Old Vs. New and Why?

[houghtonsurvival]

Hey, so after being on the forum a while I would like to see what the impression you all have concerning old (read vintage) versus new rifles.
Personally, I lean towards the vintage type. It seems they are like cars, the new ones are built like shit and the old ones, well, are not.
I might be biased though because I prefer the power of the milsurp stuff...
Anyhow, what do YOU think?

 

[notquiteright]

Re: Old Vs. New and Why?

Not sure what power military surplus has vs modern rifles. My mauser is fun but my remington, savage and DPMS have taken advantage of the century or so that has passed.

A surgeon action is my ideal bolt gun action and beats Mil-slurp all the hell.

What I will give my mauser is it is built like a tank, I MUST follow through as locktime is looong and so few wanted them and so many were laying around a few years ago I got actions for a song and I suck at singing!

But if I was to build another 308 rifle it would be on the Savage action.

My '67 stang was my first car love, and like my first rounded third at a dead run girlfriend, time has helped make both seem alot more fun than they really were and would be now.

 

[BasraBoy]

Re: Old Vs. New and Why?

IMHO you can't compare the two and I suspect peoples reasons for owning vintage rifles are as varied as the number of people owning them.

My rifles fall into two categories, modern precision rifles and vintage rifles.

In terms of accuracy the modern rifles are far more capable than my vintage rifles. But then that's only as I would expect.

I would not be too concerned about rough handling of my modern rifles whereas I am a little more "protective" of the vintage rifles simply because they are not so easy to get fixed if you break bits off them.

Similarly, I'd have no problem pushing my modern car hard on a track day but would probably be a little hesitant with an older car.

Compare modern optics to vintage optics and the progress made (even in the past few years) is obvious.

But, as in your analogy to old cars, you have to expect the odd problems now and again - like leaded fuel (at least in UK), ammo may not be as abundant now as it once was, spares and smiths who know/care about these rifles may be a little harder to find.

They are not necessarily the easiest rifles to live with and can be frustrating as hell - you may not want to use them every day(again like old cars!)

But, like vintage/classic cars - show up at the range with a well cared for classic/vintage rifle and you will always get a lot of interest.

For me the old (military) rifles have a character all their own. Maybe it is down to their history (something I have always had an interest in)? But shooting them is a very different experience to my modern rifles and one which (when it goes well

) is perhaps more rewarding in many ways than with the modern rifles.

Both are made for a purpose - to shoot. What I hate is when vintage rifles are not used for that purpose....!

Shoot them, enjoy them!

 

[kraigWY]

Re: Old Vs. New and Why?

I think History has a lot to do with it. I like fondling my vintage military rifles, examining each and ever scrape and gouge, wondering what the original shooter was doing when he got that mark, and where.

An example, I got a used sling from CMP for my CMP Carbine. There as a name scratched into the back of the sling. My wife did a search and found two people with that name, on faught in Europe in 1944, the other in the South Pacific.

I also like shooting Vintage Military rifles, Since I've gotten old I enjoy CMP GSM matches much more then High Power or any other rifle matches.

I've found these old rifles can shoot if you take the time to learn to shoot them.

 

[houghtonsurvival]

Re: Old Vs. New and Why?

All valid points to be sure. I guess BasraBoy is really spot on. I find that my vintage rifle can be tossed about, but then again, I DO have a Mosin... So replacing something is not all that difficult... On the other hand, if I had a more rare rifle, I think my feelings would have changed.

The reason why I started this topic is because of the amount of care that one has to have for newer rifles. I got a brand new Marlin 795 and it sat in a closet for a week. After I took it out there was rust on the thing already.

On the other hand, my Mosin sits unharmed. It was made to get beaten...

 

[ranger1183]

Re: Old Vs. New and Why?

This 1953 Winchester model 70 is old school cool. Very vintage and interesting to shoot once in a while.

http://www.snipershide.com/forum/ubbthre...052#Post2569052

This 2011 Proof Research rifle is new school cool.

http://www.snipershide.com/forum/ubbthre...424#Post2691424

The 2011 Proof Research rifle is cutting edge technology, weighs in at 10 pounds, fires 140 grain Berger VLD's at +3,000 feet per second, won't warp or crack like a wood stock will and is scary accurate.

A true U.S.M.C. Winchester model 70 Sniper rifle with a true U.S.M.C. 8X Unertl sniper scope will cost <span style="font-weight: bold"><span style="font-style: italic"><span style="color: #FF0000">at least twice</span></span></span> what my 2011 Proof Research rifle costs, but will rarely, if ever, see the range.

My Proof Research tack driver goes to the range with me every trip!

 

[VJJPunisher]

Re: Old Vs. New and Why?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: houghtonSurvival</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Hey, so after being on the forum a while </div></div>

what does this mean? does time go by at 10X the normal person rate in houghton-land?

 

[Veer_G]

Re: Old Vs. New and Why?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: VAJayJayPunisher</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: houghtonSurvival</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Hey, so after being on the forum a while </div></div>

what does this mean? does time go by at 10X the normal person rate in houghton-land? </div></div>

<object width="425" height="350"> <param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/_Vz1FywthzE"></param> <param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param> <embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/_Vz1FywthzE" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"> </embed></object>

... now with even more <span style="font-style: italic">Snipery™!</span>

 

[Chiller]

Re: Old Vs. New and Why?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: houghtonSurvival</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Hey, so after being on the forum a while I would like to see what the impression you all have concerning old (read vintage) versus new rifles.
Personally, I lean towards the vintage type. It seems they are like cars, the new ones are built like shit and the old ones, well, are not.
I might be biased though because I prefer the power of the milsurp stuff...
Anyhow, what do YOU think? </div></div>

I am all for knowing where we came from (read vintage) and to compare a 1913 Enfield (or similar) with their ammo to a modern AIAW with 118LR ammo. Apples and pineapples. Ya they are both rifles and ya they are both bolt rifles. Beyond that.

 

[Chiller]

Re: Old Vs. New and Why?

and yes I do know it is the Indian and not the arrow.

 

[Veer_G]

Re: Old Vs. New and Why?

For giggles, there's nothing wrong with trying to do the job with outmoded equipment.

<object width="425" height="350"> <param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/qLi7AkaxKGk"></param> <param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param> <embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/qLi7AkaxKGk" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"> </embed></object>

But that's only for giggles.

 

[armydog]

Re: Old Vs. New and Why?

I'm a history nut and a military nut, I grew up with stories from my uncle's about WW1 and WW2, I joined the Marine Corps in 1978, got out in 1989, joined the Army National Guard in 2008 and am currently deployed in support of Operation New Dawn, so New or old military rifles I just love them. Nothing wrong with the stuff coming out of the shops now, just a different from the old stuff. Love the new technology and love shooting the old stuff. If its a Brown Bess from the Rev War or an M110 currently used they are all fun to shoot.

 

[houghtonsurvival]

Re: Old Vs. New and Why?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: VAJayJayPunisher</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
what does this mean? does time go by at 10X the normal person rate in houghton-land? </div></div>

Actually no, time just moves slower everywhere else.

 

[303_enfield]

Re: Old Vs. New and Why?

Old Vs. New. Both will get the job done. 8mm and 303 Brit are still being used in the Stan. Sucks being shot at and your M4 can't reach them on the other ridge. I have a scope from a #4MKI* T that was used against me in Iraq 2003.

The bad about the old. The scope plan and simple. While the No.32 Mk I, II, III (303 brit T rifles) was upgraded to the telescope straight sighting L1A1 (7.62 L42A1 rifle) because nothing on the market could touch it. Today good luck getting one repaired! My $2,600USD USO scope can be replaced/repaired, my No 32 can't!

In 1987 I was shooting a "sniper match" with my Savage #4MkI "T" ser. OC5901.
Rifle had a R.E.L. #32 MkI scope on it. I was cleaning the clocks on all the "new" rifles. and then "it" happened. The erector lens broke free killing the scope. So I killed a rare scope because I was young and dumb. I didn't get the scope fixed till 2004. If you can find a R.E.L. #32 you'll pay $2,500USD+ for one needing a rebuild.

