When is sporterizing a rifle acceptable? Alternatively, what sporterized rifles are acceptable?

Absolutely not.

if you mean "i know what i got" auctions on gunbroker, if elmer fudd liked it, there's another elmer fudd that will pay for it

>mauser, yep, that's a rifle
>good for deer
>i took off that nazi stock because i didn't want to touch nothing a nazi had but even with that i only got $100 into the gun, hyuck hyuck, now it looks like a winchester

Customizing a gun your going to sell is retarded period.

This

/thread
When you sporterise the rifle, the dead soldier in heaven loses their wings

>When is sporterizing a rifle acceptable?
When it increases the utility of the rifle for the purpose the owner bought it for.

/thread

Attached: heil.jpg (711x761, 166K)

people would have agreed when there was an endless supply of $50 milsurp bolt actions

that hasn't been true at any point in this century. $100 mosins were considered cheap. they weren't, not for what you often got (a garbage rod).

>When is sporterizing a rifle acceptable?
It makes zero sense to sporterize a milsurp in this day and age. It made sense in the 50s when there was a fuckton of rifles floating around, ammo was cheap, and factory sporting rifles were just as accurate. Now you have dirt cheap sporting rifles that are far more accurate and cost effective than finding an old service rifle to mutilate. There are a handful of sporterized rifles that are quality work done by talented gunsmiths, I own a M1093A3 that falls into this category and I enjoy shooting it every now and then. But most sporterized rifles are back shed specials that look like someone was shithoused paint thinner and had an excess amount of jb weld when they decided granddaddy's bring back would make the perfect deer rifle.

Don’t ever fucking do that shit

I like the idea of restoring sporterized rifles, as a fuck you to fudds. Can't wait until they all fucking die.

erster pfosten bester pfosten

Most of the cheapo sporting rifles have much worse action than Mauser.

Besides never like everyone else said I guess a K31 would be acceptable sense it didn't really see real combat and is already a unique design?

Bad troll brah.

>

All fucking bubbas must fucking hang.

Attached: 6222380C-804F-4A8E-BBD3-38A3C66608E3.jpg (1280x720, 99K)

Unless you're in a war, with no access to a legit sniper rifle, or only have a stripped or rewelded receiver and build the rest from the ground up, never.

Please don’t tell me that you were serious about it being acceptable to bubba a K31. Please dear sweet Jesus tell me you did not say that in earnest.

>Most of the cheapo sporting rifles have much worse action than Mauser.
And? They are still more accurate and cheaper. Unless you're afraid the deer are going to return fire it is not a big enough of an issue to go out of your way to sporterize a rifle.

No they aren’t.

there's a chance that simos mosin was sold into surplus and bubba'd

Attached: 1535219978715.jpg (540x661, 146K)

this
buy a sporter rifle if you want a sporter rifle

Came here to post this
Inshallah brothers
Death to Bubba

If it's a cheap as shit semi-automatic, and you buy it with the intent of turning it into a cost efficient and capable home defense rifle.

So... buy a $500 SKS and put it in a $120 Crapco plastic stock instead of just buying a $300 AR? Yeah, sounds real sensible.

Griffin and Howe, Paul Jaeger, etc sporters are extremely valuable, but the chances of having one around are pretty low.

No I meant a hypothetical situation where you could get one or a similar rifle for a sum significantly lower than a newly produced rifle.

Okay but 1) that’s not going to happen and 2) bubba’ing is still cretinous and shit-tier.

No. Simo's rifle was left behind when he was wounded.

Maybe some Finn will find it while raking leaves.

Attached: what_happened_to_Simo_Hayha_rifle.jpg (656x960, 126K)

>that’s not going to happen
Then sporterization never should either. I'm playing the devils advocate here and this is the only hypothetical situation where I could see the point.

Simo owned sporterized rifles

Uh fuck sporterized stocks they make zero fucking sense in this day and age. The entire appeal and reason to own a military surplus rifle from days past is the significant amounts of history that it holds. When you sporterize it, all of that history and nostalgic value goes away and all you are left with is a gun that uses rare as fuck ammunition and is much less accurate then a modern firearm

Tfw the first post is also the best post.

Attached: 1506507116930.jpg (1080x736, 96K)

Then you'd be better off reselling for an adequate price and getting a modern rifle with that money.

Wrong. Simo's rifle was in a museum until 2002 and then taken to an undisclosed location, but it is still owned by the finnish army.

>It made sense in the 50s when there was a fuckton of rifles floating around, ammo was cheap, and factory sporting rifles were just as accurate.

It really didn't even then. Most people, even those back then, that bubba fucked rifles worked their magic, shot the rifle one time then through it in the back of the closet. They never, ever, ever get what they desired out of it. Those that actually have the skill to make a milsurp to be on par of what an off the shelf arm designed for hunting/sporting have the money to actually buy one.

Attached: 1379977162700.jpg (800x600, 64K)

Isnt it also cheaper to just buy a gun that has already been fucked if you want a new hunting rifle with a milsurp action?
I mean, if you want a sporter, just get one that has already been sporterized. If you want to build something just tinker with some low value sporter since there is even less to break.

What kills me inside more isn't bubba doing the work himself, it's the importers doing it. Be it because of bubba target market or faking rare models or whatever. At least that really isn't a thing nowadays, since importers now realize that people pay more for unmolested stuff, even in shit condition.

Really, nowadays, you can buy a decent gun for dirt cheap. No reason at all to bubba a surplus gun to do something it wasn't designed to.

This was an M-14. I'm ok with this.

Attached: M14_EBR.jpg (1920x836, 151K)

fpbp

Are Savage Axes and Remington 700s really that much more accurate than a well maintained 1903 or M39?

Why in the flying fuck would you ruin a historical rifle instead of just buying a sporting rifle? Savage, Husqvarna, Zastava all make a really good budget spotter that is cheaper than a Kar98 and come in just about every flavour you could ever need. You're spending more money on ruining your surp rifle than you would have on just buying a sporter.

Guten Morgen Hans.

Yup. Not even close. It’s insane how good cheap hunting rifles have gotten.

Basically never. Cheap Savages today will outshoot 99% of milsurp, while being easier to put glass on. Sporters are wasting your time while destroying a piece of history.

Why are you hedging your argument to begin with with this "well-maintained' stuff? Beyond that, yes. You're talking rifles that left the factory as 2-4 moa vs rifles that left the factory (and had no extra maintenance) as 1 moa. Newer rifles are undeniably more accurate.

Wouldn't fuck up a prime nugget but I'd slap this stock on a banged up mismatch one

Attached: il_fullxfull.721464454_imaz.jpg (1500x1125, 303K)

It really depends on how you define sporterizing.
The high quality guns are usually rebarreled with new barrels of match grade accuracy. Just harvesting the action from the gun, so to say.
A lot of the shit tier sporters are just a milsurp gun with the stock cut off. Especially stepped barrels look like utter shit this way and they often do not shoot that well.

Literally fucking why?

Not necessarily.

Sporter rifles are incredibly cheap, they present a great opportunity for somebody to work on their home gunsmithing skills. It comes down to the fact that most people are complete fucking morons.

I've bought dozens of sporterized milsurp rifles in the 50 to 200 dollar range as gunsmithing projects, people in the 50s were doing the same thing. The first attempts I did were amateurish but gave me the skills to do tasteful well executed work on nicer guns. Everyone starts somewhere, and that place is always wherever it's cheapest. Like anything else the egregious examples are the children who take their grandfather's bring back and make a zombie hunter of it, but buying a cheap rifle with the intent of learning with it is mostly what this is all about.

Whats even better is when people turn their guns into
>tacticool versions

Attached: tacticool.jpg (578x273, 57K)

To piss off Jow Forums

Pretty much this. Most bubba sporters are shit, but the action can still be the base of a nice custom rifle.
Also not alot to destroy on an already mostly destroyed rifle when you are learning gunsmithing.

I'll admit my first rifle was a mosin in fine condition I got for cheap and cut up into a brush gun. I use it as my test bed, I fabricated safari style sights for it, cut it short and threaded the muzzle, made a seamless thread protector for it, machined a side mount for a scope and bent bolt. It's still waiting for a Germanic style fullstock and a takedown feature,but only because I have other guns I want that feature on and I don't give a single fuck about mosins so if I really dick up one of these experiments I can throw it in the tin bucket and get 10 cents a pound for it.

So... you want to make a ... Mansin Schoegant? Sounds pretty cool actually.

I want classy European style hunting rifles but Im poor as fuck and like making things and intend to actually take them outdoors plus I was young and naive and got memed into the mosins thing when they were still around a hundred bucks

FPBP

Post WW2, sporterized rifles were a lot cheaper than factory rifles, and were good enough for hunting. Here's an example of a company sporterizing rifles in large scale to satisfy that market.

While hunting was more vital to survival for many rural folk post WW1 (and into the depression), it was still pretty important and a cost-effective way to put meat on the table even into the 60s. Sporterized rifles meant that men of modest means could afford to shoot something better than the beat on old single shot their father used.

