For our second entry in my ongoing series to press Paul Helmke's buttons, I am swinging the spyglass onto a different target. This week's feature attacks another insidious lie the Brady Campaign chooses to promote.
They argue they aren't after all our guns, just the ones that aren't used for sport. And the ones that aren't "cop killers". Part of their goals is to deny access to weapons that can be used to penetrate police body armor. Such as their attacks on the FN 5.7 pistol. Of course, these types of attacks demonstrate a total lack of knowledge, which I believe to be willful, of firearms and their nature.
In Paul Helmke's world, he would take away "assault weapons", "Saturday Night Specials", guns powerful enough to threaten law enforcement officers and those that he feels have no sporting purpose. Essentially, we would be left with shotguns (but only those he approves of) and hunting rifles.
Say Mr. Helmke had succeeded here in Maryland in getting so-called "assault weapons" banned. That bill was so encompassing that would have, had the authorities had the balls to enforce it, also banned virtually all semi-automatic pistols as well. That would only leave revolvers, a few traditional looking semi-auto long guns and manually cycled long guns (pump, bolt-action and lever action). Do you honestly believe they would have stopped there and decided that all the evil guns had been taken care of and law-abiding shooters could choose from what was left?
Not a chance. Next, the attacks would have gone after "high powered sniper rifles". Rifles used to penetrate body armor and kill cops at long distances from hidden places. You know, kind of like a certain group of Americans did to another body of uniformed individuals around 1776? Or, as the Brady Campaign claims, the Bushmaster AR-15 used by the DC Beltway Snipers.
They would argue that sportsman have no use for a rifle capable of killing from hundreds of yards away. 50-150 yards would be sufficient for hunting. On the surface, a gullible public would see the logic in this argument. Get rid of these "high powered weapons" that serve no real hunting purpose that a smaller, less powerful rifle could do.
Except for one minor problem: No such rifle exists.
Such claims are totally ignorant of firearms and ballistics. Although a "sniper rifle" might be accurately lethal out to distances of 1000 yards or more with an expert shooter behind the trigger, the bullet doesn't magically drop from the sky after it passes out of effective range (or the abilities of the shooter). It keeps on going until it hits something or falls to the ground. It is simple physics.
Even the lowly .22LR rimfire has a flight distance upwards of two miles. You'd be hard pressed to hit a target with any degree of accuracy beyond 100 yards but that little bullet will travel for a long way regardless. Check the packaging on a box if you don't believe me. Hence why responsible gun safety emphasizes so strongly the concept of "knowing your target and what is beyond it". Because if you miss, you better know what is on that bullet's line of travel for a few miles because it has the chance of running into anything along it.
The same applies to a bullet fired from any rifle. All that increases are the lethal distance and the energy of a round. It doesn't matter if it is a .243 caliber round at the end of a 1.5 mile flight almost out of energy or a .50 caliber round hammering through steel plate at the same distance. Either one will kill you equally. The .50 will just pack more energy but will kill you just the same.
It is not possible to design a rifle round that can be used effectively out to 150 yards and cease to be lethal immediately beyond or simply drop to the ground a few yards later. A good hunting round needs sufficient mass and velocity in order to penetrate far enough into an animal to kill it quickly and with as little pain as possible.
The round needs to deliver enough energy to expand within a specific distance (usually 8-10 inches) inside the animal to do catastrophic damage to internal organs to put it down as fast as possible. Although you may find such talk unpleasant, it is what the ethical hunter looks to do. To do this also requires a round capable of killing at ranges far beyond those using it (but could if they desired).
The same energy needed to kill an animal cleanly is the same energy that a bullet uses to penetrate soft body armor. Standard issue body armor is not designed to deal with the impact energies found in a typical hunting or sport rifle. To stop such rounds usually requires solid plates that are very heavy and uncomfortable to wear. This is not practical for daily use by police officers and for the fact that rifles are not used against them by criminals. The favored weapon is the handgun, the round from which a soft vest is designed to defeat.
