User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 10/21/2013 1:11:17 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryOohhh that Swiss rifle is nice. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2013 1:12:48 PM EDT
[#2]
I'd have to give #1 to the 91/30, based on how the Soviet doctrine of the time allowed effective deployment on the battlefield, as well as the sheer number of them deployed on the battlefield. The PE, PEM, and PU rifles as well as the scoped Tokarevs were all sufficiently effective on the battlefield enough for the Germans to take note and press captured examples into service and copy them for their own purposes (IE G/K41, G/K43).
A close second goes the Germans and the Mauser 98, however I hear it stated that one of their main drawbacks was not developing or designating specific ammunition for their snipers, thus not allowing their snipers to be utilized to their fullest extent. The scale of their sniper program is also dwarfed by that of the Soviets. The use of optics on their G43 and MP44 rifles was innovative but came too late in the war to make a difference. They were also beaten to the punch by the Soviets and the SVT38/40, as well as the standard issue Garand by the American Army. Just my $0.02 |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2013 1:14:57 PM EDT
[#3]
IIRC the Germans didn't have a set type.
Many of their sniper rifles were commercial Mausers purchased by the individual snipers or their units. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2013 1:16:02 PM EDT
[#4]
A LOT of Germans would have to agree the Mosin Nagat rifle was the clear killer in WW2.
Wait they would have to be alive to tell the tales of Stalingrad alone. fuck every other battle the ruskies and germans got into the Stalin grad Campaign cost both sides dearly. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2013 1:20:04 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I know the Soviets and Germans were believers in the sniper role but I've never heard much about the Brits. Did they use snipers much, did they just hand a sniper rifle to the high scorer in a company...? The fusion of marksmanship/ sharpshooters, field craft, intelligence gathering and being the commanders "eyes of the battlefield" came together with their exploits around the globe. Fun fact, a lot of the Guys that did that, had a hand in the creation of the Boy Scouts. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2013 1:21:50 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Russian WWII manufacturing and quality control are not exactly synonymous. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
One thing the Russkies did right was hand select rifles for their accuracy to be converted into snipers instead of just using random production rifles. When you have low quality weapons, you have to do that. High quality weapons will all shoot within established parameters. The Mosin was not a low quality weapon. It was no less accurate than the K98 and would work in a much broader range of environments. Russian WWII manufacturing and quality control are not exactly synonymous. True, quality suffered during the war, as they had to move the entire Tula factory across the country to keep the equipment out of German hands. The external quality and finish might have suffered, as the tolerances for bore size also fluctuated, but the structural integrity of the action was never compromised. However, the Russians had plenty of prewar PE and PEM rifles as well as SVT 38 and 40 rifles. Besides, it is often thought that the Russians handpicked rifles off the line to become sniper rifles, but I have also read that based on serial number records it is possible they made their sniper rifles in batches, presumably with tighter QC and better finishing than standard line rifles. No way to back that up but it's a point to consider based on the sheer number of rifles produced and the wide time span they were produced in. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2013 1:27:17 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Whatever it was that Simo Hayha used. Or a Lahti.  Most of his kills were without a scope. His early scoped rifle was an M96 Swede. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2013 1:28:44 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Enfield No4T They're fugly, but I concur. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2013 1:33:32 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted: whatever weapon the white death was holding. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2013 1:34:52 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Vasily Zaitsev  /game |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2013 1:39:53 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
M/28: A variant designed by the White Guard. The M/28 differs from the Army's M/27 primarily in the barrel band design, which is a single piece compared to the M/27's hinged band, and an improved trigger design. Barrels for the M/28 were initially purchased from SIG, and later from Tikkakoski and SAKO.[21] M/28-30: An upgraded version of the M/28. The most noticeable modification is the new rear sight design. Same sight was used in following M39 rifle only exception being "1.5" marking for closest range to clarify it for users. According to micrometer measurements and comparison to modern Lapua D46/47 bullet radar trajectory data, markings are matched to Finnish Lapua D46/D46 bullet surprisingly accurately through whole adjustment range between 150 m and 2000 m. M/28-30 model, serial number 60974, was used by Simo Häyhä, a well-known Finnish sniper. M28/30 was used as Civil Guards competition rifle before World War II, as was case with Simo Häyhä's personal rifle too. Therefore rifles were built very well, with highest grade barrels available and carefully matched headspace. Häyhä's rifle was still at PKarPr (Northern Karelia Brigade) museum in 2002, then moved to an unknown place by the Finnish Army. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mosin-Nagant#Finland Blatantly false. That rifle was mid-late 1939 production, based on serial number. It also was the one awarded to him partway through the Winter War. The rifle he used for most of his kills (m/28-30 s# unknown, but known to at least be an early 1934 or earlier dated example, possibly an m/28 upgraded to m/28-30 configuration) was lost in combat and may have been used a fair amount beforehand as a target rifle by Hayha. Hayha however had many rifles. He was an avid hunter, target shooter, and general firearms enthusiast. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2013 1:42:07 PM EDT
[#12]
I think the 1903 would be the best sniper rifle. As the saying went in WW1. The Germans had the best hunting rifle, the Americans had the best Target rifle and the English had the best battle rifle.
Plus, I am a biased with .30-06 over 7.92 and .303 for long range work.  ETA: Wait. I may take that back. M2 had a flat base projectile, which are definitely not the best for long range stuff. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2013 1:48:47 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Everything we think of when we think of modern western military snipers comes from the British. The fusion of marksmanship/ sharpshooters, field craft, intelligence gathering and being the commanders "eyes of the battlefield" came together with their exploits around the globe. Fun fact, a lot of the Guys that did that, had a hand in the creation of the Boy Scouts. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I know the Soviets and Germans were believers in the sniper role but I've never heard much about the Brits. Did they use snipers much, did they just hand a sniper rifle to the high scorer in a company...? The fusion of marksmanship/ sharpshooters, field craft, intelligence gathering and being the commanders "eyes of the battlefield" came together with their exploits around the globe. Fun fact, a lot of the Guys that did that, had a hand in the creation of the Boy Scouts. I can definitely see the relationship between the two. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2013 1:49:44 PM EDT
[#14]
Probably a toss up between the #4T and the Swede M41 (with the german Ajack). There are pictures of the Swedish mausers in Finland, so they definitely were used WWII (especially if you count the Winter War).
6.5x55 ballistics makes an OK shooter much better in terms of wind drift. The unertl scoped 1903's are great target rifles, but I would much prefer the British or German glass for actually carrying around and hunting people. Unertl scoped 1903's and M41s dominate the top positions in CMP vintage sniper matches. I've shot both pretty extensively, and the guys with M41's are always hoping for rain and wind. A lot of WWII was fought in bad weather. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2013 1:51:27 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
According to some, the Finns had low quality arms. Their receivers, bolt bodies and most other bolt parts were Russian. The Finns used many captured Russian 91/30s. Unlike Mausers that were pretty well useless in extremely low temps, the Mosins worked just fine. But remember, the Russians didn't make good guns. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
whatever weapon the white death was holding. According to some, the Finns had low quality arms. Their receivers, bolt bodies and most other bolt parts were Russian. The Finns used many captured Russian 91/30s. Unlike Mausers that were pretty well useless in extremely low temps, the Mosins worked just fine. But remember, the Russians didn't make good guns. You've obviously NEVER held a non-refurbished WW2 or earlier Mosin in original condition. You're probably basing your opinion on gun show BS and your experience with shittily done Cold War era refurbs. The 1930's production Soviet weapons in particular are very well made. Finnish arms did use recycled Mosin parts, but those parts weren't inherently flawed somehow merely because they had something to do with the Russians previously. The Finns built their Mosins with little care to looks, focusing instead on things like stock and bolt fit and high quality barrel and sights. The rifles are very accurate. Mosins of the period were well made. Perhaps they weren't pretty, but it's a weapon of war, not a dress or uncle Fudd's purdy deer rifle. Some people can't seem to grasp this however. They shit all over and look down their noses at Mosins merely because they don't have swastikas plastered all over them or because they don't say "Winchester" or "Springfield Armory" on their receivers. I assure you that those markings have no functional difference for the rifles as weapons. tl;dr: stop listening to fudds |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2013 2:01:05 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
According to some, the Finns had low quality arms. Their receivers, bolt bodies and most other bolt parts were Russian. The Finns used many captured Russian 91/30s. Unlike Mausers that were pretty well useless in extremely low temps, the Mosins worked just fine. But remember, the Russians didn't make good guns. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
whatever weapon the white death was holding. According to some, the Finns had low quality arms. Their receivers, bolt bodies and most other bolt parts were Russian. The Finns used many captured Russian 91/30s. Unlike Mausers that were pretty well useless in extremely low temps, the Mosins worked just fine. But remember, the Russians didn't make good guns. What gooftard is saying Finn Mosins were low quality? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2013 2:01:14 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Probably a toss up between the #4T and the Swede M41 (with the german Ajack). There are pictures of the Swedish mausers in Finland, so they definitely were used WWII (especially if you count the Winter War). 6.5x55 ballistics makes an OK shooter much better in terms of wind drift. The unertl scoped 1903's are great target rifles, but I would much prefer the British or German glass for actually carrying around and hunting people. Unertl scoped 1903's and M41s dominate the top positions in CMP vintage sniper matches. I've shot both pretty extensively, and the guys with M41's are always hoping for rain and wind. A lot of WWII was fought in bad weather. Not sure about M41's being in Finland, but there were definitely quite a few M96's that were retrofitted with optics that were used as snipers. The Swedish government sent tens of thousands of M96's as aid to Finland, and many Swedish civilians donated/gifted arms to be used by Finns. The latter is most likely the primary source of the scoped Swedish Mausers in Finland. I know I have a few pics of Swedish Mausers with non-standard scopes and mounts being used by Finnish soldiers. I believe Hayha had such a rifle, though he rarely used it. The Finnish Mosin snipers were pretty good, but they were VERY low in number for all types. Swedish Mauser retrofitted with scopes gets my vote as best sniper's rifle of WW2. 6.5x55 out of a VERY accurate rifle with a good action is hard to beat. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2013 2:09:45 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Hmm. The 1903A1 with the big 8x Unertl has a lot going for it, but that scope's a bit funky for actual combat use. You actually have to pull it back into position after each shot. The 1903-A4 and No. 4(T) both had pretty crappy glass. I'll take the M91/30 PU. That Optic came with a spring on it to absorb recoil unless it was removed of course... This is a photo that I found online, even Hathcock's book mentions that he removed the spring... 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2013 2:11:53 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That Optic came with a spring on it to absorb recoil unless it was removed of course... This is a photo that I found online, even Hathcock's book mentions that he removed the spring... http://image.artfact.com/housePhotos/Amoskeag/04/311204/H1193-L25263262.jpg Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Hmm. The 1903A1 with the big 8x Unertl has a lot going for it, but that scope's a bit funky for actual combat use. You actually have to pull it back into position after each shot. The 1903-A4 and No. 4(T) both had pretty crappy glass. I'll take the M91/30 PU. That Optic came with a spring on it to absorb recoil unless it was removed of course... This is a photo that I found online, even Hathcock's book mentions that he removed the spring... http://image.artfact.com/housePhotos/Amoskeag/04/311204/H1193-L25263262.jpg The Marines did not use the springs during WWII. You are not allowed to use them in CMP Vintage Sniper matches, either. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2013 2:14:55 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Enfield No4T This....for the same reasons it was the best battle rifle. Good serviceable optics, accurate, 10-round capacity and fast action for followups. I've owned many WWII sniper variants, still favor the T as the best when considering all positive attributes. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2013 2:21:22 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Swedish M41 Yup. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2013 2:24:18 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The Marines did not use the springs during WWII. You are not allowed to use them in CMP Vintage Sniper matches, either. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Hmm. The 1903A1 with the big 8x Unertl has a lot going for it, but that scope's a bit funky for actual combat use. You actually have to pull it back into position after each shot. The 1903-A4 and No. 4(T) both had pretty crappy glass. I'll take the M91/30 PU. That Optic came with a spring on it to absorb recoil unless it was removed of course... This is a photo that I found online, even Hathcock's book mentions that he removed the spring... http://image.artfact.com/housePhotos/Amoskeag/04/311204/H1193-L25263262.jpg The Marines did not use the springs during WWII. You are not allowed to use them in CMP Vintage Sniper matches, either. Doesn't really change the fact that the Optic was not a shortcoming because it had to be pulled back through the mounts because someone removed the spring. it was on it when it was issued, someone REMOVED it which created the "Problem". Because you are not allowed to use the spring in some competition is not really relevant. The Majority of the famed shots that Hathcock took were with the same optic probably same vintage... As I understood it in the Hathcock book it was removed because of his personal preference he did not trust it to return to position reliably... Bottom line it was the most powerful and arguably the best glass of any "Sniper" optic of the day. Just about EVERY other system had 4x or less power. the 8x was KICKASS though closer in would have been limiting... I think one of the German Zeiss or Jena optics was a 6X... There is a guy who attends local gun shows who has one with the original "Case" that is ALWAYS at the shows trying to sell that thing, no mounts or rings just the optic... Can't recollect his asking price.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2013 2:24:24 PM EDT
[#23]
As to which caliber was the more accurate. The answer is they all are. I seem to recall the the Soviets used their Mosins in Olympic competition. I'm sure the Germans did the same with their rifles chambered in 7.92x57.
As always in these types of posts about which rifle was best the most important factor is usually forgotten. The guy twitching the trigger. You can have the most accurate rifle ever made. But if the guy behind the trigger isn't up to snuff, that accuracy is wasted. All of those rifles in skilled hands were more than up to the task. None of them were really better than any one of of them. They were all essentially bolt action rifles. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2013 2:25:53 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not sure about M41's being in Finland, but there were definitely quite a few M96's that were retrofitted with optics that were used as snipers. The Swedish government sent tens of thousands of M96's as aid to Finland, and many Swedish civilians donated/gifted arms to be used by Finns. The latter is most likely the primary source of the scoped Swedish Mausers in Finland. I know I have a few pics of Swedish Mausers with non-standard scopes and mounts being used by Finnish soldiers. I believe Hayha had such a rifle, though he rarely used it. The Finnish Mosin snipers were pretty good, but they were VERY low in number for all types. Swedish Mauser retrofitted with scopes gets my vote as best sniper's rifle of WW2. 6.5x55 out of a VERY accurate rifle with a good action is hard to beat. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Probably a toss up between the #4T and the Swede M41 (with the german Ajack). There are pictures of the Swedish mausers in Finland, so they definitely were used WWII (especially if you count the Winter War). 6.5x55 ballistics makes an OK shooter much better in terms of wind drift. The unertl scoped 1903's are great target rifles, but I would much prefer the British or German glass for actually carrying around and hunting people. Unertl scoped 1903's and M41s dominate the top positions in CMP vintage sniper matches. I've shot both pretty extensively, and the guys with M41's are always hoping for rain and wind. A lot of WWII was fought in bad weather. Not sure about M41's being in Finland, but there were definitely quite a few M96's that were retrofitted with optics that were used as snipers. The Swedish government sent tens of thousands of M96's as aid to Finland, and many Swedish civilians donated/gifted arms to be used by Finns. The latter is most likely the primary source of the scoped Swedish Mausers in Finland. I know I have a few pics of Swedish Mausers with non-standard scopes and mounts being used by Finnish soldiers. I believe Hayha had such a rifle, though he rarely used it. The Finnish Mosin snipers were pretty good, but they were VERY low in number for all types. Swedish Mauser retrofitted with scopes gets my vote as best sniper's rifle of WW2. 6.5x55 out of a VERY accurate rifle with a good action is hard to beat. There were a few M41s that ended up in Finland and saw use in the Continuation War. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2013 2:27:06 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yup. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Swedish M41 Yup. It's a very good rifle, I've owned 2 of them and they're wonderful shooters - but I'd not put it above the Enfield if we're being unbiased. Lower capacity, higher bore-over-axis (way fucking high, in fact), longer and slightly more cumbersome. I sure as hell wouldn't feel hobbled if I was issued one during that time period, but as a general "what's the best overall" I'd give the No4T the nod. If it weren't for the shitty optics, I'd say the K31/43 would give them both a run in speed/accuracy/ergonomics...but the Swiss failed on the prismatic scope. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2013 2:28:23 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not sure about M41's being in Finland, but there were definitely quite a few M96's that were retrofitted with optics that were used as snipers. The Swedish government sent tens of thousands of M96's as aid to Finland, and many Swedish civilians donated/gifted arms to be used by Finns. The latter is most likely the primary source of the scoped Swedish Mausers in Finland. I know I have a few pics of Swedish Mausers with non-standard scopes and mounts being used by Finnish soldiers. I believe Hayha had such a rifle, though he rarely used it. The Finnish Mosin snipers were pretty good, but they were VERY low in number for all types. Swedish Mauser retrofitted with scopes gets my vote as best sniper's rifle of WW2. 6.5x55 out of a VERY accurate rifle with a good action is hard to beat. To be fair, the pictures I've seen could well have been privately scoped ones, but there definitely were, for lack of a better word, M41 clones with German glass in FInland for the Winter War killing russians. My point was more that it counts as a legit WWII rifle, as opposed to, say the Swiss sniper variants. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2013 2:37:57 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: As to which caliber was the more accurate. The answer is they all are. I seem to recall the the Soviets used their Mosins in Olympic competition. I'm sure the Germans did the same with their rifles chambered in 7.92x57. As always in these types of posts about which rifle was best the most important factor is usually forgotten. The guy twitching the trigger. You can have the most accurate rifle ever made. But if the guy behind the trigger isn't up to snuff, that accuracy is wasted. All of those rifles in skilled hands were more than up to the task. None of them were really better than any one of of them. They were all essentially bolt action rifles. Because that's what it is. No one forgets that at the end of the day it's the shooters and variables that effect the outcome. Discussing the technical merits, we find out that no, NOT all of the rifles were up to the task under all conditions. Is a Mauser going to cycle as well in freezing temperature as a Mosin after 10-30 rapid fire rounds in a tight engagement? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2013 2:41:01 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That's... dramatically simplistic for a discussion about technical merits. Because that's what it is. No one forgets that at the end of the day it's the shooters and variables that effect the outcome. Discussing the technical merits, we find out that no, NOT all of the rifles were up to the task under all conditions. Is a Mauser going to cycle as well in freezing temperature as a Mosin after 10-30 rapid fire rounds in a tight engagement? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: As to which caliber was the more accurate. The answer is they all are. I seem to recall the the Soviets used their Mosins in Olympic competition. I'm sure the Germans did the same with their rifles chambered in 7.92x57. As always in these types of posts about which rifle was best the most important factor is usually forgotten. The guy twitching the trigger. You can have the most accurate rifle ever made. But if the guy behind the trigger isn't up to snuff, that accuracy is wasted. All of those rifles in skilled hands were more than up to the task. None of them were really better than any one of of them. They were all essentially bolt action rifles. Because that's what it is. No one forgets that at the end of the day it's the shooters and variables that effect the outcome. Discussing the technical merits, we find out that no, NOT all of the rifles were up to the task under all conditions. Is a Mauser going to cycle as well in freezing temperature as a Mosin after 10-30 rapid fire rounds in a tight engagement? Is the Mosin shooter still alive after missing 29 times?  |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2013 2:41:15 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It's a very good rifle, I've owned 2 of them and they're wonderful shooters - but I'd not put it above the Enfield if we're being unbiased. Lower capacity, higher bore-over-axis (way fucking high, in fact), longer and slightly more cumbersome. I sure as hell wouldn't feel hobbled if I was issued one during that time period, but as a general "what's the best overall" I'd give the No4T the nod. If it weren't for the shitty optics, I'd say the K31/43 would give them both a run in speed/accuracy/ergonomics...but the Swiss failed on the prismatic scope. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Swedish M41 Yup. It's a very good rifle, I've owned 2 of them and they're wonderful shooters - but I'd not put it above the Enfield if we're being unbiased. Lower capacity, higher bore-over-axis (way fucking high, in fact), longer and slightly more cumbersome. I sure as hell wouldn't feel hobbled if I was issued one during that time period, but as a general "what's the best overall" I'd give the No4T the nod. If it weren't for the shitty optics, I'd say the K31/43 would give them both a run in speed/accuracy/ergonomics...but the Swiss failed on the prismatic scope. I maintain that the M41 is the superior rifle, but only on account of the calibre. The Enfield is superior in many ways, but it's hampered by the .303. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2013 2:42:34 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It's a very good rifle, I've owned 2 of them and they're wonderful shooters - but I'd not put it above the Enfield if we're being unbiased. Lower capacity, higher bore-over-axis (way fucking high, in fact), longer and slightly more cumbersome. I sure as hell wouldn't feel hobbled if I was issued one during that time period, but as a general "what's the best overall" I'd give the No4T the nod. If it weren't for the shitty optics, I'd say the K31/43 would give them both a run in speed/accuracy/ergonomics...but the Swiss failed on the prismatic scope. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Swedish M41 Yup. It's a very good rifle, I've owned 2 of them and they're wonderful shooters - but I'd not put it above the Enfield if we're being unbiased. Lower capacity, higher bore-over-axis (way fucking high, in fact), longer and slightly more cumbersome. I sure as hell wouldn't feel hobbled if I was issued one during that time period, but as a general "what's the best overall" I'd give the No4T the nod. If it weren't for the shitty optics, I'd say the K31/43 would give them both a run in speed/accuracy/ergonomics...but the Swiss failed on the prismatic scope. I think its a tossup between them. The No. 4(T) is handicapped by inferior ammo, its 2+lbs heavier, and it has (I would argue, finicky bedding). Both of them are substantially better than Mosins, 1903A4s, etc. I'm going to, just for the hell of it, give the M41 the edge since it has noncorrosive, and non-cordite ammo. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2013 2:45:08 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Is the Mosin shooter still alive after missing 29 times? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: snip Is the Mosin shooter still alive after missing 29 times?  |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2013 2:53:03 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Doesn't really change the fact that the Optic was not a shortcoming because it had to be pulled back through the mounts because someone removed the spring. it was on it when it was issued, someone REMOVED it which created the "Problem". Because you are not allowed to use the spring in some competition is not really relevant. The Majority of the famed shots that Hathcock took were with the same optic probably same vintage... As I understood it in the Hathcock book it was removed because of his personal preference he did not trust it to return to position reliably... Bottom line it was the most powerful and arguably the best glass of any "Sniper" optic of the day. Just about EVERY other system had 4x or less power. the 8x was KICKASS though closer in would have been limiting... I think one of the German Zeiss or Jena optics was a 6X... There is a guy who attends local gun shows who has one with the original "Case" that is ALWAYS at the shows trying to sell that thing, no mounts or rings just the optic... Can't recollect his asking price.... No, it wasn't on it when it was issued. The Marines did not use the spring at all during WWII. Their scopes did not come with it. It's a fantastic scope, no question. There's a reason the M1903A1s do so well in the CMP matches. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2013 2:57:30 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryZF-55 ? cant really see on my phone except it is 10 years too late |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2013 2:58:32 PM EDT
[#34]
Simo_hayha 
Vasily.Zaitsev 
and still taking care of buisness 
WINNER 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2013 3:59:14 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I maintain that the M41 is the superior rifle, but only on account of the calibre. The Enfield is superior in many ways, but it's hampered by the .303. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Swedish M41 Yup. It's a very good rifle, I've owned 2 of them and they're wonderful shooters - but I'd not put it above the Enfield if we're being unbiased. Lower capacity, higher bore-over-axis (way fucking high, in fact), longer and slightly more cumbersome. I sure as hell wouldn't feel hobbled if I was issued one during that time period, but as a general "what's the best overall" I'd give the No4T the nod. If it weren't for the shitty optics, I'd say the K31/43 would give them both a run in speed/accuracy/ergonomics...but the Swiss failed on the prismatic scope. I maintain that the M41 is the superior rifle, but only on account of the calibre. The Enfield is superior in many ways, but it's hampered by the .303. It's not much of a disadvantage, the Mk7 pill was accurate at long ranges and plenty deadly to kill anything on two feet. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2013 4:06:13 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It's not much of a disadvantage, the Mk7 pill was accurate at long ranges and plenty deadly to kill anything on two feet. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Swedish M41 Yup. It's a very good rifle, I've owned 2 of them and they're wonderful shooters - but I'd not put it above the Enfield if we're being unbiased. Lower capacity, higher bore-over-axis (way fucking high, in fact), longer and slightly more cumbersome. I sure as hell wouldn't feel hobbled if I was issued one during that time period, but as a general "what's the best overall" I'd give the No4T the nod. If it weren't for the shitty optics, I'd say the K31/43 would give them both a run in speed/accuracy/ergonomics...but the Swiss failed on the prismatic scope. I maintain that the M41 is the superior rifle, but only on account of the calibre. The Enfield is superior in many ways, but it's hampered by the .303. It's not much of a disadvantage, the Mk7 pill was accurate at long ranges and plenty deadly to kill anything on two feet. It might be accurate, but how much was it affected by wind drift? |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2013 4:13:34 PM EDT
[#37]
Swedish Mauser in 6.5x55 Swede with Carl Zeiss scope.