Having said all that, you could save even more money by just buying an unsporterized milsurp and shooting it. Other than the extra weight, you didn't do too badly.

Attached: 9pkMmEB.jpg (1163x1650, 427K)

>idk why people think they can ruin a historical rifle

what you mean by shooting it?

I never gave a fuck about what anyone thought about my property. Go be a Commi faggot somewhere else shitsucker.

Switching out the original stock for a sporterized one is fine as long as you don’t destroy it
Sporterizing the barrel is a nono

I'm just talking about stock milsurps. Are the worst modern bolt actions really more accurate than the best milsurp?

If the gun is still being mass produced. Then it's meh.

Not really, because there are some quite bad shooting modern rifles and several very accurate milsurp rifles.
Military surplus is just more of a gamble for what you are going to get. Savage, Ruger, etc are all pretty safe bets.

When you've personally shot people who carried the rifle in battle, I think the sin of sporterizing can be forgiven.

>When is sporterizing a rifle acceptable?

You may sporterize 1 rifle for every 250 commies you’ve killed

Attached: 85B50E99-B159-434B-8C07-CBF260E39BE8.jpg (640x463, 81K)

The thing with milsurp is you get way more bang for the buck in terms of manufacturing quality. Modern savage, Ruger, Remington whatevers look and feel cheap compared to a lot of the old mausers, Enfields, krags, Springfield's, theyre both fine but the old stuff offers something you don't get with the cheap new stuff. Hard to explain. I'm sure accuracy is better now than it was on average

Cannot deny that. The actions of most of the old rifles are excellent and will hold up to tons of abuse and wear through manz years.
The only thing that makes the new cheap rifles shine are their good barrels. Everything else is skimped out on to push the price.
You can see this with the floppy stocks on the savage rifles, the sandy feeling actions on the remingtons and an overall drop in QC as well as lackluster fit and finish.

>Are the worst modern bolt actions really more accurate than the best milsurp?
Yup. Today, $300 gets you a remarkably high-quality and accurate rifle - one that'll whup basically any milsurp in accuracy any day of the week. And, of course, it's brand new and didn't get its barrel shot out or get dragged through mud or get rusted in a warehouse for 30 years.

The bottom line is this: If all you want is a cheap shooter, milsurp - bubba'd or not - is a remarkably bad choice in 2018. Whether it was a bad choice in 1958 or 1978 or 2008 is irrelevant - we live in now, not then. You can get a way better gun brand new for less money. The ONLY reason to buy milsurp today is for collector's value, and sporterizing destroys that, so it's a pants-on-head retarded idea.

>The thing with milsurp is you get way more bang for the buck in terms of manufacturing quality.
Not in any practical way. Not for most of them, at least. Maybe for something like a K31 (which is why butchering it is a sin), but not for something like a nugget or a Spanish Mauser.
>Cannot deny that. The actions of most of the old rifles are excellent and will hold up to tons of abuse and wear through many years.
And they *have* held up to tons of abuse and wear over many years, which is one important reason why most of them aren't very accurate. That years of abuse hasn't broken them to the point of not being functional doesn't mean it hasn't degraded them in terms of accuracy.

>Not really, because there are some quite bad shooting modern rifles and several very accurate milsurp rifles.
Right, and I've met some very tall Chinese and some very short Scandinavians, but that doesn't stop general rules from being valid.

Would would you say milsurps would still be less accurate on average even if they were brand new?

The Swedes literally had no idea why their steel was so good when they made the m96. Their rifles were stronger by accident, steel alloying was still in its infancy. Those rifles are tremendously accurate unless shot out or abused, and true new mausers today are not in the 300 dollar range no way no how. I'd rather own a Swedish Mauser than a savage axis because this isn't life or death, it's a fucking hobby. At the end of the day 90 percent of the rifles life will be admiring it sitting on the couch watching a movie. I don't admire savages I admire mausers. People sporterize milsurp because people live projects. They don't want a shitty plastic feeling rifle with untrimmed flashing on the stock and a safety rollmark down the side

Absolutely. Do you think there's been zero improvement in machining processes in the last century? People have milsurp rifles made in factories that did not have electric lighting. Accuracy is nothing more than consistency, and yes, we can make far more consistent rifles.

Based

>People sporterize milsurp because people live projects. They don't want a shitty plastic feeling rifle with untrimmed flashing on the stock and a safety rollmark down the side
So people buy milsurp because they want something beautiful... and then they hack it up with a saw because muh ounces.

Yeah, that sounds reasonable.

