Conscience issue - Bubba'ed the milsurp

[BillinNH]

OK, I like milsurp rifles. I like shooting them. I like keeping them original or only making changes that can be completely reversed. I wouldn't make permanent changes to a Mosin-Nagant or a K-31 or a Swedish Mauser, for example. But I Bubba'ed my SKS's. I filled in the bayonet grooves in the stocks, sawed off the bayonet lugs and cleaning rod nibs and I am going to put a Choate scope mount (drill and tap the receiver) on at least one of them.

The reason for this blasphemy is that I don't think of the SKS's as all that collectible and besides there are about a bazillion other people who are keeping virginal examples. But I wanted to make my 20" Norinco and "paratrooper" Trident into practical deer and utility rifles, not collector items.

Have I sinned or did I act reasonably?

I bet I get a 50-50 split of opinions on this.

Bill

 

[Seraph]

...sawed off the bayonet lugs...

The only sin you've committed here is that of making the rifles less Evil™.

 

[Oldnamvet]

You have no one to please but yourself. If it makes you happy and is legal, go for it. It always amazes me how people will look down on others for changing something that belongs to them. Go all the way and put on a new synthetic stock too if you want.

 

[Chipperman]

They are yours to do with as you please.

I am missing the logic, however, of keeping some milsurps original and not others. Is it because the SKS is newer, or semi-auto?
There are a bazillion Mosins out there along with a bazillion SKSs. Why are the Mosins worth more to you in original form than the SKSs?

 

[telomerase]

We're all tamely paying taxes for foreign aid that supports all the dictators and oligarchies around the world. We've allowed all the freedoms in the Constitution to be swept away because we're too gutless to defend ourselves from mean little guys with boxcutters. We've thrown away the stars and marched back into the Crusades.

And you think you're going to hell for sporterizing a communist gun?

(Now if it were an Enfield, of course, you should worry...)

 

[dfaugh]

I think you'll find the 50/50 deal to be about right...

But, I take (small) issue with the assumption that ANY modified milsurp has been "Bubba'd").

I built a nice gun off a Turkish Mauser (My first try at some serious home gunsmithing, e.g. "Gunsmithing 101")...I have received numerous compliments on this gun.

I'm also working on sporterizing a Mosin 91/30, and a VZ-24. Note that none of the guns I'm talking about are particularly rare(made in the millions), and were in really rough shape (stocks were firewood, markings ground off, etc.)

On the other hand, I have an unissued Yugo SKS, that will remain that way. And, I picked up a (truly) Bubba'd 1918 SMLE at an auction, which since the metal is all good(they just chopped the stock up), and is a matching number gun, I'm gonna restore to original condition.

So it goes both ways. But I really don't understand the "purists" who think that modifying ANY old milsurp (even if there's a TON out there) consider it blasphemy.

(P.S. Just as an example , if it were me, I wouldn't have modified the Paratrooper, as these are harder to come by. But I firmly defend your right to do whatever you want with YOUR guns! )

 

[BillinNH]

Chipperman says:
I am missing the logic, however, of keeping some milsurps original and not others. Is it because the SKS is newer, or semi-auto?

Good point, Chipperman. It was because there were things about the SKS that interfered with my intended use that I couldn't solve without permanent mods.

For example, I certainly didn't want a bayonet on a hunting rifle so that left the lug when I uninstalled it. The lug would catch on things so I removed it. Same for the cleaning rod and the nibs under the front sight. I tried receiver cover mounted optics but they are not all that stable so I will need to put a mount on the receiver itself and drill/tap for it. Compare this to my MN m38 where I only had to remove the cleaning rod, plug the hole with a dowel, remove the rear sight assembly and install a mount for a scout scope. I also added a slip-on recoil pad. No permanent changes needed.

Bill

 

[Radagast]

The guys who complain about modifying milsurps usually have one of every variation of every model anyway. If it was a hard to get, mint condition gun I would think twice about chopping into it, someone might get more pleasure out of it in it's original state than you or I after chopping it, so i would look hard at selling under those circumstances, but it's still your property to do with as you please.

I sold an all matching 1899 Swede with lovely timber to an enthusiast. Sometime this year I'll buy myself a factory Bubba'ed one (should that be 'Bruced', as I live in OZ?) with synthetic stock, turned down bolt and scope which will suit my needs.

 

[dm1333]

Who cares if someone else thinks you "Bubba'd" a gun. I have several myself and since they are more useful to me now I'm happy with it. I was reading a gun article recently(Guns and Ammo?) about a man with a collection of .30-06 rifles. There were some sporterized milsurps that were just outright gorgeous, I would take them over a plain jane CMP rifle any day.

My feelings on this extend way beyond the world of milsurps. I have a rusty, oxidized Harley that many "bikers" would sneer at, but my bike gets ridden year round rain or shine. It was made to be ridden, just like your SKS was made to be shot, so modify what you want and damn the critics.

 

[Ad Astra]

There's no absolute right or wrong in anything.

While it's yours to do anything you want with, there is the fact that the guns will outlive you. What's not valuable now may be in years to come.

Then there are guns that will likely never have much value...

So.

"Bubba thy possibly valuable rifle only to the extent of that which can be undone."

I'm restoring a CC SKS to it's native state. A synthetic stock was added, and a muzzle brake. The stock was saved; this is fixable.

"Bubba thy value-less rifle to the extent of that which improves its utility."

Mosin-Nagant M44's, for example. $79 now, $79 in the year 2040. There are a gazillion of them.

I did get one of the hard-chrome ones Classic is selling. The chrome job is very well done and now it's my boat gun, resistant to corrosion in a marine enviornment. An expensive stainless steel Mini-14 might be better, might not: it's 4x the price. Not happening.

Utility: improved. Harm done to history: none. They won't do it to a rare one.

Besides, I might get to bayonet a shark.

 

[Chipperman]

"Good point, Chipperman. It was because there were things about the SKS that interfered with my intended use that I couldn't solve without permanent mods. "

That makes perfect sense. From your original post, I interpreted your statements to mean that altering an SKS was "less of a sin" than altering a Mosin. That is what I did not understand.

 

[Cosmoline]

There are indeed many collectible variants of the SKS. And doing what you did eliminates for all time any collector value yours might have. This holds true even if it was a common variant. For example, if it was worth $200 before, it's worth about $100 now. If it was a rare SKS-45 variant, you may have lost even more than that for your troubles.

If you want to have the same old sightless hunting rifle everyone else has BUY A FRICKING SAVAGE! It will cost you less in the long run. There is no longer any justification to trying to hack surplus rifles into half-assed Remchester clones. Forget the issue of history. It's a foolish and pointless WASTE OF YOUR TIME AND MONEY. It made some sense fifty or 75 years ago when it was hard to find a bolt action hunting rifle in the US for a reasonable price, but those days are LONG GONE.

Unless you're a master smith, your hack job is NOT going to increase the value of the firearm. And I've lost count of the number of truly valuable pieces slaughtered by idiots in their garage. I'm looking at a rare M-27 Finn some idiot hacked up and rendered totally useless. He sliced the barrel down to 20", tore off the rear sights, sliced up the stock and covered it with glarey tru-oil, sliced the bolt and receiver up in order to relocate the handle, then installed a weaver mount on the barrel so poorly it sits cockeyed! Now it's worth maybe $50 for parts, if even that. It's not even a functional firearm anymore. Intact it would have been worth $350 to $450, and been fully functional.

In any event, what's the point? You can trick out your SKS without recourse to any hacksaws. Here's my SKS-45 with non-permanent alterations to give it an excellent, rock-solid weapons light mount. It's an old Wild West light mount made to fit with brass shims that also protect the barrel from the set screws. The lug does not interfere with the effectiveness of the tactical light. Indeed it creates a faint shadow you can use to aim with.

 

[cracked butt]

What cosmoline said. It makes no economic sense to hack up a rifle.

I know a guy who has what would have been a perfect Swedish M94 carbine. He bought it 40 years ago, cut the stock down, put a rubber recoil pad on it and drilled/tapped the receiver for a scope mount. He showed me it to me one day with a sheepish look on his face and said, do you know how much this would be worth if I didn't screw with it?

 

[White Horseradish]

Let's see.

Stevens 200 in .308, drilled and tapped for a scope, ready to go brand new - $275 on Gunbroker.

Mosin-Nagant - $80, ATI stock $60, ATI scope mount+ hideous bolt handle $40. Add to that time spent on putting it all togehter and you still wind up with a 60-80 year old rifle that you will never get your money back out of that looks like crap with all the alterations and maybe shoots straight if the mount is right. Add to that the fact that the ATI mount is a huge cantilever and their bolt handle has been known to pop off.

No economic sense.

With SKS, I admit, it's a bit trickier. Mostly because there really isn't anything out there that can compete with it in the price range.

Still, the trouble is that quite often people can't tell a rare variation of a common rifle. I still think the guy that hacked up that 1896 Finn M91 he was selling on Gunbroker should have his arms pulled off and shoved up his &(*. It was cut down to 16 inches, bolt cut up and the stock was plastic. Considering the muzzle flash out of a regular Mosin, what he made was an inaccurate flamethrower. He thought it was a fine hunting rifle worth $800. Before he started it was worth maybe $300, now it's not even parts.

 

[Archie]

Just Remember...

K-98 Mauser rifles were once a dime a dozen. They make the basis for a real nice hunting rifle, and therefore many were altered - restocked, scoped, triggers replaced, barrels shortened - from the original condition. The results vary, some better, some worse.

Sooner or later, the last K-98, the last Arisaka, the last Mosin-Nagant will be used up. I don't have a big interest in collecting them, but they are a part of history.

It might be smarter to simply buy a new or lightly used hunting rifle by Remington, Winchester or Savage than to re-build a military issue rifle.

I have a gunsmith friend who once chopped the end of a first-run, flat-top Ruger Super Blackhawk. He trimmed it back to about 4.5 inches, reset the front sight, recrowned the muzzle and reblued it. Purist collectors have the vapours when they see it. However, at the time he needed (wanted, anyway) a handier revolver than the 7.5 inch barrell allowed. And when he did it, it was a current production gun.

The SKS is an interesting bit of military history. However, I really think only the issued guns will see interest as collector's items. The current lot of semi-commercial manufacture are well represented in the world. On the other hand, what does an altered SKS do - as a hunting rifle - that a lever action Winchester or Marlin .30-30 won't do?

I think it's a shame to destroy a clean, original firearm of historic significance. However, there are many which have finish damage, or the stock has been destroyed already, or some such combination of events has removed the collector value. Then again, 'historic significance' is an arguable commodity.

Also, think about the modifications. I have a 1917 Eddystone rifle. It's been restocked and the 'ears' on the receiver ground off. Particularly offensive is the stripper clip guide has been ground off. What the heck since did that make? Now it can only be loaded one round at a time.

I don't think altering an SKS is vile or evil. It might be more work than it's worth, but that is your decision to make.

 

[dm1333]

You own it, do what you want with it

If you get a kick out of modifying it, go for it. For those who are worried about destroying the rifles value, some of us get as much enjoyment out of tinkering with things as we do with looking at them.

 

[Koobuh]

I recently picked up a 1917 Remington-made Mosin Nagant (Tsar contract) from a local hardware store.
$100, but heavily sporterised.
The sights were gone, not disassembled, gone, the walnut stock was cut down to a weird early 20th century hunting rifle profile, and a peep sight was literally screwed onto the back of the bolt.
Accurately shooting this gun is a chore because of the mankey sight system (completely unstable rear peep sight with a HUGE aperture), and while the job was well done by a fairly skilled person, the result still brings me to tears.
If it is possible to project sheer malice and rage back through the preceding decades, I'm sure someone in the northwest with his 'adequate' hunting rifle in a weird furriner caliber would be looking over his shoulder nervously every couple of minutes.

The barrelled receiver is still intact, however, so there is hope of a restoration if I ever find a hacked-up M91 family rifle with intact wood and parts...

I will agree that common recent era guns are less likely to become the source of anguish later on, but why risk it? Only hack one up if it's already lost its value as a weapon entirely, is my guiding light.

 

[mustanger98]

I've been thinking about this issue for a long time too. FWIW, a rifle can be a very personal thing for some of us, getting one set up just like we want it so it fits us best for the best downrange effect with the best ergonomics/comfort.

I've been keeping my eyes open for a semi-sportered K98k or Springfield '03, or maybe just the complete action so I can barrel it to my prefered chambering. But I really don't want to chop a rifle that's in good working order that isn't current production and dime-a-dozen. That said, I'm not past using an Enfield or Mauser that's had the forward wood trimmed back some. It's still a good deer rifle.

some of us get as much enjoyment out of tinkering with things as we do with looking at them.

Bingo.

 

[White Horseradish]

If you get a kick out of modifying it, go for it. For those who are worried about destroying the rifles value, some of us get as much enjoyment out of tinkering with things as we do with looking at them.

That makes no sense. What does your enjoyment of tinkering have to do with the value of a gun? Some guy having fun is really of small comfort to me when I can't find a functional Westinghouse for reasonable money. You aren't going to own it forever.

Now, if it's all about tinkering, I should think something like a Savage will fit the bill. Rebarrel it to your heart's content, accessories/parts aplenty and it won't mess up anything for anyone else.

 

[dm1333]

It makes perfect sense.

Some people get enjoyment from collecting variations of certain guns, or milsurps, or whatever tickles their fancy. No one gets down on a collector for buying a gun and then locking it in a display case. Some people buy guns to shoot. Nothing wrong with that. Some people buy them to tinker with, to see if they can make it better than what it was. You may not agree with it, but it isn't YOUR gun. And there is no obligation, when you buy a gun, to preserve it just as it is so that at some point in the future the value will increase. For me the value of the gun is not what I will be able to sell it for in the future, I've only sold one gun in my life and I regret it, the value is based on how much fun I have shooting it, modifying it, adding stuff to it, and using it.

 

[rust collector]

It's a tool. Tools are made to be used and improved. Some of them are used up and a great many are destroyed through neglect or obsolescence.

I agree that it is a shame when any firearm is modified in a hamfisted way, but the reason that Westinghouse M91 is hard to find now is that no one wanted it years ago, and it lost its value. It's the same reason the odd calibers in old civilian firearms are more valuable--not because they're better, but because they're scarcer.

I enjoy my milsurps, but if I want them to look better or work better I'm not afraid to tweak them. Part of the intrigue is learning by doing. I'm more likely to learn on a Turk mauser than an m39, because the m39 has gotten too valuable. I will happily leave those to the collectors.

I won't leave my reconditioned M44 in the cosmo, however, so somebody can get a good deal at my estate sale. I'm having too much fun plinking with it, and if I get tired of the bayo, it's going.