WTB- WWII long range sniper rifle (see pic)
- Thread starter Hitzy
- Start date
stencollector
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- shilo MB, the armpit of Canada
The photo makes it look a lot bigger than it really is. I bought both a PTRD and a PTRS when wolverine had them a few years back. The PTRS fit into the trunk of my Honda Accord without a problem. The barrel removes from the rifle with a single takedown pin. The PTRD (bolt action version) was not so easy to transport as it required the back seat to be folded down, and the rifle reached from the trunk of the car and almost up to the shifter, where it acted as an temporary armrest.
Both guns were simple in their manufacture. I eventually sold them off once I got my Boys rifle. The English made Boys is a much prettier gun with a higher level of craftsmanship than either of the 2 Soviet guns in my opinion.
I would agree with some of the earlier posters about the scopebite. It could well be more than a bleeding nose from this one.
Both guns were simple in their manufacture. I eventually sold them off once I got my Boys rifle. The English made Boys is a much prettier gun with a higher level of craftsmanship than either of the 2 Soviet guns in my opinion.
I would agree with some of the earlier posters about the scopebite. It could well be more than a bleeding nose from this one.
- Location
- Tucson, Arizona
The russians put the craftsmanship where it matters, in the working parts not the outside.
MauserMike
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- SW Ontario
The million dollar question. Are these things even remotely powerful enough to take out a tank?
Yes and no. Depended on the tank. Even the Boys had some effect against Panzer I and II's, and only limited success against the III's and up (had to hit a vital section). The PTRD/S shot a much more powerful round (14.5mm) and had greater success against III's and IV's, from what I've read.
The ideal weapon against a tank is not a kinetic penetrator (bullet) but an explosive, such as those employed in the PIAT, Bazooka and Panzerschreck
MauserMike
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- SW Ontario
I'm not sure I agree because those are close range weapons. Give me an 88mm Flak gun and I'll punch through 110mm of armour plate at 2000 metres with a tungsten core shell.
stencollector
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- shilo MB, the armpit of Canada
The advantage of the anti-tank rifle was it's maneuverability, as well as it's low cost. For the Soviets, this was important. By what I have read, after the battle, numerous 14.5mm holes would be found in the opposing armor. But from the time of the inception of the large caliber rifle until mid war, armor had come a long way.
Sure, an 88 will do better, but the infrastructure to support that is enormous. The Russians always seemed to have a quantity vs quality preference.
Sure, an 88 will do better, but the infrastructure to support that is enormous. The Russians always seemed to have a quantity vs quality preference.
- Location
- Not really sure.
Good ol AT rifles . I wish I could afford and find a PTRS, the big brother of the siminov. Then the family would be complete.
. I wish I could afford and find a PTRS, the big brother of the siminov. Then the family would be complete.
I'm not sure I agree because those are close range weapons. Give me an 88mm Flak gun and I'll punch through 110mm of armour plate at 2000 metres with a tungsten core shell.
Yes but we were talking about portable weapons
You can't carry an 88 For what a man can fire, a shaped-charge explosive is infinitely more capable than any solid core penetrator.
btw, those 88's are set up for anti-aircraft role
They did use them like that for AT though. Next time I think of it I'll take a picture of the two captured 88's on campus
Last edited:
