I have to disagree with some of what you said.
Surplus rifles are not "designed to work in harsh conditions without cleaning by peasants." They are designed to be cared for like any other rifle. The fact that they work with less cleaning is a happy accident, not a design feature. And the ones which quit working were probably weeded out before hitting the sales floor. So we are dealing with a Selection Effect.
Many modern guns have modern steels which don't rust as easily (usually stainless). Those actually don't require as much cleaning as the old guns.
Old guns often had corrosive ammunition, and while ALL ammo is a little corrosive, the old stuff was much worse and really required cleaning to stay in shape. Even today peasants clean their guns in any country where they understand guns. Usually it is a shoe lace with knots, dipped in oil and run through the bore.
Modern hunting rifles probably have more than 100-300 rounds run through them. However, they have to be designed to have many more rounds run through them in case they are bought by someone who takes more pleasure in shooting.
Also, from what I have read a lot of old militaries did not shoot a lot of ammo during peace time. I'm not sure how many surplus rifles have actually had many shots fired through them. South American Mausers have probably seen far fewer rounds than most Arisakas.
Where I have to strongly agree with you Twizzler is modern guns are not really designed for bayonet use.
I will argue by assertion that some modern guns are just as strong as old surplus guns. Particularly guns designed to fire heavier cartridges. However, in general I suspect you have a point there. Most guns are engineered to their needs, but not over-engineered. And are we talking about bayoneting strength or action strength? Again, I agree most modern guns are not meant to bayonet anything. But I think many modern guns designed for similar cartridges are just as strong in the action as the old guns.
Just my thoughts.
The Twizzler wrote:
The lighter part I can't argue with. The just as durable part I think is a mistake. I have argued this before on ZS but I honestly believe most milsurps are more durable than your standard hunting rifle. The milsurp was designed to work in harsh conditions over and over again by( in many cases) illiterate peasants. They were not gonna be careful with the rifle or clean and oil it after shooting. They were designed to fire thousands of round vs your 300 dollar hunting rifle that usually only fires 100-300 rounds realistically.
An Arisaka while the but is short for obvious reasons is widely considered one of the strongest actions of WW2. The Italian Carcano was the rifle Lee H Oswald managed to kill President Kennedy with multiple head shots in a moving car from 83 yards away.
I have said a milsurp is a proven weapon in war while your more modern 300 buck rifles are factually not.
Stercutus wrote:For $300 you can buy a brand new bolt action rifle that will be lighter, just as durable and outperform any of the Italian or Japanese surplus rifles. Ammo will be much more widely available, higher quality and cheaper. The rifle will probably even come with a scope. The only edge the milsurp will have will be in rapid fire performance. If you are reduced to rapid firing a bolt action rifle you likely will only need it once.
*Remember: I'm just a guy on the internet
*Don't go to stupid places with stupid people & do stupid things.
*Be courteous. Look normal. Be in bed by 10'clock.
“It's a dangerous business, Frodo, going out your door. You step onto the road, and if you don't keep your feet, there's no knowing where you might be swept off to.” -Bilbo Baggins.