None of the other calibers even come close. Quit now before I break out the ballistics comparisons. Häyhä didn't use optics either because he didn't have them. They simply weren't available to him for most of the Winter War, and I wouldn't call his rifle a Mosin, since they were Finnish re-builds of vastly superior workmanship than anything that will ever come out of Russia. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/21/2013 4:35:22 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It might be accurate, but how much was it affected by wind drift? About the same as most every other .30 caliber ball, but it had advantages there as the Mk7 out of the Enfield action had excellent stabilization qualities - that round is freaky, does better at 600 yards than it does at 300. Bisley shooters loved it for long range performance. It wasn't the strongest round of the war, but it didn't need to be. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/22/2013 7:06:23 AM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Most of his kills were without a scope. His early scoped rifle was an M96 Swede. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Whatever it was that Simo Hayha used. Or a Lahti. Most of his kills were without a scope. His early scoped rifle was an M96 Swede. I'm aware. Makes it that much more impressive. Wasn't he paranoid about a flash from the scope giving him away or something like that |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/22/2013 8:45:30 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm aware. Makes it that much more impressive. Wasn't he paranoid about a flash from the scope giving him away or something like that Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Whatever it was that Simo Hayha used. Or a Lahti. Most of his kills were without a scope. His early scoped rifle was an M96 Swede. I'm aware. Makes it that much more impressive. Wasn't he paranoid about a flash from the scope giving him away or something like that Height over cover was his fear. He could stay lower using irons. Most of his kills were with a suomi though. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/22/2013 8:53:28 AM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryI was going to suggest this. Had the K31 series had the chance to be out for blood - it would have gotten it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/22/2013 8:55:17 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Nothing that either we made or the Russians made, for sure. Wrong. In terms of lives taken, the Russian Mosin-Nagant is number one with a steel core bullet. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/22/2013 8:55:32 AM EDT
[#43]
Simo and Vasily owed their success 87 times more to hardware between their legs than in their hands.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/22/2013 9:09:21 AM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The Mosin was not a low quality weapon. It was no less accurate than the K98 and would work in a much broader range of environments. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
One thing the Russkies did right was hand select rifles for their accuracy to be converted into snipers instead of just using random production rifles. When you have low quality weapons, you have to do that. High quality weapons will all shoot within established parameters. The Mosin was not a low quality weapon. It was no less accurate than the K98 and would work in a much broader range of environments. While not as beautiful and well-crafted as the Mauser, I would definitely agree with you that the Mosin is not a "low quality weapon." My favorite Mosin, however, is the Finn M39. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/22/2013 9:24:33 AM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
While not as beautiful and well-crafted as the Mauser, I would definitely agree with you that the Mosin is not a "low quality weapon." My favorite Mosin, however, is the Finn M39. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
One thing the Russkies did right was hand select rifles for their accuracy to be converted into snipers instead of just using random production rifles. When you have low quality weapons, you have to do that. High quality weapons will all shoot within established parameters. The Mosin was not a low quality weapon. It was no less accurate than the K98 and would work in a much broader range of environments. While not as beautiful and well-crafted as the Mauser, I would definitely agree with you that the Mosin is not a "low quality weapon." My favorite Mosin, however, is the Finn M39. The Finns took a low-quality rifle left over from the Czarist times, pulled everything off it except the receiver, re-worked it entirely, put a 1.5 MOA Swedish Bofors steel barrel in it, quality furniture, good sights, etc. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/22/2013 10:19:14 AM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
<a href="http://s542.photobucket.com/user/jm0502/media/1378521736183_zpscb724c1c.gif.html" target="_blank">http://i542.photobucket.com/albums/gg415/jm0502/1378521736183_zpscb724c1c.gif</a> From "Saving Private Ryan" after Vin Diesel gets shot. "He was on the ground before we heard the shot!" Not true if you listen and pay attention. But it sounded good at the time.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/22/2013 10:24:31 AM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You've obviously NEVER held a non-refurbished WW2 or earlier Mosin in original condition. You're probably basing your opinion on gun show BS and your experience with shittily done Cold War era refurbs. The 1930's production Soviet weapons in particular are very well made. Finnish arms did use recycled Mosin parts, but those parts weren't inherently flawed somehow merely because they had something to do with the Russians previously. The Finns built their Mosins with little care to looks, focusing instead on things like stock and bolt fit and high quality barrel and sights. The rifles are very accurate. Mosins of the period were well made. Perhaps they weren't pretty, but it's a weapon of war, not a dress or uncle Fudd's purdy deer rifle. Some people can't seem to grasp this however. They shit all over and look down their noses at Mosins merely because they don't have swastikas plastered all over them or because they don't say "Winchester" or "Springfield Armory" on their receivers. I assure you that those markings have no functional difference for the rifles as weapons. tl;dr: stop listening to fudds Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