As a result, there is no functional difference between a hunting rifle and a "high powered sniper rifle" so hated by the Brady Campaign. The only real difference is the target. Everything is else preference based on need, regulation and cost.
So without further ado, I present this week's possible aneurysm for Paul Helmke...
This is a somewhat unique entry for a number of reasons. One, this is the rifle that earned me a NICS denial (chronicled in this article). Two, this rifle is over 90 years old.
Huh? This looks like a hunting rifle you'd buy at Dick's or your local gun shop.
This rifle is a M96 (Model 1896) Swedish Mauser chambered in 6.5x55mm. It was made by Carl Gustafs in 1915. Possibly, it is a veteran of World War 1.
The Swedish Mauser is a legendary member of the Mauser family. Considered the most accurate of all of the Mausers, they are highly collectible because of the steel used in their construction (considered the finest by the Germans during the Great War) and the quality of their workmanship and construction. The original M96 was made starting in 1896 and manufactured until 1938 where it was replaced by the Swedish M38 which soldiered on until the 1950s.
Thousands of M96s have been imported into the USA and are highly prized for their accuracy by hunters. The 6.5mm cartridge has been around for over 100 years and it is considered one of the finest hunting and general purpose cartridges ever made. The indefatigable Kim Du Toit has a beautiful page displaying the 6.5mm Swede. That to me is the way a rifle cartridge is supposed to look. If the 6.5mm was a woman, she would be perfectly proportioned and never be someone you would grow tired of.
My rifle also represents an activity undertaken by many sportsman that I cringe at. It is the act of "sporterisation".
This is where the owner takes the original military surplus rifle and then modify it to making it more suitable to their purposes such as hunting. This often involves placing the rifle in a new stock or worse, cutting down the original stock to a traditional hunting style, tapping the receiver to accept scope mounting rails, shortening or replacing the barrel and/or modifying the bolt.
Through most of the 20th century, this was considered an acceptable practice given the vast numbers of military surplus rifles available. Today, with the hobby of collecting old military surplus rifles, this practice is seen as destroying history.
For the record, if you own such a rifle and modify it in this manner, that is your right. It is your property and you are free to do with it as you please. I personally disagree strongly with this practice but it your choice to do so.
The reason is because these rifles do have a history that needs to be honored. They may be combat veterans carried into battle. By cutting them up, you take away a small piece of history that can never be recovered. The other reason is because the number of surplus rifles out there is fixed.
Allow me an example: The Russian Mosin-Nagant. These rifles (both the full length and infantry carbine) are readily available very cheaply (some can be found for as little as $60). They have been imported in the thousands. So, given the present quantity and low cost, why not modify the rifle to suit your needs?
Because 5-10 years from now, they aren't going to be as common. What was once cheap and common over time becomes rare and valuable. Many people thought the same thing about the surplus M1903A3 Springfield rifles sold after World War 1 in massive quantities. No one gave any thought to the fact someday the supply might dry up. So they bought them, abused them, modified them and so on. Today, a World War 1 era Springfield is a highly sought after and very valuable collectors item. That $10 rifle from 1920 in its original form is now worth a couple thousand dollars. Someday, the same value will be applied to an unmodified Mosin-Nagant.
As as result, I believe in keeping a military surplus rifle in its original form. If you wish to modify it in a way that isn't original (most typically adding a scope mount), use parts that can be removed from the rifle and revert it back to its original form without making any permanent alterations (such as drilling and tapping the receiver). Many manufacturers sell such parts. These historical weapons deserve to be preserved in their original form for future generations, whether it be for a museum you will donate the gun to someday or your own grandchildren.
My rifle was sporterised by an owner sometime in its past. I believe this act was the reason it wound up at my dealer in the first place. It had been bought as part of a lot of used hunting rifles, most of which were based on Mauser actions. Had it been in its original trim, I doubt it would have been brought in.
The only original parts remaining are the receiver, which has been tapped for scope mounts, the magazine and parts of the bolt. The receiver was manufactured in 1915 and the finish and markings on it are still pristine (once you remove the mounts). The bolt body is not original (as is apparent by the differences in color/finish in the pictures).
The rifle has been rebarrelled with a heavy barrel. This has at least kept and maybe improved upon the legendary accuracy of the original rifle. The thickness of the barrel isn't as great as a bull barrel but it is eminently suitable for a good, accurate shooter. This is further helped by the fact the barrel has been free-floated in its new synthetic stock. Like any good sniper rifle, the use of a synthetic stock and free float are great aids in providing tight accuracy.
The last feature changed from the original is the reason I bought the rifle. It has been given a trigger job that has reduced the trigger pull to a mere 3.5 pounds in a single stage. There is no slack to be taken up in the trigger like you find in a typical military rifle. Place your finger on the trigger and apply a little pressure. It breaks cleanly and sharply. A superb quality in a target rifle.
I added the military sling (unadjusted in this photo), the 6-24x42 mil-dot target scope, the Harris bipod and the slip-on cartridge carrier onto the stock. Yes, folks, those are live rounds in the sleeve. What is a little gun porn without some live ammunition to give the antis a heart attack? (And before I get angry e-mails or comments above having live ammunition near a gun in a non-range environment, take note of the fact in the picture the bolt is wide open. No live rounds went anywhere near the chamber for these pictures).
Part of me cringes at the changes that were made to this rifle. I wish it was original. I often wonder given the date of manufacture if my rifle saw action in the hands of a German soldier, fighting resolutely on the Eastern or Western Front. On that, I can only speculate. But, there is nothing I can do except perhaps someday get an original M96 to preserve to help ease my guilt. But, I can't change the fact that the rifle is what it is and it is still a wonderful platform regardless.
Target shooting is why I bought this rifle. I recognized it would be perfect for it the moment I picked it up for the first time. The mixture of changes made to sporterise it, the trigger work, stock and free float, the scope and bipod and the great ballistics of the 6.5x55mm round all come together to make this an exquisite high-powered target rifle. So much so I plan to use it as a long-range precision rifle from ranges of 600 to 1000 meters and in competition for fun.
It also would make an excellent sniper platform as an alternative to more traditional .308 (7.62x51mm NATO) caliber sniper weapons like the M21 and M40A1 (which is based on a Remington 700 civilian hunting rifle that has been modified not unlike my rifle). The 6.5mm has a flatter trajectory than the M852 .308 Match ammo at ranges out to 500 yards. Although velocities are lower, its zero distance is 200 yards as compared to 100 yards for the M852.
For short-to-medium range applications, such as police snipers (who rarely operate beyond 50-100 yards), the flat trajectory and accuracy of the 6.5mm make it an ideal platform. For urban environments, this smaller, lighter round is more suitable as it is less likely to overpenetrate at short ranges (aided by the use of expanding hollowpoint ammunition. Police are not bound by the Hague Convention). The same qualities that allow it to stop a deer in its tracks with a single shot are also equally useful in dropping a violent perpetrator bent on murder on the spot with less possibility of harming innocent bystanders.
So there you go, Paul Helmke. Your deadly, high powered sniper rifle. And should my local SWAT team ever need some help and have nothing suitable in their inventory, they are more than welcome to borrow my rifle. It would be equally at home in the woods, on a rooftop with a hostage taker in the sight or against a competition steel silhouette at 600 meters on the range at the Quantico Marine Corps base.
I think I just heard an artery pop. Get to a hospital, Paul!
They argue they aren't after all our guns, just the ones that aren't used for sport. And the ones that aren't "cop killers". Part of their goals is to deny access to weapons that can be used to penetrate police body armor. Such as their attacks on the FN 5.7 pistol. Of course, these types of attacks demonstrate a total lack of knowledge, which I believe to be willful, of firearms and their nature.
In Paul Helmke's world, he would take away "assault weapons", "Saturday Night Specials", guns powerful enough to threaten law enforcement officers and those that he feels have no sporting purpose. Essentially, we would be left with shotguns (but only those he approves of) and hunting rifles.
Say Mr. Helmke had succeeded here in Maryland in getting so-called "assault weapons" banned. That bill was so encompassing that would have, had the authorities had the balls to enforce it, also banned virtually all semi-automatic pistols as well. That would only leave revolvers, a few traditional looking semi-auto long guns and manually cycled long guns (pump, bolt-action and lever action). Do you honestly believe they would have stopped there and decided that all the evil guns had been taken care of and law-abiding shooters could choose from what was left?
Not a chance. Next, the attacks would have gone after "high powered sniper rifles". Rifles used to penetrate body armor and kill cops at long distances from hidden places. You know, kind of like a certain group of Americans did to another body of uniformed individuals around 1776? Or, as the Brady Campaign claims, the Bushmaster AR-15 used by the DC Beltway Snipers.
They would argue that sportsman have no use for a rifle capable of killing from hundreds of yards away. 50-150 yards would be sufficient for hunting. On the surface, a gullible public would see the logic in this argument. Get rid of these "high powered weapons" that serve no real hunting purpose that a smaller, less powerful rifle could do.
Except for one minor problem: No such rifle exists.
Such claims are totally ignorant of firearms and ballistics. Although a "sniper rifle" might be accurately lethal out to distances of 1000 yards or more with an expert shooter behind the trigger, the bullet doesn't magically drop from the sky after it passes out of effective range (or the abilities of the shooter). It keeps on going until it hits something or falls to the ground. It is simple physics.
Even the lowly .22LR rimfire has a flight distance upwards of two miles. You'd be hard pressed to hit a target with any degree of accuracy beyond 100 yards but that little bullet will travel for a long way regardless. Check the packaging on a box if you don't believe me. Hence why responsible gun safety emphasizes so strongly the concept of "knowing your target and what is beyond it". Because if you miss, you better know what is on that bullet's line of travel for a few miles because it has the chance of running into anything along it.
The same applies to a bullet fired from any rifle. All that increases are the lethal distance and the energy of a round. It doesn't matter if it is a .243 caliber round at the end of a 1.5 mile flight almost out of energy or a .50 caliber round hammering through steel plate at the same distance. Either one will kill you equally. The .50 will just pack more energy but will kill you just the same.
It is not possible to design a rifle round that can be used effectively out to 150 yards and cease to be lethal immediately beyond or simply drop to the ground a few yards later. A good hunting round needs sufficient mass and velocity in order to penetrate far enough into an animal to kill it quickly and with as little pain as possible.
The round needs to deliver enough energy to expand within a specific distance (usually 8-10 inches) inside the animal to do catastrophic damage to internal organs to put it down as fast as possible. Although you may find such talk unpleasant, it is what the ethical hunter looks to do. To do this also requires a round capable of killing at ranges far beyond those using it (but could if they desired).
The same energy needed to kill an animal cleanly is the same energy that a bullet uses to penetrate soft body armor. Standard issue body armor is not designed to deal with the impact energies found in a typical hunting or sport rifle. To stop such rounds usually requires solid plates that are very heavy and uncomfortable to wear. This is not practical for daily use by police officers and for the fact that rifles are not used against them by criminals. The favored weapon is the handgun, the round from which a soft vest is designed to defeat.
As a result, there is no functional difference between a hunting rifle and a "high powered sniper rifle" so hated by the Brady Campaign. The only real difference is the target. Everything is else preference based on need, regulation and cost.
So without further ado, I present this week's possible aneurysm for Paul Helmke...
This is a somewhat unique entry for a number of reasons. One, this is the rifle that earned me a NICS denial (chronicled in this article). Two, this rifle is over 90 years old.
Huh? This looks like a hunting rifle you'd buy at Dick's or your local gun shop.
This rifle is a M96 (Model 1896) Swedish Mauser chambered in 6.5x55mm. It was made by Carl Gustafs in 1915. Possibly, it is a veteran of World War 1.
The Swedish Mauser is a legendary member of the Mauser family. Considered the most accurate of all of the Mausers, they are highly collectible because of the steel used in their construction (considered the finest by the Germans during the Great War) and the quality of their workmanship and construction. The original M96 was made starting in 1896 and manufactured until 1938 where it was replaced by the Swedish M38 which soldiered on until the 1950s.
Thousands of M96s have been imported into the USA and are highly prized for their accuracy by hunters. The 6.5mm cartridge has been around for over 100 years and it is considered one of the finest hunting and general purpose cartridges ever made. The indefatigable Kim Du Toit has a beautiful page displaying the 6.5mm Swede. That to me is the way a rifle cartridge is supposed to look. If the 6.5mm was a woman, she would be perfectly proportioned and never be someone you would grow tired of.
My rifle also represents an activity undertaken by many sportsman that I cringe at. It is the act of "sporterisation".
This is where the owner takes the original military surplus rifle and then modify it to making it more suitable to their purposes such as hunting. This often involves placing the rifle in a new stock or worse, cutting down the original stock to a traditional hunting style, tapping the receiver to accept scope mounting rails, shortening or replacing the barrel and/or modifying the bolt.
Through most of the 20th century, this was considered an acceptable practice given the vast numbers of military surplus rifles available. Today, with the hobby of collecting old military surplus rifles, this practice is seen as destroying history.
For the record, if you own such a rifle and modify it in this manner, that is your right. It is your property and you are free to do with it as you please. I personally disagree strongly with this practice but it your choice to do so.
The reason is because these rifles do have a history that needs to be honored. They may be combat veterans carried into battle. By cutting them up, you take away a small piece of history that can never be recovered. The other reason is because the number of surplus rifles out there is fixed.
Allow me an example: The Russian Mosin-Nagant. These rifles (both the full length and infantry carbine) are readily available very cheaply (some can be found for as little as $60). They have been imported in the thousands. So, given the present quantity and low cost, why not modify the rifle to suit your needs?
Because 5-10 years from now, they aren't going to be as common. What was once cheap and common over time becomes rare and valuable. Many people thought the same thing about the surplus M1903A3 Springfield rifles sold after World War 1 in massive quantities. No one gave any thought to the fact someday the supply might dry up. So they bought them, abused them, modified them and so on. Today, a World War 1 era Springfield is a highly sought after and very valuable collectors item. That $10 rifle from 1920 in its original form is now worth a couple thousand dollars. Someday, the same value will be applied to an unmodified Mosin-Nagant.
As as result, I believe in keeping a military surplus rifle in its original form. If you wish to modify it in a way that isn't original (most typically adding a scope mount), use parts that can be removed from the rifle and revert it back to its original form without making any permanent alterations (such as drilling and tapping the receiver). Many manufacturers sell such parts. These historical weapons deserve to be preserved in their original form for future generations, whether it be for a museum you will donate the gun to someday or your own grandchildren.
My rifle was sporterised by an owner sometime in its past. I believe this act was the reason it wound up at my dealer in the first place. It had been bought as part of a lot of used hunting rifles, most of which were based on Mauser actions. Had it been in its original trim, I doubt it would have been brought in.
The only original parts remaining are the receiver, which has been tapped for scope mounts, the magazine and parts of the bolt. The receiver was manufactured in 1915 and the finish and markings on it are still pristine (once you remove the mounts). The bolt body is not original (as is apparent by the differences in color/finish in the pictures).
The rifle has been rebarrelled with a heavy barrel. This has at least kept and maybe improved upon the legendary accuracy of the original rifle. The thickness of the barrel isn't as great as a bull barrel but it is eminently suitable for a good, accurate shooter. This is further helped by the fact the barrel has been free-floated in its new synthetic stock. Like any good sniper rifle, the use of a synthetic stock and free float are great aids in providing tight accuracy.
