Lawyers, Beancounters, and Springfield 03

[Multigunner]

The Lyman Alaskan is and was a highly respected all weather scope, and the M81 and M82 were US Government spec scopes that were basically clones of the Lyman Alaskan with differing cross hair or post configuration.
These last two scopes were also used on the M1C and M1D Sniper rifles to great effect.

The test firing report I mentioned gave a few other comparasions, the 03A4 was the lightest of the Sniper rifles tested at 9.5 pounds, the No.4 (T) was the heaviest at well over twelve pounds.

Since of all the sniper rifles tested the scoped 03A1 was the only one that grouped well enough to make consistent hits at extreme ranges, with the 03A4 coming in second only to the 03A1, the accuracy advantage clearly lay with the Springield. I doubt you'll find many who would consider extremely good accuracy and reliability of the rifle to hold its zero after months of combat in moist tropical weather to be unimportant in a sniper rifle.

The earlier non sealed scopes were used because they were available, when better scopes became available they were used. Theres no sense in bemoaning the fact that a better scope was not available in quantity till later in the war.
Had the US adopted any other rifle for sniper purposes, as they had considered a purpose built Model 70 similar to the rifles later used in Vietnam, they would still have been limited to the scopes available in quantity at the time.

The 8X Unertl was also used on the early Vietnam era Model 70 sniper rifles, and once again to great effect.

The springfield was a good service rifle but was never designed for long range accuracy with it's comparatively short , thin walled barrel ,

That would be a difficult claim to defend, since the 1903 rifles were always known for superior long range accuracy compared to any other rifles fitted with milspec barrels, none of the sniper rifles in use by other countries used extra heavy profile target grade barrels with the exception of Australian No.1 rifles with the HT target barrels. The Springfield barrels look plenty heavy to me, and beat the pants off all comers in the 1,000 yard matches with the supposedly too delicate issue iron sights.

A dedicated sniper rifle built using a commercial action and heavy barrel would be practically the same as the Model 70 rifles used in Vietnam. Certainly a fine rifle for the purpose,but at the time issuing a rifle such as this would have had a number of drawbacks, supplying replacement parts for a non standard rifle and added training for armorers in servicing what was still a commercial sporter action, addition to inventory of replacement stocks and developing bedding techniques for that specific rifle, etc.
More emphasis has been placed on long range sniping since the mid Vietnam era switch to purpose built sniper rifles, and for the most part the modern versions of the old time sporters have benefitted from advances in barrel making technology. Since no other rifle caliber bolt actions remain in active service, theirs no supply line conflicts as there would have during WW2.
The post WW1 Scoped P-14/No.3 (T) was considered to be a superior sniper rifle when compared to any of the Lee Enfield actioned sniper rifles, but maintaining a limited issue rifle that had all but outlived its supply of replacement parts with no new parts being manufactured resulted in it being a stop gap measure to do the job until the No.4 (T) was developed.

The 8X power Unertl scoped 03A1 was capable of making hits consistently at ranges where the competition were neither accurate enough or in most cases did not have optics suitable for extreme long range sniping.
The 03A4 was a lighter and handier rifle than most of its competition, the low magnification of scopes used on this rifle put it more in the class of a designated marksman rifle , a role the revamped M14 rifles are often used for these days. The rifle was certainly capable of making headshots at ranges where a one shot kill with the rifles of the competition was problematic.

As I've said before I personally don't have much interest in the 1903 Springfield or its variants.
It does have tremendous historical interest, and attempts to dis all versions of the rifle based on the tiny fraction of one percent of the rifles that failed due to brittle recievers has sparked my interest. That and the too often overblown claims made in defense of other bolt action contemporaries which had their own shortcomings.
All were adequate for the purpose they were put to, and all aquitted themselves well in the hands of skilled marksmen.

I'm waiting to hear a good argument that greater and more consistent accuracy was of no particular value in a Sniper's rifle.

One might argue that the low 2.5 power scopes limited the useful range of the 03A4, but then again hunters these days often pick a lower power setting for variable scopes to allow for a better sight picture in low light situations, such as mornings, evenings, overcast skies ,and under a forest canopy where much infantry combat took place both in the Pacific and in the forests of Europe, not to mention the deep shadows of an urban battle zone.

Personally I prefer a 4X scope as a minimum, but the scopes chosen for the 03A4 were very compact, weren't set high enough to prevent snuggling into the butt stock, and less likely to become hung up on vegetation.
Scopes of the same general type were certainly well suited to use on sporting rifles, where quick target pick up and ID in variable light conditions meant the difference between success or failure, and possibly life or death if the quarry is a carnivore.

