Talk:Sporterising

Just one question..

Good article, but where do commercial guns like the PS90 fit? This is more of a personal question, but I would think they would deserve some mention. JVkamp 21:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

That is a civilian model of the P90. I wouldn't consider it sporterized. LWF 22:54, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

LWF is right- "Civilian Variants" are NOT sporterised. Sporterised guns are generally WWI/WWII era rifles which have been modified for sporting use after manufacture, not simply as-manufactured civilian variants of military rifles. For example, the Springfield M1A rifle is a civilian version of the M-14 rifle, but it is not considered "Sporterised". Similarly, The AR-15 is the civilian verson of the M-16, and that isn't considered "Sporterised" either. --Commander Zulu 01:07, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I have heard it called both a sporter and a commercial variant. Thanks for clarifying this, as I was quite confused. As a hunter, I know my personal rifle inside and out, but only the basics of the nomenclature. JVkamp 03:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Modifying for compliance with legislation

Has anyone found any non-gun control sources that support the statement made in this section? The LCAV publication asserts that the "gun industry" refers to "sporterization" as "redesigning their assault weapons to skirt the ban." My quick googling indicates that the VPC publication Illinois: Land of Post-Ban Assault Weapons, was the first or one of the first to use the term in this manner, and most of the other anti-gun groups are simply quoting it.

Anyway, if we can't find any evidence (advertisements, articles, etc.) that the "gun industry" has used the term this way, then we should change the section to show that "Some gun control groups have applied this term to the gun industry's methods of complying with laws such as the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban..." --Hamitr (talk) 14:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll jump in here, too: the section as it stands pushes a POV. The section describes sporterizing as "skirt[ing] legislation such as the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban" by "remov[ing] a military-style feature without compromising the firearm's ability to fire rapidly or otherwise function as designed". In the example used--the Assault Weapons Ban--the law restricts only specific features that make a firearm look "military", not any "rapid fire" features. The statemnt is badly (and possibly deliberately) misleading. Now, this is the fault of the source, which is quoted almost verbatim, so the problem is simply one of attribution. _Wikipedia_ shouldn't say that companies "skirt the ban", but it's accurate and sourced to say that some gun control advocates express that opinion. I'll make the change (and also rephrase to avoid copyvio).

It'd also be extremely valuable to point out the fact that the assertion is misleading, but we'd need a verifiable source. Any takers? Elmo iscariot (talk) 18:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

As it seems there's no remaining disagreement, I'll take off the NPOV box. Please speak up if there are any more reservations about the section.Elmo iscariot (talk) 13:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The link listed in the references in this section goes to a squatter site. There's no longer anything to back up the claims.24.171.73.2 (talk) 13:52, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

"...and (if applicable) remove a component that allows the weapon to fire in automatic/burst mode in order to comply with the (now expired) US Federal Assault Weapons Ban" This implies a simple component swap is required in order to convert a semi-auto rifle to full-auto or burst-auto. This is incorrect as the BATF would consider such a rifle 'readily convertible' and thus a machinegun. Furthermore the AWB banned cosmetic features and has/had nothing to do with auto-fire, which is dealt with largely by the Firearms Owners Protection Act 1986 and the National Firearms Act 1934.Matt1862 (talk) 11:15, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

JUST AN FYI: Full auto and Burst has been illegal since the the Gun Control Act of 68. The expired AWB ban had no affect on full auto guns. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.81.114.14 (talk) 00:52, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Article is politically biased when it should be strictly technical

IMHO, sporterizing is NOT political in any way. It's the act of taking a military surplus rifle and adapting it to hunting or other sport uses. I've never heard of the term being applied any other way. The article should focus on these technical issues rather than dragging pro and anti gun control into it. For instance, many surplus military rifles (being by definition quite old and obsolescent) have sights which are not suitable for hunting and stocks meant to accept bayonets, also not useful for hunting. Sporterizing usually means, in this case, replacing the original sights with modern sights or a scope, and cutting the forestock down. This is purely subjective, but the guns that I've most often seen sporterized are Mauser 95-98s, M1 Garands, and Lee-Enfield type rifles. I'll try to get some comparative photos together for the article at some point. Msaunier (talk) 18:22, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

If you're referring to the "modifying for compliance" section - it seems to have a proper reference to support it. AliveFreeHappy (talk) 20:43, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I am not. Modifying a weapon for compliance is, IMHO, not (necessarily) sporterization, since this could (potentially) apply to weapons not used for sport. I suppose I'm arguing the definition - how I see it, sporterization is taking a weapon (usually a surplus rifle) and adapting it for sport (which is to say, hunting and target shooting). Modifying, say, a MAC-10 for import would not apply, since it's not a gun that can reasonably be used for sport in either it's modified or unmodified state. Msaunier (talk) 04:34, 10 July 2011 (UTC)