An historical perspective of a military surplus is not absolutely a more important perspective; it's merely another perspective. A collector sees one thing, an owner another. Which is the "better" perspective?
I understand that an historian would see the historical perspective in even the most pedestrian of military artifacts - he'll find far more interest in caissons, canteens, cookware, and cutlasses than I ever will.
Quote:
|
These collectors would not do anything to alter the firearm in any way that would damage it or deviate from original spec.
|
I'm curious - what's your stance on shooting a military surplus weapon?
Quote:
|
I may attribute more value to your Milsurps than you yourself do.
|
Value through historical significance, perhaps. Absolute value, probably not.
I'm not a historical collector per se - if milsurps were two or three times their retail price I'd probably admire them in a museum rather than in my hands and in my closet. But I do dig the fact that I have rifles and pistols that are 50, 60, 70, and in one case approaching 100 years old, and still functional and accurate. And, of course, they will never be "truck guns" or "dashboard guns". That, to me, invokes cringing...