[spqrzilla]

I suspect that there was quite a bit different role from what was probably usually a counter-sniper role in Guadalcanal fighting to the more iconic long range sniping in Korea. Those different roles would in and of themselves change the requirements of a sniping arm.

I'm always skeptical of anecdotes of individual infantrymen scavenging the enemies equipment in the field because it was perceived to be better. There is often a "grass greener on the other side of the fence" aspect to this. Sometimes it was even true, hence the British use in North Africa of German "Jerrycans" for carrying "petrol" because their own were so badly built.

[gew98]

I'm always skeptical of anecdotes of individual infantrymen scavenging the enemies equipment in the field because it was perceived to be better. There is often a "grass greener on the other side of the fence" aspect to this. Sometimes it was even true, hence the British use in North Africa of German "Jerrycans" for carrying "petrol" because their own were so badly built.

Really now ?. The germans loved the M1 carbines they picked up. They also loved russian and british sniping rifles when captured as well.And as a sidenote the germans loved GPW's , Halftracks and all american trucks they captured too..they were rugged and worked. And don't forget the SVT40's and those PPSh's the germans loved to use against their former owners.
A serious german sniper probably would not find much use of a captured 1903A4 , for if he had anything other than a 98k with the useless Zf41 long eye relief he had a better weapon. There is no way a german made 4x or 6x power Zf39 type scope was inferior to brit No32 scopes , Russian PU scopes ( PE scopes were prewar german made 4x tubes and were killers ) and lastly the 03A4 tiny tube. I am sure they would have laughed at the Unertl too...just imagine having to dive in a ditch on top of your rifle and come back up with a zeroed rifle... the LSR and turret systems and even the claw systems as well as the No4 T would , could and did do that as they were rugged. Can't say the same for US sniping kit of WW1 or WW2.
Audie murphy killed two or three german snipers by literally walkiing into them in wooded terrain...one shot him in the **** as he dived for cover a mere few feet away and he snapped a shot in the dive for cover with his M1 carbine and killed the sniper. At least one of the sniping 98k's he did keep he put in a museum in texas where it still resides.
Remember how in vietnam alot of troops picked up AK's for use as the early M16's and their ammunition was junk....still skeptical so much ?.

PS ; the germans liked Sten guns too and carreid them on both fronts. I've been to more than one SMG shoot at Knob creek where a sten walked away as the winner as it never flubbed and shot accurately....it surprised me too but it can do it.

[gew98]

Oh and moolti the Patt'1918 scoped rifle was superior to the SMLE scoped variants...it had a spot on copy of a german mounting system and was based on a good solid mauser type design.... and since my Iron sighted Patt'14 can shoot extraorinary groups if I do my part I can only imagine how beautiful those strudy Patt'18 sniping rifles shot. Better than any 03 rig of the day and the next war.... and rugged too.

[Multigunner]

A serious german sniper probably would not find much use of a captured 1903A4

The Germans had their code designation for captured 1903 Springfield rifles, but seldom captured these in any case, I've never heard of a 1903A4 falling into German hands, though surely one may have at some time or another. The Germans did not have nearly as much luck against U S Infantrymen compared to the masses of British and Russian troops taken into captivity. When the Germans managed to break through and take prisoners they usually ended up fleeing for their lives from a U S counter attack. A lot more German equipment fell into U S hands than the other way around.

This quoted critique of the 03A4 seems a bit odd.

" A discussion of issue sniper rifles and telescopes indicated the following :


E) Stocks should be better designed to facilitate taking good firiing position.

The Type C stock and Scant stocks are anbout as good as a military stock ever got

F) Trigger pulls are neither adjustable nor crisp enough to permit a good squeeze.

Exactly which Military sniper rifles of the day had adjustable triggers?
What military rifles did not have two stage triggers?

G) Accuracy of the M1903A4 is questionable due to the bedding of the barrel and due tot the fact that wartime production runs of M1903A3 are believed to have been converted to the M1903A4 rifle , without screening out those rifles not suitable for such a purpose.

A critque the British also made against the captured German sniper rifles they tested. While the No.4 (T) had the worst record for loss of accuracy due to shifts in bedding of any rifle fieled in WW2 and the lowest acceptance standards.

H) Present sniper rifles do not maintain their zero from day to day , thus requiring frequent targeting."

Yet others stated the maintenance of zero to be its strong point.

and this

Van Orden's views were regarded with deep suspicion by many senior Marine officers. However when examined in purely practical terms , his logic was hard to fault. The springfield was a good service rifle but was never designed for long range accuracy with it's comparatively short , thin walled barrel

Theres no more than a one inch difference between the barrel length of the 03 and that of the No.4 or 98K with the No.4 barrel a bit longer and the 98K a bit shorter.
Van Orden was not comparing the 03A4 to comparable military sniper rifles of the day, he was comparing it to his own ideal sniper rifle , with bull barrel,which did not yet exist.

[gew98]

Mooli ; between Africa , Sicily , and Italy alone no small amount of 03A4's were captured. In one of my books - which I am looking for the page when time permits there is an account of a young naive american soldeir whom with a brand new 03A4 and a buddy went to soem high ground and did alot of casual shooting at german positions. A small german patrol captured him and his buddy....he was such a novice at it and apparently the german officer thought the rifle he was using something laughable...which he felt both counts saved him from being shot on the spot instead of becoming a POW. When I find it I'll post it for your reading pleasure.
I guess you forgot Kasserine pass , and the 106th Inf Div in the bulge. The american infantryman was no superman , like any soldier he could be the best of the best or the bottom of the heap. The superiority of the US artillery and air assets decided much more the fate of the germans. Numerous accounts of germans captured and letters from their dead recount the crushing weght of artillery and air power like they had never experianced even on the eastern front.

On the 1953 US military report...hmmm they were there doing it so you disagree with them pointing out the flaws of the 03A4...I'll take that report over an opinion thank you.
Van Orden was not so much comparing it , but highlighting the deficiencies of the current US sniping rifles and optics. His experiance no doubt made him very knowledgeable on what was needed in place of the halfbaked rifles they did get.

"Yet others stated the maintenance of zero to be its strong point."

Who are these "others" , were they users in combat or range fairies ?.


"A critque the British also made against the captured German sniper rifles they tested. While the No.4 (T) had the worst record for loss of accuracy due to shifts in bedding of any rifle fieled in WW2 and the lowest acceptance standards "

Interesting , Since I looked through several Skennerton books on the subject and noted that selected No4's for sniping were carefully restocked and nowhere is any issue of such a thing being a problem with the No4(T).
As well in " The British Sniper" The offical testing of different optics on the No4 (T) does not show the disparity you allege , and when the brits mounted a captured 4x german scope to a No4 it beat them all out.

[Multigunner]

" While capable of producing satisfactory results when carefully prepared by qualified unit armorers ,

As would be expected.

"Careless handling which could damage the DELICATE mounts

Perhaps you should have bolded "CARELESS Handling".

If you actually have any interest in how the rifles work rather than simply looking up the meanings of marking, then you should look beyond a single resource.
Reynolds goes into some detail on the unexpected loss of accuracy of No.4 rifles once exposed to wet or humid tropical climes. Hesketh Pritchart also comments on the loss of accuracy of the SMLE rifles after a few months at the front. In both cases it was due to shifts in the bedding due to moisture.
A number of stopgap methods were tried, some successful and some not. In India where the problems with the bedding of the No.4 (T) were very noticable they developed a method using a metal shim with teeth to hold it firmly in the barrel channel, that wasn't a permanent solution either as the barrel vibrations pushed the teeth further into the wood, a glued in wooden bearing point worked better but was not officially adopted.

Check out the Canadian Instructions to armorers on correcting the bedding of the No.4 rifle for best accuracy, they really put some thought into solving the problems.
Bedding issues plagued every version of the Lee Enfield rifles, serious shooters recognize this easily enough, and more than a few have put a great deal of effort into solving these problems. but the fact remains that the bedding of any No.4 rifle exposed to months in the outdoors could go south at any time without an easily identified reason.

I doubt the Japanese Machine gunners Jim Cass killed at 1,200 yards would have thought the Springfield humorous. Or the 47 German gunners killed during a single WW1 battle by a U S sniper for that matter.

Theres more than a few photos of captured German Snipers being led to the rear by U S troops. They were pretty effective in slowing up some advances, but don't seem to have given much thought to an escape plan.

PS

Rommel thus found himself between American and British forces, and managed to stall the Allies with a series of defensive operations, most notably with the Battle of the Kasserine Pass, in which American defenses crumbled due to the vast superiority of German tanks. The end result for the Americans was more than 1,000 dead, hundreds taken prisoner, and the loss of most of their heavy equipment. While some would call the Battle of Kasserine Pass a German victory, the indirect ramifications of the battle were felt just three days later. The Americans studied Kasserine Pass in detail and immediately initiated sweeping changes by restructuring command and coordinating aircraft with ground forces. That led to the Americans driving Rommel back through the Kasserine Pass towards his prepared position on the Mareth Line. Axis defenses were shattered, and the Allies managed to squeeze Axis forces until resistance in Africa ended with the surrender of more than 275,000 prisoners of war.


On May 12, 1943, the last organized Axis army force in Africa surrendered. The Allies had killed, wounded, or captured about 350,000 Axis soldiers, and had suffered about 70,000 casualties. After the victory in the North African Campaign, the stage was set for the Italian Campaign to begin.

http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1727.html
Doesn't look like the Germans had time to get much if any use out of any allied equipment they captured.
With their Air Transport anihilated and not enough transport of any kind to allow more than a handful to escape, its doubtful they carried away much booty from their earlier successes.

[gew98]

"Careless" handling in combat...like I mentioned jumpin in a ditchor a hole to save your skin and you come up with a useless rifle. I've read alot of comments on the lack of Iron sights on the 03A4 a major deficiency..and it is. All the german scope mounting systems allow use of the issue Iron sights with the scope in place.
You don't think the germans had much time to use and evaluate Allied war material they captured ?....you serious on that ?.
The germans dragged about nearly every model of tank they captured for evaluation to their ranges/facilities in germany proper. I have seen pictures of fallschirmjaegers getting instruction with captured M1 rifles. There is also pics of german troops using M2 50 caliber MG's , and numerous pictures of germans enjoying M1 carbines , allied tanks & trucks. The germans were frugal and if reuseable they opted for that whenever feasible. I've read no shortage of veteran accounts of german POW's and KIA with all manner of allied clothing and field equipment on them. There is even a pic out there of a couple volksturm types standing around eating some ersatz black bread and they had M1 rifles slung on their shoulders.
You seem to miss that there were numerous modifications of captured enemy wquipment the germans issued out like the Marder SPG that used a russian 76,2mm AT gun. If you peruse alot of tank modelling sights you will find oodles of pictures of all manner of american & brit tanks and vehicles in german use after capture on most all fronts.
In th ePacific the japanese used about everything they captured from the allies as well..frugal is as frugal does.
The more and more I have read into the 03 sniping rifles..the more and more they proved decidedly inadequate.If you take a target rifle into the mud,weather and combat it had better be able to take all three , and the german ,russian and brit sniping rifles could do all that and more,but not what the US troops got saddled with sadly. You can bet there were more than a couple german snipers in the first war with bigger tallies using a scharfschutzengewehr98... they were at that game longer and hod more and better quipment than that warner swazey abomination.
Was it Billy Sing of australia that killed scores of turks on gallipoli with the lowly SMLE , a rifle that did not have a 50/50 chance of going kaboom.
There are oodles of modern reproduction 98k Long side rail and turret mount sniping rifles out there for under a grand presently. I suggest you go buy or borrow one and do some shooting. You will likley wonder why the US did not copy either proven & reliable system. Being the politicians and bean counters tend to have the last say in everything it's no small wonder why the US military got saddled with so much barely adequate to inadequate arms and still does today to some extent .

[Multigunner]

The germans dragged about nearly every model of tank they captured for evaluation to their ranges/facilities in germany proper

Almost all of which were from Central Europe or France where they had their greatest early successes.
They also captured a lot of Lend Lease U S equipment from the British and French as well as the Russians.
[Edited to add]
http://www.bavarianm1carbines.com/germanyww2.html

You've already mentioned the capture of German sniper rifles on more than one occasion, The fanatical self sacrifice of German snipers was well noted. They kept shooting till killed or captured, but in the end they were killed or captured. When possible they destroyed their scopes as any well trained sniper would, so the number of surviving scopes would tend to suggest death was the more common end of the German sniper.

At Kasserine Pass the U S retreated and hundreds were captured, when the counter attack came the Germans were driven out of Africa and hundreds of thousands were captured. So that suggests that the Allies captured thousands of times the amount of equipment that the Germans might have.
The Russians lost a lot more in men and equipment, but in the end they plowed the German forces under, any equipment the Germans captured there didn't do them much good it would seem, they would have traded it all for a crust of bread before being led into ten years of captivity in the Russian Gulags. The Russians are still selling off the hundreds of thousands of captured 98K rifles they gathered up then.

Now back to comparasions of equipment.
Your position seems to be that if the very best of German scope mounts was coupled with the very best of German optics, then so far as the sights went the German rifle was better equiped. That of course requires ignoring the many variations of mounts and sights used by the Germans during the war.
The German Snipers were also issued match grade ammunition when available, how long this ammo was available and whether supply lines stayed open long enough to deliver it is uncertain.

