• Watch Out for Scammers!

    We've now added a color code for all accounts. Orange accounts are new members, Blue are full members, and Green are Supporters. If you get a message about a sale from an orange account, make sure you pay attention before sending any money!

Forgive me in advance for being potentially offensive in my ignorance...

C

ChrisBCS

Sergeant
Full Member
Minuteman
Feb 8, 2014
312
0
...I certainly am not intentionally offending anyone. I'm not speaking from a point of any authority, implied or explicit, I'm a novice. Completely green.

My question is, have we really come that far?

The Vintage Sniper Rifle forum feels "warm and cozy" because of my upbringing and family. My understanding of what an issue grade vintage service rifle is capable of, as the extension of a competent rifleman, seems to be at odds with a lot of what I read in other parts of this forum and around the web. The overwhelming spoken or unspoken paradigm is to an outsider, which I certainly am, that large quantities of money and neck breaking weight are a requirement to make modern equipment ring steel at distance that an A4 would be capable of reaching. Am I seeing things through rose colored glasses here? Is there really no comparison? Don't get me wrong, I'm not belittling those who enjoy their "big rigs": I'm not going to tell someone how to enjoy their hobby, and the more interest in marksmanship the better, but is the attitude that those bells and whistles are a necessity fair and founded?
 
IMO sniper rifles of today are amazingly just a bit better than those of WW2, especially when weight and cost are considered. A good WW2 sniper rifle can do head shots at 300 yds pretty consistently and do a torso at 600 or more pretty consistently. They did this with 2.5-4X scopes, weight of about 10lbs, very low cost(2-3 times the cost of a service rifle) and do it with not the best of ammo. Todays rifles can do what the WW2 rifles could do and a bit more but need 10X optics, handloads of match quality and the rifle cost the taxpayer over ten times the cost of a service rifle. You get 1-2 MOA, sometimes better, from a WW2 sniper. You get 0.8 from a M2010. They weigh about 14 lbs and the M24 was more like 16. The law of deminishing returns definitely applies IMO.
 
Last edited:
The modern materials and their ability to withstand environment are the key.

Plastic does not have the soul of walnut but there is good reason the USMC went from the M40 to the M40A1. That 1 MOA M40 probably wasn't the same gun in monsoon season.

Now if you are leaving the military/law enforcement/serious tactical competitor out of it and just considering the type of shooter I am, a guy that likes mil surp rifles and history, than yes there is little I gain on paper when comparing my MWS with S&B to my Garand.

Sure the MWS is more consistent/user friendly with the scope, generally turns out smaller groups but with the right ammo in the Garand I don't get an extra $4000 in results on the paper. Ditto the 03A1.

That said there is a reason the 03 was replaced by the Garand which was replaced by the M14 which have all been pretty much eliminated from high power competition by the AR.
 
Last edited:
A very interesting line of thought. I'd never really considered this in these terms. I guess that's really putting a name to my passion, so to speak, about wanting to do a Vintage Build. Great thread.
 
pmclaine said:
That said there is a reason the 03 was replaced by the Garand which was replaced by the M14 which have all been pretty much eliminated from high power competition by the AR.
Click to expand...

I have to confess, I do still giggle at the thought of 5.56 NATO being in a high power match.
 
Last edited:
As an added thought if you are mainly interested in mil surp rifles and not considering shooting sports like F Class there have been gains made but whats the reality of the requirement?

F class concerns itself with stacking bullets one on top of the other. In order to do that there is little room for error and every little advantage counts.

Military guns are concerned with firing minute of man. Garands and 03's issued to line troops had to leave Springfield Armory at a 4 MOA spec. When they were making sniper rifles out of these guns basically the barrels were taken from the regular production line. For Garands there was no extra spec and 03s were air gauged. Despite not being seeded with magical dillo dust the gear worked just fine.

If you are using your vintage rifle for service rifle scoring a possible allows for rifles that shoot well over 1 MOA. Most any issue ready rifle is capable of shooting a possible but not many shooters are. Skill trumps gear.

There is no question though that scopes have improved. Im not sure if they are true but I have heard anecdotes of US snipers pouring the water out of their 03A4 scopes prior to use.
 
ChrisBCS said:
I have to convince, I do still giggle at the thought of 5.56 NATO being in a high power match.
Click to expand...

Its no joke round at 500/600 yards on paper.

Im not privy to all the details when its used against people but I got to think it still has to totally suck when shot by one. I like my bigger bullets but I don't have to carry them along with water, food and a bunch of other survival gear.
 
pmclaine said:
Its no joke round at 500/600 yards on paper.

Im not privy to all the details when its used against people but I got to think it still has to totally suck when shot by one. I like my bigger bullets but I don't have to carry them along with water, food and a bunch of other survival gear.
Click to expand...

I'm certainly not going to try to deny the AR platform and the 5.56 its proper due. There are a great many departed that would attest to its capabilities. I fully admit my prejudices and you make a very good point about carrying as a part of your kit.
 
ChrisBCS said:
I'm certainly not going to try to deny the AR platform and the 5.56 its proper due. There are a great many departed that would attest to its capabilities. I fully admit my prejudices and you make a very good point about carrying as a part of your kit.
Click to expand...

I too had my doubts about 5.56

http://www.snipershide.com/shooting...57673-i-thought-5-56-too-ghey-caliber-me.html

I never thought much about the rifle I had been issued way back in 86-91. When I started getting back into rifles I liked my .30 caliber guns. Than I bought an AR and truth be told its total fun to shoot. Very accurate, forgiving, easy to load for, doesn't take a huge bite out of your wallet.

Buy one, you will like it.
 
I was rather surprised that the USMC went with a commercial rifle when searching for a good sniping platform during the Vietnam conflict. There were still plenty of NM 03's around and plenty of institutional knowledge with the armorers in service at the time to build more.
A NM 03, with a good quality base and rings and a good 3-9x scope would be a force to be reckoned with.
 
Modern firearms, with the CAD to CAM processes that exist today, have truly brought reality to the concept of interchangeable parts. They truly are identically interchangeable, where previous issues made manufacturing and maintenance of factory rifles, military or civilian in nature, a bit of a crapshoot.

Given all that, dead is dead; and after all, that is what Snipers do.

I have qualms about putting wear and tear on museum quality historical artifacts. Yes, they are made to be shot, I get that. But for my more serious shooting (...and I am not a Sniper...), I prefer to put that wear into a modern forearm, which I can maintain a lot more easily.

Greg
 
I just watched a video where Larry Vickers used a red-dot AR-15 to hit a target at 600 yards. Yes, he had someone spotting for him, etc.., etc.., etc..., but I was impressed that he did it from a prone supported position, and with a 4MOA red-dot. I can see where the above poster referred to WW2 era rifles being capable of head-shots at 300 yards and torso shots to 600 yards being common. I get they had training on range / wind estimation, but doing so with the lower power scopes was easily within the realms of "Minute of Man" accuracy. As Greg above pointed out: dead is dead. I guess if that's the level of accuracy / utility you are going for, those rifles really are well suited.
 
Please, someone correct me, but isn't 600 meters (or yards?) a qual distance for USMC recruits with an M16? And it used to be with irons.
 
The $80 million shooting gallery at Quantico, has targets pop up out to 800 yards, IIRC.
 
ARs dominate High Power Matches these days, shooting 200, 300, and 600 yards. You also have 1000 yard service rifle matches using ARs (223).

These are normally match rifles, White Oak and such. USGI issue ARs (M16/M4) can do it but not as well.

If you put the vintage military, "As Issued" per CMP Rules, against the White Oak Target Grade ARs or M1A Super Matches, they wont compete. But if you put those old work horses up against the "as issued" non modified M16/M4's or ever standard M1A's they will hold their own quite well.

This is evident now that the CMP has added a Modern Military Category to their games. These are non-match grade ARs, M1As, FAL, AKs, SKS's etc.

Its rare when shooting the same course of fire, that the Modern Military Guns beat the scores of the "as issued" Garand, rarer yet, the scores fired in the Springfield Matches.

To give you an idea, the CMP gives our Achievement awards for given scores for the individual categories. Gold, Silver and Bronze.

Here is an example of the Gold, Achievement awards for four categories: All are "as issued" and not match rifles.

Garand 280 or higher
Springfield 281 or higher
Vintage Military 278 or higher
Modern Military 275 and higher

The Garand and Springfield are self explanatory. The Vintage Military is other military bolt guns used prior to 1954 such as the M1917, US Krag, Mauser's Sweedes, etc etc.

The Modern Military is the post 54 rifles such as the AR, AKs SKS's FALs etc etc.

Unless one moves to match rifles, they are not at an disadvantage using the old US Surplus Rifles. Those puppies work. And you don't need special hand loads. I've seen a lot of Clean Prone slow fire targets using the Greek surplus M2 Ball.
 
My Garand is modified to include glassbedding, a buttpad extension, hooded globe front sight with interchangeable inserts (I prefer the ring insert), and a .052" diameter N/M rear peep. It is not intended for Comp applications, just as a personal fun semi rifle with improved iron sight capabilities. Shoots every bit as well as I can, and some more, too. I feed it handloads made from Rem .30-'06 brass, CCI200/WLR primers, Hornady 150gr FMJBT, and 50.0gr of IMR-4064.

My M1A did as well before it went to keep the mortgage up and running. Never did find a scope mount that would keep stable.

My AR is a Stag 6 Super Varminter with a Weaver V-24 Classic, and there's also a CMMG 16 Bull WASP upper with a Bushnell AR223 BDC 3-12x40, and angled BUIS. There's also a Vortex SPARC waiting in the wings. The Stag lower has been modified with a BAD bolt release lever extension, and to employ the NY SAFE-Compliant stock package, which works surprisingly well, no matter how hokey it looks. Both uppers shoot M855 quite a bit better than I had ever expected, and handloads using PPU brass, CCI BR-4, 69SMK with 24.0gr Varget, and HDY 75gr HPBTM with 23.5gr Varget (although I have yet to try out the 75's with the CMMG upper). My new Savage 11VT .223 also does well on those loads (or well enough anyway with the M855).

VTW, pulling the Fed M855 and measuring the charges was an education. The charge weights are as precise as my own match handloads.

Greg
 
Last edited:
It is no surprise to anyone that advances in equipment, ammo, and even training have made for an overall improvement in the end product that the military is able to produce. By end product, I mean the scout/sniper, and equipment seen as a unit. To look at only the gear, or the only at the trained shooter without considering all the combined components is shortsighted. As a complete package, the modern shooter shows consistent overall ability to hit targets at distances that WW1 and WWII snipers would have considered exceptional by the sniper of the 1940's.

I think this is a natural advancement of equipment, marksmanship training, endurance and strength training, stalking skills, and so many other factors that come into making todays exceptional military snipers. The same thing has taken place with autos and driving, fighter pilot training, and just about anything else. As a species, we usually continue to seek new and better ways to get things done.
 
Unknown said:
.......As a species, we usually continue to seek new and better ways to get things done.
Click to expand...

It is the natural progression of man and history which is why a forced "fairness" doctrine and "group think" is so inherently EVIL.
 
To address the original question, yes we have come a long ways. Every second gained in target identification/acquisition, every meter gained in range, every MOA gained in accuracy is lives saved somewhere. The gains may seem small but the results produced are not.

How 1000+ meter shots do you think snipers wielding service grade/match grade A4 were making?
 
Ro_Bird said:
To address the original question, yes we have come a long ways. Every second gained in target identification/acquisition, every meter gained in range, every MOA gained in accuracy is lives saved somewhere. The gains may seem small but the results produced are not.

How 1000+ meter shots do you think snipers wielding service grade/match grade A4 were making?
Click to expand...

Cut it to the bone.

I summarise that when the outcome concerns more than just scoring on paper a .49 moa gun is preffered over a .50 gun and the users really want the .49 gun replaced by the .48 gun for good reason.

And they should get what they want.
 
Ro_Bird said:
How 1000+ meter shots do you think snipers wielding service grade/match grade A4 were making?
Click to expand...

Sir need I remind you of the movie Saving Private Ryan and the ability of a left handed man with deep convictions to play scope kabuki dance and rain A4 hell upon the godless sons of Odin?

It happened. Its a Tom Hanks movie you know.
 
Each fall I attend the International Sniper Competition at Fort Benning, Georgia.

Several years running I assisted at the range where we would provide authentic vintage sniper equipment for any competitor/instructor/strap-hanger to shoot.

These offerings included;

M1D Sniper Rifle
M70 Sniper Rifle
L42A1 Sniper Rifle
M91/30 PU Mosin-Nagant Sniper Rifle
Mauser K98k w/Zf41 Sniper Rifle

Everybody enjoyed getting in some trigger time on the historically significant rifles. However the consensus among the shooters was;

The vintage rifles are difficult to shoot well due to poor ergonomics.
These systems are grossly inaccurate when compared to modern systems.
The optics are inferior in every way to today's equipment.
The old sniper rifle systems appear to be more fragile when compared to what is issued today.
kmussack-albums-man-sizes-picture42953-two.jpg


One sniper instructor upon coming off the M91/30 PU Mosin-Nagant said, "It's a wonder anybody got hurt on purpose by this rifle."
kmussack-albums-man-sizes-picture42952-one.jpg


The military sniper rifles of yesteryear were improvisations, service rifles fitted with optical sights. Attempts were made to make them more accurate but they remained battle rifles with scopes. Purpose built 21st century sniper rifle systems outperform the antiques by a wide margin.
 
kmussack said:
Each fall I attend the International Sniper Competition at Fort Benning, Georgia.

Several years running I assisted at the range where we would provide authentic vintage sniper equipment for any competitor/instructor/strap-hanger to shoot.

These offerings included;

M1D Sniper Rifle
M70 Sniper Rifle
L42A1 Sniper Rifle
M91/30 PU Mosin-Nagant Sniper Rifle
Mauser K98k w/Zf41 Sniper Rifle

Everybody enjoyed getting in some trigger time on the historically significant rifles. However the consensus among the shooters was;

The vintage rifles are difficult to shoot well due to poor ergonomics.
These systems are grossly inaccurate when compared to modern systems.
The optics are inferior in every way to today's equipment.
The old sniper rifle systems appear to be more fragile when compared to what is issued today.
kmussack-albums-man-sizes-picture42953-two.jpg


One sniper instructor upon coming off the M91/30 PU Mosin-Nagant said, "It's a wonder anybody got hurt on purpose by this rifle."
kmussack-albums-man-sizes-picture42952-one.jpg


The military sniper rifles of yesteryear were improvisations, service rifles fitted with optical sights. Attempts were made to make them more accurate but they remained battle rifles with scopes. Purpose built 21st century sniper rifle systems outperform the antiques by a wide margin.
Click to expand...

I'm going to respectfully disagree with your assertion.

The quote/paraphrase from the instructor is an indication of lack of familiarity with the vintage weapon systems. As previously mentioned, on an as-issued basis, the vintage rifles are just as capable (defined as making hits on man-size targets) as the modern sniper rifles.

I won't bother noting that the "instructor" is shooting a mosin sniper with shitty ammo & a sub-optimal front rest and is stunned at the shit accuracy he's getting out of it...whatever.

Are modern sniper systems (M40A5s, M110, etc) easier to shoot well? Yes, no doubt.

Is the difference in accuracy within the capability of 99.99% of snipers to exploit in field conditions? Hell NO! I think the impressive body counts of snipers from that era proves my point.

Are modern sniper systems capable of winning bench rest competitions? Hell NO! But then, neither are vintage sniper systems.

As a highpower competitor, I have shot Garands, Springfields, M1As, and M16A2 & M110 clones...I have shot all these rifles with irons(99.9% of the time) and with optics. I have shot all these rifles from 200yards to 1,000yards (except the M16A2 clones) and here are my observations:

1. In the As-issued guise (with only a trigger job), the pecking order is; 1903a3 Springfield, M110, M1A/M1 Garand, M16A2.
2. In the gussied-up NASCAR style shooting we do, its M16A2 clone, M1A/M110/Garand (i don't have a bedded, match-grade barreled springfield to compare).

Although most of the CMP vintage matches are shot at 200yards today, up until the 1990s serious riflemen that competed in highpower rifle shooting and prone matches (with iron sights) shot match grade M1 garands, springfields, and M1As...and posted scores that are only being taken down in this era of $4,000 match rifles.

The Farr trophy, (given to the winner of a prone 1,000yard match) is named for a 62 year old sergeant who shot 70 consecutive bullseyes at 1,000 yards, using a 1903 springfield, with iron sights & 1907 sling, using issued ammo, in fading sunlight.

Another sergeant JW Adkins had previously in the day set the record with a scoped rifle by shooting 75 bullseyes with a scoped 1903.

I think the instructor(s) you referenced just need to learn how to shoot fundamentally & how to shoot vintage rifles. (flame suit on!)
 
Last edited:
Tx_Flyboy brings up some valid points. Particularly regarding how so squeeze the most performance out of this old war horses. More offend than not there are tricks of the trade (beyond just the application of the fundamentals) that have been long lost to time for most of us, even sniper instructors, that were once common knowledge. Some of these nuances are surprisingly performance enhancing, but like I said becoming less and less well known with the passage of time, hence the value of this forum. That said when the old is compared with the new the advantages become apparent quickly, but those old war dogs are still very deadly in the hands of someone familiar with the old ways.
 
Tx_Flyboy said:
I'm going to respectfully disagree with your assertion.

The quote/paraphrase from the instructor is an indication of lack of familiarity with the vintage weapon systems. As previously mentioned, on an as-issued basis, the vintage rifles are just as capable (defined as making hits on man-size targets) as the modern sniper rifles.

I won't bother noting that the "instructor" is shooting a mosin sniper with shitty ammo & a sub-optimal front rest and is stunned at the shit accuracy he's getting out of it...whatever.

Are modern sniper systems (M40A5s, M110, etc) easier to shoot well? Yes, no doubt.

Is the difference in accuracy within the capability of 99.99% of snipers to exploit in field conditions? Hell NO! I think the impressive body counts of snipers from that era proves my point.

Are modern sniper systems capable of winning bench rest competitions? Hell NO! But then, neither are vintage sniper systems.

As a highpower competitor, I have shot Garands, Springfields, M1As, and M16A2 & M110 clones...I have shot all these rifles with irons(99.9% of the time) and with optics. I have shot all these rifles from 200yards to 1,000yards (except the M16A2 clones) and here are my observations:

1. In the As-issued guise (with only a trigger job), the pecking order is; 1903a3 Springfield, M110, M1A/M1 Garand, M16A2.
2. In the gussied-up NASCAR style shooting we do, its M16A2 clone, M1A/M110/Garand (i don't have a bedded, match-grade barreled springfield to compare).

Although most of the CMP vintage matches are shot at 200yards today, up until the 1990s serious riflemen that competed in highpower rifle shooting and prone matches (with iron sights) shot match grade M1 garands, springfields, and M1As...and posted scores that are only being taken down in this era of $4,000 match rifles.

The Farr trophy, (given to the winner of a prone 1,000yard match) is named for a 62 year old sergeant who shot 70 consecutive bullseyes at 1,000 yards, using a 1903 springfield, with iron sights & 1907 sling, using issued ammo, in fading sunlight.

Another sergeant JW Adkins had previously in the day set the record with a scoped rifle by shooting 75 bullseyes with a scoped 1903.

I think the instructor(s) you referenced just need to learn how to shoot fundamentally & how to shoot vintage rifles. (flame suit on!)
Click to expand...


I agree. If the shooter can not shoot the PU he is not a good shooter unless he has modern equiptment, he is using poor ammo, the actions screws are too loose, the bore is excessively worn etc.. There is a reason since a good PU is a serious sniper rifle. Forum members here and elsewhere are hitting human size targets out to 1000 yds plus. One shooter tried a mile and was nipping close.

Many of us shoot PUs with match grade handloads and match factory ammo and get sub-MOA groups. Head shots with a good PU, according to a survey on gunboards, the shooters there were shooting about 90-95% head shots at 300 yds. I seriously doubt that a modern Sniper is much more rugged than a PU or a PEM side mount. PEM scopes have been recently dug, in ground over 70 years, and quite a few of them still function. I have one PEM with several big dents that a hammer would have trouble making and it functions despite some serious lens scratches.

I am also a little unsure how a 10X modern optics will have quicker target aquistion than a PU. Exact how good are the irons on an M40A1 or M2010 if you need them? How about those extra 4 or 5 lbs? When I toted a Ruck, every pound counted.

Anyone see the D-day vet use a Gibbs A4 replica and pull head shots every shot at about 90 yo.? Then, never having shot the modern sniper at the Army sniper school, he pulled head shots with it and beat the performance of the sniper instructor.

The M2010 is rated at 0.8 MOA. Anyone here able to get that out of their Vintage rifles?

I was at the International sniper match at The SF sniper course at Ft. Bragg about 3 months ago. There were no 1000 yd targets other than vehicles subjected to the Barrett 50. The other targets peaked out at 600 meters IIRC. I saw all the modern stuff including the new Remington modular in 308, 300WM and 338LM. Barrett, Artic Warfare and many others were there showing there latest and greatest precision rifles. I saw the government issued check isssed to Remington for the first order to Combined Special Ops. Again, I ask the accuaracy and was told the some calibers where a little less than the 0.8 MOA and some a little over from field testing. I was offered the chance to fire it the next day but I could not make it, very sad.

Yes the modern rifles are a little better, but as I said earlier, how far we have come is amazingly small for the cost and extent of development. I have a Japanese T99 sniper that shot a 0.84 inch 5 shot group at 100 yds with non-match ammo first time out. It weighs about 8 lbs. The reticule allows ranging and windage at most any range out to 1000 plus meters and windage estimation, only 2.5X. You touch nothing, it is all there in front of you. Another in 4X Japanese 99 is pretty consistent at 1.5 MOA. I have a PEM that has shot as tight as 0.39 MOA but norm is about MOA with match ammo. Weight, about 10 lbs. Scope allows for range estimation and has trajectory compensation. Dial in the meters. Several others, shot in the 1-1.5 MOA. Several PUs will do sub-MOA but of the 30ish PUs I have shot the average of a good one is about 1.25, not that shabby for a gun produced in a hurry and cheaply. Most every good WW2 sniper I have and/or have fired is about 1.5 MOA with good ammo. Lots of folks at the VSS matching are shooting WW2 era rifles with vintage scopes and their rifles are about MOA rifles, some better. I am still having trouble seeing major progress.

The new 300 WM load is gonna add a new deminision delivering more max. effective range and slightly improved accuarcy so a new moderate step forward is happening. That and the new modular system offering a quick change to 338LM will further increase the max range but Special OPs only will have those, at least for now. I tried to get a price estimate and one Remington Rep guessed $25000 per copy, if they are ever sold outside the military, which the guy with the check said almost certainly never to be sold outside military and LE. A few M2010s escaped and I have held one privately owned. It is heavy.

Ranges over 600-800 meters are not that commonly attempted by most snipers in WW2 or even today. Yea, it does happen but is the exception, not the rule. As a result, the new increased range may not be that big of an improvement. Only time will tell on what will happen and how well and how often the new range capability will be an advantage.
 
Last edited:
I keep hearing talk about the capability of the "best" WW2 sniper rifles. How about we compare the average WW2 sniper rifle to the average M40A5 or M2010, especially after several months of hard combat use. I also hear a lot of talk about shooting man sized targets. Are they semi-camouflaged targets hiding in brush or partially obscured by obstacles? Might make a difference if were talking about the usefulness of modern optics.

On an another note, I wonder how a WW2 USMC sniper would react if you handed them an M40A5? "Here, this rifle shoots 1 1/2 MOA with ball ammo, the stock never warps, the scope never fogs or breaks, the quick to change magazines hold 10 rounds, you can put a device on this mount up here that lets you shoot at night, and you can put another device on the end of the barrel that quiets the shot down so much that the enemy can't find you." I think they would have liked it.

PS: Yes, I know they had suppressors and night vision in WW2 but they didn't work nearly as well as what we have now.
 
R.A. Rifleman said:
I keep hearing talk about the capability of the "best" WW2 sniper rifles. How about we compare the average WW2 sniper rifle to the average M40A5 or M2010, especially after several months of hard combat use. I also hear a lot of talk about shooting man sized targets. Are they semi-camouflaged targets hiding in brush or partially obscured by obstacles? Might make a difference if were talking about the usefulness of modern optics.

On an another note, I wonder how a WW2 USMC sniper would react if you handed them an M40A5? "Here, this rifle shoots 1 1/2 MOA with ball ammo, the stock never warps, the scope never fogs or breaks, the quick to change magazines hold 10 rounds, you can put a device on this mount up here that lets you shoot at night, and you can put another device on the end of the barrel that quiets the shot down so much that the enemy can't find you." I think they would have liked it.

PS: Yes, I know they had suppressors and night vision in WW2 but they didn't work nearly as well as what we have now.
Click to expand...


I made note in my post that a WW2 Army sniper, who used an A4 in WW2, was handed a modern US sniper and he shot the Replica A4 as well as the modern rifle. There is a video which is easy to find on the net/Youtube showing the whole process. You have a real world actual person who did just what you suggest.

Most WW2 snipers were about 1.5 MOA with ball ammo. The good scopes did not fog. The Soviet scopes tolerated -50 to 100 degrees. The condtions in Stalingrad were about as taxing as any in history. Many rifles were in service for a considerable time. Vasilly used a single PEM for most of the Stalingrad campaign. It was damaged by a bullet and a modern rifle will not stop that. Many WW2 stocks were laminated and tended not to warp. Use of lamainated wood continues on many precicison rifles to this day. Night vision was introduced in WW2. Silencers have long been frowned upon and are traditionally only used by covert/CIA non-uniformed forces.

There were plenty of camo in WW2. Snipers were not completely stupid. With hundreds of kills by some snipers, who needs more real world proof. With a Finn sniper(SH), with a scopeless rifle, getting 500 confirmed kills I doubt anyone who knew him or his ability would have considered the modern M40A5 anything more than heavy and simply not needed by the highest scoring sniper in history. He could do just fine with what he had, needed no optics that may or may not fog and his Finn assembled rifle was very likely an MOA rifle. The Soviets had better equiptment and optics but he had amazing field craft skills. He was a skilled hunter and stalker and probably even more of a natural than Carlos.

I doubt you are gonna find the results of "the average" WW2 sniper. Most are too expensive to get a bunch of owners to take them out and shoot them to get a statistical analysis. Many folks think I am crazy to have shot what I have shot, and I did it so I would have an informed opinion from actual experience. The CMP VS matches do give one an idea of what a good shooter with a good rifle could do.

Ten round mags, quick change. A sniper is one shot, one kill. Typical shot from one location in WW2 is one or two, rarely 3 rounds. Read the interview of three of WW2's top German snipers. Not much of an advantage in the sniper role and maybe a bit of a liability from weight and how handy the rifle will be.

I still say the law of deminishing returns applies. For every thousand more dollars a sniper system costs, you may get 0.05 MOA of gain over a PEM side mount. Ten thousand gets you about 0.5 improvement max, if you are lucky.

There is nothing wrong with todays rifles except cost per effectiveness. If cost was a big factor, and the taxpayer's pocket not unlimited in the goverment's opinion, we may have a slightly cheaper rifle that was nearly as good. By the way, inside source tells me that the new modular rifle's barrels have a Precision life of 700 rounds. Our tax dollars at work.
 
Great Points Mike!

I continue to be shocked at how ill-informed people are and their belief that the more expensive a weapon system is, the more effective it MUST be or that if the military uses it, it must be awesome (reference the M110...a more accurate and reliable rifle can be built for 1/3 of the cost).

I am building an M1941 Sniper with a reproduction 8X scope. It wont be ready for Camp Perry this year, but i will take it to perry to shoot the vintage sniper matches (300yards & 600 yards, one shot at time, at limited exposure targets...).

I think it's crazy the military is adopting the XM2010 or whatever its called...its a 300WM, and no matter how you treat the barrel, the accurate barrel life sucks and still be less than 2000 rounds (closer to 1,100 to 1,500). It must be non-shooters/tactical ninja sniper type people not schooled in highpower shooting making these decisions.

For instance, the ammo spec for this rifle is the MK 248 MOD 0 and MOD 1

It shoots two (2) outdated bullets 190SMK & 220 SMK at a nominal velocity of 2,850ft/s. Weak!

The same performance can be obtained from a 30-06, shooting MORE MODERN bullets 190gr VLD & 210 Berger VLDs AT THE SAME VELOCITY with 5X the barrel life of the XM2010...oh well.

Back on track, the Vintage Snipers and the base rifles they were derived from are soo accurate that the only way to extract the performance difference from modern sniper rifles is at a range, with solid rests, with no-one shooting back at you and match grade ammo...in other words, it's the Indian not the bow.
 
How this thread has matured is exactly why I love this sub forum the most. Thanks folks.
 
Well, I am not sure of the 300 WM load designation that was recently developed for the military but I am told it has narrowed the advantage held by 338 LM quite a bit. I was not given the specifics but the source was about as good as one could hope to get it from.

When the rifles were tested, and the results were shown, it looked as though there was clearly an obvious choice. The 338 LM had much more range than the 300 Win Mag and the 308 was not that far behind the 300 WM. The 50 cal had the range but had a 2.5 MOA accuracy. The 308 and 300 WM were at tested at 0.8MOA and the 338 LM at 0.6. Apparently the biggest reason the 338, which clearly cleaned the clock of the others rifles, was not adapted was the cost and logistics involving the ammo. At least now the rifle has better numbers due to a superior load.

With Special Ops getting the modular system, I am dying to know how often the elect to use the 338.
 
ChrisBCS said:
I have to confess, I do still giggle at the thought of 5.56 NATO being in a high power match.
Click to expand...

And I still giggle when I pound someone with my "windcheater"when they shoot a .308. The comeback is always, "look at how much marksmanship you learn when shooting the .308".

In short, we've come a long way in a lot of arenas. But what makes it effective is each advancement is tied to the next for a better "whole" system.

A while ago, ScottyS posted a video of myself, 264shooter, himself, his brother and another friend shooting to one mile. 264 was shooting a 6.5 creed and I, a 7mm-08. Both reached one mile effectively. Previously, he had posted one of himself and 264 on a colder day shooting the .308 vs. the 6.5 Creed. The 6.5 made it, the .308 didn't. Later he posted one of 264 and himself shooting a 6mm SLR vs. a 6.5 Creed. Both made one mile effectively with the 6mm edging out the 6.5 Creed (264 uses a lighter bullet more optimized for 1k shooting). In none of the above scenarios did the .308 even come close to the above mentioned cartridge combinations. To get that kind of effectiveness you would need to jump to a .30 cal magnum, or push a 30-06 pretty hard. The bullets just aren't made in .30 cal that compete with 6mm, 6.5mm and 7mm. The point I like the most is that each of the rounds used by myself, ScottyS and 264 are .308 based cases. meaning they don't have nasty recoil, need brakes, need to be set up super heavy. They are a portable systems by one man. Each can be put into an AR platform to serve that dual purpose of standard rifle if needed. And until that time serve as a high accuracy platform.

I'd say we've come a long long ways, and not just in the firearm. But, each point in the system has been improved.
 
Last edited:
Pinecone said:
What kind of energy does the bullet have at a mile?
Click to expand...

On that day, in those conditions, roughly 430 ft. lbs. for the 168 VLD. and 490 ft. lbs with the 180 VLD's. It was 95 and 4000 ft. ASL. 25.90 on both pres. instruments.

std. ATM about 385 for the 180 VLD and about 340 for the 168 vld. But we never shot that low. The later and earlier videos that ScottyS did up were both on much colder days.

Also to clarify it was past one mile where the 6mm edged the 6.5. That was 115 DTAC's (6mm) against 123 Lapua Scenars (6.5mm).
 
Last edited:
Not bad. .45 ACP muzzle energy range. But a smaller hole. :)
 
Quote Originally Posted by ChrisBCS View Post

I have to confess, I do still giggle at the thought of 5.56 NATO being in a high power match
Click to expand...

In my opinion, the ARs (5.56/223) is the best thing that happened to High Power in a long time. It has brought juniors and women into the sport allowing them to be competitive. Plus it allows more to people to be able to afford to shoot these matches. Comparing a $1000 competitive AR to a $3000 Super Match speaks volumes.

And looking at the scores the 5.56/223 doesn't take a back seat to anyone.
 
kraigWY said:
In my opinion, the ARs (5.56/223) is the best thing that happened to High Power in a long time. It has brought juniors and women into the sport allowing them to be competitive. Plus it allows more to people to be able to afford to shoot these matches. Comparing a $1000 competitive AR to a $3000 Super Match speaks volumes.

And looking at the scores the 5.56/223 doesn't take a back seat to anyone.
Click to expand...

I'm not denying that. I'm just being honest about my own unfounded prejudices.
 
ChrisBCS said:
I'm not denying that. I'm just being honest about my own unfounded prejudices.
Click to expand...

You will one day decide to buy one and you will realize shooting twice as much for same price with great accuracy at medium range that can be maintained beyond where shooter fatigue would normaly start to degrade your scores and you will have to look inside your heart and admit "Yes, I am a little bore guy".

Dont be ashamed embrace the mouse that roars.
 
He who cheats most wins at war. The better the equipment the more chance of winning.

No comparison between old systems and new ones. Now I think we have gone over board with too much weight and I prefer to build my carry rifles lighter. Years ago Badger, GAP and I came up with what we called the TIS Rifle. It was a ten pound sniper rifle that would work anywhere and shoot dam well. I still shoot mine all the time and love it. It was light, accurate and tough. George still builds rifles like this if you ask for a light rifle. He can build one that will shoot and survive.
 
Mike Radford said:
I agree. If the shooter can not shoot the PU he is not a good shooter unless he has modern equiptment, he is using poor ammo, the actions screws are too loose, the bore is excessively worn etc.. There is a reason since a good PU is a serious sniper rifle. Forum members here and elsewhere are hitting human size targets out to 1000 yds plus. One shooter tried a mile and was nipping close.

Many of us shoot PUs with match grade handloads and match factory ammo and get sub-MOA groups. Head shots with a good PU, according to a survey on gunboards, the shooters there were shooting about 90-95% head shots at 300 yds. I seriously doubt that a modern Sniper is much more rugged than a PU or a PEM side mount. PEM scopes have been recently dug, in ground over 70 years, and quite a few of them still function. I have one PEM with several big dents that a hammer would have trouble making and it functions despite some serious lens scratches.

I am also a little unsure how a 10X modern optics will have quicker target aquistion than a PU. Exact how good are the irons on an M40A1 or M2010 if you need them? How about those extra 4 or 5 lbs? When I toted a Ruck, every pound counted.

Anyone see the D-day vet use a Gibbs A4 replica and pull head shots every shot at about 90 yo.? Then, never having shot the modern sniper at the Army sniper school, he pulled head shots with it and beat the performance of the sniper instructor.

The M2010 is rated at 0.8 MOA. Anyone here able to get that out of their Vintage rifles?

I was at the International sniper match at The SF sniper course at Ft. Bragg about 3 months ago. There were no 1000 yd targets other than vehicles subjected to the Barrett 50. The other targets peaked out at 600 meters IIRC. I saw all the modern stuff including the new Remington modular in 308, 300WM and 338LM. Barrett, Artic Warfare and many others were there showing there latest and greatest precision rifles. I saw the government issued check isssed to Remington for the first order to Combined Special Ops. Again, I ask the accuaracy and was told the some calibers where a little less than the 0.8 MOA and some a little over from field testing. I was offered the chance to fire it the next day but I could not make it, very sad.

Yes the modern rifles are a little better, but as I said earlier, how far we have come is amazingly small for the cost and extent of development. I have a Japanese T99 sniper that shot a 0.84 inch 5 shot group at 100 yds with non-match ammo first time out. It weighs about 8 lbs. The reticule allows ranging and windage at most any range out to 1000 plus meters and windage estimation, only 2.5X. You touch nothing, it is all there in front of you. Another in 4X Japanese 99 is pretty consistent at 1.5 MOA. I have a PEM that has shot as tight as 0.39 MOA but norm is about MOA with match ammo. Weight, about 10 lbs. Scope allows for range estimation and has trajectory compensation. Dial in the meters. Several others, shot in the 1-1.5 MOA. Several PUs will do sub-MOA but of the 30ish PUs I have shot the average of a good one is about 1.25, not that shabby for a gun produced in a hurry and cheaply. Most every good WW2 sniper I have and/or have fired is about 1.5 MOA with good ammo. Lots of folks at the VSS matching are shooting WW2 era rifles with vintage scopes and their rifles are about MOA rifles, some better. I am still having trouble seeing major progress.

The new 300 WM load is gonna add a new deminision delivering more max. effective range and slightly improved accuarcy so a new moderate step forward is happening. That and the new modular system offering a quick change to 338LM will further increase the max range but Special OPs only will have those, at least for now. I tried to get a price estimate and one Remington Rep guessed $25000 per copy, if they are ever sold outside the military, which the guy with the check said almost certainly never to be sold outside military and LE. A few M2010s escaped and I have held one privately owned. It is heavy.

Ranges over 600-800 meters are not that commonly attempted by most snipers in WW2 or even today. Yea, it does happen but is the exception, not the rule. As a result, the new increased range may not be that big of an improvement. Only time will tell on what will happen and how well and how often the new range capability will be an advantage.
Click to expand...

I will have to respectfully disagree with you on several points, I'm glad you brought up the USASOC comp as I was also in attendance as a competitor I believe it illustrates the advancement of modern sniping both in tech and knowledge.

1. Regarding low power scopes (2.5x to say 4x): the vast majority of the time my partner and I usually stayed between 8x to 12x for engagements but there were several events this year that required you to ID a very detailed target (like a face) before engaging. Do you think you gain positive identification at 600m with a 4x, how about 300m?

2. Regarding the ranges at The USASOC comp: these are not a representation of our currant maximum effective ranges. The longest shot (besides the m107) was a cold bore at 885m, manly because that was the longest range available to place a target and score it. If anything this reflects just how far we have actually come in the last 15-20 years, since that is when these ranges were built. Circa 1990 1000m was probably generally considered adequate give the capabilities of most of the systems available then.

3. Regarding common ranges: during my 2013 trip to Afghanistan the average engagement range for my SO team was right around 1500m. This may sound exceptional but if one were to sit down and read the sitreps across the RC's you would find as I did that +1000m shots are happening almost weekly somewhere.
 
Ro_Bird said:
I will have to respectfully disagree with you on several points, I'm glad you brought up the USASOC comp as I was also in attendance as a competitor I believe it illustrates the advancement of modern sniping both in tech and knowledge.

1. Regarding low power scopes (2.5x to say 4x): the vast majority of the time my partner and I usually stayed between 8x to 12x for engagements but there were several events this year that required you to ID a very detailed target (like a face) before engaging. Do you think you gain positive identification at 600m with a 4x, how about 300m?

2. Regarding the ranges at The USASOC comp: these are not a representation of our currant maximum effective ranges. The longest shot (besides the m107) was a cold bore at 885m, manly because that was the longest range available to place a target and score it. If anything this reflects just how far we have actually come in the last 15-20 years, since that is when these ranges were built. Circa 1990 1000m was probably generally considered adequate give the capabilities of most of the systems available then.

3. Regarding common ranges: during my 2013 trip to Afghanistan the average engagement range for my SO team was right around 1500m. This may sound exceptional but if one were to sit down and read the sitreps across the RC's you would find as I did that +1000m shots are happening almost weekly somewhere.
Click to expand...


Number one, thanks for your service. Also, thanks for your first hand experience at the match and in combat.

How did the Aussies do after their lost weapons? They were doing OK last check I had on the boards.

I am not so sure we are in that major of a disagreement. There are major improvements in optic and rifles. My point it that with a current rifle rated at 0.8 MOA, and WW2 rifle able to do that or 1.5 with less weight and much worse optics, exactly how far have we come? A PU can be had for $550 and shoot sub-moa. The system is KISS. A Remington modern Modular system will run nearly 40 times that cost. How can anyone deny the law of deminishing returns?

On number one, how often does one need facial recognition before getting hit? Traditionally it was an exception, not the rule. Also, could not a spotter with good spoter scope do that? In WW2 that need for facial recognition would be a rare exception. ID an officier or key target, enough. Needing facial recognition is not a traditional sniper shot, but I know today's situation could call for such specificity with a sniper being more of a CIA operative at times.

On number 2, I am sure max effective ranges are now pretty high. They were actually pretty high in WW2. Soviet scopes were calibrated to 1300 meters. US rifles were expected to be effective to 2000 yds but that was a streatch. Shots to 1000 plus yds were taken but doctrine was to do one shot, one kill and not take a chance and give up ones position. In Afganistan the bad guys are not in our league. It is much safer to streatch the limits of a shot.

On number 3, addressed somewhat already. A traditional sniper would not make a risky shot(pushing max effective range) and reveal their position. They had counter-snipers to fear. Even Carlos had to fear the Cobra and others. There are not many skilled counter-snipers in Afganistan, thank God. Often they have a PSL, or SVD(if they are lucky) and are just not in the same ball game.

Thanks for your input. It is much valued and may well blow me away but I ask you merely consider what I am saying. I just do not see a major advance in results from what should be a huge leap considering cost, development and time. I am also sure your experience with current rifles is large while mine is small. My experience with WW2 till VN is considerable, like 60 rifles, and I have no knowledge of yours. I wish Ron was on this forum, the NCOIC of the SF range.

I wish I could have met you and taked to you at the range. I enjoyed talking to several current SF guys and it was very inspirational for an old guy, 72-75. Again, thanks for your service and stay safe.
 
Last edited:
Mike Radford said:
Number one, thanks for your service. Also, thanks for your first hand experience at the match and in combat.

How did the Aussies do after their lost weapons? They were doing OK last check I had on the boards.

I am not so sure we are in that major of a disagreement. There are major improvements in optic and rifles. My point it that with a current rifle rated at 0.8 MOA, and WW2 rifle able to do that or 1.5 with less weight and much worse optics, exactly how far have we come? A PU can be had for $550 and shoot sub-moa. The system is KISS. A Remington modern Modular system will run nearly 40 times that cost. How can anyone deny the law of deminishing returns?

On number one, how often does one need facial recognition before getting hit? Traditionally it was an exception, not the rule. Also, could not a spotter with good spoter scope do that? In WW2 that need for facial recognition would be a rare exception. ID an officier or key target, enough. Needing facial recognition is not a traditional sniper shot, but I know today's situation could call for such specificity with a sniper being more of a CIA operative at times.

On number 2, I am sure max effective ranges are now pretty high. They were actually pretty high in WW2. Soviet scopes were calibrated to 1300 meters. US rifles were expected to be effective to 2000 yds but that was a streatch. Shots to 1000 plus yds were taken but doctrine was to do one shot, one kill and not take a chance and give up ones position. In Afganistan the bad guys are not in our league. It is much safer to streatch the limits of a shot.

On number 3, addressed somewhat already. A traditional sniper would not make a risky shot(pushing max effective range) and reveal their position. They had counter-snipers to fear. Even Carlos had to fear the Cobra and others. There are not many skilled counter-snipers in Afganistan, thank God. Often they have a PSL, or SVD(if they are lucky) and are just not in the same ball game.

Thanks for your input. It is much valued and may well blow me away but I ask you merely consider what I am saying. I just do not see a major advance in results from what should be a huge leap considering cost, development and time. I am also sure your experience with current rifles is large while mine is small. My experience with WW2 till VN is considerable, like 60 rifles, and I have no knowledge of yours. I wish Ron was on this forum, the NCOIC of the SF range.

I wish I could have met you and taked to you at the range. I enjoyed talking to several current SF guys and it was very inspirational for an old guy, 72-75. Again, thanks for your service and stay safe.
Click to expand...

+1
Well said, and my sentiments, exactly.
 
I believe this is a case of one size doesn't fit all. During WWII in the SP the Marines found out the 8X scopes on their M1903A1s didn't work and the Marine DC had the Army's 'A4s with their 2.5X scopes. The high magnification scopes just didn't have the field of view needed in jungle warfare.

The same with Vietnam where the average sniper shot was about 400 yards.

In Afghan the reverse is true, the extended distances required the use of our more modern sniper systems.

Add to that, its much easier to get through the wait-a-minute vines and bamboo thickets with an 'A4 then a Barrett.

Both have their places. Both work well in their individual environments.

T
 
Mike Radford said:
Number one, thanks for your service. Also, thanks for your first hand experience at the match and in combat.

How did the Aussies do after their lost weapons? They were doing OK last check I had on the boards.

I am not so sure we are in that major of a disagreement. There are major improvements in optic and rifles. My point it that with a current rifle rated at 0.8 MOA, and WW2 rifle able to do that or 1.5 with less weight and much worse optics, exactly how far have we come? A PU can be had for $550 and shoot sub-moa. The system is KISS. A Remington modern Modular system will run nearly 40 times that cost. How can anyone deny the law of deminishing returns?

On number one, how often does one need facial recognition before getting hit? Traditionally it was an exception, not the rule. Also, could not a spotter with good spoter scope do that? In WW2 that need for facial recognition would be a rare exception. ID an officier or key target, enough. Needing facial recognition is not a traditional sniper shot, but I know today's situation could call for such specificity with a sniper being more of a CIA operative at times.

On number 2, I am sure max effective ranges are now pretty high. They were actually pretty high in WW2. Soviet scopes were calibrated to 1300 meters. US rifles were expected to be effective to 2000 yds but that was a streatch. Shots to 1000 plus yds were taken but doctrine was to do one shot, one kill and not take a chance and give up ones position. In Afganistan the bad guys are not in our league. It is much safer to streatch the limits of a shot.

On number 3, addressed somewhat already. A traditional sniper would not make a risky shot(pushing max effective range) and reveal their position. They had counter-snipers to fear. Even Carlos had to fear the Cobra and others. There are not many skilled counter-snipers in Afganistan, thank God. Often they have a PSL, or SVD(if they are lucky) and are just not in the same ball game.

Thanks for your input. It is much valued and may well blow me away but I ask you merely consider what I am saying. I just do not see a major advance in results from what should be a huge leap considering cost, development and time. I am also sure your experience with current rifles is large while mine is small. My experience with WW2 till VN is considerable, like 60 rifles, and I have no knowledge of yours. I wish Ron was on this forum, the NCOIC of the SF range.

I wish I could have met you and taked to you at the range. I enjoyed talking to several current SF guys and it was very inspirational for an old guy, 72-75. Again, thanks for your service and stay safe.
Click to expand...

The Aussie team did ok, can't recall their placement, good bunch of dudes thought. Chatted with one of them a bit and found out I had worked with some of his mates from 2nd commando last trip.

I agree with you that we are probably on the same page but just look at it from different perspectives. You are certainly right that there is a huge diminishing returns when it comes to performance but I believe that is always the case, increase in performance is never liner to price. A parallel example might be to look at fighter planes from ww2 and compare them to those now in service. A P51 is still an amazing aircraft in regards to performance but it doesn't stand a chance in a dog fight against a F22. Show up to USASOC comp with a ww2 sniper rifle of you're choice and I pretty sure you're going to finish somewhere way in the back.

Another point I'll agree with you on is the fact that our doctrine has in fact experienced a paradigm shift based off not only new tech but who we are fighting. The way we hunt has changed in some ways because of who we are hunting. Target ID is an important one, allow me to put it inTo perspective. You right about facial recognition being rare but think more along the lines of seeing the barrel of an AK hanging out from under a man dress at +1000m. You are not going to catch that icom antenna with a 3.5x PU at 1590m but with 20x Leupold you've just gained positive identification of an enemy combatant. That coupled with your organic radio interception/DFing capabilities you not only identified a random enemy combatant but you've now have identified a high level area commander who is currently in the process of issuing orders to subordinate enemy units in attack adjacent friendly units. Now enter you real time meteorological data, ballistic solution is developed and rounds are on there way with about 50% hit probability. This real time positive identification of key enemy personal, confirmation of hostile intent, ballistic solution gained and target reduction from almost a mile away, all in less than a few minutes is a capability that far exceeds the capability of a ww2 sniper.

That said I am a huge proponent of the old ways simply because "history doesn't repeat itself but it sure as he'll rhymes". I don't imagine we will be fighting Huns again anytime soon, nor do I want to try to whack bad guys with a 1903 but there is still a huge amount of knowledge from that time period some of which could very well become relevant again. There some things that will never change for a sniper, and sometimes the old ways are still the best.

Thanks for sharing you're point of view, like I said before, i think we probably looking at the same mountain but just from different sides.
 
Good post Ro. Yea, there is no way a WW2 sniper rifle and shooter can have a 50% hit probability at that range. Getting 5% would be an accomplishment.

I am more focused on the ability of the rifle and scope without today's technological advantages as you outline, meteorological and other computer assisted data. If you add those factors in, lazer rangefinding, and so many other technological advantages I can see how a modern sniper/shooter can have a huge advantange. I am more referring of the accuracy potential of the rifles.

The WW2 sniper rifleman/person was certainly shooting more by the seat of their pants. They did not typically have the burden of facial ID or hidden weapon determination. They may seek to ID a key target, high ranking officier, Artillery spotter, Commo guy, sniper, etc., but nothing so complex as an individual's face or whether or not they were an armed non-uniformed combatant. Your post is a good perspective as to how the sniper role has evolved and is much more complex, technological and cerebral than WW2 era.

Glad that the Aussies did OK. I can not imagine going into such a competetion with loaned equiptment. SGM RH, or whoever, must have linked them up with some decent equiptment.

Have you gotten your hands on the New Remington Modular Precision Rifle system? I tried every way to buy one. Looks like it will not happen. A friend had contacts at Remington and scored a M2010. I was told a few 2010s got in lucky civilian hands early on going to VIPs, raffles, awards, etc.. Looks like that has ended as well.
 
Last edited:
Mike Radford said:
Good post Ro. Yea, there is no way a WW2 sniper rifle and shooter can have a 50% hit probability at that range. Getting 5% would be an accomplishment.

I am more focused on the ability of the rifle and scope without today's technological advantages as you outline, meteorological and other computer assisted data. If you add those factors in, lazer rangefinding, and so many other technological advantages I can see how a modern sniper/shooter can have a huge advantange. I am more referring of the accuracy potential of the rifles.

The WW2 sniper rifleman/person was certainly shooting more by the seat of their pants. They did not typically have the burden of facial ID or hidden weapon determination. They may seek to ID a key target, high ranking officier, Artillery spotter, Commo guy, sniper, etc., but nothing so complex as an individual's face or whether or not they were an armed non-uniformed combatant. Your post is a good perspective as to how the sniper role has evolved and is much more complex, technological and cerebral than WW2 era.

Glad that the Aussies did OK. I can not imagine going into such a competetion with loaned equiptment. SGM RH, or whoever, must have linked them up with some decent equiptment.

Have you gotten your hands on the New Remington Modular Precision Rifle system? I tried every way to buy one. Looks like it will not happen. A friend had contacts at Remington and scored a M2010. I was told a few 2010s got in lucky civilian hands early on going to VIPs, raffles, awards, etc.. Looks like that has ended as well.
Click to expand...

Ok yeah I see now that perhaps I've aggressively dived of the deep end in regards to the whole idea of "have we really come far?" as original posted. If the matter at hand is simply a question of the rifle and scope instead of the full spectrum of sniping then I would still say yes but not really. I see optical improvements as probably one of the most significant gains and of course the building and manufacturing of rifles is now a science but in many ways there isn't anything new under the sun. Most of what we have now is simply a refinement of things past.

Regarding the MSR/PSR yes we have had them for about half a year. They are pretty amazing so far but that's honestly a whole nuthah thread.
 
Thinking more about this topic, I got out some of my old score books. I was looking at my M1903A3. This rifle is totally USGI, '43 barrel, no bedding or any other accuracy or other modifications, typically as issued.

Using Greek M2 Ball surplus sold by the CMP it easily holds less the 3 MOA. Shooting at 600 its fairly easy to keep all shots in the 9 ring of the NRA high power target. The 9 ring is 18 inches in diameter.

I'm not sure you could do that with the arms room, as issued M16/M4s.

Granted the M1903s would suck in building searches, and I wouldn't want to carry 460 rounds of '06 through the jungles day in/day out, (my basic load of 5.56 in SE Asia) but for a pure accuracy standpoint I think these old rifles still have it in them.

Also at soon to turn 67, I wont be going into combat, I'll just put wheels on my shooting stool and wheel may cart full of '06 to the line and shoot these old war horses.

In the Modern Military Category of CMP GSM matches the, non-match AR's M1A's FN's AK's SKS's and such don't shoot the scores you see in the Garand and Springfield Matches.
 
Out of curiosity, what would be a average distance for those WW2 snipers and if possible as compared to the present with our modern equipment?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back