Most Accurate Military Bolt Action Rifle

[PAT303]

Maybe we can throw all the rifles mentioned out of a moving vehicle,bury them,cover them in mud,throw the ammo in mud and then get a recruit who's never seen a rifle before fire it.Who gives a damn what scores a BATTLE rifle shoots on a rifle range,last I heard wars aren't fought their. Pat

[Char-Gar]

The Cast Bullet Association runs cast bullet military rifle matches. The publish the results along with the equipment and load used. The US 1903A3 is the rifle most used by the top shooters. If there was a consistently more accurate cast bullet military rifle, they would be using it.

[Char-Gar]

Maybe we can throw all the rifles mentioned out of a moving vehicle,bury them,cover them in mud,throw the ammo in mud and then get a recruit who's never seen a rifle before fire it.Who gives a damn what scores a BATTLE rifle shoots on a rifle range,last I heard wars aren't fought their. Pat

The vast majority of us are recreational shooter and not warriors in battle, so it does matter to us. The question was about which military rifle was the best cast bullet shooter. It was not which military rifle could take the most abuse and neglect and still fire.

You should include sound effect with such posts. I would suggest chest beating and Tarzan yells.

[Ola]

Maybe we can throw all the rifles mentioned out of a moving vehicle,bury them,cover them in mud,throw the ammo in mud and then get a recruit who's never seen a rifle before fire it..

We'll then "the best" is probably the original Russian Mosin-Nagant.

The Red Army had ill-literate pheasant soldiers. Mosin-Nagant was regarded as the perfect weapon for them.
For example the TOKAREV semi-autos were too complicated for them. Tokarevs froze because the soldiers didn't clean out the lubricants. Or they just jammed and the soldiers didn't know what to do..

(Finns "took" the Tokarevs and used them with success).

[Multigunner]

probably going to catch some flak on this one, my vote goes for the 1891 Argentine mausers made by loewe.

The 91 Mauser had an excellent reputation for accuracy, it came in second to the Springfield at one early Palma Match.

[bouncer50]

I do have a very large collection of bolt action rifles. To me a fun rifle to shoot is a accurate one. The best buy for a target grade military rifle on a budget prices for the average shooter is the K-31 in my opinion. It take a common 308 dia bullet and brass is not hard to find. You can buy almost 3 K-31 vs a nice 03. Never hear anyone bitch about a K-31 all i every hear about them how good they shoot. Stocks can be beat up some but the bores are great. Maybe not a match rifle but good enough to shoot with the best of them.

[ukrifleman]

Of all the military bolt action rifles I own, they all shoot a damn sight better than I do!
ukrifleman.

[Outpost75]

The Cast Bullet Association runs cast bullet military rifle matches. The publish the results along with the equipment and load used. The US 1903A3 is the rifle most used by the top shooters. If there was a consistently more accurate cast bullet military rifle, they would be using it.

The advantage which the 03A3 has for these types of matches is that its sights are easy for old duffers like us to use. My Finn M28/30 and M39 outshoot all of my Springfields, but their sights favor a younger man with good eyesight. Agree that the Match Grade '03 with Lyman 48 and 17A sights is tough to beat!!!! But with issue sights, the M1917 and 03A3 get the nod unless you have a new lens implant in your recently corrected eye and can see the sights like a 20-year old for a few years. at least until the scar tissue catches up with you, and then you will need laser surgery to bring the sights back into focus again. I'm contemplating that now. I'm lucky that my eye doctor is a former All-Navy and Distinguished shooter who understands such things....

[gew98]

I have a Pattern 14 with a near mint barrel, and it is a far less accurate rifle
than any of my 1903 Springfields.

I'd rate 1903 the highest, closely followed by M39, then a baby step back to
K31, Swedish 96.

Wow ; sell it to me. If I had'nt given that delicate remy 03 to my son I'd swap you in NY minute.

