Historical Value

[Jimro]

You know history means different things to different people. For example the hippies (granola eating northwest variety) had no problem wearing milsurp clothing even though it might have been used by some brainwashed baby killing service man at some point.

 

The history of WWII is well documented. But the history of the individual rifles has often been lost save for "Russian Capture" or remarked by Yugoslavia or redone by Israel.

 

So what is the historical value of a Mosin Nagant or k98? How do we quantify it into meaningful terms?

 

A single battleship holds more tangible history to me than an old rifle. Don't get me wrong, I love old rifles and I know if some of them could talk the stories they tell would entrance me for hours.

 

But they aren't storytellers. They are tools that I use for my enjoyment. And any modifications that I make become part of that rifles history as sure as WWII.

 

So if someone devalues their possession to make it more personal, I'm ok with that. Jack O'Connor had two custom 1903 Springfields, both with Sukail barrels. One in 270 just like his famous pre-64 Winchester m70, and the other in 30-06. To me the history of the civilian owner and his impact on the shooting sports is every bit as important as the service of the 1903 from WWII through Vietnam.

 

Jimro

[J.B]

To alter a rifle from WWII from its military condition to a hunting rifle IS not historical. I have a rule with sportering rifles, if it was not in use by a military during a war(like an all matching K98k which would be absolutely stupid to sport anyway as you are losing ALOT of money on it, Arisaka, or other rifles that were used during this period), I wont sport it, but if its already sported or just a plain bubba gun abortion, I will finish the job or if it was a complete refurb(like one of the mosins they are importing nowadays which are basically frankenguns that are refinished and dont hold much history anymore unless you count their 60 year long cosmoline bath). To see them as just tools that have no history is wrong, they all have history to them(unless refurbed like the mosins or already sported) and are all memories of a time that has passed us by. To look at a vet capture gun and say its just a tool and not a piece of history and can be messed with isnt right. I have no control over what anybody does and its their rifles to sport, but it looses its collector value and is screwing with their history, sporting should never be considered apart of the rifles history as sporting is ruining the history, and the rifles are not infinite in number(unlike the mosins that are imported today, I could care less if one of them was sported as I have plenty to choose from), I have seen some sporters that were sported because the seller thought it would increase value, I had to drive 60 miles to get an original arisaka that the owner bubbaed on my way up there, lets just say I wasnt happy about driving 60 miles for nothing.

 

I already have money ready for an M48(these things have no history) and I plan on sporting it just to have fun.

 

As to the 1903s, alot of them were made just for deer rifle actions, not for military actions, I never get tired of seeing sportered 1903s as they are all unique. Alot were sported back in the day where you could get one for a few bucks and if you sported it, the rifle would end up earning you money.

[AzRednek]

So what is the historical value of a Mosin Nagant or k98? How do we quantify it into meaningful terms?

 

My rule of thumb is by asking if it has something unique or different that a collector would likely pay a price over and above the going price during my lifetime. If it is all about dollars and return on your investment it is the historical value that will get the highest return 50 years from now.

 

The K98 is a classic example. Probably the most produced and common, the WW2 Nazi marked K98 is among the most valuable to collectors today in original condition. For the guy in the 1950's that put his sweat and blood into a K98 sporter project he took from a soldier he killed. It is just like they say in the TV commercial, priceless.

 

[Jimro]

To alter a rifle from WWII from its military condition to a hunting rifle IS not historical.

 

Why? And would it be ok to alter it to another configuration? Such as reworking a Gew98 into a k98? Or a k98 into a sniper variant?

 

What exactly is the historical value of an untouched specimen? It has already been brought up that collectors will pay more in the future for certain models, but that is a monetary value, such as any commodity.

 

But a doubloon isn't just any other gold coin, it has a value intrinsic to the gold it was cast from, but also the romance of pirates and conquistadors.

 

Is the history of a rifle so romantic in our common imagination that it somehow becomes worth more?

 

Jimro

[J.B]

Why? And would it be ok to alter it to another configuration? Such as reworking a Gew98 into a k98? Or a k98 into a sniper variant?

 

What exactly is the historical value of an untouched specimen? It has already been brought up that collectors will pay more in the future for certain models, but that is a monetary value, such as any commodity.

 

But a doubloon isn't just any other gold coin, it has a value intrinsic to the gold it was cast from, but also the romance of pirates and conquistadors.

 

Is the history of a rifle so romantic in our common imagination that it somehow becomes worth more?

 

Jimro

 

A G98 made into a K98k is no longer a G98, but is still a german military mauser, as soon as it is sported it is no longer a German military mauser, but some hunting mauser, which they were never meant to be. Sporters are historic in their own right, but not military historic, there is nothing wrong with a vet sporting his rifle when he gets home, if it werent for him the rifle wouldnt even be in the US. If someone were to sport my Grandpas K98k and call it historic, it would be the biggest insult to him ever, it would also be an insult to the man he killed for the rifle.

[sonic1]

they should thank use for cutting them up...only makes theres worth more money....i bought 15 turks for $60.00 each ...

where is the great collector value...where are all the collectors standing in line for these rifles? if someone wants one put your money down and do as you want with it...in a few years the goverment going to take them away any way...then they will for sure be MISSED WITH... just my take on it...

[J.B]

Turks dont have much war history to them, so hack away(I couldve bought one for 50 bucks and it wouldve made a beautiful sporter). But guns like bringback arisakas, mausers, carcanos, vn bringback mosins, and the US milsurps should be left alone(I was told by a guy who hacked an arisaka "its still a jap gun, I just shortened the stock", collectors dont buy just because its a Jap or German, they buy it because its original, and just because its a WWII military rifle action, doesnt mean its WWII anymore, like the droves of mosins coming into the country, I could sport one, but if I got ahold of a non-refurb mosin, I wouldnt dream of sporting it). Sporting is like an art form, but there are some types of guns that should be left alone.

[Jimro]

If someone were to sport my Grandpas K98k and call it historic, it would be the biggest insult to him ever, it would also be an insult to the man he killed for the rifle.

 

That is exactly my point, the history of that rifle is personal to you and your family. The story is there, the memories are linked across generations. That is exactly what I would call historical value. The same way we hold onto any heirloom and cherish it for it's connection to our past.

 

But a Russian capture k98? Sure the individual rifle has a story, but it can't tell that story to you. All we know is "I was built in Germany in such a year, possibly fought in WWII on the Eastern Front and was captured at some point, counterbored at some point, re-arsenaled badly at some point by the soviets". The personal touch isn't there.

 

I think that is why folks have been buying up K31's and looking for the slip of paper under the buttstock that has the name of the soldier who carried it, it makes personal connections. The WWII era rifle that never got used doesn't have much history to it, but the stories of the person who carried does and it has the automatic identification with the original "Nation of Riflemen".

 

To me the simple monetary collectors value isn't enough of a reason to condemn sporterizing, sure the rifles have history, but if it doesn't have personal history then it's just another hunk of metal and wood.

 

Example, my Dad bought a barreled Mauser action years ago as a project. He fitted the stock, my mother used her tip money from waitressing to have the metal finished, I finished the stock and installed an aftermarket trigger. The rifle turned out very nice, but in the end it was more about how we interacted over the twenty odd years it took to complete the rifle than the country of origin of the action.

 

Jimro

 

 

[AzRednek]

QUOTE (J.B @ Feb 7 2008, 02:03 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Turks dont have much war history to them,

 

Read the history of the Ottoman Empire, there is indeed plenty of history behind them. I'm not saying not to do as you please with your property. The Turk rifles just like the South American Mausers, if they could only speak, they could tell some interesting tales. The Turks like the South Americans were constantly dealing with revolts and minor skirmishes. The Turks were also on the wrong side during WW1. To the best of my knowledge the Turks never battled USA troops but did fight France, UK, and Australia during WW1.

 

I bought some Turks when they were cheap. Even though it wont be worth much. I have chosen a really nice one that will remain in original military configuration. The stock is almost pristine, likely a replacement and it appears to have been re-barreled as it has a bright and shiny bore. Chances are good it saw combat prior to being rebuilt. It wont get any big bucks for it's historical value during my lifetime. The others will eventually become projects if I ever get my current projects completed.

 

Have you ever seen Lawrence of Arabia, one of my all time favorite movies and based on a true story?? It deals with the downfall of the Ottoman Empire. Turkey was a strong ally of the USA during the cold war and likely the only true Islamic ally we currently have.

[J.B]

True, I forgot about the ottoman empire, but there is a world of difference between an original rifle and a refurb, question for you guys, would you ever sport an original arisaka, matching mauser, or a non refurb mosin?

[AzRednek]

QUOTE (J.B @ Feb 7 2008, 04:23 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

True, I forgot about the ottoman empire, but there is a world of difference between an original rifle and a refurb, question for you guys, would you ever sport an original arisaka, matching mauser, or a non refurb mosin?

 

Arisaka no, Mauser maybe, Mosin yes. The Arisaka and matching Mauser I would consider as trading goods. If the Mauser currently has collector's value I would look to trade or sell before cutting it. I really have no interest in Nagant rifles and I would not put the effort or money into sporting one unless I could turn it for a profit.

[Doble Troble]

Great question, Jimro!

 

And impossible to answer in a general sense.

 

I've got some rifles that I bought specifically to use as sporter fodder. For one reason or another they "spoke" to me, either through condition, some interesting feature, or just by being a really accurate rifle in unmodified form - it would be a sin for me to alter them.

 

Now if I were to sell them to you, and they didn't "speak" to you and you made something from them (hopefully that would speak to you) then I'm off the hook.

 

Now if you were to offer me a reasonable sum for the rifles, and I knew that you were 1) going to try to modify them and; 2) were incompetent and not able to make something good and useful from them, then it might be a sin for me to sell them to you.

 

If you were to offer me WAY more than I felt they were worth and I knew that you intended to modify them and weren't competent, then we'd have a dammed grey area.

[J.B]

Arisaka no, Mauser maybe, Mosin yes. The Arisaka and matching Mauser I would consider as trading goods. If the Mauser currently has collector's value I would look to trade or sell before cutting it. I really have no interest in Nagant rifles and I would not put the effort or money into sporting one unless I could turn it for a profit.

 

What if it was an all original WWII vet bringback mosin(there were a few vets lucky enough to get mosins from russian soldiers, I talked to a vet who brought one back but later sold it, but it had papers which the vet still had).

 

What the purists dont realize is that it isnt going to hurt any history by sporting a turk, they made millions, and plus, its your second ammendment right to sport a rifle.

[FC]

There are few firearms worth cherishing based on so-called historical value. The glorification of war is stupid.

[ken98k]

Let’s put this into perspective.

 

Paul Mauser's personal 1893 would undoubtedly have significant historical value.

 

Herman Goering’s personal kar98k may have collector value.

 

Your grandfather’s war souvenir probably has sentimental value to you, but to most gunsmithing enthusiast, is fair game for sporterizing. (Along with the other 12 or 13 million m98s)

 

Collector value rises and falls based on supply and demand. (mostly rises since they're no longer being made)

 

Kenny

[J.B]

It would be crazy to sport an all matching K98k like my grandpas, because you would loose so much money in it(an all matched K98k would go for double what the nicest sporter around would go for). I am still a collecting purist to some rifles, including any unaltered or unrefurbished WWII or WWI rifle. But any K31, turk, refurb mosin, or yugo mausers I wouldnt raise any fuss over, infact I am currently looking around for a M48 for me and my dad to sport so we can have something to do.

[Doble Troble]

The glorification of war is stupid.

 

This is entirely true, and I completely agree.

 

I think there's another issue though - history. I think that the glorification of history can also be stupid, but the denial of history can be down-right evil. For this reason alone it's important to preserve history, at least to some extent.

 

Current attempts to downplay the significance of Nazi Germany's murder of millions of innocent fellow Germans, Poles, Russians and others is particularly chilling. I think its a good idea to keep death's head Mausers intact as an important reminder of what really happened.

 

Although it's important to preserve history to some extent, I have no idea about what the boundries should be - this discussion is helping though.

[ken98k]

There are few firearms worth cherishing based on so-called historical value. The glorification of war is stupid.

"It would be crazy to sport an all matching K98k like my grandpas, because you would loose so much money in it(an all matched K98k would go for double what the nicest sporter around would go for). I am still a collecting purist to some rifles, including any unaltered or unrefurbished WWII or WWI rifle. But any K31, turk, refurb mosin, or yugo mausers I wouldnt raise any fuss over, infact I am currently looking around for a M48 for me and my dad to sport so we can have something to do."

 

I'm with FC (and many others) on this. I don't see anything wrong with turning a filthy implement of war, into a useful, maybe even beautilful sporting arm.

Millions of these were assembled by slave labor for the most murderous regimes in history. Yes I feel good about Hacking them up.

Not quite turning swords into plowshears but it's usually an improvement.

 

Kenny

[Horsefly]

Some master rifle builders take the very best,all matching Mausers they can find that are worth $800.00 to some collector,and build them into sporters that bring $4,000.00 on Gunbroker.Go there and look at the prices of some of those rifles.It's crazy for a cat to butcher a rifle worth a grand,when it could be sold and more guns could be bought,but the dude is really trying hard to build the gun he wants and wouldn't butcher it if he didn't have goals of a good outcome.Tony said it all in just 6 words!!! Jerry

[J.B]

[/color]

"It would be crazy to sport an all matching K98k like my grandpas, because you would loose so much money in it(an all matched K98k would go for double what the nicest sporter around would go for). I am still a collecting purist to some rifles, including any unaltered or unrefurbished WWII or WWI rifle. But any K31, turk, refurb mosin, or yugo mausers I wouldnt raise any fuss over, infact I am currently looking around for a M48 for me and my dad to sport so we can have something to do."

 

I'm with FC (and many others) on this. I don't see anything wrong with turning a filthy implement of war, into a useful, maybe even beautilful sporting arm.

Millions of these were assembled by slave labor for the most murderous regimes in history. Yes I feel good about Hacking them up.

Not quite turning swords into plowshears but it's usually an improvement.

 

Kenny

It is still stupid to take an unaltered piece of history from WWII, and to sport it. Keeping them original isnt glorification of war. You can use a German mauser for hunting in original condition, I have used an arisaka in original condition for hunting. Its not some old rifle made in a small factory and put into a hardware store to be sold to a hunter and sit in a basement or safe for 60+ years, it was in one of the most historical wars ever. How in the world is hacking up a rifle going to bring back some of the people murdered? All WWII rifles have history to them, and hacking them up or refurbing them is just destroying the history.

[Jimro]

Its not some old rifle made in a small factory and put into a hardware store to be sold to a hunter and sit in a basement or safe for 60+ years, it was in one of the most historical wars ever. How in the world is hacking up a rifle going to bring back some of the people murdered? All WWII rifles have history to them, and hacking them up or refurbing them is just destroying the history.

 

What makes one war "more historical" than another?

 

I mean the War for Independence was a pretty historical war, as was the Boer War, and the Winter War. Some would even argue that the American Civil war has more historical importance than WWII.

 

But is the history of any given event somehow locked into the objects of destruction built for that war? Or are they locked in the photographs, letters, campaign documents, and graveyards? To me history is stories, personal connections, and rifles don't seem to convey either of these.

 

Jimro

[Doble Troble]

history is stories, personal connections, and rifles don't seem to convey either of these

 

Sometimes stories and people get lost in translation and time.

 

There was, for a time, a very powerful combination of both - Jews with camp tatoos. I've seen a few, but my boys won't. As they disappear I hope that some irrefutable physical evidence might testify in their absence.

 

Revisionists don't care about truth. In the absence of physical evidence, facts blend to faith, and facts can be dismissed as relative and faith just ain't allowed.

 

I suppose sending Ahmadinejad a WWII German Mauser would be a waste of time (but shooting him with one might be particularly appropriate).

[z1r]

QUOTE (J.B @ Feb 10 2008, 06:25 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It is still stupid to take an unaltered piece of history from WWII, and to sport it. Keeping them original isnt glorification of war. You can use a German mauser for hunting in original condition, I have used an arisaka in original condition for hunting. Its not some old rifle made in a small factory and put into a hardware store to be sold to a hunter and sit in a basement or safe for 60+ years, it was in one of the most historical wars ever. How in the world is hacking up a rifle going to bring back some of the people murdered? All WWII rifles have history to them, and hacking them up or refurbing them is just destroying the history.

 

That's just plain silly. Most wartime guns were produced in such quantity that there is no significant worth to them other than the fact that they were made for the war effort. There are a few which were made in such small numbers as to be considered rare variants and these will fetch a much higher price. These would be the ones that you'd be "foolish" to alter or destroy IF you are concerned about worth.

 

The way I see it it is that even these rare varients didn't fetch much not long ago. It was in fact the altering of these rifles that diminished the number still in original condition. Thus driving up their collector value.

 

I figure it is much better to enjoy a rifle than to let one languish in a closet somewhere.

 

I do admit that I cringe when I see even an ordinary matching number rifle that has been poorly sported, well, unless it was a Spanish mauser.

 

[J.B]

What makes one war "more historical" than another?

 

I mean the War for Independence was a pretty historical war, as was the Boer War, and the Winter War. Some would even argue that the American Civil war has more historical importance than WWII.

 

But is the history of any given event somehow locked into the objects of destruction built for that war? Or are they locked in the photographs, letters, campaign documents, and graveyards? To me history is stories, personal connections, and rifles don't seem to convey either of these.

 

Jimro

 

I didnt say that the other wars werent historical, and would you hack a brown bess from the revolutionary war, it doesnt tell you a story?, a rifle want put on to the battlefield a sporter, and sporting it is just plain ruining all the history that the rifle has. There is nothing nicer than a good arisaka in original condition, a sported one is junk and it is imitating a hunting rifle when infact its not.

[z1r]

That's the most nonsensical thing I've heard.

 

Speaking of Brown Bess's, what do you think the majority of the militia fought with? Hunting rifles, so by your logic, they shouldn't be considered battle rifles?

 

Yeah, I guess this old vz24 needs to be retired since it's not really a hunting rifle.

 

 

As for it's historical value, well, let's just say that if it sat in my closet it wouldn't be making the memories that me, my hunting partner, and my kids will cherish for a long time to come. If that is not history, I don't know what is. It and countless others like it are worth much more now as sporting rifles than they would fetch even as pristine collectibles.

 

And as for collectors, heck, most of them are ruining the value of the so-called historical artifacts they are collecting. Seems like the majority of the posts I see some yahoo is describing how I just refinished the stock and all the numbers match, oh, and by the way, I cold blued it.