What general purpose rifle was the most accurate?
- Thread starter larrysmith
- Start date
really? it took the guy 7 shots to hit the target with 3 spotters
Last edited:
So the K-31 never zapped a Nazi?
What the heck?
That's not shooting. 1 guy shooting and 3 guys spoon feeding him where to aim????? I don't think sgt. York was babyed like that. Just lame. Its like parrellel parking and having 3 guys outside saying oh your so close just turn the wheel a little more maybe back up a few more feet. Shoot and aim yourself that's the point of the sights.
at 1000 yards with open sights and 10 shots i would bet someone that you couldn't do it even with spotters. just one of those things where guy will talk the talk but be made a fool when they try walk the walk. i tried many times. it's not as easy as it looks.
its a long shot ,and with iron sights its even longer .In that video the wind was blowing pretty good to.The thing is how long did this guy practise this shot before doing the video.It not is first time shooting the K31 he as practised that shot lots for sure
Gord, he has hundreds of videos on youtube. His personal channel is mag30th.
Dave
Last edited:
Cocked&Locked
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- S. Ontario
Really there was no real functional difference in accuracy in the field. Comparing rack grade rifles made pre war, they all shot pretty much the same standard of acceptance. The ross did shoot better, but didn't like digesting war time ammunition...it was a target rifle hiding in a trench...
You could debate for hours, but in the end you pick the rifle you prefer. I personally like any of them, and with good ammo wouldn't feel disadvantaged. I think the springfield was overhyped and that the rack grade units didn't shoot any better (if as good) as the P17's, which there where far more of, and where more durable to boot.
For me i'd grab a LE #4 or a P14-17 as I find it easier to shoot with apeture sights to the level the rifle is capable off. Another good choice might be a Norwegian mauser in 6.5.
You could debate for hours, but in the end you pick the rifle you prefer. I personally like any of them, and with good ammo wouldn't feel disadvantaged. I think the springfield was overhyped and that the rack grade units didn't shoot any better (if as good) as the P17's, which there where far more of, and where more durable to boot.
For me i'd grab a LE #4 or a P14-17 as I find it easier to shoot with apeture sights to the level the rifle is capable off. Another good choice might be a Norwegian mauser in 6.5.
Travis Bickle
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Upper Lower Middle Alberta
I'd be in for a 1903A3 with the peep sights.
Enfields
The Ross
K-31
All about the same accuracy capability. Which for a battle rifle mass produced means that if it's better than average, it's outstanding.
Enfields
The Ross
K-31
All about the same accuracy capability. Which for a battle rifle mass produced means that if it's better than average, it's outstanding.
Rosses worked just fine with "wartime" ammunition.
What they did not work well with, was ammunition which had already been CONDEMNED because it was so far out-of-spec.
Think of doing a field-test on a 94 Winchester....... and all you have is .303 ammo.
MOST rifles of the period of the Wars would be accepted if they shot 2 to 3 MOA. A good Ross will shoot 1 MOA with no tweaking. With ammunition tuned to the rifle, you can shoot much tighter than that. The problem then is very simple: can you hold it?
Ross had with best trigger and the best sights of the Great War. With a decent rear-sight protector, it would have been better, no doubt. I think the Army really missed the boat when the SSAC turned down the 26-inch barrel on the Mark III.
Good enough for me, anyway.
What they did not work well with, was ammunition which had already been CONDEMNED because it was so far out-of-spec.
Think of doing a field-test on a 94 Winchester....... and all you have is .303 ammo.
MOST rifles of the period of the Wars would be accepted if they shot 2 to 3 MOA. A good Ross will shoot 1 MOA with no tweaking. With ammunition tuned to the rifle, you can shoot much tighter than that. The problem then is very simple: can you hold it?
Ross had with best trigger and the best sights of the Great War. With a decent rear-sight protector, it would have been better, no doubt. I think the Army really missed the boat when the SSAC turned down the 26-inch barrel on the Mark III.
Good enough for me, anyway.
I used to lay down bowling pins, shooting standing a K31 with GP11 patronen in 3 shot MAX at 200 meters.
Only Because the rifle is accurate, has an excellent trigger, and of course good ammunition (GP11). Beside I wear glasses & my vision is very bad.
So 1000 Yards shootings jugs, I has my respect.
N.B. I don't remember if I used to set the rear sight at 200 or not...
Only Because the rifle is accurate, has an excellent trigger, and of course good ammunition (GP11). Beside I wear glasses & my vision is very bad.
So 1000 Yards shootings jugs, I has my respect.
N.B. I don't remember if I used to set the rear sight at 200 or not...
- Location
- chilliwack BC.
Swedish mausers are also very accurate and flat shooting.
anyone that says a K31 isn't accurate is kidding themselves tho. No they didn't see action per se, but they are off the rack military rifles.
anyone that says a K31 isn't accurate is kidding themselves tho. No they didn't see action per se, but they are off the rack military rifles.