[Char-Gar]

The advantage which the 03A3 has for these types of matches is that its sights are easy for old duffers like us to use. My Finn M28/30 and M39 outshoot all of my Springfields, but their sights favor a younger man with good eyesight. Agree that the Match Grade '03 with Lyman 48 and 17A sights is tough to beat!!!! But with issue sights, the M1917 and 03A3 get the nod unless you have a new lens implant in your recently corrected eye and can see the sights like a 20-year old for a few years. at least until the scar tissue catches up with you, and then you will need laser surgery to bring the sights back into focus again. I'm contemplating that now. I'm lucky that my eye doctor is a former All-Navy and Distinguished shooter who understands such things....

Old duffer...old duffer...I don't see myself as a old duffer. I see myself as a geezer.

[John Boy]

With stock sights and the Ideal 311413 GC, 170gr bullet ... I danced around a coyote silhouette at 1000yds within inches. Finally the coyote took a hit. So, I've mounted a scope on the rifle for more long range shooting - 700 to 1000yds
Put the Swiss K-31 on the top of the accuracy list!

[Mauser48]

Theres a reason so many competition shooters choose the 1903-A3... Any mauser action is very accurate too.

[Ed Barrett]

As remember the US Govt. had to pay Mauser a penalty for copying the features of the Mauser in the 03.

[Artful]

As remember the US Govt. had to pay Mauser a penalty for copying the features of the Mauser in the 03.

http://photos.imageevent.com/badgerd...an_Doc0016.pdf

The Mauser Patentsu.s.Letters Date Date RoyaltyPatent Type Description Issued Expired Paid Notes
590271 Arm ___ "Small Lock for Bolt Guns"____________ 9/21/1897 _ 11/13/1909 $.25/rifle a.
547933 Arm ___ "Safety Lock for Breech Bolts of Guns" __10/15/1895 __ 4/13/1908
527869 Arm ___ "Magazine for Breech Loading Firearms" _10/23/1894 __ 8/12/1907 $.25/rifle
477671 Arm ___ "Shell Extractor for Bolt Guns"__________ 6/28/1892 __ 2/15/1906 $.05/rifle b.
467180 Arm ___ "Shell Extractor for Bolt Guns" __________1/19/1892 __ 3/29/1906 $.20/rifle c.
547932 Charger "Cartridge pack for Magazine Guns" _____11/15/1895 __ 4/14/1908 $.50/k clips d.
482376 Charger "Cartridge Holder for Magazine Guns" ____9/13/1892 ___9/13/1909

"ROYALTIES FOR THE USE AND MANUFACTURE OF PATENTED ARTICLES.

The payment by the United States of a royalty for the right to manufacture and use patented articles after the expiration of the term of the patent is not authorized.

The War Department is not authorized to enter into a contract for the payment by the United States of a royalty for the prior use and manufacture of patented devices, such prior use being in the nature of a tort for which the United States is not liable.

(Comptroller Tracewell to the Secretary of War, February 28,

1905.)

By your reference, dated February 21, 1905, of a .communication of the Chief or Ordnance dated February- 17, 1905, you request my decision of the questions therein presented. Omitting paragraphs 5 and 6, the communication is as follows:

"1. I have the honor to inclose herewith proposed articles of agreement between the United States and Messrs. VonLengerke & Detmold, of New York, providing for procuring from them the right to manufacture and use a breech-loading magazine arm, certain features of which are covered by United States letters patent owned by them, on the payment of a license fee therefor.

"2. The appropriations which it is believed authorize the proposed contract are as follows:

Manufacturing, repairing, procuring, and issuing arms at the

national armories (Stats, at Large, vol. 32, p. 942) $1,700,000

Manufacturing, repairing, procuring, and issuing arms at the national armories (Stats, at Large, vol. 33, p. 275) 1,700,000

"These appropriations are available until exhausted, not exceeding two years. (Stats, at Large, vol. 25, p. 833.)

" ' Hereafter all moneys arising from disposition authorized by law and regulation of serviceable ordnance and ordnance stores shall constitute one fund on the books of the Treasury Department, which shall bo available to replace ordnance and ordnance stores throughout the fiscal year in which the disposition was effected and throughout the following year.' (Stats, at Large, vol. 33, p. 276.)

"3. The letters patent enumerated and referred to in the proposed contract were originally taken out by Mr. Paul Mauser, but articles of assignment have been furnished by the Patent Office showing that Messrs. Von Lengerke & Detmold are the owners and are also entitled to all rights and claims which may have arisen under them prior to the transfer to them.

"4. The contract provides for a license fee of $200,000, payable at the rate of 50 cents per arm manufactured, but it is provided in the contract that in case the Government shall manufacture a less number of arms than 400,000 the license fee will be correspondingly reduced, but that for all arms manufactured in excess of 400,000 no license fee will be paid. It is possible, but not probable, that payments of the license fee might extend beyond the date of expiration of the patents. *******

"7. The contract also provides that in case all the arms for which the license fee will be paid can not be manufactured under the present appropriations, the United States shall have the right to renew the agreement under the same terms and conditions.

"8. The contract also provides that the contracting parties shall pay all judgments against the United States on account of any suits or claims which may be made by any persons for infringement of their patents in the manufacture and use of the breech-loading arm and cartridge clip, as covered by the letters patent recited in the contract.

"9. A bond will be required from the contracting parties in the sum of $50,000 to insure the pa3rment of such judgments should any arise.

*' 10. A decision is requested as to whether or not this Department can enter into such a contract to bind the United States. If there are any features in the contract which are not lawful. it is requested that the decision cover such modifications as may be necessary, so that this Department may be enabled to manufacture the magazine arm under the letters patent enumerated and referred to."

From this communication it appears that your Department contemplates manufacturing for the use of the United States, under authority of the appropriations specified therein, breech- loading magazine arms containing certain improved devices for which letters patent have been granted and are still in force, and are now owned by Messrs. Von Lengerke & Det- mold, and that you propose to enter into a contract with them by which, in consideration of a license to the United States to manufacture and'use said improved devices, the United States will agree to pay the said owners of said letters" patent as compensation for said license a royalty of 50 cents on each arm manufactured, not to exceed in the aggregate $200,000.

If the said owners of the said letters patent have thereunder the exclusive right to manufacture, use, and sell the improved devices to be used in the arms to be manufactured and used by the United States, I am of opinion that, under the appropriations specified, you are authorized to enter into a contract with them for the purpose specified, and to provide therein for the payment of reasonable compensation for said license.

But there is one feature of the proposed contract that is not free from doubt. If the contract provided for the payment of a royalty for the manufacture and use of improved devices for which one letters patent only had been granted, I do not think you would be authorized to provide therein for the payment of the royalty for the manufacture and use of the devices after the expiration of the term of the patent. In the case presented seven distinct letters patent are specified, which were granted on six different dates. It is presumed that each letters patent was granted for a term of the same length, beginning on the date when granted. The terms of six of the letters patent 'frill therefore expire at different times. The improved devices for which the several letters patent were granted may also have different values. If. under this state of facts, the royalty which it is proposed to pay is the aggregate value of all the improved devices for which the seven letters patent were granted, I do not think the terms of the contract submitted would authorize the payment of the full amount of the royalty after the expiration of the term of one or more of the letters patent, and in such case the terms of the contract do not provide what amount of royalty should then be paid.

It may be, however, that in fixing the amount of the royalty allowance was made for the differences in the time of expiration of the terms of the letters patent and for the difference in the value of the improved devices, and that the amount agreed upon is deemed appropriate compensation to be paid for the manufacture and use of the improved devices during the varying terms of the several patents until the expiration of the term of the patent of latest date. If,so, I think this intention should be made clear in the terms of the contract.

There is another feature of the proposed contract which requires particular consideration. In paragraph 5 of the communication of the Chief of Ordnance he says:

" 5. The contract also provides for making payment of the license fee for all arms manufactured subsequent to March l*i. 1904. The reason for the insertion of this date in the contract is that on that date this Department addressed a letter to the AVaffenfabrik Mauser, the owners of the letters patent described and referred to before the transfer was made to Messrs. Von Lengerke & Detmold, in which letter reference was made to the making of an agreement providing for the payment of royalties in case any of the features of the magazine arm no*v being manufactured by the Government was covered by any of the letters patent owned by the Wafl'enfabrik Mauser."

The letter to the Waffenfabrik Mauser, to which he refers, is as follows:

"1. As an examination would seem to indicate that some of the features of the cartridge slip recently adopted for the United States Armv mav be covered bv vour United States letters patent Nos. -402605, 482376, and 547932. it is requested that your attorney in this country call at this office for the purpose of determining what, if any. of its features are eovered by your patents, and if .so, to arrive at an agreement as to the royalties which should be paid therefor."

In paragraph 6 the Chief of Ordnance further says:

"6. It is the understanding of this Department that the writing of this letter constitutes an implied contract under which a license fee may he paid the owners of the letters patent enumerated and referred to, and the proposed contract accordingly makes provision for this payment. A copy of the letter referred to is inclosed."

I do not concur with the Chief of Ordnance in the opinion that the letter to the Waffenfabrik Mauser, referred to by him, constitutes an implied contract for the payment of a royalty for the manufacture and use of the improved devices for which the letters patent mentioned therein were granted. This letter suggests that some of the features of the "cartridge clip" which had been " recently adopted" for the Army ''may be covered" by those patents. It does not indicate whether any of the cartridge slips had been manufactured or not. It then requests that an attorney of the Waffenfabrik Mauser call for the purpose of investigating the question of infringement, and, if it should be 'found that there was, ''to arrive at an agreement as to the royalties which should be paid therefor.'1'

The letter and the facts presented leave in doubt the question whether the proposed agreement for compensation had reference to cartridge clips which had been manufactured or were to be manufactured. In the former case no compensation would be authorized, for the infringement would be in the uuture of a tort, for which the Government would not be liable. In the case of Russell v. United States (182 U. S., 535), which was a case of the infringement of a patent by the manufacture and use by the United States of the Krag- Jorgensen rifle, the Supreme Court said:

"If petitioners have suffered injury it has l>een through the infringement of their patent, not by a breach of contract, and for the redress of an infringement the Court of Claims has no jurisdiction. This doctrine may be technical. If the United States was a person, on the facts of this record, * * * it could be sued as on an implied contract, but it is the prerogative of a sovereign not to be sued at all without its consent or upon such causes of action as it chooses. It has not chosen to be sued in an action sounding in tort. * * *"

Until an agreement has been entered into for compensating an owner of a patent for the manufacture and use of any device for which such patent has been granted the manufacture and use thereof is an infringement, and if the infringement is by the United States compensation can not be recovered for the injury.

I am therefore of opinion that you are not authorized to to enter into a contract to pay royalty for the prior manufacture and use by the United States of any of the devices referred to. "

Patent Infringements for which Royalties were paid:


467180 , Shell Extractor 20 cents per arm

477671, Shell Extractor & Collar 5cents per each arm.

482376, Clips, (called cartridge holder for magazine guns) 50 cents per thousand clips

527869, Oct, 1894 , Magazine 25 Cents per each arm.

547932, Clip (called cartridge pack) 50 cents per thousand clips.

547933, Safety, covered by 590271

590271, Sept, 1897 25 cents per each arm


Google Books: Decisions of the Comptroller of the Treasury Volume 11

http://books.google.com/books?id=gN1DAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA492&lpg=PA492&dq=decisi ons+of+the+comptroller+1905+mauser&source=bl&ots=U QEk_URiDa&sig=bsyuYh3HHtXlvFowEAgu2ZgUG1w&hl=en&ei =iSmnSuz6FaKNtgepq-WnCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#v=onep age&q&f=false

US Patent Office. Patents of Fabrik Mauser, Paul Mauser

http://books.google.com/books?id=gN1DAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA492&lpg=PA492&dq=decisi ons+of+the+comptroller+1905+mauser&source=bl&ots=U QEk_URiDa&sig=bsyuYh3HHtXlvFowEAgu2ZgUG1w&hl=en&ei =iSmnSuz6FaKNtgepq-WnCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#v=onep age&q&f=false

[Artful]

Oh, and for the record - K31 with GP11 in my limited experience with stock rifles (no additional modifications) is most apt to give the tightest group of all the military surplus rifles I have tried.

[smokeywolf]

I've only shot two different military type bolt guns; 03 Springfield and a '98 Krag Jorgenson. Although I enjoy shooting the Krag at least as much as the 03, if I had to compete against other marksmen, I'd have to choose the 03 Springfield.

smokeywolf

[303Guy]

No one has mentioned the Ross. I thought the Ross was supposed to be pretty accurate.

It saddens me that my favourite - the Lee Enfield - hasn't featured. Wasn't the SMLE a good extreme range rifle with selected military ammo? They used to shoot the mile with them. Anyway, I never could get my 1902 MLE with a new No4 barrel to shoot better than 1 MOA (10 SHOTS) with a scope and hand loads. That could have been due to my bad loading practices! (And components). Mind you, the POI never shifted.

[Multigunner]

The Ross is well known for accuracy, but its limited use and the fact that its a straight pull rather than a turn bolt (though that doesn't seem to effect the proponents of the Swiss rifles) means its too often over looked.
Besides its use by Royal Navy and U S Coast guard sharpshooters to detonate mines the Russians built a few high quality target rifles on these actions.

The Long LE proved second best to the 1903 in the Palma matches, but had consistently outshown the Krag and other competitors till then.
The Smle can be made to shoot well but its light weight barrel profile and sensitive bedding made it inconsistent on the range.
The Lithgow HT type rifle with No.1 action and stocking up but with its heavy barrel profile is very accurate, but its not a standard infantry rifle.

The SMLE has good compensation for variation in velocity out to 600-800 yards but the effect diminishes beyond that range causing vertical spread at extreme ranges, the reason why the P-14 was prefered for longer range use.
The sensitive bedding also limited the effectiveness of the SMLE (T) sniper rifles, which resulted in the British and Canadians developing the Scoped P-14 rifles.
The greater bullet jump and spin drift of the combination of a flexible action body with rear lugs and left hand rifling, which required a front sight base off set to the left, also introduced factors that hampered long range performance. This was especially noted when the LE was first used in Africa.

PS
I remember something about the Argentine team once using the 1891 rifle with a Canadian developed low drag .303 bullet to off set the retained velocity problem at extreme range.
The Canadian .303 bullet being handloaded in the 7.65 case.
They scored very well at 1000 yards till the wind kicked up, then the extreme long nose of the bullet made it too sensitive to cross winds.

[PAT303]

I bet if you got a Palma Springfield,a Queens SMLE and a Special Range Rifle Mauser and tested them against one another there would be nothing in it,I bet if you got 10 random rifles of each type and tested them against one another there would be nothing in it,comparing a rifle that has had a staggering amount of time,money and effort spent on it to shoot in competition to a foreign make of rifle you bought from a Pawn shop is not really comparing apples with apples. Pat

[Multigunner]

One thing to remember is that when these rifles were standard service rifles there was no fiber glass bedding or other modern accurizing methods. At most a armorer might glue in a shim if necessary, but they mainly relied on the old fashioned craftsmanship in bedding the metal into the wood in the prescribed method.

When choosing a Krag rifle for military range work they seldom went beyond testing the trigger pull, figuring that any Krag in good condition was going to be as accurate as any other Krag. They had that much confidence in the quality of the workmanship.
Civilian Krag owners went to greater lengths in examining their purchase and doing alterations if necessary.

The SMLE was the subject of more experimentation in bedding than any other military rifle used in civilian competition. The next in this category would be the No.4 and No.4 (T) rifles.