Sniper Rifle Comparison

ceb

ceb

CGN Regular
Rating - 98.8%
81   1   0
Sniper Rifle Comparison

Great article on WWII sniper rifles.

h ttp://fmgpublications.ipaperus.com/...GUNS/GUNS0211/

MV and a Hornady Ballistician tested WWII sniper rifles against each other.

Great reading.
 
The coverage of the Enfield was poor... I've shot regular #4's with WWII ammo and been shocked at how tightly they grouped. I think the ammo they where using was that POF crap because they where talking about hang fires.
 
Craig0ry said:
starts on page 52, I didnt realize Enfields were "crudely made"....
Click to expand...
Yeah..... They were not "made in usa" so must be why they were so cruuude...... As for the Mosin, its not such a big surprise because snipers were an major element in the soviet army, they always put a big effort in that. The Mosin may look crude but he can deliver a 7.62 bullet right home! Knowing that a Mosin can hit you at 600-700m maybe more ,its enough to worry... Its about time that the Mosin get the credit due:)
 
svt1940 said:
Yeah..... They were not "made in usa" so must be why they were so cruuude...... As for the Mosin, its not such a big surprise because snipers were an major element in the soviet army, they always put a big effort in that. The Mosin may look crude but he can deliver a 7.62 bullet right home! Knowing that a Mosin can hit you at 600-700m maybe more ,its enough to worry... Its about time that the Mosin get the credit due:)
Click to expand...

Article ought to have been called "Why Mosin's Rule"....;)
 
"...The No. 4 (T) was capable of good long range performance; although it proved to be an unremarkable sniping weapon at short ranges, beyond 400 yards it was highly accurate in skilled hands. Captain C. Shore recounted the tale of a British sniper in Italy who was scouting with two GIs prior to his British unit taking over from the Americans near Mt. Grande. When he spotted Germans 700 yards away, he opened fire from a ruined house and scored at least two hits...Harry Furness noted his Battalion snipers could make head shots out to 400 yards but only body shots beyond that, but this was due more to the limitations of the 3x scope than to the deficiencies on the part of the rifle...
As always, a vital component in the sniper's arsenal was his ammunition, for accuracy depends on the standard of ammunition used. The army determined that the standard Mk. VII ammunition was perfectly adequate for sniping use, but as always snipers had their own preferences. Shore always used Winchester made .303 inch and Harry Furness, Sergeant sniper with the Hallamshire Battalion, Yorks and Lancs Regiment, made a point of swapping cigarettes for the Mk. VIIIz streamlined long-range ammunition used by his battalion Vickers gunners. This had a heavier 175 grain bullet and slightly larger charge that produced a muzzle velocity of 2,500 ft/sec. and was generally not recommended for sniping rifles, but it had its uses, as Sergeant Furness commented. 'It had good qualities for extreme range sniping and I considered it no more corrosive than the AP or ocasional incendiary rounds I used at times.' Using this ammunition he was able to pick off a senior German officer who was involved in a conference with fellow officers, at a range in excess of 600 yards. In fact most snipers developed a quiet obsession about their ammunition..."

Excerpts from 'Out of Nowhere' by Martin Pegler.

That article was full of a lot of holes - no pun intended....:)
 
Craig0ry said:
starts on page 52, I didnt realize Enfields were "crudely made"....
Click to expand...

I shook my head at that too. My Enfields are finished a lot nicer than any Mosin Nagant or Springfield I ever handled.:rolleyes:


HeadDamage said:
The coverage of the Enfield was poor... I've shot regular #4's with WWII ammo and been shocked at how tightly they grouped. I think the ammo they where using was that POF crap because they where talking about hang fires.
Click to expand...

No doubt and only firing 3 shot groups is hardly conclusive anyways. The No.4 Mk1(T) was probably the most highly regarded sniper rifle of the war. Or so I've read from some other gun writers.

I figure those authors are either heavily biased or incompetent. I dare them to stand in front of our resident DCRA lads out to 1000 yards and say the Enfield can't hit anything past 300. And those men are shooting with iron sights.:rolleyes:

When the one author states his Dad was a sniper who "never would have considered taking a shot beyond 200 yards against somebody who would shoot back" I doubt he was very well trained. I've read how the U.S. Army snipers were trained NOT to shoot at anything closer than 300 yards as it would give away their position too easily and not give them enough time to escape. I've also read accounts of Marine snipers taking out Japanese artillery personnel in caves at ranges close to 800 yards with tuned Springfield '03's.

A more conclusive test would be having ten competent shooters each being issued one of each type of firearm tested and then firing several ten shot groups at various ranges (once they were sighted in.)
 
I'm not quite getting shots like that out of my Mosin, but still shoot with Iron sights. It was a very interesting article either way. I actually like the trigger pull on the Mosin, its quite smooth. If there was anything that I don't care for would be the safety, its not a quiet or smooth operation to get it on. It does come off much easier though. On a different note, I have a Mauser on the way, can't wait to warm that puppy up.
 
Anybody who has trouble hitting a man size target at 300yrds with issue ammo & iron sights might want to consider another line of work, ie artillery.
 
beltfed said:
That article was full of a lot of holes - no pun intended....:)
Click to expand...

Indeed.

I don't buy gun magazines anymore. I find the stories divulged here from the men who have first hand experience, are a lot more interesting than the crap churned out by gun writers only motivated to make a buck.

We have a storehouse of wisdom here gleaned by guys like Smellie and Purple through their experiences and overlapping with men they knew who fought in the First and Second World Wars.

It will be a sad day when we have lost that library of knowledge.:(
 
I haven't read the article at issue, but success as a sniper depends on three factors, the accuracy and reliability of the weapon and it's optics, the quality of ammunition, and the shooting skills and mental state of the shooter.

On the No4Mk1 T, the Cdn Army EMEI stipulates an accuracy standard of a 5 shots in a 3"x 3" group.:eek: I've never fired one of these, but I'm sure that one properly set up will do better than this. I've certainly gotten better than this with handloads in both scoped No4 sporters and a pseudo-sniper LB No 4 7.62 target rifle with a 4x scope in an S&K mount.

I own and shoot 3 bona-fide sniper rifles, an 03A4 Springfield, an M1C Garand and an M1D Garand. They will all shoot between 1-2 MOA with quality handloads. Military ammo is a limitation on accuracy as it is tough to find 2 MOA or better accuracy with any standard military ammo. Optics are the other limitation. The WW2 era sniper rifles generally used low-power optics in the 2.5-3x range with thick recticles which makes it difficult to resolve the point of aim at extended, and often undetermined, ranges under varying light conditions. The original Weaver 330 scope on the 03A4 was an off-the -shelf solution which is a flimsy POS more suitable for a .22 rabbit gun. The Lyman Alaskan was a much better scope and a militarized version of it was used on both of the Garand sniper variants, and to some extent on both the 03A4 and the LB No4 spipers. It was still limited by it's low power.I'd love to have a scope on my M27 Finnish MN which will shoot close to MOA with quality handloads.

The training, ability, and mental state of the shooter himself is the other key determinant. A great target shot will not necessarily translate into a great sniper in field conditions where initiative, resourcefulness, endurance, concentration, and most-importantly, the ability to detach oneself emotionally from the repeated prospect of killing a specific human target, is important. I'm sure that most men would have a great deal of trouble with this. I once knew a gentleman who had been a sniper in WW1. He was a quiet, considerate and reserved man who divulged very little detail on his experiences other than to comment on the accuracy of the Ross sniper rifle and the physical discomfort and deprivations that were experienced in the trenches.

Re the comment on .303 ball ammo produced by WRA for the Brits, it was loaded with a ball propellant, which was later morphed into the BLC2 which we still have today. Early benchrest shooters used to like surplus lots of this propellant in the .222 Rem.
 
Armourall said:
Excellent article. I would have figured the Germans first then the Americans, British and finally the Russians. I was surprised!!
Click to expand...

There used to be an article on one of the sniper sites which the author put a No32MkI and a ZF-39 type scope on the optical chart.

The No32MkI scope had glass with fewer optical defects, and a larger usable glass area than the ZF...

This article is kind of silly. Using (admittedly) poor ammo and considering it to be equivalent of available ammo 60+ years ago...

The No32Mk2 & Mk3 scopes have repeatable 1moa windage and elevation adjustments combined with a cam graduated to service ammo. Something NO OTHER scope of the day had; in fact from a mechanical standpoint, nothing really compared until the mid 1960s.

The No32MkI scope is in repeatable 50 yard elevations and 2moa windage, certainly better than it's foreign competitors, but cast into the shade by the No32MkII and left in the dust by the easy user adjustments of the Mk3.

The Lyman Alaskans & Weaver scopes certainly had 1moa clicks, but were not cammed... the Soviet & German scopes are cammed, but don't have clicks. Deal with that in half light....
 
I have a #4 but d not want to deface it by tuning it up with better bedding, etc.

Accuracy is fair.

My MN repro sniper is shockingly good.

As I recall the stories, snipers would find and hoard the ammo that worked well in their rifle.

I have only talked to one WW2 sniper. He used a #4T out to 400 yards.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom