Back in the 1950s and 1960s there was a lot of woodshed and professional gunsmithing done to cheap military rifles of the era. They often show up in local gun shops for not much money. Over the years, I have acquired a lot of sporterized military rifles cheap. Some I managed to refurbish back to military condition. Others were so nicely done that I still use them afield. The last group are as I bought them. I am amazed at the time and effort some folks apparently put into these rifles and the craftsmen that did the work. Altering bolt handles, installing low-scope safeties and drilling and tapping would now cost more than the rifles sell for today.

Many of these classic rifles have decent walnut stocks, real cut checkering and extensive metalwork. I was looking at some of the triggers and the ingenious way someone made an adjustable single-stage trigger from the standard military two-stage trigger. They used a set screw, drilled the trigger and tapped it. These rifles probably have little value except I like collecting them. All the best...
Gil

My wife inherited a Mauser 98, 1943 Nazi manufacture, all the numbers match. Someone took the time to turn the original stock into a sporter. Cut wood plugs to fill the sling holes in the butt stock, shaped and filled more of pistol grip. It shoots reasonably well with factory ammo and is something else (3/4 inch groups) with handloads.

right now the enfields and nagent milsurp rifles are very easy to come by and are very cery cheap ie 76 to 100 dollars. they are built extremely well and most will outshoot a shooters skill level. i own several in both original combat wood and sporterized and they have ruined me away from modern new firearms.

unless you spend a fortune the new rifles are not anywhere near the quality of the old "WAR" guns.

some have actual collector value but most {since so many were made and used} will make a extremely accurate, rugged hunting gun that for the price cant be beat.

some ammo is getting hard to find but with the guns so cheap and reloading so easy and reasonably priced it is actually cheaper to buy a milsurp and reloading equipment for it and shoot shoot shoot.

the downside for most people is the weight since most are made with real steel and real wood. i myself prefer a heavyish rifle as they seem to be more accurate in bad weather.

I have a M98 1942 Oberndorf that I bought for all of $20 in 1971 , it was a 7x57 with a 25 round mag .. About five years ago I found a new Douglas .30-338 barrel , and the process began ..
Last june I bought a fresh arsenal rebuilt Enfield No.4 Mk1 with a synthethic stock from a friend cheep , with the 7x57 barrel as a partial trade ..
Love em .. Make good rugged reliable working guns ..
Jack

I have built many fine magnum cal. rifles from the old P14 Enfields.
It does require a little work to sporterize them but well worth it. I have built a several that have been shooting for 30 years in S.A. I doubt you will find a Remington or Winchester that have been used as much and still worth a darn.

Spacedone wrote:

right now the enfields and nagent milsurp rifles are very easy to come by and are very cery cheap ie 76 to 100 dollars. they are built extremely well and most will outshoot a shooters skill level. i own several in both original combat wood and sporterized and they have ruined me away from modern new firearms.

While I have absolutely no problem with people who buy military rifles, I have yet to find one that can convince me to part with my money – even though I keep looking for a good Mauser. Yes, I have seen some very nice conversions to sporters – beautiful works of art, in many cases. But most I have seen could use more TLC (spelled $$$) than I care to give them.

Currently over half my centerfire rifles were purchased used and all are in excellent condition and all are great shooters. Maybe someday I’ll find a Mauser that does it for me but until then I’ll keep buying modern rifles, new and used.

Quote::

unless you spend a fortune the new rifles are not anywhere near the quality of the old "WAR" guns.

I would not only disagree, I would contend that many modern firearms are far superior to war relics in terms of quality. Start with modern steels, something I find a lot of comfort in when the hammer drops. Then figure in computerized machining that can easily keep tolerances to 0.0005” or less. Laminated or synthetic stocks are not for everyone, but they don’t warp like monolithic wooden stocks, and a number of my firearms are stainless. And you don’t need to spend a fortune, as the used rifles in my safe prove. The latest addition was a like-new 1975 Remington BDL in .308 Win for $330. The 1989 Ruger .257 Roberts was $400 but it was also like new (maybe a box of ammo) and included a Leupold M8 4x scope. Both are – by a wide margin - higher quality than most war relics I’ve seen.

Quote::

some have actual collector value but most {since so many were made and used} will make a extremely accurate, rugged hunting gun that for the price cant be beat.

Some will, some won’t. Rugged, yes – at least for the most part, although few can touch the strength of modern rifles – major advances in metallurgy were made around 1917 and more have been made since. To suggest that milsurp rifles will be accurate because so many were made is a non-sequitor. AK-type rifles have been been made in the millions but I have yet to see one that gets my attention in the accuracy department. I was at the range a few days ago and a gentleman was there with a Russian M-N he had received for Christmas. At 100 yards he could not keep the bullets on paper. He was NOT a happy camper. But heck, he paid under $100 so he got a bargain? In my book he wasted his money. Another gentleman had a WWII German Mauser but accuracy was only so-so. I was doing better with the Remington .308 and iron sights.

My old boss had a 1903A3 he converted into a sporter .338-06. It was a beautiful rifle and shot great, but for the same money he could have had a modern rifle that looked and shot as well or better - and used modern steels.

That’s not to say you can’t find relics that shoot well – you certainly can. But don’t expect them all to do so because many won’t.

Quote::

some ammo is getting hard to find but with the guns so cheap and reloading so easy and reasonably priced it is actually cheaper to buy a milsurp and reloading equipment for it and shoot shoot shoot.

My Marlin .30-30 cost me $225, the Marin .45-70 cost me $250, the Ruger .257 Roberts with Leupold M8 scope cost me $400, the Remington BDL in .308 cost $330. Many milsurp rifles would cost more by the time you restock them, drill and tap them for a scope, and have the bolt bent to clear a scope. If you want it to look good and be protected from the weather you might need to get the milsurp’s metal refinished as well.

I reload so ammo costs are no more an issue than for milsurps. But for the money, modern rifles are more to my taste.

Quote::

the downside for most people is the weight since most are made with real steel and real wood. i myself prefer a heavyish rifle as they seem to be more accurate in bad weather.

The weight of military rifles is just one more reason I don’t have any. The club owns some M1’s I occasionally shoot in competition. No way I would want to carry one up and down Colorado’s mountains.

I have a 303brit lee-enfield mk 4, only the stock sporterized ($40.00 dollar beater).
1944 NAZI M98 Mauser 30-06, bent bolt handle, new stock, bolt shroud,Timney trigger etc. ...P-14 in 358STA 28 1/2 brl, new stock, trigger, cock on open kit, muzzle-brake etc .... Mauser 98 in 300win mag, new stock, 2-pos mod 70 safety,muzzle brake,detachable center feed clip, etc......Vz-24 mauser 98 sporterized by Kimber of OR, with a 25 inch fluted brl in 7mm rem mag, with a timney tigger. ...Mauser 98 in 8mm mauser, 17 1/2 inch cut brl, bent bolt handle chop stock.
See BAD Advice post for picks basically a poor mans manlic that shoots very well !!.... I have a 7.7 jap at the gunsmith for a Williams peep site and the front site chopped off and re-crowned , Rem ramp front sight installed. I have another p-14 in 30-06 and a v-24 action hanging around.

Sporterzied Military are neat and can be cheap, however a good Custom
built rifle on a sporterized action can be very $$$$$

In my experience most modern "off the shelf" rifles, for all the "modern steel" etc. don't shoot any better than a decent milsurp rifle.

The fact that "millions of AK's were built" doesn't really have much to do with it. AK's were never designed or intended for even MOA accuracy, they were intended to be mass produced cheaply and with the only function being to kill human beings at relatively short ranges. The comparison would be the same as saying that an MP40 doesn't group well.

Bolt action rifles, for the most part were intended to be fairly accurate, as those were the days when accuracy was considered more important than laying down a field of fire.

My father had, and passed down to me, a Remington manufactured Springfield. I think the parkerized finish is just as weather proof as stainless steel. Except for the scopeand stock it is the same rifle as when it was new. After almost 50 years, it still will print 1/2 inch groups.

To dismiss milsurps is being short sighted. Using the same logic, I guess all the people out there that would give their eye teeth for a pre-64 M70 must be insane. Since this rifle was manufactured before "modern steel" and used a "monolithic" wooden stock.

One of the most beautiful firearms ever produced is a "milsurp". It has not changed signifigantly since introduced over 130 years ago, the Colt SAA.

mikekuzara wrote:

In my experience most modern "off the shelf" rifles, for all the "modern steel" etc. don't shoot any better than a decent milsurp rifle.

The trick, I think, is finding a “decent” milsurp – there is a lot of junk out there. The best shooting milsurps I have seen have had the triggers worked on and the barrels replaced. I’ve seen some with original barrels that shoot pretty good but most I’ve seen were pretty lackluster in the accuracy department. The club’s M1’s I shoot are in the “pretty good” department but they were CMP rifles and were not exactly inexpensive.

All my rifles are of the “modern” type, whether lever or bolt actions. Three were purchased new and 6 were acquired used. I’d shoot any one of them against $100 milsurps and come out the winner far more often than not.

Quote::

The fact that "millions of AK's were built" doesn't really have much to do with it. AK's were never designed or intended for even MOA accuracy, they were intended to be mass produced cheaply and with the only function being to kill human beings at relatively short ranges. The comparison would be the same as saying that an MP40 doesn't group well.

You missed my point, but never mind. I agree the AK’s had primary design goals which did not include excellent accuracy. That is true for many other milsurps as well. If I recall correctly, 3MOA or better was the acceptance requirement for M1’s.

If you review my post you will see that the Russian M-N and Mauser that were at the range a few days ago were hardly stellar performers. The Moisan-Nagant wouldn’t stay on the paper (about 20” wide) and the Mauser was shooting about 4” groups.

Quote::

Bolt action rifles, for the most part were intended to be fairly accurate, as those were the days when accuracy was considered more important than laying down a field of fire.

I guess that would depend on which army you were fighting with and at what time. It certainly didn’t apply on much of the Russian end of things during WWII. That aside, I would much prefer a good FN Mauser to any other milsurp, period. They make good looking sporters while many milsurps are ugly no matter what you do to them. No, good looks doesn’t improve accuracy, but it does make the rifle easier on the eyes. Good looking and accurate beats ugly and accurate in my book, but beauty is in the eye of the beholder and others are welcome to have different opinions.

Quote::

My father had, and passed down to me, a Remington manufactured Springfield. I think the parkerized finish is just as weather proof as stainless steel. Except for the scopeand stock it is the same rifle as when it was new. After almost 50 years, it still will print 1/2 inch groups.

Congratulations – sounds like you got a good one.

Quote::

To dismiss milsurps is being short sighted. Using the same logic, I guess all the people out there that would give their eye teeth for a pre-64 M70 must be insane. Since this rifle was manufactured before "modern steel" and used a "monolithic" wooden stock.

I’m not dismissing milsurps, but you tend to get what you pay for. And so far I have not found a $76 to $100 milsurp (see Spacedone’s post that I responded to) that gets me close to what I want. I have seen quite a few very nice sporterized milsurps, but not for anywhere near $100. A previous boss has a highly customized 1903A3 in .338-06 that is superbly accurate in my hands and I would love to have it. Probably could, too, for about $1200.

If throwing lead downrange is the primary goal, a cheap milsurp may be just the ticket. But that’s not my primary goal. All my rifles are hunters and all get carried in the field. A milsurp in military configuration is not what I need or want and spending $$$ to customize a milsurp when the same or fewer $$$ will get me a modern rifle doesn’t excite me at all. But I like bargains and if I find the right milsurp I will buy it. Just hasn’t happened, although I keep looking.

By the way, the M70 was introduced in 1936 and all were made with modern steels superior to what was available before 1917 or so. People who want to pay a premium for a pre-64 are not insane as there was a definite difference in quality after 1964 when the rifle and manufacturing processes were redesigned to make the M70 less expensive to manufacture. I’m not convinced that the average pre-64 will shoot any better than one made in the last few years and I wouldn’t pay a premium for one, but that’s just me – I’m a shooter not a collector.

Quote::

One of the most beautiful firearms ever produced is a "milsurp". It has not changed signifigantly since introduced over 130 years ago, the Colt SAA.

Not exactly a rifle and you’ll be hard pressed to find a good one in the $76 to $100 range. Beautiful, yes, but I’ll stick with my stainless Blackhawk and Super Red. Again, I’m a shooter not a collector.

YMMV

IMO, MilSup rifles are a very viable item for many people. I myself have a couple of MilSups that I use as stand by rifles and also for loaners.
Some of them are not the best choice for a hunting rifle but they all will do the job. The ones that I have used are a K98 Carbine, M96 Swede Short Rifle, a Lee Enfield Jungle Carbine, am M1 Grand, FN-FAL Russian Mosin-Negant Carbine, a Spanish .308 conversion an a M96 Mauser. These have all taken deer most times only 1 shot. They are somewhat heavy but you get used to it, but above all they can and do the job with little fuss. Its kind of enjoyable to use an old rifle for something that it was not initially designed for. It also can get your mind to wondering how many others in diffrent countries had this rifle in their hands, what were they thinking about and what were they doing with it, how many places has it been etc. Granted, MilSup rifles can be had by most all but they are not regulated to those that don't have a lot of $$, they are good for anyone.

Interestingly enough I only own one rifle right now and its a "mil-surplus" rifle.

I got it free My dad bought it and then he gave it to me. Its a FN49. Nice gun semi-auto. Looks brand new like it hasnt fired enough bullets to make the barrel even show ware.

I've kept it clean and free of use so far and its condition must be "Execalent +" or something.

Now the FN's were designed as "sniper" weapons with long range accuracy in mind from what I have read. Some models have the ability to scope mount. Mine does so I'm just waiting for a excuse to get myself a scope and scope mount for it

Now I dont execpt better then 2MOA or worse then 4MOA from this rifle. After all what kind of a weapon designed for long range would shoot worse then that ?? And asking it to shoot better then 2 MOA seems kinda pointless as people try really hard to get M1A's grouping 1MOA. Now the SR-25 is garrenteed out of the box 0.5MOA with Remington Ammo but thats different story.

Dimitri

Dimitri –

I think you’ll find your rifle is worth considerably more than the $76 to $100 rifles Spacedone was talking about. In fact, I’ll bet I could buy a new Ruger or Remington for what its worth. Maybe one of each, in fact.

Depending on the model, the SR-25 lists for $2,495 to $6,099 in the quick search I did. Nice rifle but hardly what I would want to hunt with and certainly not in my price range.

Regarding your question “Now I dont execpt better then 2MOA or worse then 4MOA from this rifle. After all what kind of a weapon designed for long range would shoot worse then that ??”, the answer is it depends on how that rifle has been treated since it left the manufacturer. Many have led very hard lives.

The point is that if you can get a good shooter for $76 to $100 you have done well. But IMHO it’s a crap shoot at best. And unless you plan to leave such a rifle unmodified you can easily spend more money than a modern sporter would cost. In the past few weeks I have seen new Remington ADL’s for $249 and new Stevens Model 200 for $199. Last year at Christmas I got a new Ruger .300 Win Mag for $375 and this year I got a very gently used 1975 Remington BDL in .308Win for $330. It doesn’t take much modification to turn a ‘bargain’ milsurp rifle into one that costs just as much or more than these.

I understand that some people simply can’t afford a $300 rifle and I understand that – I spent many years in their shoes. God bless them and I hope all that enter win the $100 milsurp lottery and get one that meets their accuracy requirements.

Coyote_Hunter,

I understand what your saying. And as for the actual value its probrobly more then a 70-100$ Surplus rifle. But what I was trying to say is that not all surplus rifles are cheap and unusable. I myself wouldnt order a Surplus rifle off the web. If I got to see it and exam it will make my chances of winning much better so I'd only ever buy a surplus in store.

I myself being a college student right now wont be able to afford a new rifle for the time being but with the cheap prices for new production rifles I'd get myself one of thouse faster simply because its easyer to get parts for it if something goes wrong.

PS. Where did you see a SR-25 for 2,500$ ?? Thats the cost of a M1A Super Match or similar. Seems kinda cheap.

Dimitri

I guess I should have been a little clearer as well. I am not talking about ordering a milsurp rifle over the internet or through the mail.

IMHO, if you go and buy a $100.00 rifle, without seeing it or without knowing what to look for (throat erosion, pitting, poor fittiing parts, etc) then you are playing a crap shoot. However, if you look, and yes it does take some looking, and know what to look for, you can come up with a rifle that will most likely do what you want as far as hunting goes.

I think you and I are thinking of 2 different things when someone says milsurp, coyote, you seem to be fixated on pre-1917manufacture. I personally don't think most of the pre-1917 rifles are worth much, except as wall hangers, in most cases without extensive work.

Post-1917 rifles are available fairly cheap as well. I am mostly thinking of them when I hear milsurp, since I have the 03-A3 and my wife has a 98 Mauser, both completely original except for scopes and stocks, that will print 1/2 inch and 3/4 groups respectively. These were manufactured in 1943 and 1944. The Mauser has the eagle and swastika on the barrel and reciever.

Obviously, if you buy a rifle manufactured by a third world country(which Russia was up until the 1950's) you get what or pay for or even a little less than what you paid for.

I have had clunkers in modern firearms. A Winchester and a Ruger that would not group better then 3 inches at 100 yards. Based on that experience I could say that all Rugers and Winchesters are poor rifles, but I know that is not the case. Those two rifles just had poor accuracy. To make them accurate would have required hundreds of dollars, the same as a (post-1917) milsurp. Since the starting price for either modern or milsurp is already several hundred dollars difference, I would start with the cheaper of the two.

I think the point was that if you are looking at a cheap rifle that can be easily modified, starting with a $100 rifle is easier on the pocket book than starting with a $400 rifle and the difference in the end product is negligible. Most milsurps(post-1917) have a myriad of stocks, bolts, triggers, etc. available on the market for very low prices. Almost anyone with a basic mechanical knowledge can order parts and "customize" their rifle to a certain point.

Buying any used rifle is somewhat of a crapshoot. Maybe you have been lucky in only buying great used rifles, but I have seen just as many used modern rifles turn out to clunkers as milsurps (post-1917). It is rather like buying a used car, if you walk onto the dealers lot with a handful of cash and say "I want a car", you are most likely going to get a lemon. If you know what to look for and take it to a competent mechanic, you can get a good deal.

The truth, as with most subjects, lies somewhere in the middle. Are all milsurps junk? No. Are all "modern" rifles far superior?No. There are good and bad in each group, and in the end it is the individual and the individual rifle in each particular case.

Dimitri,
What caliber is your FN-49? They were made in 7x57mm, 7.65X53mm, .30-06 and 8mm Mauser. I appreciate all the input on sporterized military rifles. I bought my first military rifle back in 1958 for $15.88. My first sporterized military surplus rifle was a .30/40 Krag in 1970. It is hard to generalize regarding these classic rifles. I like them in original condition and as sleek and efficient sporters. All the best...
Gil