The last feature changed from the original is the reason I bought the rifle. It has been given a trigger job that has reduced the trigger pull to a mere 3.5 pounds in a single stage. There is no slack to be taken up in the trigger like you find in a typical military rifle. Place your finger on the trigger and apply a little pressure. It breaks cleanly and sharply. A superb quality in a target rifle.
I added the military sling (unadjusted in this photo), the 6-24x42 mil-dot target scope, the Harris bipod and the slip-on cartridge carrier onto the stock. Yes, folks, those are live rounds in the sleeve. What is a little gun porn without some live ammunition to give the antis a heart attack? (And before I get angry e-mails or comments above having live ammunition near a gun in a non-range environment, take note of the fact in the picture the bolt is wide open. No live rounds went anywhere near the chamber for these pictures).
Part of me cringes at the changes that were made to this rifle. I wish it was original. I often wonder given the date of manufacture if my rifle saw action in the hands of a German soldier, fighting resolutely on the Eastern or Western Front. On that, I can only speculate. But, there is nothing I can do except perhaps someday get an original M96 to preserve to help ease my guilt. But, I can't change the fact that the rifle is what it is and it is still a wonderful platform regardless.
Target shooting is why I bought this rifle. I recognized it would be perfect for it the moment I picked it up for the first time. The mixture of changes made to sporterise it, the trigger work, stock and free float, the scope and bipod and the great ballistics of the 6.5x55mm round all come together to make this an exquisite high-powered target rifle. So much so I plan to use it as a long-range precision rifle from ranges of 600 to 1000 meters and in competition for fun.
It also would make an excellent sniper platform as an alternative to more traditional .308 (7.62x51mm NATO) caliber sniper weapons like the M21 and M40A1 (which is based on a Remington 700 civilian hunting rifle that has been modified not unlike my rifle). The 6.5mm has a flatter trajectory than the M852 .308 Match ammo at ranges out to 500 yards. Although velocities are lower, its zero distance is 200 yards as compared to 100 yards for the M852.
For short-to-medium range applications, such as police snipers (who rarely operate beyond 50-100 yards), the flat trajectory and accuracy of the 6.5mm make it an ideal platform. For urban environments, this smaller, lighter round is more suitable as it is less likely to overpenetrate at short ranges (aided by the use of expanding hollowpoint ammunition. Police are not bound by the Hague Convention). The same qualities that allow it to stop a deer in its tracks with a single shot are also equally useful in dropping a violent perpetrator bent on murder on the spot with less possibility of harming innocent bystanders.
So there you go, Paul Helmke. Your deadly, high powered sniper rifle. And should my local SWAT team ever need some help and have nothing suitable in their inventory, they are more than welcome to borrow my rifle. It would be equally at home in the woods, on a rooftop with a hostage taker in the sight or against a competition steel silhouette at 600 meters on the range at the Quantico Marine Corps base.
I think I just heard an artery pop. Get to a hospital, Paul!
9 comments:
Great article.
Do people actually complain about having ammo near a firearm outside a "range environment?"
That's ridiculous.
The variation of rule #1 taught to me by my father was: "There is no such thing as an unloaded gun"...whether you can see the ammo right next to it or the ammo is locked in a safe.
Breathless fear any time the ammo is too near the firearm outside a "range environment" is no substitute for proper gun handling and safety.
Those are the kinds of people who end up punching 6.5mm holes in their walls (or other, more important things) and then swearing "I didn't think it was loaded, I ALWAYS keep the ammo in the safe unless I'm on the range."
In the basic proficiency courses I've taken, it was strongly emphasized to keep ammunition away from the gun unless you were actually ready to use it. For example, while cleaning. If you have a gun, a user and ammo, removing one will always prevent a negligent discharge. Since you can't remove yourself and not having the gun in front of you to clean is counterproductive, that leaves ammo.
Bear in mind these courses were intended for folks who had never seen a gun in their lives and the instructors were trying to instill safe gun handling procedures that the takers had never heard before.
Once you have experience and follow safe practices religiously, you know you won't have problems.
