Guns Like firearms themselves, there’s a wide variety of opinions on what’s the best gun.

Which WW2 Surplus Rifle?

Reply

Old 03-08-2014, 07:45 AM
  #1  
Spike
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Michigan
Posts: 80
Default Which WW2 Surplus Rifle?

I'm debating purchasing a WW2 surplus rifle to target shoot. I'm only looking to spend a few hundred dollars because I'm also doing an AR build, so unfortunately an M1 Garand, Springfield 1903, or a nice German Mauser are out. The three rifles I was looking into are the Mosin Nagant M91, Arisaka type 99, and the Italian Carcano. At this point I am leaning towards the Mosin Nagant because there are plenty to choose from and there is actually ammo on the shelves in my area. Any advice on these rifles? What do I look for in a good surplus rifle?

Last edited by TheDudeAbides; 03-08-2014 at 11:48 AM.
TheDudeAbides is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-2014, 01:54 PM
  #2  
Fork Horn
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 109
Default

These can be very nice shooters, 24/47 yugo 98 mauser. 260 $
http://www.jgsales.com/yugo-mauser-2....-p-59306.html
bpd1982 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-2014, 03:08 PM
  #3  
Nontypical Buck
 
Nomercy448's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Kansas
Posts: 3,373
Default

My thoughts on surplus rifles:
  • A "couple hundred bucks" and the ammo cost to feed it will mean a few hundred, or more, bucks spent. Feeding another "mouth" in the house will mean a continual/sustained additional cost.
  • AR builds have become less affordable in recent years, but even still, $200-400 you'll spend on a Mosin and ammo to feed it would go a long ways (build your complete lower for that).
  • You get what you pay for when you go looking for a wife in a house of ill-repute.

So my 100% no-spin advice would be to skip the surplus rifle and put the money to that AR-build.

If it's just a toy and you're looking to waste a lil money, then get the Mosin (because you'll be able to find ammo for it easier than the others) and knock yourself out. Tons of guys buy them (been through a few myself), tons of guys realize they wasted their money on them. It's kinda like buying a 1992 F-150 with 250k miles on it, just because you can get it for $500, you don't really end up getting much out of it before you realize it seemed better at the time than it really is.
Nomercy448 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-08-2014, 06:20 PM
  #4  
Nontypical Buck
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: WY
Posts: 2,043
Default

Originally Posted by Nomercy448 View Post
So my 100% no-spin advice would be to skip the surplus rifle and put the money to that AR-build.
And there you have it. +1

The only surplus WWII rifles I'd consider owning are the Mauser, the 1903A3, and the Garand.
homers brother is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2014, 05:43 AM
  #5  
Giant Nontypical
 
flags's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: CO Born but working in Athens, TX for now.
Posts: 7,681
Default

If I was going to get a WWII rifle it would be the .30 carbine.
flags is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2014, 07:03 AM
  #6  
Spike
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Michigan
Posts: 80
Default

Thanks, I think I will just put that money towards my AR build. I'm just getting impatient since AR parts are so expensive/hard to find lately. I just hope that nagants don't triple in price in the next few years and I didn't buy one when I should've. Flags, I agree the M1 carbine is on my wish list too.
TheDudeAbides is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2014, 10:27 AM
  #7  
Nontypical Buck
 
Nomercy448's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Kansas
Posts: 3,373
Default

Originally Posted by TheDudeAbides View Post
I just hope that nagants don't triple in price in the next few years and I didn't buy one when I should've.
Why?

The price of a Nissan Versa could quintuple in price and it wouldn't effect me in the least. The price of a Mosin Nagant could skyrocket to $1000 a piece and it wouldn't effect me either. I also don't need a pair of size 7 shoes, for any purpose, nor a cage for a dolphin, nor a hot air balloon.... See the connection??

Do you NEED a Nagant? No matter what the price might be, why SHOULD you buy one, ever? You're not missing out.
Nomercy448 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2014, 11:55 AM
  #8  
Spike
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: Michigan
Posts: 80
Default

I understand what your saying Nomercy, but I was thinking in terms of an investment. I was just thinking it would be nice to pick up for around $200 and sell it down the road for more. My father bought a Ruger 10/22 in 1971 for $41 with tax. $41 in 1971 is around $236 today, good old inflation.
TheDudeAbides is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2014, 01:50 PM
  #9  
Nontypical Buck
 
Nomercy448's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Kansas
Posts: 3,373
Default

Originally Posted by TheDudeAbides View Post
I understand what your saying Nomercy, but I was thinking in terms of an investment. I was just thinking it would be nice to pick up for around $200 and sell it down the road for more. My father bought a Ruger 10/22 in 1971 for $41 with tax. $41 in 1971 is around $236 today, good old inflation.
Do not confuse inflation with valuation.

You ain't gonna sell that 1971 Ruger 10/22 for $236 today, not when you can still buy a NEW one for that price. $41 in 1971 has inflated to $236, but that doesn't mean a rifle that cost $41 in 1971 is WORTH that much ($236) in 2014.

Minimum wage in '71 was $1.45 (then $1.60). So the reality is that someone had to work a non-taxed ~29hrs to buy it. Fast forward to 2014, minimum wage is $7.25, that's 5x. A $235 10/22 "value" is 32hrs worked... THAT'S how inflation works. It doesn't mean anything in terms of valuation of a depreciable asset, especially one that's still in production.

For that 10/22 to have GAINED VALUE, it would have to be sellable for MORE than $236 today. Which ain't gonna happen for a 40yr old 10/22. Sure, the SALE PRICE will have raised, and you could sell that 10/22 for $100-150, but selling that for anything less than $236 would be losing money. (Seems counterintuitive, since $236 is a lot more than $41, but that's the EQUIVALENT VALUE, not a gain in real value).

The Nagants don't have anything going for them that makes them an investment item. They aren't particularly worth ANYTHING today, and aren't unique nor special as a collectors investment. They don't have value as a conversion item (as in rebuilding mausers for precision compeitition). Nagant's might cost $400 in the future as inflation continues, but in that same era, a Remington 700 will cost $2000, minimum wage will be $15, and a quarter-pounder meal at McDonalds will cost you $15. When Nagant surplus inventories dry up, they'll raise in price for a while because a foolish superficial demand exists, but then it'll come back down. Kinda like when the import embargo passed several years ago ceasing SKS's flowing into the country and the prices doubled overnight, and now they're back down. Frankly, Norinco and Russian SKS's were worth $250 10-15yrs ago, and you can buy them for that again now, so considering inflation, they're WORTH less today than they were 15yrs ago, at the same price (remembering minimum wage somewhere in the $4.85-5.15 range then, and $7.25 today).

Long story short: A run of the mill Mosin Nagant will never be an investment.

Last edited by Nomercy448; 03-09-2014 at 03:33 PM.
Nomercy448 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 03-09-2014, 02:29 PM
  #10  
Typical Buck
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 749
Default

why would anyone buy a used 10/22 for $238 when you can buy a new one for $250. as far as a surplus we2 rifle I like the mauser 98 and the garand. have both really nice guns.

Last edited by Bbj270; 03-09-2014 at 02:43 PM.
Bbj270 is offline  
Reply With Quote

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service