I still shoot my T's in match's. But I use my Kershaw #32, any rare birds might be fired with light loads. It's not worth killing a scope that two people can still rebuild.

Heck, I've put 10x SS on a few. 10x is a great improvement over the old 4x.

Vintage snipers, they ain't making them anymore.

 

[Graham]

Re: Old Vs. New and Why?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: houghtonSurvival</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Hey, so after being on the forum a while I would like to see what the impression you all have concerning old (read vintage) versus new rifles.
Personally, I lean towards the vintage type. It seems they are like cars, the new ones are built like shit and the old ones, well, are not.
I might be biased though because I prefer the power of the milsurp stuff...
Anyhow, what do YOU think? </div></div>Older is not better. They are not like cars - well, in a way they are because new cars are much more reliable and more powerful - and the many improvements in ammunition and optics are very real.

 

[plastikosmd]

Re: Old Vs. New and Why?

I would say not 'always' better. I doubt some of my modern rifles will be competing at the same level as some of my 'antiques.' Who doesnt like pictures? Civil War era gun (was told it was built for as a sniper, dunno about that as it seems nice for a field gun. Since I can't verify this, I hesitate to call it a 'sniper rifle.' IF it was, it can shoot. It still took first at camp perry 600 yard match in the 1950s (it is already almost 100 yrs old at that point),(47-3 61" string) note the 10 shot group at 100 yrds by the prior owner.
It shouldn't be about better or worse, just what you like to shoot. It is all fun, even a precision muzzleloader

 

[okiefired]

Re: Old Vs. New and Why?

OK, I'm gonna go waaaaaaaaaaaay out on a limb here and say...for putting more rounds down range on target with better terminal balistics....modern rifles are better. Flame suit on?? Cant believe there is a possibility I might actually need it. Come on people, catch up.

okie

 

[plastikosmd]

Re: Old Vs. New and Why?

I guess it is up to what is better. I sure as heck am not gonna win a speed match with the muzzleloader that I have shown. The glass I prefer on my older guns are heavy unertl programmers, mitchells, balvar's etc. They weill not stand the abuse that modern scopes can take. Terminal balistics, not sure what to make of that, trajectory/energy/? I just try and hit what I am aiming at. No flame suit needed here!

 

[kortik]

Re: Old Vs. New and Why?

There is an interesting technical aspect related to metal parts made many years ago - they are nearly free of internal stresses caused by various metal forming and heat treatment methods (residual stresses) In some cases, it may contribute to relatively high accuracy and consistency of the vintage rifles, assuming, if course, that they are in good shape in general.

 

[ArcticLight]

Re: Old Vs. New and Why?

If you took an off the shelf Remington rifle and an off the shelf 03A3 I'd put hands down on teh 03A3 at 1000 yards.

If you accurize and make your new cutting edge technology weapon better, do the same to the vintage and hey - it'll still outperform it.

I don't know if they cryo treated actions in the 40's but I do know they cryo'd aircraft parts...

Basra hit a lot on the head though, wood stocks are hard to replace but if they were not we would not be so concerned about them....

On the ot her hand you can get a replica wood stock for a LOT cheaper than a fibreglass stock!

But it is what it is, a 2012 Mustang will never be a 65 Mustang.

New technology can make for better accuracy, if you implement it.

But compare apples to apples, an off the shelf mil-spec rifle has no accurizing done to it.

 

[Greg Langelius *]

Re: Old Vs. New and Why?

I choose my firearms based on how well the particular piece does a job I think needs doing.

For most precision performance tasks, the modern rifle does the job better.

For others, well; only a Garand is really any good at being a Garand.

For a cheap semi shooting cheap ammo, I like the SKS.

For hunting the woods, I like a lever gun shooting .44Mag.

Simple tools suited for specific tasks that demonstrate their best attributes.

Heritage firearms don't serve any specific needs of mine, and if I'm not going to shoot it, I really don't think it's something I can afford to own.

Like all rules mine have exceptions too; like my Garand. I don't really think I have a logical reason for owning a Garand, I just do.

Greg

 

[kraigWY]

Re: Old Vs. New and Why?

One is not better then the other, they are different.

The DCM started this, the CMP and took it to a new level. Started by Teddy Roosevelt, the DCM was task to provide marksmanship training using military rifles to civilians. They sold surplus arms and ammunition to US Citizens. The '68 GCA slowed it down. Under DCM you were allowed a once in a life time chance to buy an M1. The DCM was run by the Army, was under funded, under staffed.

Come 1996, CMP was tasked to run the program. Run by civilians and recieve no funding from the tax payers, all the funding for CMP programs comes from the sales of surplus rifles and ammo.

The army turns this surplus over to the CMP who pays the cost of the transfer, repair, etc. Limits have changed, for example, in stead of one gun per life time you're limited to 12 M1s per year.

We can all take a Marketing lesson from the CMP, they have guns for sale, so they provide training and start special matches for Vintage MIlitary Rifles. That increased the sales of not only CMP rifles but other surplus rifles as well. Look at the Mosins, I'm convinced, besides the cheap prices, the abiltiy to have a rifle match where they are competitive, has help their sales.

A good example is the Vintage Sniper Rifle. Two years ago there wasn't really a market (except for hard core collectors) for vintage sniper rifles. With the craze of "SNIPING" thats poped up the last 10 years or so (look at all the Sniper Forums on the internet). So the CMP starts the VINTAGE SNIPER MATCHES. Now everyone and their dog is scrounging to get these systems. Not becaus they're better then the M21/24/40s, but they now have their own match.

Where else can you Mosin compete and be competititve? Where else can a guy with limited funds pay $100 and get into competition?

Its the CMP GSM (Garand, Springfield, Military Vintage rifles) program thats causing these surplus rifles to have a come back.

Now for a little look into the future. Many people like SKS, AKs etc. They are still reasonably price. Look for that to change. There is going to be a run on these rifles, and not because of the fears of zombie attacks, its because the CMP GSM program is starting a MODERN MILITARY Rifle Program. It's in the 2011 CMP Rule book and GSM Clinics are starting to include these rifles.

Vintage Military Rifles arn not better then modern rifles, nor are they worse, they are different. Just like pistols arn't better then rifles or rifles better then pistols.

Each have their place, each has their following. The vintage rifle following is growing faster then CMP can keep up. Look at the Vintage Sniper Rifle Program. When if first started you could compete with any Vintage rifle, it didn't have to be a sniper rifle. M1s with iron sights could compete with M1C/Ds. That's change. Irons sights are only allowed to sign up AFTER ALL SNIPER RIFLES have signed up, and there are firing points left.

Another item to look at. Period equipment. Notince when these Sniper Forums took off, so did equipment supporting sniping, gillie suits and such. The same thing is happening in GSM shooting. CMP enchourages period equipment be used/worn at these matches. M1 Cartrige belts, uniforms, bayonets (on the belt, not the rifle), campaine hats, etc. I see this expanding.

Prices for WWII surplus equipment is going to sky rocket as this catches on.

Yes its a different program, not for everyone, but its growing by leaps and bounds.

Just wait until you see people showing up at special multi-gun matches with a Mosin and Nagant pistol (actually I've done that).

 

[okiefired]

Re: Old Vs. New and Why?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: plastikosmd</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I guess it is up to what is better. I sure as heck am not gonna win a speed match with the muzzleloader that I have shown. The glass I prefer on my older guns are heavy unertl programmers, mitchells, balvar's etc. They weill not stand the abuse that modern scopes can take. Terminal balistics, not sure what to make of that, trajectory/energy/? I just try and hit what I am aiming at. No flame suit needed here! </div></div>

My whole previous post was ment tongue in cheek, thus the little smiley winky thingy at the end, sorry you missed it. As far as terminal balistics goes, google it, you'll get a lot of hits. I guess some people call it stopping power. I mentioned it because I think a lot of what makes modern guns perform better is modern ammunition, bullet design and powders. I'll admit in my first post I really wasn't thinking of WWII rifles as "vintage" because they operate pretty much the same and use the same type ammo as new rifles, my bad.

I dont think the old car new car comparison is a good one at all. Cars are made for basically one thig, get from point A to point B, the manner in which you want to do it is the difference. Now I'm pushin 50 so I'm pretty much an old geezer on here and I spent a lot of my youth road racin the old muscle cars and they were fast IN THOSE DAYS but compared to modern cars, they're fat pigs. There is absolutly nothing an old big block Mustang will do as well let alone better than a 2012 GT. Sure they'll both run from Dallas to Little Rock just fine but the old wont do it near as fast, cofortably, efficiently or reliably. Sorry old timers, thats just the way it is. Well, maybe its a better comparison than I thought.

okie

 

[Pvt.Joker]

Re: Old Vs. New and Why?

Old, for me.

Why?


Because I like them. Wood, and Steel, and history. Plus, it's a challenge to shoot well with the limited technology of the various eras- WWII, Korea, Vietnam. The new stuff IS more high tech, and for our troops who are currently fighting overseas, I only want the best for them. But as for myself, I still just can't help but feel that for ME, a "real rifle" is wood and blued steel. And then there's THE most important reason of all:

Because every time I buy another gun, Chuck Schumer's horns and tail start to itch and burn, and he doesn't know why...

 

[plastikosmd]

Re: Old Vs. New and Why?

amen, now go buy another

 

[ES1000]

Re: Old Vs. New and Why?

Its definately a matter of personal taste. I especially appreciate the nostalgia that goes along with older rifles. Who used it in what famous battle, the history behind the company who made the rifle that you would have never thought made rifles, singer, for instance. Would I trade my 700 for a smelly when deploying, no.
But it does give some of us a look back on a simpler time in America.

 

[okiefired]

Re: Old Vs. New and Why?

Ok, I've got a half a safe full of "vintage" WWII type rifles. I luv 'em. Several are very accurate, all are dead nutts reliable and I really enjoy shooting them and all of them will knock a deers dick in the dirt. BUT...new stuff gets it done better. New rifles have better barrels, stocks, triggers, better optics and mounting systems. Its not just a matter of personal taste. There's a reason why you dont see any Garands or 03A3's in the sand right now. They're OBSOLETE... as will be, all the cars we drive and rifles we shoot now.. in 60 years.

okie

 

[kraigWY]

Re: Old Vs. New and Why?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">There's a reason why you dont see any Garands or 03A3's in the sand right now. They're OBSOLETE...</div></div>

And there is a reason you don't see me in the sand right now, I'm old and obsolete.

I love my vintage rifles, but if I was going to go back in time, back to SE Asia, I wouldn't take my Garand, Enfields, etc, but I would have no qualms in taking a M16a1.

Mosin's are a bit differant, I faced them in SE Asia just as people in the "sand" are facing them. Old as they are, you have to respect them, they will get you now just like they got Germans in WWI & II.

At 300 or so yards I was more afraid of a little guy with a Mosin then a little guy with an AK.

Not saying I would pick a Mosin to carry in combat, but I'll respect Bandits with Mosins.

Another advantage of the Vintage Military Rifles, they are shot at 200 yards, where as the AR Service rifles in HP are shot at 600. Old guys like me don't have to walk as far to the pits.

 

[VJJPunisher]

Re: Old Vs. New and Why?

there's nothing like stroking down and oiling up real wood, those plastic ones nowadays just dont do the trick like a stiff piece of wood............

 

[burgessb]

Re: Old Vs. New and Why?

i agree with some of the previous statements. its really apples and oranges.

for fun and alot of nostalgia. i love my 1917 enfield, 1903 springfield, m1 garand, m44 carbine. they were born from a different era. a time when u threw big bullets at guys that u wanted to kill.

my new rifles are precision tools that can outshoot any of my vintage battle rifles.

but the oldies are hard to beat if u want a big smile on ur face. not to mention the cool factor of wondering where they have been and what damage they might have inflicted