Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: schurmann

Remington’s first high powered sporting bolt action was simply the 1917 Enfield with a sporter stock and slightly better finish.

As it progressed, Remington did make a few changes such as a sporting trigger but it was still the same basic action and that action was a good one. It was large, strong and durable.


109 posted on 05/28/2014 7:18:15 PM PDT by yarddog (Romans 8: verses 38 and 39. "For I am persuaded".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies ]


To: yarddog

“Remington’s first high powered sporting bolt action was simply the 1917 Enfield with a sporter stock and slightly better finish. ...”

The Remington Model 30 so closely resembled the US M1917 that it’s still mistaken for a sporterized US Enfield. The actions took pride of place for strength: frequently sporterized in the 1950s-1970s, handled magnum calibers.

Many ex-military bolt actions were sporterized after both World Wars. They were adequate in their day, providing decent rifles for sporting use a lower cost than new commercial rifles. But the entire concept is now problematic:

- Metallurgy was less certain, especially in the years before WWII. The US War Dept - not known for flippancy nor wastefulness in the 1920s - grew concerned about the strength and safety of early M1903s; it ordered the recall of all Springfield-made receivers serial numbered under 800,000, and all Rock Island-made receivers under about 285,000. All were supposed to be destroyed, but a few early ones still surface occasionally. Additionally, no one can predict the deterioration of weapons-grade steel (nor any other type) over long periods of time, especially not when storage and use conditions in the interim have not been documented.

- With the the development of sturdier optics and more finely tunable triggers, sporterized military rifles became less competitive. Bolt handles, safeties, and even receivers had to be modified or at least drilled to accept telescopic sights, thus driving up the cost (the only real justification to begin with). As time wound on, commercial rifle manufacturers made sure their products left the factory with every modern amenity. Ammunition makers offered ever more exotic cartridges; the American shooter, ever in pursuit of the latest whiz-bang trend, was lured toward magnums, which only the very strongest military actions could tolerate. After a time, the older military chamberings seemed less exciting.

- Collector interest has been shifting toward purely military rifles for some years. Sporterizing an original military piece can be seen as destroying a living link with history. A number of specialty firms have begun offering military guns “restored” to original configuration, or more modern variants reworked to resemble particular historic examples in high demand. Fakery has happened, with a view to unscrupulously boosting monetary value. Supplies of original parts - especially stocks, sling swivels, handguards, barrel bands, sights, bayonet studs etc - are drying up. And restorations might look snazzy, but are often very costly, even compared to some purely commercial sporting rifles, which are often of more recent design, made with modern (stronger) metallurgy, chamber modern cartridges, and are made to closer tolerances (though fit and finish rarely equal even standard-issue arms that predate 1940).

Bottom line: don’t expect today’s surplus military rifle to challenge the modern sporter, and don’t hope to get extensive modifications done on the cheap (at least not if you want the results to be functional and safe). And be wary of modification kits or replacement synthetic stocks advertised to be “drop-in fit” or “no gunsmithing required.”


132 posted on 05/29/2014 5:47:02 PM PDT by schurmann
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson