There’s no reason to own ugly guns unless they’re projects for future better rifles.
Stipulating (for the moment; I don't agree with it) your definition of "ugly" guns, I could not possibly be more strongly in DISagreement with your statement quoted above.
What you dismiss as an "ugly gun" I treasure as a piece of history. I wouldn't "beautify" my Mosins, Enfields, Springfields, Garands, Mausers etc for any amount of money. To do so would be to destroy them.
Amen
>>What you dismiss as an “ugly gun” I treasure as a piece of history. I wouldn’t “beautify” my Mosins, Enfields, Springfields, Garands, Mausers etc for any amount of money. To do so would be to destroy them.
I’m with you on this - once you bubbafy them you can never get that history back.
I actually am fascinated with the Mosins with the dings in the stock and the shot-out barrels (not mine, mine is a 1948 and probably came out of storage before being imported).
What poor peasant carried that thing? Was he at Stalingrad, and did he live through it? etc...
I wish these old guns could talk.
There are certainly reasons to own historical arms. I own a couple.
But arms which are truly correct and have provenance behind them rarely are found in mass surplus sales. Check out what a Garand that is completely correct sells for vs. a rack grade rifle from CMP for one example.
To me, a mass-surplus rifle has little cachet, and won’t appreciate much. But a good action as a basis for a custom rifle build could turn a (eg) Russian capture Mauser into a $ 4000 (or more) rifle.