JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
So, a little carbine that will be here next week got me to thinking about this. And this is, where do you draw the line at modifying older, classic guns?

Personally:

  • If it is unique, super rare, expensive, or associated with an important historical event or personage, now way, José! That would be like spray painting the Mona Lisa or throwing a brick through a stained-glass window.
  • If it is not real unique, but still a classic in our culture (e.g., original Winchesters), yah, no. Well, beyond basic fixes like if missing a spring or front-sight or whatever.
  • If it is old, but they made a bajillion-bajillion of them, eh, less concerned. I mean, who cares? There are still hundreds of thousands or millions of other ones out there. (This is where I am with the aforementioned carbine, more or less.)
  • If the modification in question can be reverted with a few turns of the screw, then it really isn't a modification, so knock yourself out.
  • If the gun is totally trashed, nonfunctional, lump of scrap metal, a restoration that gives you joy, and in the future someone else, why not.
  • I've never considered said personally, though I've know folks who wanted to Bubba an old gun to make it like a more modern one. In most cases the cost difference is so minor, why bother.
What say you?
 
To me it's always been easy. I have never been into "collecting". So not into guns I can't shoot. To me shooting means I can do anything I want to the gun. So if some gun has real "collector value" I always say best to either keep it as is, or buy another that is not collectable to play with. The die hard collector wants nothing done to the original. I had a 1911 made in 1918 for a long time. It was in bad shape when I got it so I did a lot of work on it and loved it. If it had been in decent shape it would have been far better to not do anything to it as any changes hurt the value. So if it's mine to shoot? I do not care what I do to it. If it has real collector value it's only passing through my hands. Back when M-1 Carbines were all over I played with a couple over the years as I did not care about keeping them "original" for me they were shooters.
 
If its in good enough shape and original, I say leave it as is. Once something verifiable becomes damaged, might as well fix it to the way you want it. Example, a Pre-64 M70 with a jacked up crown or shot out barrel. If it needs a new barrel, it will get a new stock and the metal will get refinished.
 
I work with old cars for a living and the dilemma is the same. While I've committed some sins in the past I am much less inclined to do so now. The 1965 Mustang that I turned into a race car was weeks from being sent to the scrapper and I have no guilt. The O3-A3 that Dad bought from CMP in the early 60's that I was itching to use for a 300 Mag conversion in the early 90's? Man! I'm glad Dad had no inclination to let me chop up his rifle... I would have been using that gun to shoot my own foot if I had, too.

When it's come to many projects in my life I've done this; If I don't know what exactly I wan't to do, I do nothing. I'll put it on the mental back burner. Then, for some unknown reason at some oddball time, the clear answer will pop into my head.

I'd say play with that carbine for a bit. Get to know it. Right now there are a lot of possibles for the "to do" list, but until you know the gun there is nothing to base the decision off of. I've bought many guns with certain expectations only to find that they just weren't what I thought they would be and shortly sold them off. If you find something similar with your new carbine and decide to send it down the road you'll probably be much better off financially if it's not altered. What I've found is that not many people choose modifications that I would and I lose money on the sale plus the $$ I invested in the alteration.
 
If it's a military surplus firearm I think it's best to leave as is or restore into original condition. After WWII it was popular to turn '03s and Enfields into sporters, during the 90s SKS and Mosin's were so cheap people could barely give them away. Now we have a flood of sporterized 03s and Tapco SKS that don't look great and hold a fraction of the value of the original rifle.

At the end of the day it's your property and beauty is in the eye of the beholder... but it would be a real shame to chop up a piece of history when there are plenty of other options available.
 
I have restored wrecked or abused old rifles and guns...'course old to me means something with a date of 18 or 17 something...:D

Commonsense here is to used.
I have a longrifle from a noted maker the rifle is circa 1780 or so...
In its working life it was converted from flintlock to percussion and restocked....
All of the original furniture is present....

I would love to re-work this rifle so that is has its original appearance but...
To do so would wreck any historic value of this rifle...so it gets left alone.

I have at other times and with other rifles . re-worked or restored them from the ground up...
Taking a rifle that has a good serviceable bore but a abused lock or stock and restoring those ...getting rid of modern replacement sights , and fitting it with period style sights...
Or taking a pile of rusty parts and broken stocks and after much research , cleaning , re-storing and giving the rifle a new lease on life ...Seems far better to me than letting it ruin away.

BTW ..restoring to me at least means in part keep as much original finish or patina as possible...
It is an old gun after all and I ain't trying to fool anyone with making them think that it is brand new or in 100% original shape....I also document the work done , so no one is under any false assumptions.

Again much thought and research is needed here....each old gun is a different case.

Speaking of which I need to get a barrel band screw for my new to me pre-64 Winchester 94 Carbine...
This rifle has good honest hunting wear and a excellent bore...it deserves to be shot and used as it was intended to be used.
Andy
 
My attitude is to leave any mods to lesser guns. I've never had any guns worth over 2K, so my experience is limited.
If it's a shooter, I may change grips or something that can be reversed.
I generally just enjoyed the experience, then sold them to someone else to enjoy.

Now that I'm old and retired, my budget only allows me practical shooters.
But I do have some cool guns. ;)
 
I've decided that there are a lot of older guns that have already been modified and they can be the canvas for something I dream up. It rarely hurts to take something someone else already screwed up and screw it up some more, right?

Sometimes though, one that was done nicely ages ago might best be left as is. There's an old 03 on here that looks to have been done very nicely a long time ago. Like @AndyinEverson said, it's got history of it's own.
 
With the AR's, it's mix and match to get what I want.:rolleyes:
Handguns, it's a fiber optic sight and grips that fit my hand. :)
Anything I build....Gets modified as the mood strikes me.:eek:
If it doesn't shoot, I fix it, or get rid of it. My walls are for pictures.:p
 
So very true....
Turning a ever so fine as is rifle , into a AK47 wannabe , or more to the truth , weighted down with useless gadgets...is not , in my mind a worth while modification.
Andy

Those truly are hideous contraptions. Despite my disdain for anything even tangentially related to Bolshevism, the Simonov in its standard configuration is indeed a handy carbine, chambered in cartridge around .30/30 WCF potency. However, one with a couple hundred dollars of plastic crap hanging off it and one of those duckbill magazines ... shudder.
 
Go ahead. Alter that piece of history.

You'll end up one level lower than Lucifer. :D



Map%20of%20Dantes%20Hell.jpg
 
See, I am down with extended magazines on SKS's because it's a no damage reversal. I draw the line at it is busted, and useless without change or 100% reversible. I am looking for a threaded barrel for a colt 1903. Change, yes, but the original barrel will be left alone so it can be reverted without damage.
 
Every time I'm looking at guns on Gun Broker, Guns International, NWFA, what ever sale site, and see the word "Sporterized", referring to an Enfield, Swedish Mauser, Swiss K-11-K-31 or any other significant old rifle, or guns that weren't made by the millions. A piece of my heart aches.

I'm not counting Garand's , 03's and 03-A3's as they were made in the millions. To bastardize one of those in these times should be a criminal offense!
 
If you bought it only because it is perceived as valuable left in its original configuration, and it will increase in value while in your possession, keep it as an investment.

If you bought it to be a tool, and you think it would be better modified to perform better as a tool, modify it
 
Every time I'm looking at guns on Gun Broker, Guns International, NWFA, what ever sale site, and see the word "Sporterized", referring to an Enfield, Swedish Mauser, Swiss K-11-K-31 or any other significant old rifle, or guns that weren't made by the millions. A piece of my heart aches.

I'm not counting Garand's , 03's and 03-A3's as they were made in the millions. To bastardize one of those in these times should be a criminal offense!
Meh, my property, not yours! I'll do whatever I want to to it!:s0066:
 

Upcoming Events

Tillamook Gun & Knife Show
Tillamook, OR
"The Original" Kalispell Gun Show
Kalispell, MT
Kids Firearm Safety 2 Class
Springfield, OR
Teen Rifle 1 Class
Springfield, OR

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top