Classic/Stock guns, or Modern/Upgraded?

[Alpine]

I've always appreciated a nice wood stock but in the early 2000's I got into long range shooting and competition and wood stocks generally went by the wayside. I did compete for a season with a modified wood stocked Mosin Nagant M28/76 and did quite well. Some people took it the wrong way and thought I was shooting that rifle to try to embarrass other competitors (not my intention but I left that rifle at home after that). For years my wood stocked rifles collected dust in the safe but I always believed that a "real" rifle has a wood stock… a real rifle is part tool and part art. I started purchasing pre64 model 70's, HVA commercial mausers, and a few other rifles I was interested in carving wood stocks for. I started to incorporate wood into match rifles… first with a laminate stock (harder than woodpecker lips… won't do that again). Then I eventually embarked on a truly ridiculous project of carving a wood stock to attach to the chassis system of a Sako TRG… took over 400 hours. I actually took it to one match last year! I now have many great peices of wood ready to carve and enough project rifles to last a life time. I'll still build some rifles without wood but those are tools not "real" rifles. I also love traditional style rifles and rifle stocks.

 

[lucusloc]

In answer to the OP



I like modern stuff. I like the old stuff. I like attaching new stuff to old stuff. I like attaching old stuff to new stuff. It all has a place, for real work, for hobby shooting and competition and for just plain useless fun. I even love the muzzle loading AR joke guns because they are fun. Joke guns are hilarious, and I bet those things have some pretty good ergonomics, which would make them comfortable to shoot too.

As a general rule;
If I am going to be trusting my life to it I want the latest and greatest proven technology.
If I am going to hunt with it I want whatever tickes my fancy at the moment (I hunt for fun and for the reward of good meat, I don't need to bag anything)
If I am going to compete with it I want something that will teach me something, either skills for today or perspective on the equipment of the past.
If I just want some fun I will shoot basically anything that goes bang, meme guns, impractical blasters or slick as snot race guns.
If I want something to hang on the wall I want it to look neat, either wood or shiny or both.
If I want something to tinker with I want an interesting project with issue to chew on.
If I want something else, well I will get whatever it is I want then ;-)

 

[WestcoastWes]

I love the wood and steel options. Last purchase was a Springfield SA35 and I just love shooting it and carrying it on days when I am not carrying my 1965 Smith and Wesson Model 10-5 with the two inch barrel. Before that I bought a Browning High Power and a Smith 27-2. Last rifle was a Ruger 10/22 with a wood stock, next rifle is an M1 Garand in 308. Really want a Springfield Socom 16 but Washington won't let me. Dreaming of an Egyptian FN-49 lately too. I see plastic guns as fads and most of them will not keep their value. Some wont even make 1000 rounds before they are unreliable with low quality meant for chap quick sales. Every time I got talked into one over the years I got burned, got talked into a Taurus PT140 in 40 Smith and still get mad at what a piece of craz-nap it is/was, got into a Glock in 45 GAP and now use it as a paperweight. I got to finger bang a 1983 Thompson Center Contender with small pile of super cool options the other day and it got my juices flowing.

John Moses Browning is the man. Firearms history and development from 1900 to about 1989 really makes me tick. Other than a couple of super early polymer pistols, just because they are important in gun development, modern stuff is not interesting to me.

 

[quneur]

I handle modern but I lovingly cradle traditional.

 

[Ruger Rich]

I prefer walnut and blue. And revolvers in handguns. I also prefer anything
that I feel may be legislated against in the near future, just because a
collection of morons is telling me I can't.

 

[quadrailgang]

It all depends on what I want to use it for. For general shooting and aesthetics, its hard to beat an older wood stock. For hunting I am all about modern synthetics for the durability and weight savings. For defensive use it will always be a modern, reliable weapon system.

I do own a lot of older shotguns and milsurp because they are beautiful and the design of them is very interesting.

 

[Spitpatch]

Oh dear Lord.

View attachment 1846226

Somebody said they like 'em all. Well, here's where I get off the bus.

 

[lucusloc]

Somebody said they like 'em all. Well, here's where I get off the bus.

NGL, I'd take it. . .

 

[Spitpatch]

Walnut and blue is my esthetic preference, but I'll go for a plastic stock and stainless where appropriate.



It is my belief (arrived at relatively recently) that American firearm manufacturing quality and function came to its pinnacle in the period just after WWII, and with some hiccups (Winchester in 1964), continued into the '70's (Winchester got it together again in '72).

If a gun from that period arrives in my hands completely original, I have a very difficult time convincing myself to modify it to not be so.

Appearance, design and performance were of top priority. Meticulous handwork was evident. Manufacturers backed all their products unquestionably.

CNC machined guns (that always look like CNC machined guns) have no soul. I view them with the same affection afforded a crescent wrench.

 

[orygun]

Walnut and blue is my esthetic preference, but I'll go for a plastic stock and stainless where appropriate.

View attachment 1859665

It is my belief (arrived at relatively recently) that American firearm manufacturing quality and function came to its pinnacle in the period just after WWII, and with some hiccups (Winchester in 1964), continued into the '70's (Winchester got it together again in '72).

If a gun from that period arrives in my hands completely original, I have a very difficult time convincing myself to modify it to not be so.

Appearance, design and performance were of top priority. Meticulous handwork was evident. Manufacturers backed all their products unquestionably.

CNC machined guns (that always look like CNC machined guns) have no soul. I view them with the same affection afforded a crescent wrench.

I also find that most of the cartridges we use around here come from that time frame and even earlier.
Besides my wife's 7mm-08 (released in 1980), the newest rifle cartridge we have is the 243 Win from '55.

 

[Kcee]

Seems everyone has a mix, like myself.

I agree about it depends on the job for the weapon, like I really like a pistol grip and light weight for pest control.