Log In
Members
Home
Add Reply
Add Topic
I was at a small gun show this summer and overhead a seller talking to another attendee. They will looking at a rifle that was rare, desirable, high condition and all original EXCEPT for one flaw. The butt had been cut and a recoil pad added. As a fellow collector, I could of course feel the tragedy. We’ve all felt it when we see something like that. This morning I was looking in another thread at Tom’s (Old Cranky) M1892 pistol grip SRC in .32-20. A beautiful, high condition piece and not a configuration encountered every day. Had that carbine had a recoil pad added, there would be of course a collective groan from all of us.
Back to the gunshow table, the dealer was holding the rifle and said, “I hope there’s a special kind of hell for people who do something like this to a rifle” (in a deep and serious voice – with much disdain and dramatic gravel). I’ve actually heard this statement before in the same situation. You may disagree with me, but I don’t hope these people go to a special hell (I hope they don’t go to hell at all) How irrational that statement would sound to these past owners. For the most part, these guns were purchased by people not to sit on a wall like a work of art, not to gather dust in a safe, but to be used. They were used for adventure, excitement, protection, feeding their family, shooting pests and on and on. To think they should not have modified them to suit their needs, so some future fussy collector (e.g. someone like me) could keep them tucked away and bask in their originality… surely would sound crazy to them. And then, that they should be assigned a spot in hell… 
November 7, 2015
Offline
I’m not angry with folks who modified the weapons that otherwise would be collectible. In my way of thinking every modified gun makes the original guns more valuable and sought after.
Mike
Intelligent mods–swivels, reboring if a bore was badly damaged, special sights, even shortening an excessively long brl–are one thing, & some of them would enhance the value of the to me, but adding a pad for the one or very few shots that might be fired in the course of most rifle hunting situations is something else, & is to me inexcusable vandalism. Furthermore, slip-on pads have been available since BP days. Shotgun hunting is diff, for in that case, a duck or dove hunter might be firing many shots in succession, although even in that situation, a slip-on pad could be used.
There’s no rifle SO rare, or in such great cond, that I’d buy it with an added pad except at a give-away price that would make restocking financially practical.
TXGunNut said In my way of thinking every modified gun makes the original guns more valuable and sought after.
“More valuable” means higher priced! I can’t see much good in that outcome, if you’re a collector.
Back when that gun was new you would never give a second thought to put a pad on the butt. Just like if you bought a new deer rifle today and did the same. You made it better for your use. Now if someone bought a old high condition collectable today and did that I would say something. Its stuff like that makes the value of the remaining guns go up.
Bob
WACA Life Member--- NRA Life Member---- Cody Firearms member since 1991 Researching the Winchester 1873's
Email: [email protected]
1873man said
Back when that gun was new you would never give a second thought to put a pad on the butt.
The world is full of thoughtless people who never give a second thought to anything. I’m not one of them.
We as collectors peruse the networks for originality to sustain our insatiable thirst for just that. But I would remind that back in the day, rifles, handguns, and shotguns were purchased for their utilitarian purpose and value. A modification to make it better for the shooter was deemed as practical. Like telling me I was stupid for putting a 1/4′”drop and 1/8″ of cast into my Kreigoff K80 when I shot competition. It needed to be done. We are just fortunate to live in a time when the guns we worship as collectable are still available. And a side note that K80 is worth more than 2 of my finest Winchesters! Would anyone pass up Gunny Hathcock’s m70 given the chance? because that was one highly modified gun!!!!!
oldcrankyyankee said But I would remind that back in the day, rifles, handguns, and shotguns were purchased for their utilitarian purpose and value.
True, but it doesn’t mean that a shooter of good sense & good taste would disfigure his new rifle, & in fact, most didn’t. But the subject brought up was, specifically, pads on hunting rifles (presumably not elephant rifles, either), not mods to competition guns or sniper rifles.
Unfortunately, the owners of these guns didn’t have a crystal ball and had no idea how the functional modifications they were making to their guns would be looked upon by collectors 100+ years in the future.
Todays collectors also lament Winchester’s destruction of thousands of firearm records in the 1950’s.
Hindsight is 20/20
clarence said
Intelligent mods–swivels, reboring if a bore was badly damaged, special sights, even shortening an excessively long brl–are one thing, & some of them would enhance the value of the to me, but adding a pad for the one or very few shots that might be fired in the course of most rifle hunting situations is something else, & is to me inexcusable vandalism. Furthermore, slip-on pads have been available since BP days. Shotgun hunting is diff, for in that case, a duck or dove hunter might be firing many shots in succession, although even in that situation, a slip-on pad could be used.There’s no rifle SO rare, or in such great cond, that I’d buy it with an added pad except at a give-away price that would make restocking financially practical.
I think a fellow, years ago, who brought his recently acquired Winchester to a gunsmith and paid good money for an expensive recoil pad, and paid good money for a competent gunsmith to fit that pad for him, would have a difficult time viewing his endeavor as an inexcusable act of vandalism.
There’s more than one reason to mount a pad on a rifle. I appreciate a pad when out in the woods as when I set the rifle down and lean it against something, the pad is less likely to slip against the surface I’ve set it on, than a shotgun butt or a carbine butt would be.
Yes, slip-on pads have been available for many years. However, maybe the fellow felt that was a hinky way to go and wanted it done right. I will say that my Dad put a slip-on pad on his .33 WCF in the 1950’s and for that I am grateful. It’s also likely his main reason was he simply didn’t want to spend the money to have a gunsmith put a pad on and figured the slip-on was good enough.
Let ma add: recoil pads were special order items for Winchesters dating way back. A variety of pads were offered. Pachmayr pads were even used by Winchester during some years. Try to explain to someone back then how ordering a Winchester rifle with a factory installed pad vs. one that had the same pad later installed by competent gunsmith – represented vandalism to the rifle.
I enjoy admiring an all-original, stellar-condition Winchester lever action rifle as much as anyone but prefer it be in the collection of a friend — who would sooner shoot his faithful Labrador than that gun, lest it detract from its condition. Looking and occasionally even handling, albeit with white cotton with gloves, is enough for me and gives me a fixed point of reference, like the North Star.
But l like to own guns I can hunt with and shoot and that have some evidence of prior, well-cared for use on them. Lucky me, because there are bargains to be had. Especially if a practical modification like a recoil pad kneecaps it’s market price. Or if it requires some restoration.
While taste is mostly indisputable (with exceptions, e.g. the Winchester Model 40), for the life of me I cannot fathom disdain for a Model 1895 .30 Army caliber carbine with a period recoil pad, something both Arizona and Texas Rangers were known to have done by local gunsmiths. And for good reason.
I could say the same thing about any number of Model 71 rifles. And who would argue that shooting a Model 1895 in .405 WCF.with a 1″ Silvers pad is a lot more fun than doing the same thing with an all-original crescent steel.buttplate. I’ve done both.
Remember there was a time when good hunters practiced shooting their rifles. Not just 3 rounds from a bench to verify the.sights.
- Bill
WACA # 65205; life member, NRA; member, TGCA; member, TSRA; amateur preservationist
"I have seen wicked men and fools, a great many of both, and I believe they both get paid in the end, but the fools first." -- David Balfour, narrator and protagonist of the novel, Kidnapped, by Robert Louis Stevenson.
November 5, 2014
Offline
OK Clarence… I can’t resist… 
Here’s a page from the 1940 Winchester catalog (National Match page). Note what the FACTORY said about the Marksman stock… “The comb has been left high and full purposefully in order that the individual shooter who wants these features may be suited. Those who prefer more drop or a thinner comb can easily obtain these by reducing the comb to suit their needs“… (My underlines). 
In short, the FACTORY recognized that working guns need to be modified by their owners to “suit their needs”… Have you ever tried looking through the metallic sights on a 1st variation (1937) M70 Target rifle??? The ones with integral front ramps and a Lyman 48WJ (not 48WH) + Lyman 17A globe front? It’s IMPOSSIBLE to use the factory supplied metallic sights if your cheekbones aren’t at least as high as the ALIENS (meaning Extraterestials) who crashed at Roswell NM…
It’s true that these are “target” rifles, i.e. “competition or sniper”, not “hunting” rifles… But the idea that, once purchased, the owner could/should modify their firearm to suit their needs or preferences was recognized even by the gunmaker(s). Today’s collectors, e.g. ME, don’t like “non-original” guns… But that’s OUR issue… I can’t diss somebody who wanted a rubber pad on a pre-64 M70 22 HORNET, even if it makes no sense to me and I wouldn’t buy one today…
Just my take,
Lou
WACA 9519; Studying Pre-64 Model 70 Winchesters
Louis Luttrell said I can’t diss somebody who wanted a rubber pad on a pre-64 M70 22 HORNET, even if it makes no sense to me and I wouldn’t buy one today…
Lou, I can’t share your “liberality” on this issue–the idiocy of a pad on a Hornet is idiocy however you slice it, & it has nothing at all to do with the attitude of collectors in the future; it was atrociously bad taste at the time it was done. I think it’s really unreasonable to stretch those remarks about customizing a special purpose target rifle to justify such an absurdity as this hypothetical example.
