Longest Shooting Surplus Rifle

[tikka6.5]

Of all the surplus rifles out there, which of them could take the longest shot accurately and how far? Which would be next and so on?
Same with surplus calibers, in order, which is most accurate at the longest range, which is second and so on?

 

[JMGlasgow]

Seems an article I read about WW2 sniper rifles, the most accurate tested with period correct ammo was the Mosin Nagant. Then Mauser, then I believe Arisaka (pre ditch). Can't remember the magazine though.

 

[sandwarrior]

For longest sniper shot, I would have to say the 8mm Mauser. The bullet (198 gr. sp) was built to remain stable out to 2500m. This was accomplished (bullet stability) on a regular basis in the machine guns it was developed for. As far as sniping, there are known hits out to 1500m in WWII.

Second, though it never saw combat as the Swiss 7.5x55. The bullet has an incredible BC. And, they way the system works adds to the accuracy. Amazing we don't do this today!

Third, got to hand it to the Swedes and their 6.5 Accurate as all get out.

Honorable mention, and in many ways should be first, (except as a sniper round it doesn't have the record), is Paul Mauser's baby, the 7mm Mauser or 7x57. In 1898 this round was producing hits and kills as far as 2000m. The caveat to those of course is the Spanish were aiming at American formations, not individuals. And, being open sights, the accuracy level was only justified because of the hits, not true, precision accuracy. Needless to say it spawned the 30-06.

30-06. Accurate to 1500m, but not proven to that distance early. It took Vietnam to really show what the round will do.

7.62x53R Finnish....and of course the 7.62x54R Russion. 1k capable plus.

M40 in the 7.62x51. Current and past records in the 1200m range.

 

[kraigWY]

30-06. Accurate to 1500m, but not proven to that distance early. It took Vietnam to really show what the round will do.

In the battle for Okinawa, Pvt. David Webster Cass Jr. was credited with a series of shots at 1200 yards to take out a Japanese machine gun crew that was holding up the advance.

Its unknown if he was using the Marine's M1941 (M1903a1 w/Unertl scope) or the Army's M1903A4. Prior to the battle for Okinawa Marine LTG Alexander Vandgegrift (commander of the Marine Ground forces) ordered M1941s be replaced with the Army's M1903A4 which was much better suited for jungle warfare.

Weird shots notwithstanding, the average sniper shots were about 400 yards (including the period of the Vietnam conflict).

It would be hard to dispute the M1903 series of sniper rifles ( and the rifle itself) is the most accurate "vintage" sniper rifle in existence prior to 1955. We can see that just by examining the CMP Vintage Sniper Match scores (winning rifles) AND comparing the "other" Military category with the Springfield category in the CMP GSM games.

There are exceptions, (such as at the Cody WY GSM Games where M1Cs won) but on the average, none compare with the M1903s.

 

[Layton]

We have a monthly surplus match (anything pre-55') at my club and the 03s typically take the top spots. I know there are Swedes, Mosins and a variety of others in the match but none seem to make it to the top 5 or top 3 as often as the 03s. 03s rules that match. And there are some really good shooters behind most of those rifles.

L

 

[sandwarrior]

Kraig,

The more I read here of people actually using the 1903 for accuracy shooting, the more I'm coming to believe it is the real deal for great accuracy. I've never taken one out long range. Just shooting short range with surplus ammo.
All too often I'm reading about it being second fiddle to the 'unofficial' rifle competing with it and that is the model 70. Which I have taken out long range and can verify it's accuracy. (A heavy barrel, not military)
In any case, Those are some pretty long shots. The rifles/round were capable of more if you had the optic to do it with. I don't believe the U.S. optimized what we had until after Viet Nam. In fact, it wasn't even optimized in my day through the early eighties. The Marines were doing it, but not the Army. Not on a wide-scale effort anyways.

The reason I go with the 8mm however, is because of the 1500m shot against an American officer by a German sniper. I know you can do this, because I have been able to make hits at that far with an 8mm. Using German ammo that is, designed specifically to go the longer ranges. There is also the documented 1100m shot by Matthaus Hetzenauer against a Russian General.

All this said about the longest shots, best rifle/scope/bullet combo to get it done, what matters most about sniping never goes into a record book. It's the effectiveness that matters. If you kill 200 men and not one of them was needed, you haven't done a lot in the bigger picture. But, if you stop an advance or cease operations in an area by killing one man, or because of your presence, then you have done something. Longest and most are pretty much good shooting. Putting a stop to an operation is good work by more than just the shooter. In the case of Cass, stopping a machine gun from firing saves a lot of American lives. Saved American lives translates into confidence. Confidence that you can move forward with your goals and succeed.

 

[Joop]

For the rifles of the time and the issued ammunition used in them, most are close enough in performance that it would come down to the guy behind the trigger. However, I can see where lower velocity rounds like .303 British could have trouble competing with .30-06, 7.62x54r and 8mm Mauser at the more extreme ranges. Comparing truly "milsurp" rifles/ammo against modern built facsimiles of "vintage" rifles, shooting modern match bullets and propellants through custom barrels isn't an accurate reflection of history.

 

[kraigWY]

Comparing truly "milsurp" rifles/ammo against modern built facsimiles of "vintage" rifles, shooting modern match bullets and propellants through custom barrels isn't an accurate reflection of history

My M1903A4 has a 8-43 two grove barrel, it shoot 150 gr (54-57) ball pretty damn good to 600 (haven't shot it past that). The Scope is an old El Paso K 2.5 with a thick post reticle, so I don't think we can say its a modern gun. Every thing on it is USGI except the sear spring, I tired several but had to make one to get it to make weight per CMP Rules.

I get more pleasure shooting 9s with it then I do 10s & X's with my Target Model 70.

Same thing with the Garand, its unmodified but any more I enjoy shooting it more then I do my Super Match M1A or WOA AR.

I guess I'm getting old with my guns.

 

[Mike Radford]

For the rifles of the time and the issued ammunition used in them, most are close enough in performance that it would come down to the guy behind the trigger. However, I can see where lower velocity rounds like .303 British could have trouble competing with .30-06, 7.62x54r and 8mm Mauser at the more extreme ranges. Comparing truly "milsurp" rifles/ammo against modern built facsimiles of "vintage" rifles, shooting modern match bullets and propellants through custom barrels isn't an accurate reflection of history.

I agree with John. Most of the WW2 ammo had comparable ballistics. The major powers were largely using .308-.323 diameter bullets. Weights were 148-196 grains. MV was 2600'/sec +/-. Some of them were a little better than others but saying one is a clear winner is gonna be debateable. About any of them could do very well out to 600-800 meters and hits at twice that range were difficult but not impossible. Particularly good lots of ammo were available to most snipers, but not consistently. The US had US match ammo.

Having shot a large number of original WW2 sniper rifles, most will shoot about 1.5 MOA give or take a bit, with factory ammo. I can not opine that any rifle is clearly superior, and individual examples of a model vary quite a bit. Many CMP VSM rifles are better than their WW2 "equals" so they may not be the best basis for conclusions. Their owners treat them like their babies and the WW2 troop had to drag his through the mud, jungle and snow.

WW2 optics are a bit easier to narrow down on quality. The US scopes were not well suited to combat. The Soviet PE and PEM were especially good and tough in the field with great optics and ranging elevation cams. The PU was nearly as good and was easy to make in huge numbers. Most of the German scopes had great optics but most lacked windage adjustment on the scope and many were marginally field worthy. The Brits had a great scope with clicks, repeatable, and good optics. The Japanese scopes had good optics from folks like Nikon, very simple and fairly field worthy but most needed to be on the one rifle they were zeroed to.

There are a lot of variables besides the accuracy of the rifle but on balance all the rifles could get the job done. As John says, it often was down to the guy/gal behind the trigger.

 

[sandwarrior]

I agree with John. Most of the WW2 ammo had comparable ballistics. The major powers were largely using .308-.323 diameter bullets. Weights were 148-196 grains. MV was 2600'/sec +/-. Some of them were a little better than others but saying one is a clear winner is gonna be debateable. About any of them could do very well out to 600-800 meters and hits at twice that range were difficult but not impossible. Particularly good lots of ammo were available to most snipers, but not consistently. The US had US match ammo.

Having shot a large number of original WW2 sniper rifles, most will shoot about 1.5 MOA give or take a bit, with factory ammo. I can not opine that any rifle is clearly superior, and individual examples of a model vary quite a bit. Many CMP VSM rifles are better than their WW2 "equals" so they may not be the best basis for conclusions. Their owners treat them like their babies and the WW2 troop had to drag his through the mud, jungle and snow.

WW2 optics are a bit easier to narrow down on quality. The US scopes were not well suited to combat. The Soviet PE and PEM were especially good and tough in the field with great optics and ranging elevation cams. The PU was nearly as good and was easy to make in huge numbers. Most of the German scopes had great optics but most lacked windage adjustment on the scope and many were marginally field worthy. The Brits had a great scope with clicks, repeatable, and good optics. The Japanese scopes had good optics from folks like Nikon, very simple and fairly field worthy but most needed to be on the one rifle they were zeroed to.

There are a lot of variables besides the accuracy of the rifle but on balance all the rifles could get the job done. As John says, it often was down to the guy/gal behind the trigger.

I will disagree. The WWII 8mm Mauser the Germans used was a 198 gr. FMJ specifically designed to remain stable out to 2500m. While high BC, but not extremely high BC, it did remain stable. No other round can say that. Certainly not the U.S. who freaked when the original version of the M1 ball was overshooting 1000 yd. ranges. And lightened/shortened the bullet back to 147-152 gr. Probably more on account of someone in the Bureau of Ordnance thinking with long range ammo, people were going to waste it shooting where they couldn't hit. Not to mention MacArthur (Bug out Doug) insisted we use 30-06 when better had been proven. Then he insisted we use surplus, essentially nullifying the use of M1 Ball. He knew there would be war soon. And, he got what he wanted with passive aggressiveness. Not a good way to arm your military.

 

[wilecoyote]

Sirs, really I'm a bit perplexed: I've had first hand confirmation about the astonishing stability of 8mm. Geman ammos when fired from the mg42_I love my k98s,I'm quite partial about Mausers, I really take care of them and of their reloads but, even being quite ignorant about other ww2 rifles, I would be really surprised to outshoot them with my K98s today_ for sure, in our vintage rifles competitions (300mts. max.) sniper or iron sighted, the k98 don't win_ please, someone can explain me that ?
I don't argue about the proficiency of the ww2 German snipers, etc., but I understand the influence of the propaganda, if not of a short-barreled karbiner_

 

[wakajawaka]

Not noted for any long range kills but a highly under appreciated sniper using the Finnish militia variant of the Russian-made Mosin-Nagant rifle.

Simo Häyhä - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[itwillis]

Of all the surplus rifles out there, which of them could take the longest shot accurately and how far? Which would be next and so on?
Same with surplus calibers, in order, which is most accurate at the longest range, which is second and so on?

Rifles:

1) M1 Garand (1MOA click adjustable sights are the most useful of any surplus rifle that will allow the shooter to engage targets at known distances within the rifle's effective range
2) M1903
3) M1903 A3
3) M96 Swede
4) K31 Swiss
5) Various large ring Mausers
6) SMLE
7) Mosin

Thats my ranking but some are so close it doesn't really matter. Even though the M1 is not the most inherently accurate rifle of the group, the sights give you the advantage to make hits at range. The M96 Swede would no doubt take #1 if it had windage adjustable sights to take advantage of the performance of the cartidge.

Calibers: (in surplus loadings typical for the caliber)
6.5x55 Swedish
7.5 Swiss
7.92x57 Mauser (198)
.30-06 (common AP, M2 ball would be lower on the list)
7x57 Mauser
7.7 Jap
.303 British
7.62x54R

 

[Mike Radford]

I do not know what ballistics charts you guys are reading but they do not look like mine. Try checking a half dozen or so.

My recollection of the 303 Brit was poor. On the charts, it is the worst of the major WW2 powers in MV, ME and bullet drop. Still not bad though. Typical numbers:
303 174 grain MV--2430 [MENTION=80736]500[/MENTION]yds-1621; Energy--ME2281, at 500yds-1015. Bullet drop 500 yds--62 inches
303 180 S&B MV-2438 [MENTION=80736]500[/MENTION]yds-1574: Energy--ME2382, at 500yds-994. drop 500 yds over 60 inches
54r 174 2650 1793 2713 1242 51inches
54r 180gr S&B 2887 2777
8mm 196 HOR 2500 1751 2720 1335 56inches
8mm 196 S&B 2592 2923
06 Garand Hor 168 2710 1849 2739 1275 49inches
06 M2 152 gr 2805
06 180 S&B 2673 2866
7.7 Jp 174 gr 2493 Norma which is typically loaded low.
7.7 jp 10.5 grams 810m/s comparing same chart-54r 10.9/870, M2-10.5/870; 303-10.6/750;8mm-10.8/775, 7.5Fr.-9.2/830

I stand by my original statement. They were pretty close and any could get the job done. The303 had the fastest rate of drop followed by the 8mm. The US M2 had the least but 54r was very close.

I do not have all my charts but I have studied them a lot. Velocity is one of the most important variables in carrying downrange. BC will matter but most had a good to bettere BC. Stability at 2500 yds is not gonna matter much except with a lucky hit, not one aimed at one person.

Sorry, I typed the numbers in a line but they did not come out that way.

 

[itwillis]

Just in surplus arms and ammo its all about ammo quality and consistency not ballistic performance. US and German QC were both very good but M2 ball was not designed to perform at range.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk

 

[kraigWY]

It's about more then the ammo, its the rifle. The Mauser and other's don't have the ability to make windage corrections the American Rifles do, Even the Krag had adjustments for windage, course as they were, they had them.

In vintage rifles, none can compete with the Garand when it came to sights (elev and windage). The closest was the M1903a3, which has limits the Garand exceeds.

The Army determined that 60 Ft lbs of energy was needed to produce a disabling wound. The Krag sights can be adjusted to 2000 yards. Even the 220 RN Krag round (2000 MV) has the remaining energy of 302 ft lbs at 2000 yards. At that distance you need some sort of windage adjustments to get into the neighborhood of the target.

In short I contend the rifle has more to do with long range shooting then the bullet. All the surplus rounds mention can develop more then 60 ft lbs of energy at 2000 yards, you need the sights to get you there.

 

[pmclaine]

Is the OP's question one of which rifle is the most accurate in general or which is the better battle rifle?

I always liked the little blurb regarding the 3 rifles of Germany, Britain and the US during WWI - "One went to war with a hunting rifle (Germany), one a target rifle (US) and one a battle rifle (Britain).

Does the fact M2 ball was not the standard load for a US soldier toward the end of the war become a factor? I understand AP became the basic 30-06 load. I havent shot much AP. I understand its not match ammo but I also "hear" that if given the choice of using M2 or AP at a match AP would be preffered.

 

[Niles Coyote]

What about the trapdoor Springfield, wasn’t there a mile shot with that...

 

[kraigWY]

What about the trapdoor Springfield, wasn’t there a mile shot with that...

Yes, the 45-70-500 was a killing machine. To pacify the Indians, the Army gave thousands of Springfield's and ammo to civilians to kill off the buffalo. It was quite effective as you could get out of range of the animals hear, lob those 500 gr sub sonic shells into the herds without disturbing them.

 

[samnev]

My 3 best shooting surplus sniper rifles:
1st Swiss K31/ZFK aka K31/55
2nd Swedish M41B
3rd Brit Mk 4T

 

[itwillis]

It's about more then the ammo, its the rifle. The Mauser and other's don't have the ability to make windage corrections the American Rifles do, Even the Krag had adjustments for windage, course as they were, they had them.

In vintage rifles, none can compete with the Garand when it came to sights (elev and windage). The closest was the M1903a3, which has limits the Garand exceeds.

Read my first post, not just the second, and look at how I ranked rifles by themselves.

 

[sandwarrior]

Kraig,

You make an excellent point. I have to agree with itwillis in that the M1 Grand sights are the most effective "within the rifle's range". However, the shooting is at unknown distance. And, a good shooter can learn to hold as well as dial. No question the M1 and 1903 have great sights for that.

Mike Radford,

You might take a British .303 and compare it to M1 and M2 Ball. It's a lot longer and more aerodynamic than either. Same with the 7.5 Swiss.

In each case we've discussed here limitations and pluses of each system. With superior ballistics AND superior sights it would be a "no contest" question. As it stands I see it as a kind of wash. Great thread for discussion.

 

[itwillis]

Kraig,

You make an excellent point. I have to agree with itwillis in that the M1 Grand sights are the most effective "within the rifle's range". However, the shooting is at unknown distance. And, a good shooter can learn to hold as well as dial. No question the M1 and 1903 have great sights for that.

Mike Radford,

You might take a British .303 and compare it to M1 and M2 Ball. It's a lot longer and more aerodynamic than either. Same with the 7.5 Swiss.

In each case we've discussed here limitations and pluses of each system. With superior ballistics AND superior sights it would be a "no contest" question. As it stands I see it as a kind of wash. Great thread for discussion.

This is one of the better discussions I've seen in a while. Very interesting. It is also interesting to see other people's experiences with different surplus rifles.

As far as the .303 goes, remember, anything is practically more ballistically efficient than M2 ball. It's not really a fair comparison. Also keep in mind that M2 ball was almost never used or issued in combat by American forces (the Greeks, Danes, Iranians, etc. all copied and used M2 ball but they didn't know better). M1 ball was used in conjunction with AP during the first half of WWII and AP was used almost (emphasis on almost) exclusively after that. M1, tracer, and AP was used in the machine guns for the duration. Most American M2 made was training ammo that was used stateside.

 

[sirhrmechanic]

Er... not one of you has brought up the Ross? If you read McBride (A Rifleman Went to War) and a bunch of other WW1-vintage primary sources, then the Ross rifle ranks at the top of the accuracy food chain c. Great War. But then again, I don't have any modern data to back this up. But the Ross rifles with Winchester or Warner Swasey scopes were in high-demand for the Great War sniper crowd.

I would also add, by way of full-disclosure, that Sir Charles Henry Augustus Frederick Lockhart Ross, 9th Baronet was my great uncle (mother's side). So I am utterly prejudiced. It also makes me extra snobby if you want to run with my profile. I have a couple of Ross rifles. One handed down. Another from Gunbroker. They are neat pieces. One of these days, I will get around to buying one of the Ross sporting rifles... they are really nice pieces of kit.

Just something to think about. Because when the Ross Rifles weren't blowing bolts back into the faces of troops (due to bad bolt assembly... which stemmed from poor non-private-proof design) they were super accurate.

Cheers,

Sirhr, the snobby indirect scion of Sir Ross, the family nutball.

PS... in the family, "The Baronet" was known as "Crazy Uncle Ross." I refer to him as "my hero."

 

[Rediculous]

Having had some limited experience with most of the rifles mentioned in the "tops" of most of your lists, I'll add my 2 cent. I believe the most precise surplus rifle is the K31 swiss. The only thing holding it back is the iron sights, they are "usable". I found some off-set mount on brownells and set one up with a 3-9 scope....it is easily better than 1/2 moa, not shabby for a 70+ year old and running the GP-11 surplus ammo none the less. I know how great the 1903's are, their irons are great, but I don't know many people shooting surplus 30-06 and getting great results with anything mostly they are hand loaders doing the long range comp's. All this said, if you are looking for an iron sight only rifle the swiss may fall short, but add an optic and you can run with anything.