whatever weapon the white death was holding. According to some, the Finns had low quality arms. Their receivers, bolt bodies and most other bolt parts were Russian. The Finns used many captured Russian 91/30s. Unlike Mausers that were pretty well useless in extremely low temps, the Mosins worked just fine. But remember, the Russians didn't make good guns. You've obviously NEVER held a non-refurbished WW2 or earlier Mosin in original condition. You're probably basing your opinion on gun show BS and your experience with shittily done Cold War era refurbs. The 1930's production Soviet weapons in particular are very well made. Finnish arms did use recycled Mosin parts, but those parts weren't inherently flawed somehow merely because they had something to do with the Russians previously. The Finns built their Mosins with little care to looks, focusing instead on things like stock and bolt fit and high quality barrel and sights. The rifles are very accurate. Mosins of the period were well made. Perhaps they weren't pretty, but it's a weapon of war, not a dress or uncle Fudd's purdy deer rifle. Some people can't seem to grasp this however. They shit all over and look down their noses at Mosins merely because they don't have swastikas plastered all over them or because they don't say "Winchester" or "Springfield Armory" on their receivers. I assure you that those markings have no functional difference for the rifles as weapons. tl;dr: stop listening to fudds Dude, I was being sarcastic. I collect Mosins and have a 1942 Izhvesk sniper that has been returned to that configuration. The bias against Mosins reminds me of the bias against Arisakas (arguably the strong bolt action of WWII, and the Carcano, a very serviceable rifle also with a very strong receiver. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/22/2013 10:32:32 AM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The Finns took a low-quality rifle left over from the Czarist times, pulled everything off it except the receiver, re-worked it entirely, put a 1.5 MOA Swedish Bofors steel barrel in it, quality furniture, good sights, etc. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
One thing the Russkies did right was hand select rifles for their accuracy to be converted into snipers instead of just using random production rifles. When you have low quality weapons, you have to do that. High quality weapons will all shoot within established parameters. The Mosin was not a low quality weapon. It was no less accurate than the K98 and would work in a much broader range of environments. While not as beautiful and well-crafted as the Mauser, I would definitely agree with you that the Mosin is not a "low quality weapon." My favorite Mosin, however, is the Finn M39. The Finns took a low-quality rifle left over from the Czarist times, pulled everything off it except the receiver, re-worked it entirely, put a 1.5 MOA Swedish Bofors steel barrel in it, quality furniture, good sights, etc. With the exception of some M27 receivers which had slots milled into it for the short-lived winged connector, the Finns did not rework it entirely. The did not rework the receivers and never made their own. Most bolt parts were recycled from Russian, American, and French rifles. They did improve the workings of the trigger. But most Finns carried captured Mosins during the WW and the CW. There is zero evidence that Swedish steel was used to make Mosin barrels. Some blanks were purchased from FN, but they were not used until post war. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/22/2013 11:05:06 AM EDT
[#49]
The Germans paid little regard for sniping in WWII until the Russians (who had taken a beating by German WWI snipers) taught them how important sniping was at a heavy cost.
The Russians fielded more snipers than all other nations combined and while the Mosin was inferior it was still decent and worked well enough. However, the Germans quickly responded and proved to be more effective because of better shooters and tactics in both ways. As sniper targets the German officers were hard to distinguish because they did not wear obviously different uniforms and markings and at sniper rangers it was hard to tell who was in change and even if you did they were crossed trained so the commander going down did not disrupt the unit. This to a similar degree was the same with Americans and Brits but not the Russians. Better glass and easier ID of commanders allowed for taking out the top Rusky guy often causing confusion and even a collapse of a unit among the Russians by German snipers By the time Americans were in the fight the Germans were on the defense and that made for more effective sniping and German snipers had a fierce reputation by our troops. The Germans began development of a true sniper rifle based on the K98k in 1943. Consulting with long range competition shooters and experienced snipers and hunters the new rig was to be a K98k with a match 7X64 Brenneke barrel using the 8X56 night hunting scope. The 7X64 would give them a 1,000 meter gun with lighter recoil and better accuracy. The worsening situation shelved this program as Hitler wanted more semi auto sniper in spite of the fact field personal wanted bolt snipers. German snipers considered head shots by the scope X. 4X was 400 6X was 600 and 8X was 800 (few 8X scopes were deployed) 8MM ammo had become steel cases except for Luftwaffe ammo because of drastic temperature changes. aerial ammo was also more powerful. regular 8MM dropped out of supersonic at over 800 meters but the Luftwaffe brass cased stuff went past 1,000 meters. Snipers would always get some ammo from the fly guys when they could. They rarely shot at extreme range except to keep the enemy nervous. rarely did a German sniper take more than one shot (maybe a quick follow up) as all sides had anti-snipers just waiting for someone to make a shot. Using light loads and match bullets I have shot .75MOA but at full load I rarely approach 1MOA and would agree 2MOA is what I would expect from a good Mauser barrel at least i know on that I could count Wulfmann |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/22/2013 11:10:44 AM EDT
[#50]
Whichever had the best optic. I'm not up on the specifics of all of them but the optics (and mounts) seem to be a bigger shortcoming than the rifles of that era.
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