I am perfectly fine with any modifications that are realistically reversible. Welding jobs and cuts can be repairable by professionals, but I mean stuff like stock swaps, sight mods, et cetera. As long as it can be returned to its original configuration I don't see an issue with it.

FPBP

Attached: Doom Slayer this.gif (143x345, 1.35M)

if you are looking at preserving a rifle as a historical piece, absolutely don't shoot it and donate it to a museum.

the "$300 rifle + $200 stock = $500" is simply an issue with people equating the value of an item to be directly equivalent to the sum of its parts. You see it a lot in cars/motorcycles where some kid thinks his $2k pickup with $10k of parts and a shit ton of home wrenching makes it a $12k pickup. can't fix stupid

To those who understand, no explanation is necessary. To those who don't, none will suffice.

If someone really wants to build a sporter out of a Mauser nowadays, they can just buy a brand new Mauser action from Zastava and go to town. It's price-competitive with a milsurp that you'd have to take apart and rebuild. It's a true Mauser action, and is well-finished.

The other option is the old Schultz & Larsen M52, 58, and 69 target rifles. You can get them for cheap, and they were built on German Mauser actions salvaged from K98Ks post war. You can often find some pretty interesting and rare action variations.

Check out this insult to God as proof that you shouldn't sportise or otherwise mess with milsurp rifles (past putting an optic on it). Here's the archived ad:
web.archive.org/web/20181216161920/http://www.ozgunsales.com/listing/64303/custom_lee_enfield.html

Attached: Lee Enfield conversion.jpg (493x180, 12K)

>To those who understand, no explanation is necessary. To those who don't, none will suffice.
Yeah, stupidity is like that.

There is little to no arguments for sporterizing. Let's look at what they actually do to the rifles:

>Cut down the forearm stock
How much weight can you actually save on this? Most do it so they can "rest" the point where it's cut off on their tree stands so they can shoot durr without having to hold the rifle and prevent it from sliding down. No points here, as it's nothing but a gimmick and in doing so they destroy not just the wood that's molded from usage over the years to their specific barrel and receiver, but stocks that aren't made anymore unless you're willing to shell out $$$ for a REAL gunsmith to make or get a polymer stock which is one-size-fits-all

>Cut down the barrel
Velocity loss and bullet stability loss as there's incomplete rifling, this is done solely so their fat fuddy asses can carry or sling it without having the gun poke and bump into every nearby branch and shrub. No points again, it's a minor fucking issue that comes down to being a lazy fuck.

>Drill and tap the receiver for durr scopes
This actually has some justification, as back then scope bases or scope rings were all they had, no rails yet. Sure they were scopes developed to attach by clamping to the side ofthe stock and receiver like the sniper garand scope, but these had to be specific to the weapon, were often military and unavailable to the public at large and $$$. The real problem is that most of these drill and taps are hackjobs done in a backshed by hillbilly fudds so either the threads are off, the alignment is off (they couldn't drill the holes straight) or they do it on relative rare guns which they know won't be produced anymore (I'm talking specifically about all the fucking bringback Arisakas with intact mums which they should fucking know won't ever be made again, but it applies to other rifles too), and thus lowering said rifle's value and collectability permanently.

Cont.

Contd.

>Rechambering in fudd rounds
Actually not that bad if the ammo is hard to find or no longer produced although the milsurp lover and purist in me still cries out. I'll give them a point on this begrudgingly.

>bedding the stock
Also not that bad, increases the rifle's accuracy (though how much is up to debate) but most importantly it's not something that shows on the outside and while it's permanent, I doubt anyone cares for keeping the inside of stocks 100% pure. Another point given.

>changing the sights
There's good and bad to this, the good is if they kept the sights then it's not a big deal. The bad is when they do shit like weld a fucking bead sight onthe barrel or worse, a cut penny and that shit is perma ugly and fucked. Half a point I'd say.

>Bending the bolt or chopping it off to weld a piece of bent metal
Holy fuck this triggers me the most, I know it's done so they can cycle it with a scope on but fuck if it isn't ugly. Can be easily solved if they moutned the scope a bit more in front, no points.

So in all, you see, there's only two an a half valid points to sporterizing, everything else are either gimmicks or unintentionally mallicious destruction of a perfectly good rifle.

It's a simple caliber conversion, you set the barrel back a bit. The rest is removable. Don't be a baby.

Why sportise when you can buy brand new rifles that will get the job done, thus saving you the effort of mutilating a piece of history?

It's still disgusting and there is no reason to do it.

>I have only a cursory understanding of firearms, the post