My ammo cans are to the left of my rifles and are readily available.
I have heard a few differing opinions on the presence of ammo with guns when you aren't on the range. I have no "breathless fear" as you say. I know what I was doing and it was safe handling.
I, likewise, follow rule #1 as you state it.
I mainly did it for the appearance and to tweak off those who are utterly afraid of firearms. There were no accidents and those rounds didn't slip themselves free, leap into the magazine, close the bolt and persuade the trigger to fire. No one heard about a gun incident in my area afterwards.
Thanks for reading!
I think it might be possible to design a round that ceases to be lethal past 150 yards. However, it would involve explosives and causing the bullet to self-destruct past 150 yards.
However, it would be ungodly expensive and not practical. Also, I'm not sure if it's a good idea to have bullets exploding in animals.
And I'm sure the Bradies would then complain about ultra-dangerous exploding bullets.
Word Verification: fuddbnw
Nit-picking ahead:
. It doesn't matter if it is a .243 caliber round at the end of a 1.5 mile flight almost out of energy or a .50 caliber round hammering through steel plate at the same distance. Either one will kill you equally. The .50 will just pack more energy but will kill you just the same.
True in your intent, but literally not true; a .243 at the literal end of its range or any round falling at terminal velocity from gravity, shouldn't be fatal; you do need a certain amount of velocity behind the bullet to kill.
(Correct in intent, since even at a mile and a half at the end of its plausible range, that .243 could still have enough energy to kill or maim.
But at some point there's a place where there's only enough energy to bruise and bounce off. I just wouldn't ever count on that!)
If you want a 6.5x55 target rifle, instead of butchering an M96, get a CZ 550, in FS or American.
Darrell,
I wouldn't butcher an M96 to create a target rifle in 6.5x55. CZ 550 rifles are nice and are definitely an option.
I'm not unhappy with this rifle's performance. I am sad that someone saw the need to tear apart a nice surplus rifle in order to create it.
I am sad that someone saw the need to tear apart a nice surplus rifle in order to create it.
The only thing I would say to that is...do you KNOW that this was a "nice" surplus rifle to begin with?
One of the many monthly gun catalogues I get (I can't remember off-hand which particular company) has a "gunsmith special" section where they sell incomplete, damaged or otherwise incorrect firearms at a discount. The person who modified it may have had one with a broken stock, bad barrel etc and HAD to compromise it's original condition.
In my opinion, once it is no longer completely original, it is no longer a collector, it is a shooter. In those cases, they are fair game for modification.
That's exactly the situation with the SKS that I "Bubba'd up". It was a bargain basement model that was not operable when I brought it home. In the process of making her shoot, I had to replace original parts, the numbers no longer matched, she was not a collector any more and, therefore, fair game for modification.
All I'm saying is that, sometimes it is appropriate to modify a "classic" rifle...when you are returning a useless hunk of metal to the state in which I imagine they would be most happy (if they had souls and feelings)...a useful, accurate, tool.
Just my .02cents.
Don't thank me for reading, you've earned it with your content and writing ability. If you didn't deserve it, I wouldn't be here.
Consider yourself added to my daily reads list and my blogroll.
Sailorcurt,
You are absolutely correct, sir. You're right, I don't know that the rifle was a basket case before it was converted. I am projecting my own experiences in this case because I have seen anything but a good-to-excellent condition M96.
If the barrel was shot out and the wood split and cracked, bands rusted, bolt body pitted, then what was done to my rifle was correct.
I saw what did to your SKS. Looks very nice. I have a K.31 in a similar state bought as a "shooter grade". It is going to require work to get it restored to good condition (rust removal, wood rework, new bluing). I would be more apt to modify this rifle with permanent changes since it does require a fair bit of TLC to save it. Also realize I have another K.31 right next to it in very good condition which I am not going to touch.
Take care and thanks for the insight.
where did you get that stock at?
i have a M38 swede that im fixing up, id rather put on a new stock that mess up this lovely beech one.
Post a Comment