M96 vs AG-42B Accuracy and most accurate milsurp?

U

Unregistered

Regular
Rating - 100%
6   0   0
Location
South Ontario
Looking through the rec.guns archives, there are a lot of threads debating what the most accurate milsurp is. The M96 and AG42B in 6.5X55mm are obvious contenders. And some shooters claim that their AG42 is _the_ most accurate rifle they own. Could this be, or have they just not fired an M96?

Also, based on what I read, how would you say an accurized Garand stacks up to the AG42? What about a stock, scoped new M-14?

As for the bolts, American can't decide whether a P14/P-17 or M1903 is more accurate. Many ignore this and state that either a Finn M-39 or the Swiss K-31 is most accurate. What do you think?
 
For pre-'50s designs:
Swiss K31 for straight pull......
M1917 for turn bolt......
M1 for semi......
For a modern battle rifle though, the AR kicks all their butts.:)
 
Unregistered said:
But the U.S. shooters say that a stock AG42 beats the crap out of a stock M1 in accuracy. [I think the real battle between those two is which damages your fingers more.]
Click to expand...

The Ljungman sights are crap post/notch type......not very good for shooting at any distances. The M1 has the best sights ever put on a battle rifle. I had an AG42B for 2 boxes of ammo and sold it......nothing to write home about in the accuracy department. I still have 2 M1's......and they aren't going anywhere. The swede's surplused their AG42B's before they sold off their M96's if that tells you anything......:)
The M96's shoot pretty good though....but I'd still take a P14 or M1917 for the better sights. 6.5x55 is a nice round for the recoil sensitive but the old '06 is just as accurate.
 
The AG42B will kick the crap out of alot of stock/non-match semi's. You just got to find the right load for it :rolleyes: . I've beat an M1 at 200yrds with it easily. My Norc M-14 as well (well, the M1 beat that too but not by too much) The notch sites do take some getting used to, but I never shoot over 300yrds anyways so it never causes a problem. The AG42B also has a sweete intergraded muzzle break, and hence, has very light recoil.

I've never shot an M96 to make a comparison there, but as soon as I get the cash to get one, I'll have to try it out:D
 
Last edited:
I dont see why 'notch-post' is so much worse than 'peep-post'

I have several rifles with nice square posts in front of nice square notches and these sights seem just as good as a peep setup.

The important thing seems to be SQUARE front post....with maybe a bit of blackener

The M1 has the best sights ever put on a battle rifle.
Click to expand...

never fired a G-3
 
I've been thinking of getting one [AG-42B] but don't like what I've heard about the non-standard action (with the dust cover and everything) and the "finger guillotine." As someone who spends a lot more time at home than on the range, I don't like "wacky" systems too much versus the familiar M1/M-14 family.

But Americans are paying $700 U.S. for the AG-42. They're practically fighting each other over them if you read their forums lately. They've acquired near-mythical status. (Then again, so have Norincos over there, perhaps with some merit. Seems anything rare in the U.S. becomes instantly 'cool.')

I just mention this because they're saying "AG-42s are dissapearing. Grab one fast while you can. Skip the M96 and K31 for now, they'll still be around." And in terms of collectability, maybe they're right. But as a shooter, who doesn't reload, and who didn't buy an SVT-40 because I didn't want to clean corrosive off the gas system, I don't think the AG-42 is for me.

Given the simplicity and ease of my Mosin and Enfields, the M96 on the other hand looks like a good proposition. But there's a P14 on sale here too...

But yes, I agree, M1 definitely has the best sights I've encountered. And great reliability and simplicity. Only the M-14 is easier to strip as a semi-auto.
 
I love the way the AG42B loads! It's....unique, to say the least, as well as ambidextoris. So is the safty, so for a lefty like me its a dream.

I guess though, it is a "Aquired taste" rifle and not for every one. Some people find it bulky, extra mags cost more than a complete rifle (though it charges from stripper clips very well, as it was intended to do), it's next to impossible to scope it if you ever want too, and if you reload....well.....this rifle hold the record for spiting brass the farthest so casings are hard to find. But she's still MY baby.
 
Klunk said:
I dont see why 'notch-post' is so much worse than 'peep-post'

I have several rifles with nice square posts in front of nice square notches and these sights seem just as good as a peep setup.

The important thing seems to be SQUARE front post....with maybe a bit of blackener



never fired a G-3
Click to expand...

For me anyway it's the shorter sight radius that I don't like, it's also slow to acquire the target. Not saying it's not adequate for minute of man, just not target grade.....which is what I tend to shoot with my guns:). Our milsurp matchs show a trend of aperture sight rifles taking the top spots while post/notch taking the bottom. I'm sure the shooter has alot to do with it, but I know I would place in the bottom instead of the top if I shot my mauser intead of my M17 or M1.......;)
 
While there is lots of speculation about the accuracy of one milsurp vs another, it generally has little relevance to the shooting capability of one rifle vs another. I've had M96's, M38, P-14's, Rosses, LE's, etc, and some rifles simply shoot better than others - most likely due to manufacturing tolerances and bedding variations. And who knows what has been done to a 75 year old rifle? P-14's are a good example - most are cob-ups done by Century.
However, for my 48 year old eyes the longer radius peep sighted rifles get the nod. Most mausers suffer in this regard - of course, if one can find an M96 with the diopter sights....
 
I own a m96/38 and an AG42B and both are very accurate rifles. I have a feeling that the main reason for the accuracy is the fact that they are both firing the excellent 6.5x55 cartridge. They are both very well made rifles and are right up there with the best of the milsurps.

I think the most accurate rifle will allways depend on the shooter and their interface with the rifle:
Does the stock fit you?
What type of sights do you prefer?
Are you recoil sensitive?
Does it feel balanced in your hands?

I find the AG42 has a very nice stock I like the pistol grip shape over the long straight stock of the m96/38, and the AG42 has a better trigger. The AG42 does loose out in balance though, I find it front heavy and akward as the magazine seems to be in the wrong spot for me, therefore my groupings off the bench are better with the m96/38.

The AG42 shares all the feeding woes of all semi auto rifles. I never did find a bullet that would slide into the action without getting dinged by the shoulder of the chamber. The ramp just doesn't slide the cartridge up high enough and the tip always gets smushed. I don't like it even though some people don't think it effects accuracy much.

I think the only way to know for sure if a rifle is good for you is to take one out to the range and try for yourself. All I can say is all of the above are held in high repute by owners all over the place.
 
I fitted a scope to my AG42B by building a custom mount that stradled the two sides of the action and had a flat top to mount a one piece scope base to. Worked very well and I shot many rounds out of it at Virden's bowling pin shoot. Never owned a Garand, so I can't compare accuracy. The action poses no more a hazard to the fingers than any other auto when the bolt is released. I acquired mine back when they were $69.00 at army surplus stores and they were considered ugly, and chambered in an undesirable foreign calibre. Everyone wanted 308's and 30-06's. Many had mismatched bolts so you have to watch out for that and check the serial numbers. They were neat old guns but I sure as hell wouldn't pay $700.00 for one. There was a time when Yugoslavian ammo was available for cheap in both fmj and soft points. Privi Partisan or something like that was the name. I think the factory got destroyed in their civil war. I used to shoot Norma match ammo that I bought for $10 a box from someone who was retiring from that calibre. You can easily lighten the trigger by altering the spring tension. I think I cut a coil or two out of a spring and never had any problems.

Oh and the original question, there is no comparison between the accuracy of an M96 compared to a 42B even with comparable sights. You should get sub moa accuracy from the M96 with no mods whatsoever (although I certainly preferred a Timney trigger and a good scope).
 
Last edited:
Grizzlypeg said:
I fitted a scope to my AG42B by building a custom mount that stradled the two sides of the action and had a flat top to mount a one piece scope base to.
Click to expand...

Do you have pics of this?

And as for the dented tips afecting acuracy, no at all. I figured the same thing so I did a test: 3 rounds in normal operation, 3 rounds handloaded singley, directly into the chamber. I repeted this a few times and so no difference.
 
Ljungman said:
Do you have pics of this?

And as for the dented tips afecting acuracy, no at all. I figured the same thing so I did a test: 3 rounds in normal operation, 3 rounds handloaded singley, directly into the chamber. I repeted this a few times and so no difference.
Click to expand...

Great to see someone with an interest in these rifles Ljungman. I regret not having taken any pictures of my scope mount. I sold the gun a few years ago.

Basically the mount attached to both sides of the receiver, and the stock had to be notched out to give it access to where it bolted to the receiver beneath the slide. Two holes were drilled and tapped on each side of the receiver. The rearmost slide (not sure what you called it) was free to move inside the mount. The mount was spaced out slightly from the receiver to give clearance, angled inward as it went up to match the basic shape of the top of the gun, and was flat on top. You could easily operate the slide as your hand doesn't need to go back that far. I fired many rounds out of that rifle and when we shot Virden's bowling pin match I really liked the gun for doing the steel plates while my friend with my other Swedish Mauser, M96 took care of the pins.



..... ------
...../........\
.../............\
./................\
|..................|
|..................|
[ ]..............[ ]

Rear view - ignore the dots, the picture collapses otherwise.



It had a nice brush finish and was blued to match the rest of the gun. The stock sites could be seen just beneath it so it was a see through mount.

It was fabricated from 7 pieces of flat steel mig welded together. I thought it looked like it belonged on the gun and was very sturdy.

I can't believe the price of the Milsurps these days. In the 70's you could buy bolt action guns all the time for $39.00, M-1 carbines, and the Ljungman and its toolkit (oil can, two spare extractors, greasecan, jag, brush, multitool and springs all in a little can) for $69.00 at both SIR and United Army Surplus. Only Norma ammo was known to me back then, and some of the swedish military stuff was loaded so hot it didn't work properly in the Ljungmans. It would stick and not eject.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom