Would you be seen in public with this? RESULTS ADDED
- Thread starter Riflechair
- Start date
Its a special case for the garand as the chances of that being as unmolested unit are about zip. Could & probably was built out of a parts bin. Besides, its not like it had a whole bunch of tacticool crap on it, just new metal finish & slightly better wood. Now do the same poll with a pimped matching K98 sniper & see the fur fly. You know, extra polished metal(markings just visible)varnish on the stock etc.
I am shocked and disappointed.
Here are the POLL Results
66% of us lean towards prefering a milsurp that has been rebuilt back into a good looking and/or strong shooting contender. If the wood is aftermarket AAA Walnut or if the trigger has been polished to a crisp 3lbs break - all the better. "Restoration" may not be the most suitable definition for what was done in this case. Quiet now, shhhhhh - pimp my milsurp please, just don't tell anyone I did it.
14% of us would prefer our milsurps to retain their flaws rather than fix them. Keeping the rifle original to retain it's historical relevance is more important that putting on that new barrel and out shooting your buddies.People here would not be seen at the range with a glam glam milsurp.
13% of us don't want our milsurps glamoured or pimped up. A restored milsurp should have field grade timber 'as-issued' and look as original as it can be. Rejuvination of the rifle must be vetted through historical correctness if it is going to enjoy any place in my gun safe. We do not condone false stamps or passing the firearm off as something it is not - this would be fraudulent mis-representation
7% of us don't mind the a glamorous looking milsurp rebuild but feel some semblance of loss as a direct result of having lost a measure of historical collectibility. People here are quite happy to have this rifle in their gun safe and are not embarassed to show and tell amongst peers but still respect and admire milsurps in original onfiguration.
I find it interesting that well over half of the people that frequent the milsurp forums (66 to 73%) don't really have a problem with modified milsurps - so long as it suits their interests.
I especially find it interesting that only 27% of us do not sponsor or recommend glamorous modifications to milsurps. 48% of this category might consider restoration but only in a historically accurate context.
Is it reasonable to say that the numbers are reflective - or was the poll and evaluation unfair or missleading? Don't forget the example that was used was a completely rebuilt M1 Garand with custom hand-built walnut stock and reparked job
It seems to me that milsurps in original collectible configuration will probably belong to the endangered list for firearms here in Canada if this sample is reflective at all.
Maybe or Maybe Not.
RIFLECHAIR
------------------------------------------------------------
M1 Garand restored by Dean at DGR Guns in Tennessee. It is a Danish VAR barrel Garand with the original VAR barrel. The throat erosion is 1.5, the muzzle erosion is 0.5. It has had a match trigger job. The rifle has been reparked and has Dean's fancy hybrid Bastogne stock custom fit to the rifle.
http://codemonkeyx.com/images/garand/dgr15.jpg
http://codemonkeyx.com/images/garand/dgr8.jpg
http://codemonkeyx.com/images/garand/dgr5.jpg
In my humble opinion, this is not really a fair thread. Let me explain my thoughts:
There is no "before" picture. The results riflechair has drawn presuppose that the rifle was in some way collectible BEFORE being rebuilt to its present condition. In my experience with DGR and their work, this is NOT TYPICAL.
In the USA, the CMP has recently sold thousands of woodless Danish and Greek used M1's without woodwork of any kind. When the M1s were returned, many of them came back with unserviceable and/or deteriorated stocks. I know for a 100% fact that once all the "just fine as-is" rifles were sold, the CMP built as many serviceable rifles as possible by canibalizing wood from guns that had less than serviceable stock sets on them. The rifles came in batches, and so wood quality has varied over time.
The rifles that remained after all these efforts included many many very serviceable and nice sets of metal with not enough original wood left to stock them all. The CMP's solution was to sell these as "woodless garands" at a significant savings over complete rifles. They did this knowing full well there was a market for people who wanted metal to build match rifles and "like new" refurbs for shooting purposes, as opposed to collection purposes - after all the CMP exists to promote the shooting sports.
