[rayman1]

I thought this was interesting - imagine the number of military surplus rifles that suffered/continue to suffer under the techniques of this book (thanks, National Rifle Association). :lol:

 

[RomG78]

:frustration:

 

[m0ondoggy]

I'm generally not in favor of book burnings, but I might make an exception in this case.

 

[armakraut]

I need to photoshop that as a Tapco publication.

 

[fullautotogo]

i disagree in that my son has a romanian sks with an ati stock. but i agree in that an sks in not an enfield. i've seen some pretty bad hack jobs on some very rare rifles. makes you wonder what the hell people are thinking. even if it turns out to be a beautiful sporter, you still have destroyed it's collector value.

 

[red_metallic]

I thought this was interesting - imagine the number of military surplus rifles that suffered/continue to suffer under the techniques of this book (thanks, National Rifle Association). :lol:

That's referred to as the Bubba handbook on some forums. But, when there were rifles stacked up like fireplace wood after WW1 & WW2 the thought of preserving an original military rifle did not make a lot of sense when you could make it into a cheap hunter.

 

[campperrykid]

There's no excuse for chopping a WW2 ( for example ) rifle now.
Financially stupid , too.

The old-timers were just making do with what they had. Enemy swords
into plowshares and so on.

At least they could bring stuff back. Today that is very much illegal.
If I had my way ( which I don't ) every time a US warrior is deployed
they could bring back/ ship back 2 saw cut AK parts kits. Or whatever makes sense.

What I think doesn't mean sh!t. Don't get in trouble over this--vote for the most 2nd A friendly people on the ballot.

 

[MrKrink]

Also way back when, modern hunting rifles were almost non-existant or way too expensive for the common man to buy, so surplus rifles turned hunting rifles were the only way for a farm boy to have a decent hunting rifle.

But now days it is ludicrous to butcher a surplus rifle.

 

[cphilip]

Well... they had no way to know. $20 guns and needing a hunting rifle and all that. I am sure they never thought there would be a shortage of them nor did they think that far ahead as to them being collectors items I guess. I imagine Clinton had more of them destroyed than those guys did on their own.

 

[Grim Reaper]

I thought this was interesting - imagine the number of military surplus rifles that suffered/continue to suffer under the techniques of this book (thanks, National Rifle Association). :lol:

Heresy!!! That has got to be the Satanic Bible of today among us collectors. Supply certainly does change outlook, doesn't it ?

 

[heggalex]

Whats wrong with using them in stock configuration for hunting?

 

[Grim Reaper]

Whats wrong with using them in stock configuration for hunting?

Absolutely nothing. Those of us who collect rifles in as original condition as possible only object to taking an original rifle and trying to make a modern one out of it. Rifles as originally issued (or unissued :grin: ) are pieces of our history that cannot otherwise be re-experienced. To cut up an excellent-condition old historical rifle just to change it to some sort of novelty rifle is the greatest form of heresy to a historical collector. It's our way of preserving a part of the past in the present.
I have no problem hunting with my #4 Mk II Enfield or my 91/30 sniper rifle, but they are both in historically-accurate configuration, with no more modern accessories than they knew back in the 1940's.

 

[j_tudeski]

Effin' N-R-A, always trying to neuter our mil spec arms and yet they'll gladly take our money. We need a N-AK-A, and our motto could be something like "restoring our constitution with soviet technology."

 

[red_metallic]

To cut up an excellent-condition old historical rifle just to change it to some sort of novelty rifle is the greatest form of heresy to a historical collector.

There is pretty much broad agreement that doing this now does not make any sense.

In 1940 when the above NRA guide was written it did.

Further, if you prowl the shows you will find some very cool vintage conversions done with the best parts available at the time the work was done. Some of them are neat in their own right and a time capsule as to what the shooting community was doing then. In 40 years on our successors may be looking at building up a Khyber Pass clone as a ridiculous exercise too. (Well, maybe not.)

:wink:

 

[catsailer40]

yet another reason i will NEVER give a dime to the NRA, doesnt matter if this publication is current or old. nra will never see a dime from me!

 

[Grim Reaper]

To cut up an excellent-condition old historical rifle just to change it to some sort of novelty rifle is the greatest form of heresy to a historical collector.

There is pretty much broad agreement that doing this now does not make any sense.

In 1940 when the above NRA guide was written it did.

Further, if you prowl the shows you will find some very cool vintage conversions done with the best parts available at the time the work was done. Some of them are neat in their own right and a time capsule as to what the shooting community was doing then. In 40 years on our successors may be looking at building up a Khyber Pass clone as a ridiculous exercise too. (Well, maybe not.)

Man, I did NOT intend to get the age-old "collector vs shooter" discussion going again. Let's just let it go here; I was just answering the question. I definitely don't want to resurrect another "AR vs AK"/"45 vs 9mm"- type argument going again ! It's definitely a dead horse. :neutral: :neutral: :neutral:

 

[Iraq Ninja]

yet another reason i will NEVER give a dime to the NRA, doesnt matter if this publication is current or old. nra will never see a dime from me!

And I will never join the Catholic church because of the Spanish Inquisition! LOL.
BTW, I am an NRA member...

 

[Bravo762]

The Enfields, Springfields, Mausers and such were not always "collectors' pieces" we see them as today.
Back when I was in high school, (yeah, I'm getting THAT old!) our local hardware store had wooden barrels filled with Enfields & Mausers for $20.00 each., And this was before the 1968 Gun Control Act so there was no paperwork and if you were under 16 the store owner wanted a note from your Dad.
They had a pile on M1 carbines that were $25.00 each and no one wanted them because we couldn't hunt with semis.

 

[jdub]

I thought this was interesting - imagine the number of military surplus rifles that suffered/continue to suffer under the techniques of this book (thanks, National Rifle Association). :lol:

That's referred to as the Bubba handbook on some forums. But, when there were rifles stacked up like fireplace wood after WW1 & WW2 the thought of preserving an original military rifle did not make a lot of sense when you could make it into a cheap hunter.

Thats right. There was no such thing as bubba jobs when M1's were going for $50 a case back then. Why not sport a Springfield back then?

 

[Blanco_Diablo]

I've REALLY never understood how "sporterizing" a rifle makes it easier to hunt with. Last I checked, a 7.62x54R round can kill a deer whether it comes out of a regular M91/30 PU or a sporterized M91/30. All sporterizing does is defile the weapon and take away value, and ruin a piece of history.