I don't have any first-hand or research knowledge on the very long-range 'tightening-up' of British .303's or others. Not saying one way or another...
But the British had a TON of research on using the .303 out to ranges that we would think of as completely retarded. 2000 - 3000 yards.
Why?
Because they never gave up the idea of volley fire (c. Linear warfare c. 1776) and believed that with tall enough tangent sights and enough troops firing at once... they could drop enough 'plunging' rounds out of the air to be able to devastate an opposition c. 1914... when helmets were sort of... ceremonial. They especially trained for this in the Machine Gun Corps... and had the slide rules to prove it... with the idea that you could use lots of machine guns to drop millions of .303 darts into German lines. They did. And it worked.
So there are British charts and ballistics research that show how to have your entire division fire their guns, basically in the air, at targets extremely far away. Including NLOS. With the idea that you could drop enough plunging darts into a trench or onto a formation... and cause a bunch of casualties.
I am not saying that I subscribe to some of the ballistics claims. Nor do I necessarily dispute them.
What I do know is that the British Empire had some intriguing ideas about how long-range massed-fire could be effective. And in researching that, they would have come up with some interesting data that was less about how a bullet performed when it was still 'controlled' as far as external ballistics were concerned... and more about how it might perform randomly at ranges beyond mechanical control.
Ok, talk amongst yourselves....
Cheers,
Sirhr
I'd like to differentiate that the plunging fire is different than true "sniping". Although, I will totally acknowledge that this concept did work pretty well, actually.
As you noted, the study mostly revolved around the plunging fire concept, but the ballistics studies were a solid boon to the direct sniping program. Because when talking accuracy to within a few yards @ 3500 yds. One can see that a directly aimed shot at less than a third of that distance could be incredibly accurate. The British Mk VIII was such a round. In ballistics studies as far back as WWI the potential of accurate shooting was recognized. Study after study on this side of the Channel showed that it was the rotational energy of the bullet throwing it off at close range. But then too, coriolis effect and spin drift were seen and begun to be accounted for as well.
On the other side of the channel, Germany actually, because of Hitlers edict about how they were going to fight the next war, the studies began to make machine gun bullets travel better. The whole reason for going heavy again, back to the 198 gr. bullet, was to satisfy machine guns. The rifles were secondary. But, they shot the same bullet so as to make supply a non-issue. Even in the best of worlds, supply will always become an issue. An army always needs more than bullets and beans. Anyhow, the studies of bullet behavior were once again a boon to the sniping community.
One of the biggest things with trying to find the best sniper rifle, is that you find they will ALL work. What will make a good rifle, is having a qualified person behind the trigger. Supplied with training not only on the shooting but the tactics as well. ALL of the rifles in this thread will shoot accurately enough when coming from an arsenal that understands how to build them. The snipers need to come from the leadership mindset that they can work. The Russians and the Germans had probably the most going in that direction, followed by the British. At least the British understood it was a necessary tool in the war chest.
Over here, across the pond, there was a lot of dissent among the leadership as to how valuable, or even if it had value, to use snipers. As noted, Vandergrift didn't want them because they were 'elite'. So he literally threw a war tool away. Most of our snipers came out of being 'good shots' and were given an upgraded rifle. Shooters from teams were recruited to do the job. But, pretty much nowhere was a campaign of using snipers formulated. Not until Viet Nam would we really start to get serious about it.
So, I'll just say that any rifle that can be built to precision and function under tough conditions could be "the greatest sniper rifle". But, it takes a great sniper to make that rifle work to it's fullest capability. Therefore, without the leadership mindset to teach and employ a sustainable force of snipers, NO rifle is gonna matter.
That's a hard thing to do as I've seen too many pompous asses want to poo-poo it or outright throw it away. It's a tool in our arsenal. We need to keep it ready. When I listen to some jackass talk about "the last bayonet charge", I have to overcome a serious urge to knock the dumbass back into reality. We have a buttload of weapons, sniper rifles included, that need to be used long before some dipshit wants to make history with bayonets. Snipers, IMO, need to be on the cutting edge of a conflict, using all the skills we've learned in the past. As long as a rifle is highly capable, in capable hands, it will be a great sniper rifle.
thecmp.org 
