What is the Most Historically Significant Sniper Rifle?

[wilecoyote]

I am going to vote for the germans, and the K98K they used in world war two since they were one of the few armies after world war one to continue its program for marksmen(snipers) while we americans fell behind and had to start all over again in world war two.

not true :Austro-Hung. army sniping was the consequence of the trench warfare; after WWI, the remains of Austro-Hungaric Empire's upper brasses have, or have been enforced to, discarded any sniping program, even putting for sale the former army's sniper equipement (optics)_ as the British Army under the Boer's fire, Germans learned again the value of that thank to Polish efforts, in 1939_ Being often the Waffen SS the spearhead of the invasion, were the same WSS to report heaviest casualties from Polish sniping fire_ Being that in the WSS the higher brasses in the field were FORWARD their soldiers, (oppositely than some others), the needing for some fast solution was immediately understood (!), remaining glasses procured or otherwise confiscated, etc.,and any related effort putted "privately" in motion_ (At the beginning, you can see some WSS soldier equipped with vintage scoped Gewehr '98s)_ The German Army was slower to activate himself, but in any way even their last and more evoluted K98k sniper rifle was only a WARTIME customization of their plain vanilla infantry carbine, and the 30 sniper's school's german facilities remains a WWII WAR event, when before the '39 their "sniping culture" was putted aside,if not forgotten, and other tactics preferred_

 

[Deleted member 10043]

Remington M40/"M700". I believe the USMC ordered about 600 of these rifles. In essence it started the M40xx line that has been in use for over 45 years.

 

[RanchhandTCR]

I stand corrected then..

 

[sandwarrior]

To say that one is "the most significant" has to boil down to some criteria, i.e. longest in service, most kills, first in service, game changer, milestone setter (record of some type), ease of use in easily trained hands.


True first in service would be, IMO, the Kentucky/Pennsylvania rifles used to outstanding effect against the British. Even before that against the French. It was a game changer in that it literally tripled effective ranges of engagement over the "Brown Bess" smooth-bore musket. It was the beginning of the end of 'formation' fighting. Just that it took another 150 years for military tacticians to realize it. But, it was a hunting rifle adapted to snipe with. While the Sharps was an excellent rifle, it was a follow on improvement by using cartridges instead of muzzle loading. Significant, but not game changing, because the rest of the world was already moving in that direction.

First in service as a modern smokeless cartridge sniper (the Enfield appeared as a battle rifle earlier) were the 1895 Boer 7mm Mausers. Again, hunting rifles pressed into service as sniper rifles. But, really the noteworthy mark in that with their early scopes and fine sights they could hit routinely well past the opponents range. The British with their .303 Enfields never had the range of the German Mausers. They paid a dear price in numbers alone, overcoming the Boers.

The GEW 98, was the first modern smokeless powder cartridge rifle mass produced as a sniper rifle in WWI. It is the basis of the M1903 and the M70, which eventually was made less complicated to become the M40/M24.

The M1C/D and XM14/M21 were good but lacked long range accuracy Thus the moves back to the M40/M24.

Enter a new era in the Mk12 and M110. Very accurate platforms based on the AR15 and AR10 platforms. Faster follow up shots, and more firepower if needed.

The M2 Browning, which could be made to shoot single shot, was discovered to be extremely accurate (with new barrels of course) in the single shot mode.

Moving further forward with the AW, I think it's more a case of the round, not the rifle. But, 2707 yds. is pretty damn impressive. The action style is still pretty close though to the old Mauser.

So, if you are to take all things into account, rifle actions, cartridge chambering, etc. I would have to say far and away everything boils back to the GEW 98 as the most significant sniper rifle of all time.

Notwithstanding, the Mosin-Nagant had one of the finest campaigns in all of sniping history during the seiges in Russia of cities by the Germans. The sniper with the most kills used one, Simo Hayak. As a single event, the 6.5 Carcano is noted. Although it's pretty easy to see he was not a lone shooter. The .303 Enfields are still in use today as are PU's. They just keep working. Lastly, the K98K, a descendant of the GEW 98, had just as brilliant if not successful campaign as the Mosin-Nagant during the 'battle of the bocage' between D-Day and the breakout.

 

[ksthomas]

As a single event, the 6.5 Carcano is noted. Although it's pretty easy to see he was not a lone shooter.

Okay, now it's on. I say lone shooter, and a couple of damned easy shots at that. No mystery there.