Owner-customized target rifles (Model 52s) are a special interest of mine, & I own several examples with reshaped stocks & other mods that would horrify Big Larry…though nothing so utterly stupid as a pad on a Hornet.
Zebulon said
Remember there was a time when good hunters practiced shooting their rifles. Not just 3 rounds from a bench to verify the.sights.
No disputing that; however, for bench shooting or other practice, there were good alternatives to disfiguring your rifle, even before PAST pads were invented. Army recruits were allowed to use their padded canteen covers when practicing with the hard-kicking ’03 service rifle…though I doubt the improvement was very great.
The shooter so addle-pated as to order a crescent plate on a .405 (I hate them on .22s) deserved every bit of the punishment he received.
Attached is an example of a fine very collectible Model 70 Super Grade featherweight 243 caliber that was made in 1957. Is this recoil pad original to the rifle or was it installed after market by a gunsmith ( very well done I might add) The only way to know for sure is with the original sales invoice. If it was found to be original factory installed it would add many $ to the resale value. Incidentally Roger Rule book says only 260 Model 70 Super Grade featherweight rifles were made in this caliber. The recoil pad appears to be period correct for a 1957 Winchester.
Guns International #: 102763674
steve004 said
clarence said
Intelligent mods–swivels, reboring if a bore was badly damaged, special sights, even shortening an excessively long brl–are one thing, & some of them would enhance the value of the to me, but adding a pad for the one or very few shots that might be fired in the course of most rifle hunting situations is something else, & is to me inexcusable vandalism. Furthermore, slip-on pads have been available since BP days. Shotgun hunting is diff, for in that case, a duck or dove hunter might be firing many shots in succession, although even in that situation, a slip-on pad could be used.
There’s no rifle SO rare, or in such great cond, that I’d buy it with an added pad except at a give-away price that would make restocking financially practical.
I think a fellow, years ago, who brought his recently acquired Winchester to a gunsmith and paid good money for an expensive recoil pad, and paid good money for a competent gunsmith to fit that pad for him, would have a difficult time viewing his endeavor as an inexcusable act of vandalism.
There’s more than one reason to mount a pad on a rifle. I appreciate a pad when out in the woods as when I set the rifle down and lean it against something, the pad is less likely to slip against the surface I’ve set it on, than a shotgun butt or a carbine butt would be.
Yes, slip-on pads have been available for many years. However, maybe the fellow felt that was a hinky way to go and wanted it done right. I will say that my Dad put a slip-on pad on his .33 WCF in the 1950’s and for that I am grateful. It’s also likely his main reason was he simply didn’t want to spend the money to have a gunsmith put a pad on and figured the slip-on was good enough.
Let ma add: recoil pads were special order items for Winchesters dating way back. A variety of pads were offered. Pachmayr pads were even used by Winchester during some years. Try to explain to someone back then how ordering a Winchester rifle with a factory installed pad vs. one that had the same pad later installed by competent gunsmith – represented vandalism to the rifle.
So Steve,
How does one ever justify putting a recoil pad on a Model 54, Model 70, or Model 43 in 22 Hornet? Was it really needed to tame that super vicious recoil? Sadly, I have seen all three models in that cartridge with recoil pads!!
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
Bert H. said
So Steve,
How does one ever justify putting a recoil pad on a Model 54, Model 70, or Model 43 in 22 Hornet? Was it really needed to tame that super vicious recoil? Sadly, I have seen all three models in that cartridge with recoil pads!!
Bert
Hi Bert,
What was the LOP on those stocks?
Theoretical justification.
If a 5 foot nothing, short-necked/stockily built hunter of the time needed to shorten his stock by an inch or so, to actually use/hunt with his rifle, then the original butt-plate would no longer have fitted.
TonyP said
Bert H. said
So Steve,
How does one ever justify putting a recoil pad on a Model 54, Model 70, or Model 43 in 22 Hornet? Was it really needed to tame that super vicious recoil? Sadly, I have seen all three models in that cartridge with recoil pads!!
Bert
Hi Bert,
What was the LOP on those stocks?
Theoretical justification.
If a 5 foot nothing, short-necked/stockily built hunter of the time needed to shorten his stock by an inch or so, to actually use/hunt with his rifle, then the original butt-plate would no longer have fitted.
Conversely, the shooter might be very tall with long arms. What are his options to lengthen the pull? Pads come in various thicknesses.
I see a lot of things in life that upon first glance make no sense to me. I need to remember that doesn’t mean they don’t make sense to someone else. And often, after they explain to me how it made sense to them (e.g. their situation), it makes sense to me.
1 Guest(s)
