If given a choice between a surplus rifle and a modern hunting rifle?

Question

Which would you choose? Let's assume a few things:

1) The rifle is supposed to be for hunting medium and/or big game, at least the size of a large coyote, but primarily deer.

2) The cost of the surplus rifle is comparable to the alternative hunting rifle. Let's assume we're talking about an M1903 Springfield versus, say, a Remington Model 700 CDL. Or, you can use other options if you so desire, but cost shouldn't play into your answer unless you can give a good reason why it does.

3) Your primary interest in the rifle is not necessarily its historical significance. Again, if you can justify why it should, you're welcome to include that.

4) For the sake of argument, you can only afford one of the two rifles, and it must serve as your primary big game rifle.

Basically, I'm looking to see your opinion of surplus military rifles as compared to modern hunting rifles. Repeatedly, we have people asking about buying a surplus rifle for hunting. It's not a horrible idea, but I would like to get some alternate opinions about the overall suitability of surplus rifles as a primary hunting rifle.

Maybe this will also be some welcome respite from the trolls...

Answer 1

Depends on how much customization we are talking.



If it's an action to give to a gunsmith to add a barrel and stock of my desire, then I'd choose a surplus Mauser action above most other available actions.



If we are talking a 1903 in all matching numbers in collectors condition worth $2000 or a $2000 weatherby rifle, if HUNTING is the mission then clearly the weatherby.



However if we are talking a super-economy rifle like say the Remington 710 vs a surplus mauser, I'd take the old mauser.

Answer 2

Well if the 1903 has not been sporterized for hunting already it's a simple choice i.e. the Remington 700 hands down. Costs of the work needed to turn the 1903 in to a field ready hunting rifle not considered there is the assumption that you'd want a rifle with a decent trigger, set up for mounting a scope and having the bolt handle already in the appropriate location none of which a 1903 normally comes with.



Most of the regulars here know I like to tinker with old military rifles BUT in the senario you set forth again for me at least the obvious answer is the Remington because it's ready to roll straight off the show room floor.

Answer 3

It's hard to imagine, but hunting rifles are actually better as hunting rifles.

That isn't to say some of those old military rifles can't hunt, but they're not optimized for it, and it often takes a good deal of work to "sporterize" them enough to make them suitable.

Answer 4

If it's primary purpose is hunting then I'd buy a hunting rifle. I have enough Milsurps as it is, a few sportized (not bubba'd) for hunting. They are adequate and get the job done. Hunting rifles are mission built for the job, not having to be altered in order to do it like a sporter milsurp.



Milsurps and Hunting rifles can both do the job, the hunting rifle just does it better, easier, lighter, more ergo and more accurately.

Answer 5

Assuming comparable designs, I would take the modern hunting rifle.



Modern hunting rifles, in general, have the advantage of :

1. Better steels, better composite, better materials in general

2. Better machinery, better tolerances, improved designs

3. More "bang for the buck", in that both are built to a price point, but typically, military rifles were built with a higher profit margin to offset R&D costs.



Again, those are very broad generalities, and not always true, depending on the design, but very often true.



Simple fact is that firearms get a little better every year, overall, and that trend has been true for many decades. Some lament the change in "quality" of old guns compared to new, but often times inefficiency and forgetting the historical cost are confused with "quality"

Answer 6

Obviously if you are hunting with a rifle, you would want a hunting rifle.

Answer 7

For hunting ?... a modern rifle...no question....better materials, better ergonomics and way more practical. However, if I wanted a gun for protection and reliability, I also, would choose a milsurp FAL.....as I have hit the 300 meter targets...open sights...on a few occasions. Good enough for me.

Answer 8

Flip a coin.

Answer 9

So your choices are a rifle that is already what you need versus one that isn't and you're putting both of them at the same price? You really needed to ask this question?



Sign me up for a Carcano.

Answer 10

It has been said that a true warrior has no preferred weapon.

