Ok, I haven't been able to find a satisfying answer to this. Why bother sporterizing a milsurp rifle? I'm mostly thinking of the WW2 lee enfields, but I imagine other makes and models met the same fate. Was this purely an aesthetic thing and people wanted something familiar looking to hunt with? Was reducing the overall weight important? I understand these modifications could effect accuracy, so, just....what was the benefit?
Why was/is sporterizing a thing?
- Thread starter Neroh
- Start date
Paladin308
CGN frequent flyer
- Location
- The Man Cave
It was pretty much the equivalent of Covering an SKS in Tapco c##p, trying to turn a cheap rifle into something it isn't. Mil-surps were cheap and plentiful, but lots of guys wanted hunting rifles. They looked at the mil-surps, looked at the hunting rifles, and figured they could turn one into the other and save a few dollars.
Military rifles were dirt cheap beginning around the turn of the century. The average guy could not hope to afford a new Winchester, Remington or Savage hunting rifle. Hundreds of thousands of young Canadians and Americans had been exposed to bolt action rifles in WW1 and WW2(many for the first time). The typical bolt action military rifle from the 1880's on was very long for hunting and weighed nine pounds and up, not really the optimum choice for a hunting rifle. So a cottage industry sprang up turning military bolt actions into inexpensive hunting rifles. Barrels were shortened, full wood stocks cut down etc. In general manufacturing poor man's hunting rifles. Purists today lament those pieces of history being "butchered" but at the time military rifles were very cheap and plentiful but not very handy for hunting. Sporterized military rifles run the gamut from simply chopped off barrels to truly high grade creations worth of a great deal of money.
I would agree with everything said here. With the rise of budget hunting rifles though there is really no reason to "sporterize" a milsurp in this day and age. Especially since we've already seen the lessons of the financial consequences from Mausers and Enfields of old.
Lee Enfield
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Republic of Alberta
Circa 1960
A new
Enfield =$20
Winchester =$120
The math was simple
A new
Enfield =$20
Winchester =$120
The math was simple
I agree with the posts above.
My Wife's grandfather came out to shoot with us one day. I pulled out my sporterized Lee Enfield and he said "wow I remember those in barrels at Simpson Sears in the 60's!! $18.95 each or something like that. I had one for years til I could afford my Husqvarna in 30/06!!"
He went on to say that most guys couldnt afford a new winchester or whatever so everybody had a 303 at that time..
My Wife's grandfather came out to shoot with us one day. I pulled out my sporterized Lee Enfield and he said "wow I remember those in barrels at Simpson Sears in the 60's!! $18.95 each or something like that. I had one for years til I could afford my Husqvarna in 30/06!!"
He went on to say that most guys couldnt afford a new winchester or whatever so everybody had a 303 at that time..
the sportered no1mk111 made great hunting rifles ,they were cheap ,accurate had a 10 round mag very slick action and very reliable the ultimate bush gun and still is to this day.Thats why they were sportered.Lots of them are well worn by now but if you can find one in very good condtion they are great hunting rifles
Nobody thought in collectible terms, they were cheap and apparently numberless, but good quality. One of the early guides in what is now Banff national Park carried a "sporterized" early Lee Enfield.
Grizz
