Garand historical guardianship

[Fogtripper]

The thing I find funniest is those trying to defend doing as they please with the rifle only to no allow others what they feel is ok. Now that there is some funny sh&t.

Reminds me of those against guns but think drugs are fine cause they say so. Key is most things are fine in moderation but to go full tilt usually ends up badly. Rick B

Not this.

[KnickKnack]

It would seem to me that this simplification is overly absolute or at least, a matter of symantics.

While I suppose I could agree that the root of what you are saying is not false from a pure scientific point, it would be a leap of faith to blindly jump on this bandwagon and agree with the oversimplification.

To what degree of "handling" is intended by the statement? I would interprete the statement to be intended as absolute and therefore infer that the mere physical handling (touching with my hands) to be destructive, even more so by the act of firing. But, in a reality that does not have the burden of symantics, when does the handling produce measurable destruction? If this destruction is not measurable, how can it be professed to be a horrendous act of erosion? If by simply picking up a "brand new" collectible specimen into my hands somehow truely destroys it, then nothing can ever be "brand new" or "collectible" as it would experience some level of handling prior to it ever even becoming a completed assembly. Further, how can a material as soft as human skin apprecibly (measurably) wear something as hard as steel? Even the act of firing high velocity ammunition thru a firearm produces wear that is not measurable until the act is repeated numerous times until you can actually perceive a measurement. Yes, there may be a visual perception of finish wear to parts that move against each other, but how can it be a quantified "destruction?"

Further, does it really have to be as black and white as this?

Just curious. If I'm reading you correctly, you are saying the mere handling of a rifle is not a destructive action. Why then do museum curators wear white cloth gloves when handling artifacts?

[13Fox]

I cannot answer this question with any authority as I am not in the museum business.

My thoughts are that the white gloves are to protect the artifact from the oils and other contaminants of the hands. Again, my thoughts are that handling objects do not produce a quantifiable destruction. Yes, handling an object two billion times will destroy an object from originality. My point is to be realistic, not overdramatic.

I may be wrong.

[cuppednlocked]

These "things" (be them rifles, jewels, hand-me-downs) have an intrinsic value to the owner. Intrinsic value varies from person to person. Some are driven by extrinsic motives. To say one is right and one is wrong is impossible since the value of an object is so different.

Almost everything degrades over time. Hell, I have fossils that are ~10 million years old... they're rocks plain and simple but I place a high value on them since I found them.

The only thing you can do to preserve an item is limit the speed of degradation, not stop it.

[timshufflin]

Another example of destroying by touching, and my favorite, playing cards LOL.

Anyways, I do know for a fact that touching an object degrades it, albeit SLOWLY. My original point is, if we can all agree that we all degrade these rifles, then who are any of us to tell another that the way they degrade is more savage or more noble then the next guy?

I'll admit I'm taking this to the extreme by using handling BUT I am not taking this to the extreme talking about people shooting their Garand or other military rifle. Each shot is a detriment to the rifle and could be the shot that cracks the receiver heel or does other damage. Forget casual wear which simply wears out the barrel, bolt, oprod, receiver, sights...

[axemurderer]

OK so riddle me this We are having this heated discussion about destroying historicle artifacts. Specificly Garands, To believe that every single one is somehow a treasure beyond measure is silly. Is a completely mismatched arsenal rebuild incorrect. Who can say if there were any CORRECT rifles ever. I also understand that some might see a Mimi-G as an abomanation. However I give this example: A few yers ago I purchased a National Match Garand The 1957 DCM papaer and all. Well sometime around 1963 the guy had a Griffin and Howe scope mount installed. To me this is still a fine example of an early NM rifle. However the local self appointed garand expert railed against how the previous owner had destroyed a valuable collector rifle, but before he saw the scope mount, he very much tried to low ball me to sell it. So I guess my question is did he destroy a valuable historical relic( remember it is still a documented NM) or simply do with his rifle what he wanted and needed his rifle to be?

We can also speak of all those evil people who sportarised 03s, mausers, P17s, ECT......these people did not see historical relics, they saw rifles that were a whole lot cheaper the Model 70s and the like. I would sugest that we think before we judge others by our personal version of right and wrong.

Just my opinion I could be wrong.

Mike

[herrmann]

I have collector grades from the CMP auction, yet my favorite is a WIN2 with a SA52 barrel and SA52 stamped on the receiver heel.

[canes7]

Let's use a pristine condition gas-trap Garand for example. It's in my possession and I own it. I want to build a JCG rifle and plan on modifying the Garand I have for this project. That would mean changing the stock, sights, barrel and gas cylinder in the least. maybe I want to do a nice repark because I prefer zinc over manganeese... whatever. So now you get wind of my plans and think it's an abomanation and demand I stop. Here is what I am going to tell you: Buy it from me or shut the hell up. I'll take the $ you purchase my rifle with and buy another to modify. If preserving these rifles mean that much to you put your $$ where your mouth is and preserve it for yourself. I have enough respect for these items to at least do that. If you can't then you're SOL, and so is the rifle I guess.

[13Fox]

You are absolutely right! It is your place to decide what you do with your property. I know that if it were possible for me to own an original gas trap, I would. Frankly, for me it isn't that simple, though I wish I was able.

One thing I have learned over the years of designing 2-10 million dollar homes is that just because you have money, doesn’t mean you are smart. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt that you are just trying to piss us off and don’t really intend to butcher your investment!

[Rick B]

To me I don’t care either way and you are free to do as you want but there is no reason to flaunt it for the simple purpose of irritating others. Honestly I would laugh my butt of at someone who would destroy a rare Gas Trap. I know for a fact they would regret it when the reality sinks in. You can argue till your blue in the face but it will bother you sooner of later. Also the more gone the more expensive those left are going to be.

But to get upset over someone’s passion is a bit ridiculous also. To try and piss them off more is shear ignorance. I teach my kids to think about what they are doing and if they wouldn't like it then don't do it to others. I see a few here never learned that lesson. I am surely not going to waste my little bit of valuable time left on this earth to try and go out of my way to upset people. Rick B