 0 creep. The receiver was then drilled and tapped for a scope.

3) Third semester we took stock blanks that we made in the second semester and inletted our barreled action to them. This could include some type of foreend cap, grip cap, rubber butt pad.

So, over the course of 1 1/2 years we sporterized a mauser. It wasn't the sporterization but the machining process, hand skills, wood working skills that we learned along the way. The finished product looks like a custom rifle and not Bubba's basement workshop product.

 

[Art Eatman]

What's the real difference between customizing an old milsurp, and customizing a car? Aren't you making something that suits you more than "just any old thing from the store (dealer)"?

I sporterized a 1917 Enfield. Enjoyed it, since the modifications were my ideas. Same as stuffing a hi-per 327 in an Austin-Healey, or a 427 into my '67 Camaro. I wanted them to do what I wanted them to do, not just follow the crowd.

Later years, I did the same sort of changing on a Sako Forester and a Weatherby Mark V. Again, following my own notions.

 

[B.L.E.]

After the American Civil War, hundreds of thousands of "old junkers" (i.e., .58 and .69 caliber Rifle Muskets) were turned into shotguns, barrels reamed smooth and stocks cut down. That, folks, is enough to make modern collectors cry!

On the other hand, how much would those guns be worth today if every Civil War musket ever made had somehow been preserved and survived to this day?
Attrition is the reason the remaining specimens have collector's value. WWII surplus guns had little collector's value in the 1950's and 1960'a because there were millions of those guns in arsenals around the world and they were pretty much obsolete for military use by then.
What if every Model T Ford built were still running today? The government would probably pay people to scrap them.

 

[gyvel]

Looking at the old ads from the 50s, seeing the guns for $15-$30 does seem really cheap. Until you see that a decent blue collar "working man's wage" brought home around $50 a week. And a new station wagon cost $700.

During the 60s when this Klein's ad appeared, probably in the American Rifleman, a new station wagon was considerably more than $700.00.

My father's first new car after WWII was a 1949 Ford. It cost him $1800.00 when he was making $2400.00 a year as a school teacher in Niagara Falls. (Roughly the equivalent of an $18,000.00 car today bought by someone with an income of $24,000.00.)

In the 60s, Hunter's Lodge was the undisputed champion of surplus. Enfield .38 revolvers were $12.88. No. 1 Mk I Lee-Enfields were $9.95, cheaper than a No. 1 Mk III (!!!!). Lugers were $39.95. P.38s were even cheaper.

These guns were imported by the tens of thousands; Today, we have been afflicted by what I call "collectormania." Everything milsurp has suddenly become a "collector's item." Even new guns today are produced for a few years then inexplicably dropped from the line, only to become "collector's items." You wake up one morning only to find out that the nice gun you bought to carry on the trail is no longer made and everybody wants one.

As I stated earlier, that Spanish Mauser you saw was, at one time, very near the bottom of the barrel as far as desirability is concerned. Nevertheless, they were still an attractive, inexpensive alternative to a much more expensive domestically produced sporting rifle.

 

[lefty60]

Over the years I have gotten a lot of joy out of "customizing" old milsurp rifles. I have built some very nice rifles, and then put them to good use (hunting, target shooting).

I now acquire ugly "bubba'd" guns to customize. There seems to be a pretty good supply to chose from

Because good, complete milserps are harder to come by these days, I have no desire to "cut" them up.

It still comes down to "Different Strokes for Different Folks"

 

[HiBC]

I do not practice or advocate altering complete original old rifles,milsurp or otherwise.However,if you choose to do it,I respect your right to use your property as you see fit.

While I do appreciate the M70 Winchester,and I own one,the idea of buying a new,off the shelf rifle does not really excite me.With all respect to your pride and joy,though they may be fine rifles,Remingtons,Savages,etc,just not my cup of tea.

I start with a hairbrain idea..I want a lightweight .257,or I want a longer range .30 elk rifle,or???

Then I build it to suit me,my way.

Along the way,via gun shows,friends,Shotgun news ads,etc,I have acquired receivers and actions.Sometimes really nice ones,like my 98-09 Argentine,some rough,but worth saving,like the $25 Mexican 98 receivers I bought 3 of.No bolts.P-14 drill rifle receivers,became .375's and .416's

A few Rolling blocks,etc.One man's junk became my treasure.

Those who disdain sporterizing milsurps might get their speedos all wedgied up looking at my projects,but those Mex receivers did not even have bolts.The rails were tweaked removing the barrels.The guy who buys collector rifles would call them junk.I made a few tools and straightened them till my B+S indicator told me they were straight.If you make an extended barrel shank,and cut an extractor notch,a Yugo bolt will work.

You might look at my 19034A4 clone and gasp!Who would drill and tap such a nice 03A3,and alter the bolt?Me! But I started with an AIM Surplus reclaimed drill rifle receiver and bolt.My point,before you judge ,you just might be really ignorant about the origins of the rifle.

I understand,some people have no skills.They only see guns as something to buy,to posess,to rub,talk about,then place in a dark safe.

I am someone who regards a gun as a tool,and I am a toolmaker.

I think those who have the disdain for "Bubba"may have no clue about the heritage of the US Gunsmith trade and the evolution of the bolt action sporting rifle.

Outfits like Bishop and Fajen dealt in stocks,mostly for milsurps.Timney,Dayton Traister,etc...triggers for milsurps.Douglas?Brownells?

Clymer,Weaver,Redfield?Yeah,The milsurp sporter crowd.Do you have ANY clue about the orgin of the Norma Magnums?No factory rifles!Norma rented reamers to sell brass and ammo.To sporterize milsurps.

Ever read Clyde Bakers book,or Howe's,or Dunlaps?Or the NRA Gunsmiths guide?

Try finding and reading some 60's,70's John T Amber GunDigests.They featured pictorials of custom rifles built on milsurps.So did Rifle Mag.

If a person with machine skills decides to learn how to thread,chamber,etc,why not a milsurp?Are you happier with chopping a pre-64 M-70?.Look in a Grizzly Catalogue,Bartlein barrels and Gunsmith lathes.

If The Old Man and the Boy decide to make a basic sporter out of a Mauser together,so that kid has next fall's deer rifle,IMO,that is a way bigger grin than some collector scoring another safe queen.

Its also true that Remchester learned a lot about what a sporting bolt gun should be from these Smiths,including amateurs.Sadly,the lack of Smiths is showing up in the tacky,odd shaped committee designed stocks.

If you want to look at one of the original inspirational designs for the classic Bubba chop job,look at the 1903 NRA Springfield Sporter.Or a Krag carbine.

If all this commercial activity with Bubba and the local Smith had not occurred,what political motive would there be to allow a bunch of battle rifles to be imported?Not a chance!They would be torched,chopped,and rendered into lawn mower blades and grocery carts.
There would not be any milsurps available.

I still have folks show me"This is the rifle my dad built..It may need this or this,but I remember him at the kitchen table with a file....anyway,its the rifle my Dad built,and I want x,y,z fixed ,but I want to pass it on...

If you can't find respect for that,well,I wasted my time writing

 

[Hawg]

Well said HiBC.

 

[Tamara]

For well over a century the primary source of information for shooters has been through the print media of Gun Magazines. Shooters have been “trained” and “educated” by what they read, little realizing that these magazines and their writers are nothing more than shills for themselves and the firearms industry.

Insults like this are a handy reminder of why I don't hang here much anymore.

 

[B.L.E.]

For well over a century the primary source of information for shooters has been through the print media of Gun Magazines. Shooters have been “trained” and “educated” by what they read, little realizing that these magazines and their writers are nothing more than shills for themselves and the firearms industry.

Fortunately, today we can obtain all kinds of misinformation from the internet.

 

[Slamfire]

For well over a century the primary source of information for shooters has been through the print media of Gun Magazines. Shooters have been “trained” and “educated” by what they read, little realizing that these magazines and their writers are nothing more than shills for themselves and the firearms industry.

Insults like this are a handy reminder of why I don't hang here much anymore.

Since the internet, subscriptions to the print media are down, why down. That once lofty podium that print writers had is getting down to street level where the pavement smells and the mud sticks.

The good old days? : must be absolutely infuriating not to be able to control the conversation anymore.

 

[Mosin-Marauder]

Whoah, calm down gents.

 

[Art Eatman]

I started handloading for my sporterized Enfield '06 in 1950. Read my uncle's back issues of the American Rifleman from 1940 on, and religiously read Outdoor Life, Field & Stream and Sports Afield for years thereafter.

Sorry, Slamfire, but I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. While you may be correct about some gun writers, I think you're painting with way too broad a brush.

 

[Mike Irwin]

"Since the internet, subscriptions to the print media are down, why down. That once lofty podium that print writers had is getting down to street level where the pavement smells and the mud sticks.

The good old days? : must be absolutely infuriating not to be able to control the conversation anymore."

And we're left with ignorant, crass, insulting commentary such as this. Makes me wonder exactly what you're infuriated at when the animosity towards people you don't know, have never met, many of whom died before you were born, whose intentions you apparently can't fathom, and for the most part whose words you've never read come spewing forth in a cloud that can only best be described as painting with the broadest negative brush possible.

It's no wonder that the internet has been called the sharp tip of the spear that is the dumbing down of America.


Of course American culture is largely defined and driven by advertising. We're a consumer culture, as opposed to a subsistence culture living in mud huts and herding cattle.

 

[pax]

Wow, from sporterizing milsurps to why gun writers suck, in just two pages. Not a record non sequitur, but close.

Closing this for insults and off topic ... and Slamfire, I suggest you glance at the bottom of your screen, and note who gave you this free forum in which you can sneer at gun magazines and those who write for them.

pax