 

[mrbungle]

simo "the white death" did not use a scope because he said it made him to easy to spot. he did it with iron sights, if i remember correctly.

not the most historic but my favorites....the enfield 1853 used by the rebel sharpshooters in the us civil war and the enfield MK4 N1 (T). i also have a soft spot for the M40



on the carcano.......i have a hard time believing oswald could hit anything with that POS....let alone do what they said he did....

 

[ksthomas]

And yet it's been duplicated repeatedly, by a number of shooters, on camera . . .. Easy shots, as I said.

 

[kraigWY]

on the carcano.......i have a hard time believing oswald could hit anything with that POS....let alone do what they said he did....

I'm with ksthomas on this one.

I was running a sniper school years ago when this topic came up. I forgot the details (it was in the early '80s) but one of the guys brought in a Carcano and we played with it quite a bit, setting up the scenario the best we could on the range we were using. It convinced us all that it wasn't that difficult of a shot.

 

[Action Guy]

I agree with the lone shooter being very possible. Not saying it is for sure, but the shots taken were not impossible considering the range <85 yards, the time frame established by the Zapruder film, and the capability of the rifle. While not a true precision rifle, Carcanos are capable of the type of shots taken on Dealey Plaza that day. Based on the importance of the event and the world-wide ramifications, I vote the Oswald Carcano as the single most influential single sniper rifle in history.

For reasons already mentioned, by M-40 primarily, I would vote the USMC M-40A1 as the most influential Sniper Rifle model.

Let the debate continue.

 

[hrfunk]

I have to agree with the lone-shooter crowd. Not that hard a shot for someone with USMC rifle training and a little luck. Probably the greater irony is the fact that the President's motorcade route just happened to go right by the place where LHO worked, AND that place just happened to provide a pretty fair Sniper's hide.

HRF

 

[Action Guy]

I think the hardest part of those shots was the importance of the target and the place in history the shooter would take if successful. Ice water in one's veins. A simple timer in a competition will make me rush and make bad shots.

 

[Pleistarchus]

HK416 Preferred weapon of Seal Team 6

 

[sandwarrior]

Okay, now it's on. I say lone shooter, and a couple of damned easy shots at that. No mystery there.

Yeah, he hit him twice and both times Kennedy slumped more forward and brought his arms up like he was protecting his neck. When his brain explodes out the front of his head....AAANND when some of it goes on the back of the car, Jackie jumps over the back seat and actually grabs that part of his brain and puts it in his lap.

I watched a documentary last week where it showed a guy who does metalurgy inspection. He uses a camera to take pictures of the metal finish. It can detect anomalies in the .00001" by looking at the shading. It only 'sees' black and white. Anyhow, they found they could run the film under this machine and see where the depressions were being made as Kennedy was being shot. In his opinion, the depression made at the front of the head was cause by a bullet from the front. From the storm drain. Where a man standing had a perfect frontal two second shot at about 25 yds.

The more I look at it, the less I believe there was only one shooter. Given Kennedy's record, on various issues, I would have said there were even people lining up to do the job. But, that is a political issue, not a sniper rifle issue.

FWIW, the 6.5 Carcano is a way undervalued rifle. Those who bash it, don't really understand it's capabilities or strengths. For the part in history it played it's significant. As an overall sniper rifle, it never was a game changer, record holder, longest used, most conflicts rifle. Therefore not my choice as "The most significant" sniper rifle.

 

[hrfunk]

I think I've been ruminating on this long enough, and I keep coming back to one rifle (type, not individual specimen). So I guess I'll formally cast my vote for the USMC's original M40. As stated above, this was the first purpose built Sniper rifle I know of which was acquired by a military entity. It was not a refurbished/modified battle rifle (03A4, K98, PU et, al), it was not a hunting or target rifle drafted into the service by war-time exigencies; rather, it was commissioned, designed, and crafted as a Sniper rifle. Moreover, that one rifle was the direct forebear of A1 through A5, as well as the Army's M24, and many custom and semi-custom rifles used by various entities. It was also the direct ancestor of the 700P which is being, or has been used by nearly every law enforcement agency that employs a Sniper. they all trace their line back to the M40. I think that's pretty significant.

HRF

 

[ksthomas]

Kennedy's reaction upon being hit by the second shot was what doctors/neurologists call "Thorburn's position"; an involuntary reaction whereby the arms extend elbows up, with the hands balled into fists, near the throat. This is an autonomic response to trauma along the spinal column in the region where the second bullet entered. As for the head shot, the backwards movement is completely accounted for via a combination of the jet effect of the ejecta (brain matter) being blown out of the front of his head, and the muscular twitch in reaction to being shot. The 6.5mm bullet simply doesn't have sufficient momentum to physically move a body one way or another.

I've gone the other way. Originally, I couldn't believe the single shooter scenario. As I've studied it, learned more about the physics and mechanics involved, and actually walked the scene at Dealy Plaza, I'm now completely in the single shooter camp. There's been an entire raft of theories and "proof" offered to support them all, and each, in turn, has been discredited. In the end, it all comes back to Oswald, acting alone. That, and a horribly botched investigation that's given rise to conspiracy theories for the past 49 years. It'll be fifty this coming November 22nd, so stand by for a complete rehash at that point.

Incidentally, I agree completely about the Carcano. Might not have been my choice, but it shouldn't be sold short. Worth remembering that it was a standard service rifle of a significant world power for quite some time, and that it was even adopted into use by the Germans at the latter half of WWII. The majority of those put into German service were rebarrelled to the standard 7.92x57mm service round, and handled that just fine. Lot more strength there than most give it credit for.

 

[mrbungle]

i have been to dealy plaza and to the sniper's nest, it is completely accurate. oswald was not there..........LOL!

 

[Mike Radford]

I have a rifle like the Oswald rifle and two of the Hollywood scopes on the Klines rifles. I bought the second scope because the first one had a problem, which I later discovered was simply a loose lens retaining ring, which I tightened. The rifle will shoot 1.5 inch 5 shot groups at 100 yds with good ammo and the correct scope. The rifles are pretty accurate and totally capable of doing the job. The experts on TV that say these were the worst military rifles ever are not correct IMO. The shots and entire senerio have been repeated many times and a good marksman could have made the shots.

 

[wilecoyote]

coming from the former Carcanoland, I must admit that, beside being or not an handy and/or accurate rifle, at today is the most exploded rifle I have seen in the hands of vintage rifle shooters_ we know that the reasons behind that can be multiple and not all rifle-related, nothwitstanding that the conversions from 6,5 to 7,35 and 8x57js nothing have added to his reliability_
His adoption from German armed forces is understandable only considering the abundance of abandoned Italian weapons after the sept.8,1943, the chronical lack of strategic materials of the late 3rd.Reich, his effort to give something "shootable" to any barely able and willing man until the end_
that don't change the fact that (even) being on his receiving end can be something to reckon, of course_

 

[sandwarrior]

Speaking of the 6.5 Carcano, it brings to mind another 6.5, the Type 38. Well known in the Pacific theatre as a nasty killer, it has a ton of merits. Many Post WWII experts, and copycat gun writers, always harp on the fact the 6.5's weren't as powerful as the 30-06. What most of them fail to realize, is all 6.5 users know they have a better bullet as far as ballistics go. That catches the 6.5 up to the .30 cal at medium ranges and exceeds it at long ranges. Same thing we deal with today. Also the same thing with the WWII Mauser K98K ammo. Going back up in weight was the best thing the Germans could do as far as snipers. Too bad the little 7.92 Kurz hadn't caught on better.

Anyhow, while not groundbreaking in any real respect it was a notable sniper rifle of historic importance.

Also, on the Carcano, if anybody hadn't noticed, Hornady now makes .268" bullets specifically for it.

 

[wilecoyote]

The Carcano's main issue was and is the average debatable quality of his steel (tested)_ It was the byproduct of an entirely sucide, if not criminal, military philosophy, addressed to reserve the worst of all to the soldiers, eventually giving more emphasis to the image than to the substance_ The only exception of the time has been the 81mm. mortar, who Italy even agreed to sell to the Greece, before deciding to invade it_We must say that the Greeks highly appreciated it, and putted it in good use_ against the invaders_

 

[pawprint2]

I'd have to vote for the Mosin, based on total number of kills made by snipers. How accurate does a sniper need to be? How accurate does a sniper rifle need to be? That is up to the commanders, those making the rules. If your snipers are making large numbers of kills, their rifles are accurate enough, they're getting the job done. Dead is dead, to argue the Soviet snipers would have been even more effective with a better rifle, is a guess, as no one will ever know. But on the other hand to say, they made the most kills, more than any other army-ever, with the Mosin, is a fact. One could go to several countries in the world today, that have some really fine sniper rifles as part of their military gear, but they haven't been in a war for several generations. Their gear works great at the range, etc., but it's not the same now is it? Some could argue they (the never go to war-just call the USA, they'll do it for us countries) have a better sniper rifle than we do, but it would be based on range work, and some "experts" etc., not actual use. Without actual data, guessing is guessing. Facts are facts.

 

[Joop]

I'd have to vote for the Mosin, based on total number of kills made by snipers. How accurate does a sniper need to be? How accurate does a sniper rifle need to be? That is up to the commanders, those making the rules. If your snipers are making large numbers of kills, they're rifles are accurate enough, they're getting the job done. Dead is dead, to argue the Soviet snipers would have been even more effective with a better rifle, is a guess, as no one will ever know. But on the other hand to say, they made the most kills, more than any other army-ever, with the Mosin, is a fact. One could go to several countries in the world today, that have some really fine sniper rifles as part of their military gear, but they haven't been in a war for several generations. Their gear works great at the range, etc., but it's not the same now is it? Some could argue they (the never go to war-just call the USA, they'll do it for us countries) have a better sniper rifle than we do, but it would be based on range work, and some "experts" etc., not actual use. Without actual data, guessing is guessing. Facts are facts.

I'll go with the Mosin, too, for reasons already mentioned by others. However, you make it sound like the 91/30 sniper rifles weren't/aren't accurate, which is very far from the truth.

 

[pawprint2]

Joop, after re-reading my post, I understand your comment. I agree with you the Mosins can be very accurate, I'd be surprised if those issued the sniper Mosin didn't receive a "hand selected" rifle. I was "answering" some of the earlier posters that didn't feel the Mosin was very accurate. As I pointed out, dead is dead, there are tons of rifles more accurate than the Mosins, but if you are killing more than any other rifle, then one thing is for sure-you are accurate enough!

 

[wilecoyote]

I'be rather surprised if an huge organization as the Russian Army could "hand select" his sniper rifles, being that their snipers aren't the "chosen FEW" of some smaller armies, but a really big number of fighters, in the same way their paratrooper's employement was intended from the '30s_ for sure they couldn't produce,select and TLC their rifles with the well known results obtained from the Finnish_
said that, nothwithstanding all my partiality about K98k and FMs, the russian was a well-in-advance-planned effort that has already payed his interests over the years, and well over all the foreseeings_

 

[Joop]

Joop, after re-reading my post, I understand your comment. I agree with you the Mosins can be very accurate, I'd be surprised if those issued the sniper Mosin didn't receive a "hand selected" rifle. I was "answering" some of the earlier posters that didn't feel the Mosin was very accurate. As I pointed out, dead is dead, there are tons of rifles more accurate than the Mosins, but if you are killing more than any other rifle, then one thing is for sure-you are accurate enough!

I hear ya! And, I'm sorry that I misunderstood you.

It used to be the theory that Mosins were selected for accuracy out of batches of ordinary rifles. While this still may be true, there is also evidence that suggests that at least some of them were made in batches that were specifically intended to be snipers from the beginning and maintained a higher level of QC in their manufacture.

 

[pawprint2]

I'be rather surprised if an huge organization as the Russian Army could "hand select" his sniper rifles, being that their snipers aren't the "chosen FEW" of some smaller armies, but a really big number of fighters, in the same way their paratrooper's employement was intended from the '30s_ for sure they couldn't produce,select and TLC their rifles with the well known results obtained from the Finnish_
said that, nothwithstanding all my partiality about K98k and FMs, the russian was a well-in-advance-planned effort that has already payed his interests over the years, and well over all the foreseeings_

Sir, I am with you 100%, I did not mean the sniper himself hand selected a given rifle, but rather, certain rifles were hand selected, at the arsenal (for example) as being on the high end of accuracy, these were then issued to those individuals that were assigned sniper duty. Kind-a-like the star gauge system in the U.S.

 

[JoeSmith]

Mosin-Nagant along with the SVD.

 

[ranger1183]

My vote is for the Kentucky rifle. It allowed America to gain Her independence. That lead to the growth of an independant nation that has done more good for the world than any nation ever in history.

 

[pawprint2]

I think I've been ruminating on this long enough, and I keep coming back to one rifle (type, not individual specimen). So I guess I'll formally cast my vote for the USMC's original M40. As stated above, this was the first purpose built Sniper rifle I know of which was acquired by a military entity. It was not a refurbished/modified battle rifle (03A4, K98, PU et, al), it was not a hunting or target rifle drafted into the service by war-time exigencies; rather, it was commissioned, designed, and crafted as a Sniper rifle. Moreover, that one rifle was the direct forebear of A1 through A5, as well as the Army's M24, and many custom and semi-custom rifles used by various entities. It was also the direct ancestor of the 700P which is being, or has been used by nearly every law enforcement agency that employs a Sniper. they all trace their line back to the M40. I think that's pretty significant.

HRF

"First purpose built rifle drafted into the service ..." Not so, the Swiss had designed and built and issued a purpose built sniper rifle, in the 40's, they didn't build tons of them, but they come up in auction once in a while, and like most things Swiss, usually in beautiful condition.

 

[Mike_in_FL]

And yet it's been duplicated repeatedly, by a number of shooters, on camera . . .. Easy shots, as I said.

+1
I've seen a special where they've even used the exact same lot of Winchester Western ammo and damn near duplicated the "magic bullet" shot. The enhanced Zapruder film also makes me believe that's an exit wound by the direction of the spray. I used to believe the conspiracy too, and that it's too convenient that Oswald is then killed by Ruby. However, we're talking about the same President whose brother was killed by a lone gunman (Muslim too, what a coincidence) just because said lone gunman happened to see a news report that said RFK supported the sale of fighter aircraft to Israel. Even though the Mafia supposedly wanted him dead because he wouldn't let up when he was AG.

My vote is for the PA/KY rifle. I think the colonists taught the world a lesson about sniping, there just weren't any optics available yet.

 

[Greg Langelius *]

The doctrine for issuing rifles to Russian Infantry was that each (91/30) rifle was given in succession to (a) proven senior marksman(men), who would fire several shots from each rifle (with the bayonet mounted), and the front sight was drifted to put the POI roughly on target. Individual rifle accuracy was noted at the time, and the rifles were issued accordingly. What that meant, exactly, is beyond me; but it does leave us with the the possibility that selected rifles were issued to selected shooters.

Traditional Russian Infantry Musketry was a very regimented matter, with specific conditions and procedures under which firing could be performed according the specific orders of commanders; including the holding out of an individual ammunition reserve that could only be expended under explicit order of a superior office. Bear in mind that Infantry Musketry is built around the concept of massed fire and that some moderate dispersion is considered a positive asset.

Their Snipers probably weren't a chosen few, as such, but in some instances were highly publicized examples of propaganda manipulation. Motion pictures aside, it's possible that at least some of them had superior examples of their equipment. There were also some examples of field accurization techniques (like 'corking') which could improve individual rifle performance. Sniper rifles, themselves, required special tooling and manufacturing processes (especially for scope mounting and bolt handle modification), and were purpose built in batches by specific arsenals.

A wealth of information on this and other subjects pertaining to the Mosin-Nagant and its many variations can be found at 7.62x54r.net. A search of the site for occurrences of the word 'sniper' renders the following list of articles: sniper - Google Search

Greg

 

[sandwarrior]

Greg,

The doctrine you describe is pretty much standard Russian Army of the time. However, the Russians were hugely into bringing precision rifle fire to the battlefield. This is attested by the scopes manufactured prior to WWII, the selection of better shooting rifles, and the selection and training of people to shoot these weapons. While the Russian Army was in Leningrad (the most publicized siege of a Russian city in WWII), it was truly the snipers who broke the Germans hold on those cities they held in siege. In truth it was an actual operation where snipers were the primary instrument, and as such a true "sniper operation". A dedicated use of a particular type of weapon and soldier in combination to make the greatest effect. Just like you would say there were "tank battles" or "Air battles" as those machines were the primary weapons in those battles, along with the soldiers who used them, the siege of Leningrad was truly a "sniper battle" from the Russian perspective.

IMO, it is historically, the single most brilliant campaign as far as a dedicated sniper operation. Given the circumstances and odds the shooters were up against. Second, IMO as far as campaigns go, is the "Battle of the Bocage" and third are the Kentucky/Pennsylvania rifle operations where rifles were employed long range during the American Revolution to disrupt command/control and communication. By taking away those elements from an opponent, the morale of the troops falls measurably. The odds of winning when the average troop has no idea of the stragegic direction to take, means no further military action can be taken. All three of these instances hold the keys of breaking command/control and communication followed by the stoppage of that army. I only place them in that order as I understand the battles they were involved in. As much as the training of a good shooter can be, he is nothing without the equipment to maximize his potential. Each brought the opponent to a standstill. In the case of the 'Bocage' what broke the German back was the institution by the U.S. Army of the Hedge-cutter. It took away the advantages the individual German precision shooter had. In the case of the American Revolution, the shooter could always disappear back into the forest or some type of concealment. Meaning, his ability to operate was probably the easiest of the three, even though his effective range was much shorter.

In that respect, any of the three rifles IMO could be nominated for #1. Or you could take the route of Kevin Thomas and say because of the Kennedy assassination, "that particular 6.5 Carcano" is the most significant. Given that interpretation, I don't see anything beating it. I chose the GEW 98 as it was the first modern rifle to be purpose built as a sniper rifle. It's a game changer in that respect, but as I mentioned in my first pic, so is the Kentucky/Pennsylvania rifle.

Plenty of good thoughts coming out of this thread. Although one I see repeatedly is the equipment is nothing without the man behind it. And, a man could not do what was done without that equipment. It is a mutual thing not exclusive to either.

 

[Greg Langelius *]

I agree, and I would qualify my statement to place it mostly into a prewar context.

I think the Russians had the 'luxury' of extensive manpower. This permitted an air of experimentation where large numbers of tanks, or artillery, or submachine guns, or sniper rifles would be fielded in dense concentrations on the battlefield, attempting to create an asymmetry that had potential for surprise and overwhelming superiority in one form or another.

I think it was brilliant, and probably succeeded in most instances. Stalin himself is reputed to have noted that "Quantity has a quality all its own...".

Greg

 

[Deleted member 10043]

"Weather that changed history". About the only weapon that would work most of the time was a bolt action rifle. But losses of bolt action rifles were just as high as everything else. The situation was just too desperate for any type of dedicated operation to have been maintained. As mentioned, the Russian prevailed because they had the numbers. Their primary weapon was the replacement of everything.

 

[kraigWY]

". About the only weapon that would work most of the time was a bolt action rifle.

You need to study reports of the M1 Garand, it worked as well as anything (including bolt guns) in rain, snow, ice, sand, & mud.

Hatcher's "Book of the Garand" has several write ups from soldiers/marines who used the Garand in every type weather and conditions out there. I found the same thing using the M1C/D's in sub zero temps on the Bering Sea in Western Alaska.

The Native Guard units use to take them from the Armory for winter hunting because they always worked. Somewhere I have a picture I took of a guard member hunting caribou with a M1, I'll post it if I can find it.

 

[MJ1]

Your missing one of the best of WW1

 

[sandwarrior]

"Weather that changed history". About the only weapon that would work most of the time was a bolt action rifle. But losses of bolt action rifles were just as high as everything else. The situation was just too desperate for any type of dedicated operation to have been maintained. As mentioned, the Russian prevailed because they had the numbers. Their primary weapon was the replacement of everything.

I disagree. Although the situation was desperate, the Russians had, as Greg noted, the 'luxury' of a LOT of manpower. That in itself, sustained a lot of their operations. The "quantity has a quality all it's own" statement goes a long way here as well. The sheer number of 'precision' battle arms supplied to Russians in battle dwarfed what anyone else did. But, while the Russians did lose numbers of men and rifles, the ones that kept going did an inordinate amount of damage in comparison to the average Ivan in those battles. Logistics played a role, but not the main role there.

Also, I'll agree with KraigWY. If properly maintained in the cold the M1 Garand is an exceptional rifle for reliability. Without referring to Hatchers, think about Bastogne in WWII. When thinking of the Chosin Reservoir during Korea, it may have been a defeat for the U.S., but the rifles that stayed with the men who carried them were effective. When they had ammunition. That weather never beat the rifle. Poor leadership from Washington did that. As far as sniping goes the simple fact it is a reliable weapon would tell you it could be used well in it's role. IMO the weak spot on one of them would be the scopes attached to them, more so than the rifle.

 

[Deleted member 10043]

I was referring to the topic of the Eastern Front. I dont' think the Garand was a weapon on the Eastern Front or any of the other weapons and battles being on the Eastern Front that winter. Also, I think we have established that the Russians were able to replace most everything to stay vital. Nevertheless, they were not able to replace a good sniper with another one just as skilled so I doubt their was a genius plan going on there. There was no luxury. Just more people and equipment thrown into a horrible situation.

 

[kraigWY]

After giving it some thought, we've over looked the Garand (M1C/D). It was well a head of its time, not only as an infantry rifle but as a sniper rifle also.

Before the advent of Mil Dot Scopes the M1C/D's had built in range finders, both with iron sights and the M82-4 2.2 X Scopes.

The Scope had a 3 MOA post, meaning it covered 3 inches at 100, 6 inches at 200, etc etc to 18 inches at 600 yards. 18-19 inches being the width of the average shoulders of a soldier (hence the 19 X 40 in E-Series target). Knowing that, could use it as a range finder much like mil dots. The same thing with the front post if using irons. The average front post of the M1 rifle is .076 which means the sight would cover the same target or soldier at 250. With a bit of practice one can use both as effective range finders.

When I was running sniper schools for the Guard, it didn't take long for the students to learn effective range estimation using both the scope and irons.

The M1 was also quite accurate. Most all the M1, M1C/D's I've dealt were good for 2 - 3 MOA, which would make them good to 600-900 yards, and contrary to what many think post 1000 yard shots are the exception, not the rule, most are in the 400 yard area.

I've ran a lot of sniper schools using the Garand. They leave nothing on the table in the accuracy department to 900 yards. Like I said it was well a head of its time. They are extremely reliable, and like mentioned, at 40 below, just run them dry, they wont let you down.

 

[sandwarrior]

I was referring to the topic of the Eastern Front. I dont' think the Garand was a weapon on the Eastern Front or any of the other weapons and battles being on the Eastern Front that winter. Also, I think we have established that the Russians were able to replace most everything to stay vital. Nevertheless, they were not able to replace a good sniper with another one just as skilled so I doubt their was a genius plan going on there. There was no luxury. Just more people and equipment thrown into a horrible situation.

I think you are quantifying instead of qualifying. While most of the snipers may have not been as good as the one that just got killed, some of them were better. Most had spotted for their shooter before his death. When they picked up their rifle, they might well have been better in the fact they had already seen, and lived through, the mistakes made by their predecessors.
There is also no question that it was really the snipers, in the shattered remains of those cities, who threw off the hold of the Germans.

And yes, it was an orchestrated movement. Not just more people thrown into a horrible situation. No question, the desperation and horror of full-on war was at it's worst there. But, a plan that worked, not just some luck.

 

[pawprint2]

Regarding the 6.5 Carcano that killed Kennedy, it not only was very accurate, in fact several on this board have seen the exact shots taken with no problem at all, but the round itself is magical! This special power that only a 6.5mm bullet seems to have is often overlooked, the shooting gods sprinkled special powers powder on this bore size. Not only did Oswald do the deed, but one of his bullets was found on Kennedy's stretcher in Pristine Condition! Even after going through as many body parts as it did, it appeared to have been fired into a soapy water solution, almost no distortion on the tip. I wonder, other than the ease at with so many have been able to make the shots, have they ever been able to duplicate the perfect bullet found on the presidents stretcher? (after firing through some kind flesh and blood, maybe a pig or something like that?) As this is a shooting web site, I sure like to hear more about that bullet-the one found on the stretcher! BTW on the ease of shot making, have they been able to duplicate the all the various angles bullets going in and out of the pres and gov, something like 5 wounds with three bullets (and one of those recovered-maybe on a stretcher in the hospital, in almost perfect condition).

 

[Deleted member 10043]

Nice write up on the Garand, Kraig.

 

[sandwarrior]

pawprint2,

While most here will agree the 6.5 Carcano was used and had lethal effect on Pres. Kennedy, the rest of the story is a matter of a different debate.

 

[pawprint2]

pawprint2,

While most here will agree the 6.5 Carcano was used and had lethal effect on Pres. Kennedy, the rest of the story is a matter of a different debate.

In what regard? The rifle is 100% agreed upon (or most agree), but one of the bullets fired by the rifle that most agree upon is a different debate? Without ammo (bullets)the rifle is of no consequence. If most agree upon the rifle, they shouldn't have any problem explaining the ballistics, i.e. the beautiful bullet found in the hospital, that is 100% CONFIRMED to have been fired from the rifle. Just sticking to the facts, the rifle and the bullet go hand in glove. Could you be more specific as to why discussing the rifle and the easy shot made (evidently by many) is okay in your opinion, but to discuss one of the bullets that did the deed, is off limits? Or at the very least-a different debate? As far as I know, shooting involves both a weapon and ammo, as the song goes, "You can't have one without the other".

 

[Joop]

In what regard? The rifle is 100% agreed upon (or most agree), but one of the bullets fired by the rifle that most agree upon is a different debate? Without ammo (bullets)the rifle is of no consequence. If most agree upon the rifle, they shouldn't have any problem explaining the ballistics, i.e. the beautiful bullet found in the hospital, that is 100% CONFIRMED to have been fired from the rifle. Just sticking to the facts, the rifle and the bullet go hand in glove. Could you be more specific as to why discussing the rifle and the easy shot made (evidently by many) is okay in your opinion, but to discuss one of the bullets that did the deed, is off limits? Or at the very least-a different debate? As far as I know, shooting involves both a weapon and ammo, as the song goes, "You can't have one without the other".

What's also been confirmed is that you can duplicate this shot and come out with a bullet in the same condition as the one found. It's been done, as was previously mentioned in this thread. Given the velocity/ballistics of this cartridge, there's really nothing "magical" about it. For me, there certainly is a conspiracy surrounding this incident. However, it's not about who shot him, how many shooters or with what type of rifle/ammo. That's already been well established, in my opinion. The real question is in the motives and organization of the incident. It's THAT area that it seems most people overlook, or don't want to admit to. But, yes, that's all really an entirely different discussion. The significance of this particular rifle has already been outlined for the purposes of this thread, I think.

 

[ksthomas]

Joop,

Actually, it's performance was almost textbook for this style of bullet, and could be roughly duplicated by any number of service rounds used between 1895 and 1905, or thereabouts. Heavily jacketed round nose bullets, with very high sectional density running in the 2,000-2,200 fps range, all performed in a pretty similar fashion. I've seen bullets used in other shootings that encountered even more resistance, that also came through in very similar condition to the JFK bullet. And even then, that bullet was in far from "pristine" condition, as most conspiracy theorists describe it when trying to make their point. The nose hade some major scuff marks, and there was some distinct flattening around the base of the jacket. Sounds like you've seen some of the same duplications of this shot as I have, completely captured on film, penetrating roughly the same amount of tissue (ordnance gelatin, obviously) and simulated bones, only to wind up with a bullet that was a near twin to the original bullet. No major ballistic mystery here, except to those who wish to create one, and don't get the dynamics of a RN-FMJ military design of that period.

Then again, some people just like to argue.

 

[pawprint2]

The magic is how it "fell" out of the gov in the hospital and was discovered on or near a stretcher that may have been used to carry the gov. And even after falling out of the gov's bloody body, the round remained "pristine". It may have something to do with it being and old design.

 

[Joop]

Joop,

Actually, it's performance was almost textbook for this style of bullet, and could be roughly duplicated by any number of service rounds used between 1895 and 1905, or thereabouts. Heavily jacketed round nose bullets, with very high sectional density running in the 2,000-2,200 fps range, all performed in a pretty similar fashion. I've seen bullets used in other shootings that encountered even more resistance, that also came through in very similar condition to the JFK bullet. And even then, that bullet was in far from "pristine" condition, as most conspiracy theorists describe it when trying to make their point. The nose hade some major scuff marks, and there was some distinct flattening around the base of the jacket. Sounds like you've seen some of the same duplications of this shot as I have, completely captured on film, penetrating roughly the same amount of tissue (ordnance gelatin, obviously) and simulated bones, only to wind up with a bullet that was a near twin to the original bullet. No major ballistic mystery here, except to those who wish to create one, and don't get the dynamics of a RN-FMJ military design of that period.

Then again, some people just like to argue.

I think we are in total agreement.

I've been collecting and shooting military surplus rifles for my entire adult life, as well as reloading for a good part of it, too. I've recovered enough bullets from various things to realize all of this is easily possible. Another thing is that the bullet recovered wasn't "pristine" by my definition of the word. However, I can easily see how somebody who is less experienced with such things could use that word to describe it, compared to what their idea of what a fired bullet should look like, or even their experiences with other calibers (in particular, other styles of bullets, especially when they're fired at higher velocities). I've even shot deer with a 6.5x55 Swedish M96 Mauser using soft points and observed zero bullet expansion and bullets that passed right through leaving an exit wound no bigger than the entrance.

The magic is how it "fell" out of the gov in the hospital and was discovered on or near a stretcher that may have been used to carry the gov. And even after falling out of the gov's bloody body, the round remained "pristine". It may have something to do with it being and old design.

It's hard to say exactly how it happened, but the idea of it being caught in his clothing, or just barely protruding from his body for some time until it was knocked loose is really not that far fetched. Stranger things have happened (I know of a guy who was shot in the side of the face with a 12 ga. slug, through is car window, while driving down the road. It came to rest in his mouth and he spit it out into his hand after pulling over. It was in near "pristine" condition, as well.)

 

[ksthomas]

Joop,

Precisely why I mentioned the 1895-1905 period, as this was a watershed time frame in ballistics. Three of the most important changes in the development of firearms occurred roughly within that period; the development and widespread adoption of smokeless propellants, which kicked velocities up significantly, the development of the jacketed bullet, which allowed munitions makers to actually make use of that velocity potential, and finally (and central to this discussion) the massive switch to lighter, higher velocity spritzer profiled bullets. But the FMJ Round Nose bullets in use by virtually all the world's armies of that time behaved in a pretty similar fashion, and that's just what that particular 6.5mm bullet did. Definitely not alone there, and there are literally thousands of examples of similar style bullets giving near identical results, even after going through tougher mediums. Several examples in La Garde's classic, "Gunshot Injuries" for anyone who cares to see them.

 

[Rapidrob]

The Whitworth Rifle of the Civil War. It made the longest shot of the war. It was the Mall-Nija rifle of its time with it's new-fangled bullet design,tube site and trigger.