 

[itwillis]

The K31's are nice pieces. There are a few reasons I don't put them at the top of my accuracy list. They may very well be the most accurate surplus rifles that were ever available, but they have the unfair advantages of never using corrosive ammunition, little to no use in most cases outside of close order drill, and some of the darn finest military ammunition ever loaded. If you shoot a never-issued M96 Swedish, M1909 Argentine, or heck even an unissued 1903, any of those will do just as good if not better than the K31. You hit the nail on the head with the scope mount though, they are one of the easiest to mount a scope to without altering the rifle which makes them an absolute bargain in my opinion for what you get.

 

[sandwarrior]

Er... not one of you has brought up the Ross? If you read McBride (A Rifleman Went to War) and a bunch of other WW1-vintage primary sources, then the Ross rifle ranks at the top of the accuracy food chain c. Great War. But then again, I don't have any modern data to back this up. But the Ross rifles with Winchester or Warner Swasey scopes were in high-demand for the Great War sniper crowd.

I would also add, by way of full-disclosure, that Sir Charles Henry Augustus Frederick Lockhart Ross, 9th Baronet was my great uncle (mother's side). So I am utterly prejudiced. It also makes me extra snobby if you want to run with my profile. I have a couple of Ross rifles. One handed down. Another from Gunbroker. They are neat pieces. One of these days, I will get around to buying one of the Ross sporting rifles... they are really nice pieces of kit.

Just something to think about. Because when the Ross Rifles weren't blowing bolts back into the faces of troops (due to bad bolt assembly... which stemmed from poor non-private-proof design) they were super accurate.

Cheers,

Sirhr, the snobby indirect scion of Sir Ross, the family nutball.

PS... in the family, "The Baronet" was known as "Crazy Uncle Ross." I refer to him as "my hero."

Laughing my ass off at that one SirHr. So much so, that I sprayed my finest (in a while) Kyra Pinot Noir out my nose. Fortunately, it didn't hit the keyboard and ruin my chance to respond here.

That said, with the rest of my wine, I'll raise a toast to your "Crazy Uncle Ross" (the nutball that he is) and give fair praise to the Ross Rifle. Even though I've never shot one.

p.s. I worked with a descendant of Shackleton as well in Chicago for U.S. Airways. For whatever reason, my O-neg blood does seem to attract some fine people.

 

[Rediculous]

The K31's are nice pieces. There are a few reasons I don't put them at the top of my accuracy list. They may very well be the most accurate surplus rifles that were ever available, but they have the unfair advantages of never using corrosive ammunition, little to no use in most cases outside of close order drill, and some of the darn finest military ammunition ever loaded. If you shoot a never-issued M96 Swedish, M1909 Argentine, or heck even an unissued 1903, any of those will do just as good if not better than the K31. You hit the nail on the head with the scope mount though, they are one of the easiest to mount a scope to without altering the rifle which makes them an absolute bargain in my opinion for what you get.

The non altering option is what sold it, they also make a muzzle break that does not alter the weapon, which is pretty amazing. I see your point of "fairness" towards well used rifles and corrosive ammo, but that doesn't mean much for the guy who wants it for more than a collector piece. I actively hunt with one of mine, and the price point is what makes it even plausible. I guess a better translation would be "the most bang for your buck" surplus rifle. I love the 1903, enfields, mausers, m1's, I have just become bias as of late. The biggest gripe I have is the berdan primers on the gp-11 ammo...but since it is essentially a .308 the aftermarket 165g hornady's are great for most any NA game.

 

[Dan M]

I own a Mk II Ross (1907 mfg) and a Mk III Ross (1916 mfg) and both shoot as well as my as new 1921 NM M1903. The windage adjustable sights on the Ross are far better than their contemporaries.

The .280 Ross Mk III (M10) is the round that built the accuracy reputation of the Ross. I own one of those too, but I do not have any ammunition for testing.