When I see images like this, it inevitably begets the question: What is your definition of sporterized?
Is it a weapon that has been modified from it’s original configuration? Is it a weapon that was modified from a defined military configuration? Can a military weapon be considered sporterized if there is no formal adaptation by the military for that weapon? Can a commercial off the shelf weapon ever be considered military surplus? Even it it doesn’t appear on any Table of Equipment?
Or further down the rabbit hole, how long does a weapon’s configuration have to be in place before it is considered “blasphemous” to make any changes to it? 30 years? 50 years? 100 years?
Were all the Colt SP1 / M16A1 rifles “sporterized” when civilians converted them to the M16A2 or A4 standard? And if they weren’t sporterized then, does the recent collector interest in the M16A1 format of rifle change that now? Who decides that?
What I do know is you can’t please everyone. And if you listen to the “cool kids” for any length of time, hypocrisy will start show in their logic by directly contradicting what they swore was gospel just a few short years before. Cough…cough…appendix carry. Cough…cough…9mm.
Now back to this Enfield. I like it. I would buy it. I would keep it just the way it sits. I would shoot it for fun. And appreciate just how good modern optics are. And given the chance if I had available parts…I wouldn’t be opposed to building one either. Military or not.
“Shooting Guns & Having Fun”