In all liklihood, the pictured rifle was received by DGR as a woodless Dane. In that spirit, I have zero problem with what was done. I find it premature to draw conclusions about people's ethics with respect to collecting when the rifle's condition prior to being rebuilt isn't disclosed.
Would people have voted the same way if the "before" picture was shown and the rifle looked good with a decent set of USGI walnut on it? I'd bet that more people would have chosen option No.2 if so.
Frankly, there is no shortage of non-collectible M1's out there, and in that spirit I see no issue with rifles like the depicted M1 being built up from barelled actions, woodelss M1's, etc. I view it much the same as people restoring sportered Ross Rifles, or stripping the shellac of a particularly beat and ugly mis-matched RC K98k.
That's my $.02 cents anyhow. I certainly doubt that Riflechair's conclusions would hold true for say, an all-correct late-war vet bringback K98k being rebuilt by polishing out the machine marks, commercial blueing and a new fancy walnut stock or an as-issued ww2 era correct M1 with a nice stock cartouche, etc.
There is no "before" picture. The results riflechair has drawn presuppose that the rifle was in some way collectible BEFORE being rebuilt to its present condition. In my experience with DGR and their work, this is NOT TYPICAL.
In the USA, the CMP has recently sold thousands of woodless Danish and Greek used M1's without woodwork of any kind. When the M1s were returned, many of them came back with unserviceable and/or deteriorated stocks. I know for a 100% fact that once all the "just fine as-is" rifles were sold, the CMP built as many serviceable rifles as possible by canibalizing wood from guns that had less than serviceable stock sets on them. The rifles came in batches, and so wood quality has varied over time.
The rifles that remained after all these efforts included many many very serviceable and nice sets of metal with not enough original wood left to stock them all. The CMP's solution was to sell these as "woodless garands" at a significant savings over complete rifles. They did this knowing full well there was a market for people who wanted metal to build match rifles and "like new" refurbs for shooting purposes, as opposed to collection purposes - after all the CMP exists to promote the shooting sports.
In all liklihood, the pictured rifle was received by DGR as a woodless Dane. In that spirit, I have zero problem with what was done. I find it premature to draw conclusions about people's ethics with respect to collecting when the rifle's condition prior to being rebuilt isn't disclosed.
Would people have voted the same way if the "before" picture was shown and the rifle looked good with a decent set of USGI walnut on it? I'd bet that more people would have chosen option No.2 if so.
Frankly, there is no shortage of non-collectible M1's out there, and in that spirit I see no issue with rifles like the depicted M1 being built up from barelled actions, woodelss M1's, etc. I view it much the same as people restoring sportered Ross Rifles, or stripping the shellac of a particularly beat and ugly mis-matched RC K98k.
That's my $.02 cents anyhow. I certainly doubt that Riflechair's conclusions would hold true for say, an all-correct late-war vet bringback K98k being rebuilt by polishing out the machine marks, commercial blueing and a new fancy walnut stock or an as-issued ww2 era correct M1 with a nice stock cartouche, etc.
Hi Claven
The test was not what the rifle "May" have looked like before.
The test was knowing what it looked like now - a custom rebuild glam glam M1.
Would you be seen by your peers at the range with it? Thats the basis of the results.
If the piece was the obvious hacking and sporterizing of a milsurp that wasn't so nice yes the results would have been much different. But because the rifle was pretty and seemed to have the shape of an original Garand it was much easier for people to stomach. Thats the difference.
Regardless the results are interesting. My interpretation of the data may not be fair but probably not far off the mark.
The test was not what the rifle "May" have looked like before.
The test was knowing what it looked like now - a custom rebuild glam glam M1.
Would you be seen by your peers at the range with it? Thats the basis of the results.
If the piece was the obvious hacking and sporterizing of a milsurp that wasn't so nice yes the results would have been much different. But because the rifle was pretty and seemed to have the shape of an original Garand it was much easier for people to stomach. Thats the difference.
Regardless the results are interesting. My interpretation of the data may not be fair but probably not far off the mark.
Last edited:
