.....

[Vladimir]

The first 3 rifles I purchased when I turned 18 were all Mosin Nagants I bought all 3 at Big5 during a December sale I had a hex 'peter the great', and 1924 and 1936 Tula. After that I boght a little M91/59...that was by far my favorite of my Mosins. They just feel different...they carry what the created...what they witnessed, and what they caused. It moving really, you can't ever really explain it, and the best part if they are ALL different.

Good point. You could have multiple of the same gun but each will hold their own character and be different, not by specs, but by the character it gives off.

[mbt]

I guess you thought new fancy tactical guns would make u a better shooter. But, trigger control and sight acquisition are still fundamentals. So, I guess that's where some of the regret came from. Money spent with nothing to show for it. Worst feeling in the world.

Spending $1200+ for a semi auto rifle that shoos a 55g 22 cal just never made sense to me.

[freonr22]

The model 54 Winchester I had from 1929 when fired was but a gentle push in the shoulder. Just butter.
The 1916 Mauser converted to 30-06 in the 50s was silk

The 1903 6.5x55 Gustafs was a dream. Machinery made in a different time, I will put to today's weapons any day of the week

[CDFingers]

Yeah, I have to weigh in just a bit here on the old guns.

The smell of old military guns. The feel of the stock with the historic dings. The worn blue. Oil stains. When you take 'em apart, the age of the wood becomes apparent. Smooth actions.

Shooting a nine pound rifle 400 meters to the gong.

It's all good.

CDFingers

[The Right to Bear Arms]

Because History has weight and mass. Hands that make, hands that carry, hands that fought. These impart an unmeasurable, but noticeable, mass to the items. The modern weapons are advanced, yes, accurate, yes, effective, yes, but what of the hands that made and where are the hands that carried, and the hands that fought with those weapons?


When you hold WWI and WWII surplus you are holding something that likely saw battle, that was made with intent, and carried by willful hands. You cannot "craft" history into a modern weapon. I would hazard a guess that you would "feel the same feel" that you get out of WWII surplus if you also had in your possession a modern M4 that was carried in Iraq or Afghanistan.

Hi Vladimir,

Thanks for starting this thread. I agree with Meaty's post and would add a couple of things. First, as previously alluded modern weapons platforms have no " soul. " They were never intended to have it in the first place. With all due respect to our Valiant fighting troops overseas, the weapons they carry though impressive were " never " designed to be heirlooms that would " outlive " their owners. To be honest, I would be surprised if even the most robust designs can still kick a can of mustard 7-10 years after their initial start date. Anyone that would like to challenge me on that is more than welcome too. Just be well read on business, history, and above all have common sense.

So Meaty's question supposition was for you answer Vladimir. If it were posed to me. I'd have to say No. I respect the valiant nature of our troops overseas and the efficacy of their weapons but to " reiterate " none of these tools were built to " last. " They were built to exacting business specifications. They serve their purpose. they exit stage left, permanently.

It's simply a sign of the times, from the manufacturers, to the military, to the civilian markets, to us... " Built to Last " has thoroughly transformed into I made quick profit " and can get out of this deal with no lasting consequences to my portfolio.

[Capybara]

My Garand sits in safe like Chuck Norris, daring any of the plastic guns that surround it to mouth off so it can smack them down. The 91/30 is coming home today, I hope the Russian and the GI get along, after all, they fought a common enemy.

[Cowboy T]

And the neatest thing about these old milsurps is that if they've been maintained, these old chargers continue to shoot well. Yes, there are M1903 Springfields, Mosin 91's, Mauser 98's, Enfields, etc. that will shoot half-MOA with the correct handload. They still do very well against Bambi. They still will do very well against an invading army. They still will protect your home if need be. And, properly maintained, they will last...and last...and last.

A plus is that several WWII rifles remain relatively inexpensive, compared to, say, a Remington 700 (an excellent modern rifle).

[The Right to Bear Arms]

You're one cool Bay area Liberal. Probably cause you champion the second amendment. Maybe spread that around your region. I'll do the same in the South.

[23 Blast]

Ah, you guys are all a bunch of nerdy, geeky sticks in the mud who probably wear pocket protectors, use slide rules, and wear sundials on your wrists, amirite?

Nothing beats plastic fantastic, mang - if you're not sporting a Glock and a Magpul-ed out AR, you're not a REAL mang!

[John-Melb]

There is a history in old ex-military rifles that cannot compare to any modern rifle.

Sitting in my gun cabinet is a 1942 No1 Mk3* SMLE manufactured at Lithgow.

Within months of these rifle leaving the factory, it or rifles just like it, were handing the Imperial Japanese Army their first defeat, in the jungles of New Guinea. It was rifles just like this, in the hands of men who knew how to use them, at Tobruk, who proved to the world that "blitzkrieg" was just another word for "limited tactical manoeuvre".

These were the weapons of the "greatest generation".

[caldude]

I grew up reading WWII history and books about tanks, planes, guns, and ships. When I got the shooting bug a few years ago, one of the first things I did was get my C&R license and went on a C&R buying binge. It wasn't until about 20 firearms later that I bought my first AR. I still take the C&R guns to the range way more than most modern rifles.

Just a couple of weeks ago, I took a new group shooting. I had an AR, an M1 Carbine, and an M44. Which one did they like the best? The M1 Carbine! As others have said - most modern weapons are just tools, most C&R weapons have a history and a soul.

[Standard]

I just did the opposite, OP.
I got rid of my "tactical" guns and got an M1 Garand. It felt great and I don't regret it a bit.
The Garand (and other C&R's Ive shot) seem to have so much more character and quality to them. The big, hard hitting rounds seem a lot more significant than the 22 cal rifles.
I don't think it's something that can be really described or pinpointed.

[Springfield45]

I have all ways been fascinated by anything old. But antique guns are the best. They say so much. When you hold a M1 Garand you can step back and imagine what our grandfathers felt like during WWII advancing through Europe and the Pacific Islands. When you look down the sights of a K98 you can almost see thousands of Russians charging you. When I fix the bayonet on a Arisoka I wonder what it must have been like to charge into the American guns. Or the reserve German soldier of WWI armed with his obsolete Gew. 88. I look at my Yugo M48 and I wonder if the two notches on the wooden barrel cover mean what I think they do. I wonder who were the people who scratched the names "Bob" and "Steve" on the stock of my M1917 Eddystone.

[The Right to Bear Arms]

My Garand sits in safe like Chuck Norris, daring any of the plastic guns that surround it to mouth off so it can smack them down. The 91/30 is coming home today, I hope the Russian and the GI get along, after all, they fought a common enemy.

Hi Capybara,

Well, we know what happened to the " last common enemy " of the Garand and the 91/30. haha.

RBA

[mosinnagantm9130]

Hi Capybara,

Well, we know what happened to the " last common enemy " of the Garand and the 91/30. haha.

RBA

You could say the last two common enemies, the USSR was briefly officially at war with Japan in August 1945.

Old rifles have history, that's what I like about them.