Given a choice my final answer is Uma Therman.:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-czwy-aVbbU



HA, just kidding.

Seriously, let's look at the facts.

More deer have been taken in USA over the last 500 years with a 30/30 than with all the fancy stuff available nowadays.

One doesn't need fancy optics to take down a deer, in fact, in Ohio and Kentucky these days more deer are taken with arrows than with bullets and the range for most good clean kills is about 20 yards.



So what sort of rifle is good for big game at 20 yards? Obviously it doesn't matter.

Theoretically one could buy a rifle from Walmart and do just as well in the woods with whatever that is as anyone with a superior rifle.

What makes all the difference is the knowledge you bring.



Personally I love "old" war surplus historic stuff but have never been able to afford a 30.06 Garand.

You mentioned the 1903 Springfield. Both of those are heavy to lug up and down hills but they are very fine rifles. Modern rifles are easier to carry over hill and dale, they cost less and are easier to maintain and you don't have to worry about banging them up because it's not a cherished historical possession but basically it's a disposable gun, meaning how many tanks of gas did that Remington 700 cost? I'm guessing the average American spends way more on gasoline in 6 months than any decent rifle would cost and to stretch the allusion just a little farther I'm guessing fans of Starbucks probably could buy a very good rifle every year for what they pay for coffee.



Heck, unless one lives in Wyoming and needs to have a rifle capable of making a good shot at 300 yards, let's be real here; the rifle doesn't matter, the optics don't matter, what matters is what your brain brings to the scene. Iron sights worked just fine before lasers were invented. Jed Clampett put meat on the table with some ancient shotgun because he knew what he was doing.



So, since Uma never calls me, my final answer is buy any rifle, slightly used from a gun show, learn how to use it and everything will be just fine.

Answer 11

buy a M-1 Garand, 8 shots, deadly accurate, limited recoil, accurate at ranges well over 500 yds. the Garands I've had have handled every load I've ever ran through them from the .22 accelerators to 180 gr. loads

Answer 12

If you asking about an 03A3 as used armies untouched. It is a collectors rifle do not mess with it, How ever if it has been sporterized and a good clean job. It could be a great hunting rifle. If it looks and works poorly why bother. You will never like any gun that we tell you to buy. Look at quality, fit and finish, smooth action, are you and the rifle a good fit as far as comfort and weight. A rifle is an investment you may have for the rest of your life. Pick one that you will enjoy. If you can not afford it start a saving account.

Answer 13

Once I spent $150 total on a VZ-24 (M98) with a rotted barrel, a mailorder replacement barrel which turned out to be a 243 instead of the 270 I had ordered and I used anyway to see what all the 6mm furor would amount to, a Taiwan copy of a Timney adj trigger, and a junkbox Bushnell scope which turned out as good as needed in the real world, original military stock because I could not choose between the hot replacement offerings, I bedded the action and full-floated the barrel, and I was amazed at the 400 yard tackdriver surgical 100% performance on deer if I used Nosler Partition bullets! After crooks passed by the hoary old NEW TARGET 243 in favor of anything with fence value, I never got another rifle as I did not actually need one. Even after a serious back injury, I had no problem still shooting the almost recoilless 243. A WIN!

Answer 14

I didn't have to read past number 1. If you need a rifle for hunting, a modern hunting rifle with modern optics is the only way to go.



Rules of thumb:

If your primary reason is to collect, then get a surplus rifle. If it is to hunting, then get a hunting rifle.



Reasons not to buy a surplus rifle for hunting are that surplus rifles are:

1. Used and generally not in pristine condition (and if they are in excellent condition you don't want to lose it's value by taking it out in the field to hunt.)

2. Are, at best, only battlefield accurate, and that's when they came off the factory line.

3. Heavier than a modern rifle

4. Generally not designed to mount optics.

5. Come with no warranty or customer service.

Answer 15

It depends on the surplus military rifle. I would take the Remington Model 700. I would take the FN FAL over the Remington Model 700 though if I had a choice.