The British No.32 scope has many good points, but it also had a few short comings.
The earlier version could only adjust for windage in two MOA increments, the later version in one MOA increments. The No.4 (T) could only be zero'ed effectively by use of shims. When zero shifted due to swollen furniture re zeroing was difficult at best, and not easily done in the field.
One early attempt to reduce the effects of swollen for ends was to eliminate contact between butt socket and for end. Every source on accurizng any of the Lee Enfields makes it plain that a good even and firm contact of fore end to butt socket is necessary for best accuracy. They found that maintaining proper contact after months of combat was unlikely, so they instead left a visible gap there.
Having found this sort of gap on a number of No.4 rifles I looked into just why. Reynolds covers this in a couple of articles on bedding of the No.4 and the No.4 (T).
The best bedding methods weren't worked out till the early 50's, when the No.4 was on its way out for any use other than as a target rifle. Though of course those third world clients of the former British Empire continued to use both No.1 and No.4 rifles to suppliment the more modern rifles obtained from various sources, mostly Cold War opponents.

There was far too little done by the U S military to main tain its sniper rifles between wars. 03A3 rifles shuffled off into storage and pulled out five or six years later and rushed into combat in Korea without even a minimum of inspection or correction may well have been in less than optimal trim. Like as not most needed only to have the trigger guard screws tightened to cure any wandering zero problems.

The Weaver scope was the least suitable scope to be used on the 03A4, and should have been replaced across the board, but the better scopes were retained for use on the Garand M1c and M1D rifles till the Weaver scopes were replaced in the all too seldom servicing of 03A4 rifles.

I did find a comparsion of the sight picture of the three variants of the Weaver scope used on the 03A4 rifle. One has a simple cross hair, not coarse from the look of it,in fact perhaps too fine for low light work, another used a horizon line and post similar to the No.32 scope, though the post is more tapered, and another a simple tapered post.
So where the comment about coarse cross hairs comes from is unclear.
http://www.auctionarms.com/closed/di...mnum=4261666.0

Still despite perceived faults the 03A4 continued to give good service long after the Scoped 98K and No.4 (T) were no longer on the scene other than in vastly altered form such as the L42 or the numerous variants of the Model 98 fielded by non German forces in Central and Eastern Europe.

And in every side by side field test of the British, German, and Soviet sniper rifles compared to the 03A1 and 03A4 the Springfields still came off as the more accurate despite supposedly better optics of the competition.
With match grade ammo, equal to the special sniper ammo sometimes issued to German snipers the superiority of the Springfield is further enhanced, with sub MOA accuracy recorded for the scoped 03A1.

One can argue that the best German optics and matchgrade ammunition could produce excellent results despite the 98K being on the whole a somewhat less accurate rifle, but thats no tribute to the rifle, its a tribute to the scope maker.

[spqrzilla]

Really now ?.

Yes, really. Troops often mythologize the enemies' weapons. Its inherent.

The germans loved the M1 carbines they picked up. They also loved russian and british sniping rifles when captured as well.And as a sidenote the germans loved GPW's , Halftracks and all american trucks they captured too..they were rugged and worked. And don't forget the SVT40's and those PPSh's the germans loved to use against their former owners.

Amusing examples, since the Russians knew how problematic the STV40's were in combat conditions.

The Germans used a lot of captured weapons, including Russian tank guns remounted in Czech tank chassis as tank destroyers, French chassis with captured howitzers as self-propelled artillery etc. It was motivated by the scarcity of German resources and manufacturing capacity rather than the alleged superiority of the weapons.

Remember how in vietnam alot of troops picked up AK's for use as the early M16's and their ammunition was junk....still skeptical so much ?.

Yes, because you've done nothing to rebut my point.

PS ; the germans liked Sten guns too and carreid them on both fronts. I've been to more than one SMG shoot at Knob creek where a sten walked away as the winner as it never flubbed and shot accurately....it surprised me too but it can do it.

The Germans actually manufactured a Sten gun copy. Which really means nothing other than it is yet another example of one of the larger problems with German armaments manufacturing in WWII - that of scattered and inefficient practices.

[gew98]

Mooli ; If you understood german ammunition collecting any sniper specific ammunition is a rare thing. They simply did not nor could not produce enough and about every account of a veteran german sniper that survived the war used whatever everyone else had to include pulling rounds from MG belts. And if you noticed or not the High and low turret , the SSR and LSR , and even the claw mounts were all superior to anything put on the '03. That's not boasting it's simple fact . The german made the sturdiest mounts and best optics. The brits and the russians made the next best ..again that's reality. I've shot them all except for the unertl equipped 03 simply because my buddy was afraid of it breaking.. delicate you know.

"And in every side by side field test of the British, German, and Soviet sniper rifles compared to the 03A1 and 03A4 the Springfields still came off as the more accurate despite supposedly better optics of the competition."

Well seeing as I have shot the german examples in such comparisons and I'm going by your fanboy word I'm not buying it. You have some odd mindset that just because an enemy is defeated they WILL HAVE inferior equipment..strange frame of mind there. With the exception of the Zf41 long eye relief joke and the expendable G'43 scoped junkers the germans had the better rifle and bullet for sniping work.

"So where the comment about coarse cross hairs comes from is unclear"

Ah , you know this report was compiled from AAR's and troops using them in the field then in korea...or did you miss that , as it was rather clear to me.

The No4 (T) survied in brit use after the 03A4 , and soldiered on in the 7,62 versions while 03A4's were put in storage and or scrapped , and of course sold off as surplus.
Back in the early 90's in the ARNG I was even surprised that there were 22 trainers and 03A4's in state storage. When they did an inventory of them and the report was forwarded they were immeadiately turned over to the federal gov't as no support was available for those obsolete weapons. Whether they got surplussed out by Clinton or destroyed I never new but knowing demorats likely the latter.
As an aside the US was super close to having a copy made and issued to our troops of the MG 42 in WW2 , but some engineer type screwed up some dimensions and it became all such a mess it got canned sadly.

[gew98]

Yes, because you've done nothing to rebut my point.


.

And your "point" is opinion and suppoorted by ?.

[spqrzilla]

Apparently more courtesy than I should have offered.

As to the opinion that troops mythologize the enemies' weapons, that is a generally accepted fact of military history but it was especially emphasized when I read reprints of the US Army's Ordnance divisions wartime intelligence briefs. It was a recurring theme in the reports from those intel reports back to the line troops and the Ordnance people had to spend a lot of effort trying to overcome that mythology to maintain the troops' confidence in their own equipment.

[Multigunner]

Ah , you know this report was compiled from AAR's and troops using them in the field then in korea...or did you miss that , as it was rather clear to me.

Yet the crosshairs are not noticably coarse, unless perhaps as compared to those of the Unertl 8X used on the 03A1. Perhaps someone not used to a post reticle might confuse this with a crosshair and not recognize its purpose. The post and horizon line of the No.32 scope is much the same, and a friend once said that the post of a Russian scope was like looking at your thumb at arms length like a portrait painter measuring the model.
I'm begining to wonder about some of your sources.

BTW.
Some resistence fighters built STEN copies in basement workshops using tubing stolen from motorcycle and bicycle repair shops. The gun was simple and comparatively easy to manufacture, its magazines were usually junk most often due to poor quality springs.
Sterling rebuilt thousands of these guns, sold them to various rebel groups, then bought them back from the Governments that picked them up off the dead bodies of former owners and threw a fresh coat of suncorite on them and sold them again to the next group of would be liberators with big ideas and small purses.
German arms manufacturing capabilty went downhill at an alarming rate towards the end.
The German copy of the STEN was intended for the mythical "Werewolf divisions" that barely existed on paper and never materialized anymore than actual werewolves.

It doesn't pay to buy into NAZI propaganda photos without looking for the real story behind them.
I'd once believed the bit about the SS using M1 Carbines as well, but the facts shows this was almost entirely a myth built around a few misrepresented photographs.

The Germans spent a lot of resources trying to convince everyone they were invincible, but history has proven otherwise.
The Turret mount you mentioned looks strong enough, but some of the mounts they used look better suited to granpa Heinrich's drilling.
Some scopes they used were very sophisticated, while others were simple commercial sporting rifle scopes no better than the Weaver, if as good.
Quality of rifles varied greatly as well, from passable to 5 MOA at best.

Face it, the "Target Rifle" was in its zone when it came to sniping work, just as at Belleau Wood when the Germans found themselves being cut down at nearly twice the range they had thought to be the limit for an iron sighted rifle and individual riflemen.

PS
I just checked the Mitchells Mauser site to be sure of something I'd heard before.

The 98K rifles converted for sniper use were not chosen due to any accuracy testing. Instead they chose the rifles based on how tight the tolerances were, by gauging I suppose, presuming these would be the most accurate.

I'd heard before that accuracy test firings were so loosely monitored that slave laborers at NAZI controled plants often canted the rear sight pivots so a rifle appeared to meet minimum standards but at any range past two hundred yards the rifle shot too far to one side to hit a man sized target.
Not that the iron sights made any difference to the scope mounting, but it shows how badly quality control slipped over the war years.

[Multigunner]

Apparently more courtesy than I should have offered.

As to the opinion that troops mythologize the enemies' weapons, that is a generally accepted fact of military history but it was especially emphasized when I read reprints of the US Army's Ordnance divisions wartime intelligence briefs. It was a recurring theme in the reports from those intel reports back to the line troops and the Ordnance people had to spend a lot of effort trying to overcome that mythology to maintain the troops' confidence in their own equipment.

Thats a fact, goes back to the time of the Trojan Wars at least, and will be that way when men are fighting among the stars, if we don't blow ourselves up first..

[gew98]

Oh man mooli , I laugh to much for my old bones reading some of the guff you propagate.
The moment ANYONE quotes Mitchells Mausers you lose...that outfit of twits has no respect excepting with newbs , rubes and armchair commandos.
Seems to me under more intensive allied bombing Aircraft, tank and small arms production increased tremendously. A genious in such things and industrious german nature only the likes of Albert speer was able to pull off.
Since you obviously do not collect or follow german small arms there are many pictures of germans besides SS carrying M1 carbines , paratroops for example. A Martin Poppel authored a book of his wartime experiances "Heaven & Hell" wherein he and his para mates liked M1 carbines when captured. The germans captured M1 carbined dropped to dutch & french resistance and utilized them as well.

"Some scopes they used were very sophisticated, while others were simple commercial sporting rifle scopes no better than the Weaver, if as good.
Quality of rifles varied greatly as well, from passable to 5 MOA at best"

Your practical lack of experiance and knowledge on this shows forth admirably..stick to cut & pasting manuals.

How many STENs have you handled and fired ?. Geez from the handfulls I have had the pleasure of playing with rarely a hiccup , same with the MP40 and Thompson , the the 30rd stick magazines in the thompson had a tendency to drop out of the gun.
I guess you are not aware of the effectiveness of the russian PU from WW2 through vietnam. C. Hathcock had a vietnamese sniper put a hole through his spotters canteen at some ungodly "target rifle" range.....but I guess hathcock is a liar by your narrow thinking.

"Face it, the "Target Rifle" was in its zone when it came to sniping work, just as at Belleau Wood when the Germans found themselves being cut down at nearly twice the range they had thought to be the limit for an iron sighted rifle and individual riflemen."

Really... same battle where marines and army troops attacked in such ways as to get machinegunned down by the scores. That fleeting incidence of shooting prowess is even questionable as to legitimacy as most of the marines at belleau wood did not live to say much like that. I do believe I have the book where that line comes from and the author was a journalist.
You forget the battle of mons in 1914 where those horrible SMLE's in the hand's of Kitchner's mob wiped out german regiments with rapid well aimed rifle fire at all ranges , but that must not count as the SMLE is not a delicate target rifle.

I guess if you are 1,000 yards from the sharp end a delicate target rifle can be maintaned possibly , but that was not the reality of the wars then. With the superb sniping rifles of today it's done all the time in A'stan and Iraq still.

[Multigunner]

How many STENs have you handled and fired ?. Geez from the handfulls I have had the pleasure of playing with rarely a hiccup , same with the MP40 and Thompson , the the 30rd stick magazines in the thompson had a tendency to drop out of the gun.

I've never had much interest in SMGs, aside from firing a burst from a FBI Hardcase when I was a youngster the only SMGs I've fired were the more recent stuff and not much with those either. I do have a friend who once kept a pretty good collection of WW2 era SMGs as well as some post WW2 SMGs, I never heard him sing the praises of the STEN gun, but then again he is a professional who only uses those weapons he can depend on in a shoot out.
I have examined the STEN parts kits, and found the quality to be uninspiring to say the least.

Now since your experiance with a very few STEN guns on a range leads you to proclaim your expertise as an over whelming refutation of every other source on the shortcomings of the STEN I have to look at all your claims as overblown.
The Canadians issued the STEN before Dieppe found that few would function at all. They did what they could with these, and after much hand fitting and other rectifications got the guns to work passably well. Then these STENS were withdrawn and shortly afterwards a new shipment as bad as the first was substituted. Of course the Canadians were very PO'ed at that, and the STEN gave them nothing but trouble after that.

The huge numbers of STEN parts kits would hopefully have represented the worst of the breed broken down for parts. I'd certainly hope that any SMG collector would take the effort to work out the bugs in their personal examples.
I'm sure that with well fitted parts and a quality magazine that the STEN would work just fine. I'm also certain that the many complaints about the wartime production STEN guns were well founded.
I'm sure if you looked hard enough you'd find a Chautchat collector who still bemoans the bad press his favorite received.

There seems to be a continuing thread of perversity in your selection of the best weaponry of any particular class.

You may find the interview with the head man at Sterling describing the refurbishment and resale of those junker STEN guns. Its been many years but sometimes these older programs do show up on youtube or other sources. I haven't seen the program since it first aired but it was memorable.It was part of a news program on the international arms trade back in the early 80's. They were quite open about the whole thing, and there was a neat clip showing testfiring of the refurbed STENs.
Selling, buying back, and reselling the STEN was all that kept Sterling afloat for some time.

PS
The mighty STEN in action

As Heydrich’s open-topped Mercedes-Benz neared the pair, Gabčík stepped in front of the vehicle, trying to open fire, but his Sten gun jammed. Heydrich ordered his driver, SS-Oberscharführer Klein, to stop the car. When Heydrich stood up to try to shoot Gabčík, Kubiš threw a modified anti-tank grenade at the vehicle,

Theres another good one about a patrol learning to breakdance when a dropped STEN went runaway full auto on them, and several more in the same vein.
You don't seem to see many such stories that praise the STEN.
It was a cheap and none too reliable weapon, that worked okay when it did work at all, but nothing about it inspired any confidence.
If better made and with quality magazines it might have garnered some deserved honors, rather than being derided by those who had to carry it because England could not produce a better weapon in quantity.

PS
On a not so happy note.
PS
I certainly don't wish to be anywhere near someone who doesn't recognise the faults of the weapon they are carrying.

12th June 1944

Place: Coleville Sur Orne



922643 Gnr PATON E., 222 Med Bty RA killed by accidental discharge of his sten gun.

RIP , he deserved a better end than to be killed by his own poorly designed, poorly manufactured, and too often defective weapon.

[gew98]

You know , this fantasy of yours made me dig out my old dog eared copy of "Ordnance went up front" By Roy Dunlap. Here's some things he had to say about your scared cows...oh and he was there and did that.

" Most of the early American forces to action saw it through Springfield sights, however , and did as well as expected.The US M1903 is a provenmauser military rifle and it's only weak point is it's sights. Parts most likely to break otherwise are ejectors and strikers : those most likely to suffer excess wear,thereby requiring repair or replacement, floorplates , cutoffs and safeties. The commercially built 1903, 1903A3 and 1903A4 rifles were and are very sad specimens and are not to be compared to Rock Island Aresenal or High numbered Springfield Armory products. Some of these had two land barrels ,the rifles including a slip of paper assuring the soldier that that was all there was , there was not any more purpose , and that the rifle was just as good anyway. Despite this sales talk , the soldiers claimed the guns would not shoot twice as close to the same place in the same week.
Workmanship grew steadily poorer on the '03 rifles , until I became ashamed of insulting japs for their machining on the M99. The replacement of the machined and forged parts with stampingsaffected nothing but appearance really , , and in fact I cam e to consider stamped magazine follower better than the machined one it replaced , due to it's rounded edges being less liable to catch on the bottom edges of the reciver where they joined the magazine box ( I have had plenty of springfields turned in to me with a slip of paper saying they jammed on the fourth round , indicating follower trouble).

[gew98]

And to further this from Roy Dunlap :

" The receiver type A3 sight was a good idea , and the sights are satisfactorily mounted. Windage adjustment is OK , but elevation is not so good , for the spring seems to weaken and allow the apeture to slide to slip down. Barrels did not look so bad and some of them may shoot all right. Some of the first rifles made by Remington were almost as good as the government models. Bedding usually was very bad and few rifles were bedded correctly unless they belonged to armoers or ex civilian shooters who knew what it meant to accuracy.
I never considered the Remington Made 1903A4 sniper rifles very accurate , although I must confess I did not get a chance to shoot them with good ammunition. Most of the rifles were equipped with weaver 33o scopes , in Redfield Jr. mounts , a poor choice for the pacific , as the weaver was not designed for that kind of beating. When they came to our instrument reapair men , water could actually be poured out of many of them. They just were not weatherproof enough (please do not consider this a criticism of the weaver as a telescopic sight , but only as a military accessory : I own three weavers , and am quite pleased with them ). We never had any of the rifles equipped with Lyman Alaskan sights, although they are pictured in Army manuals , using the same Redfield mount as the weaver.
The "sniper rifles" were makeshifts , anyway , whether or not it will ever be admitted , and the real man killer would have been the M1C or an M1 rifle with a special telescope and mount , the scope mounting offset to the left of vertical of bore."

[gew98]

A third installment from Roy Dunlaps book :

The springfield was considered the most accurate rifle we had., even though the average service rifle was no bargain as issued. Using M2 ball ammunition I was never able to make a garand shoot better than 8" groups at 200 yards, and frankly , two thirds of the springfields would not do much better. I do believe however if I had at least 10 new M1's to cross check against each other , and switch parts here and there to change tolerances , it might be possible to get groups close to 4" , or two minutes of angle , although it might be necessary to experiment with handloaded ammunition or M1 ball service or national match government loadings. M1's made in 1944 and 1945 had very tight fitting stocks , which should improve accuracy to some extent. They all change their points of impact fast , as the thin barrel heats up , and the fact that the handguards and gas cylinder assembly are fastened to it and interfere witt it's vibration or whip , , does not make for high accuracy."