Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 12/28/2005 7:36:39 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/28/2005 7:37:38 AM EDT by MauserMark]
After watching Enemy at the Gates for the gazillionth time, I was curious of this. Yes, I know the movie more or less sucks, but I'll watch it if it's on and I have the time. I've had 2 MNs, an M38 and the 91/30. From what I can see, I don't understand how these Stalingrad snipers were able to make some of the shots they were reported to have made, i.e. left eye shots at 200 yards or more. I know most rifles aren't capable of that, but a 91/30, with basic crappy surplus that they had, how were they capable of decent shots? or did they have more match grade like ammo for snipers. And this goes for German snipers with K98s.
Link Posted: 12/28/2005 12:02:27 PM EDT

Tula marked the barrels of their rifles with the distinctive Ch marking where Ishevsk did not use any special markings. In both cases, the arsenals hand selected the sniper rifles from normal production runs based on fit and finish, bore quality and accuracy testing. Some sources say that the rifles were later tweeked for accuracy before being issued by polishing the chambers and slightly modifying the triggers.


German K98 rifles that had excellent fit and barrel quality were set aside for sniper use.

This is taken from Peter Senich's German Sniper book, questions asked to three Heer snipers.



4. At what range could you hit the following targets without fail?

A. Head up to 400 meters. Breast up to 600 meters. Standing Man up to 700-800 meters.

B. Head up to 400 meters. Breast up to 400 meters. Standing up to 600 meters.

C. Head up to 400 meters. Breast up to 400 meters. Standing Man up to 600 meters.

Link Posted: 12/28/2005 12:13:06 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/28/2005 12:13:53 PM EDT by MauserMark]
what about the Mosins though, that was my real question.

and what does excellent fit mean?
Link Posted: 12/28/2005 12:31:25 PM EDT

Originally Posted By MauserMark:
what about the Mosins though, that was my real question.

and what does excellent fit mean?



Mosin's with good barrels are just as accurate as the K98 and capable of the same results I posted above.

Fit would be how well the rifle reciever, bolt, and barrel were machined and assembled.
Link Posted: 12/28/2005 12:52:47 PM EDT
where did you get your source saying this about the Mosins?
Link Posted: 12/28/2005 12:56:23 PM EDT

Originally Posted By MauserMark:
where did you get your source saying this about the Mosins?



Russian mosin Nagant
Link Posted: 12/28/2005 12:56:42 PM EDT
Are Mosins capable of being very accurate (1moa)? Yes. Absolutely.

How do you know which one is the most accurate? Take a bunch of them and fire each of them. Some are simply very accurate while others simply can't hit the broad side of a barn. I mean that literally.

I used to have an M91/30 that couldn't hit a soda can at 20 yards, no joke.

I've also fired a friend's M44 that was an amazingly accurate offhand shooter. I could hit a golf ball at 50 yards shooting from a standing position.

How would you know which was more accurate by inspecting them? You can't. You'll only know by actually shooting them. It's the luck of the draw.
Link Posted: 12/28/2005 4:20:51 PM EDT
ive seen some ex sniper 91/30's on aztech internations site. i think that may be your best bet.
Link Posted: 12/28/2005 4:54:22 PM EDT
I read in one of those Mauser or mauser sniper books that the MN's were more accurate than the mausers for sniping.
Link Posted: 12/28/2005 5:07:50 PM EDT
They wouldn't have been used at Stalingrad, or by Russian Snipers but the Finns remanufactured captured Russian M-Ns and also built some of their own that were held to the highest standard of accuracy of any standard issue rifle in military history.
Link Posted: 12/28/2005 5:56:19 PM EDT
The Finnish Mod27 &39s are generally very good guns, Keep in mind that the Russians wanted a simple mass produced reliable in all conditions idiot proof weapon requiring minimal maintenance that could be use quickly by a peasant conscripted untrained military firing cheaply made ammunition. All of these requirements do not mean a highly accurate gun. Take a good condition unabused standard mod 91/30, slug the bore and get a true diameter measurement, measure the chamber length so you can load cartridges that fit the gun, use a modern propellant with quality bullets, polish the trigger and sear, adjust the sights to that round, and I believe you will get excellent results. Had a buddy years ago who did that with standard 98k Mausers and he regularly won 500m matches with open sights over scoped modern guns.

rk
Link Posted: 12/28/2005 9:23:45 PM EDT
The thing about Mosins is that the quality of the guns, snipers included, was all over the fucking map. Some were very good, some weren't, some were god-awful.

That's the real shame with the gun, compared to the bolt guns of other armies.

Look at the No4mkIT, the Enfield variant sniper. It was purpose built, accurized, and had to past rigorous muster before being issued. Thus, it was VERY likely that your issued No4 sniper was VERY accurate, and consistently so.

The Mosins were, in a manner of speaking, slapped together as sniping platforms and their performance shows it. Some are MOA capable, some aren't pie-plate accurate.

That's just a byproduct of the way they were built and the standards the Russians kept. They were plenty capable of making superb rifles, but they didn't always do so.
Link Posted: 12/28/2005 9:43:23 PM EDT

Originally Posted By FightingHellfish:
They wouldn't have been used at Stalingrad, or by Russian Snipers but the Finns remanufactured captured Russian M-Ns and also built some of their own that were held to the highest standard of accuracy of any standard issue rifle in military history.



I doubt it.
Swiss K-31 easily trumps any other std. rifle.
Link Posted: 12/29/2005 4:47:27 AM EDT

Originally Posted By thedoctors308:

Originally Posted By FightingHellfish:
They wouldn't have been used at Stalingrad, or by Russian Snipers but the Finns remanufactured captured Russian M-Ns and also built some of their own that were held to the highest standard of accuracy of any standard issue rifle in military history.



I doubt it.
Swiss K-31 easily trumps any other std. rifle.



I don't think you understand what he's saying. The Finns had a REQUIREMENT that a rifle had to be capable of delivering 1.5 MOA accuracy at 100 yards, or it went into the furnace.

While the K-31 is certainly one of, if not THE, most refined and consistent military arms of the first half of this century, the Swiss military didn't put quite as stringent a standard on the actual performance of the K-31 during acceptance, for whatever reasons.

The Finn M39 and the 28/30's are right there with the K-31 in terms of consistent accuracy, given the right ammunition.

The Finns took what was really a crude reciever'd gun, and built a silk purse from it.

Both are fine, fine rifles and along with the Swede 96 are the finest bolt guns of the war.
Link Posted: 12/29/2005 7:48:59 AM EDT
All you have to do is find a Mosin Nagant (any variety) with concentric rings, deeply stamped on it, and you should have an "accurate" rifle...of course that is also subjective. I have an M44 which is VERY accurate, and an M38 which is NOT. Both have the rings stamped on the right side of the receiver.
Link Posted: 12/29/2005 8:05:31 AM EDT
Thanks for all of the useful info.

-mark
Link Posted: 12/29/2005 8:08:08 AM EDT

Originally Posted By MauserMark:
After watching Enemy at the Gates for the gazillionth time, .....



Why do I get the impression that MauserMark likes seeing a certain woman's rear end?
Top Top