Lawyers, Beancounters, and Springfield 03

[Multigunner]

Information I found long ago and posted on another site. I figured 'd repost it here for anyone thats interested.

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 Rwsell 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.




Heres one of the Patents which seems to superceed the others.
http://www.google.com/patents?id=IqtAAA ... t&resnum=2

These appear to involve only the Stripper Clips and guides.

PS
Heres the Case of Russell v. United States.
Russell claimed the Krag Rifle incorporated an element of one of the design features he held a patent on.
http://books.google.com/books?id=Y38YAA ... t&resnum=1



Quote:
The Model 88 bolt was designed by Senior Gunsmith Schlegelmilch of Spandau. It incorporates a number of Mauser designs including the firing mechanism, safety, removable, non-rotating bolt head, ejector, extractor and trigger. The great leap forward in design was locating dual-opposed locking lugs at the front of the uncluttered bolt body, giving the bolt a thoroughly modern look. It is also a cock-on-opening bolt.



So Schlegelmilch of Spandau actually incorporated the twin lugs into the Gew 88 design rather than Mauser.
The Germans apparently got the first example of the Lebel bolt action by way of a French traitor.

Quote:
Soon after the Lebel reached the French troops in early 1887, a French deserter with the name of Schnabele hopped across the border with a new Lebel and a handful of smokeless ammunition. Arriving in Germany, Schnabele set a price of 20,000 Marks for the purloined booty, but there was little official commitment until Reich Chancellor, Prince Bismarck, himself saw the significance of Schnabele's loot. Communicating the fact Germany was now armed with inferior weapons to the Prussian War Minister, Bismarck got things moving. War Minister von Schellendorf promptly referred the problem to the Rifle Testing Commission at the Spandau arsenal and within a year, the Commission produced both a new rifle and a new smokeless cartridge.



http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m ... n20512666/

Found this on another forum

Quote:
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


Heres 467180
http://www.google.com/patents?id=ycVoAA ... t&resnum=2

Heres 527869
http://www.google.com/patents?id=apRGAA ... t&resnum=2

this site
http://ep.espacenet.com/?locale=en_EP
might have further information on the European Patents.



I have no particular interest in the Springfields, but the history is interesting.

[spqrzilla]

The key is that there is a long-standing legal principle in patent law that a contract for a royalty of a patent license whose term extends beyond the term of the patent itself is an illegal misuse of the patent.

In patent licensing practice, one even has to be careful to make sure that if the license fee is expressed in a single flat sum but amortized over time, that the payment schedule does not extend beyond the patent term or it may be found invalid.

[Multigunner]

The Stripper Clip itself, in a more primitive form, existed long before Mauser ever thought about using it to load the box magazine of a rifle.
The Earliest Stripper Clip I've seen images of is one used to feed cartridges directly into the feedway of a crank operated manual machine gun, a competitor of the Gatling Gun. Some rather odd WW2 MGs used by Japan used standard rifle stripper clips in the much the same manner though with a complex mechanical assist.
There were several American designed stripper clips being tested, but the construction and simplicity of the Mauser patent clips made it the more desirable.

I haven't found any source that could quote a case number for any actual judgement or even a document of intent to sue. So I'm wondering just how much is fact and how much is fiction when it comes to this long accepted claim.
I've seen it said that there was confusion with the DWM claims about the Spitzer bullet. Captain Hardcastle, the designer of the "Swift Bullet" wrote that US Marksmen had used a similar pointed bullet in a match in England in the 1870's, and pretty much cleaned the clocks of the British marksmen.
The only thing unique, if it actual was, about the Spitzer was its ogive and proportions. A pointed bullet was not any great inovation, it just hadn't been used for a modern (for then) military rifle cartridge before and for the purpose of allowing increased velocity of the infantry ball.
I've often seen Colonel duard ubin credited with invention of the Rimless cartridge case, but though he took out patents in Germany at about the same time that the GEW 88 was designed, I haven't been able to find the descriptions of what these patents covered, or whether DWM bought the rights to his designs.
Uncle Sugar always seemed to ready to spend the taxpayers money so it seemed odd that they'd stiff a foreign inventor when they already paid to use so many less useful devices, and had adopted a European designed bolt rifle only a short time before.

a side note

I owned a Krag Carbine many years ago, but it had a badly corroded bore and no gunsmiths around here would touch a Krag, replacement barrels were non existent as far as anyone could tell me. I traded it to a collector on condition he never try to fire it unless he found a good barrel. I hope he finally found one. Other than bore condition it was in pretty good shape and probably correct.
New replacement barrels showed up on the market about twenty years later, and off course I now regret not holding onto it.

What interested me was the action. An excellent sporting rifle as issued, with no need for modifications.
A friend has a photo album with many photos of his mom's family on hunting trips in the 30's and 40's, every adult male in that large family was carrying a Krag Carbine and the heaps of deer and bear at their hunting camp was truly impressive.
I'd like to see a modern repro of the Krag done up like those repro 1895 Winchesters. Still a few originals around though.

[4570guy]

Very interesting. Thank you for posting this.

[Von Dingo]

In American Rifle, by A. Rose, IIRC it never went to court over the 1903, The U.S. quietly paid royalties. Even the rim on the .30-03/06 is the same size as the 7X57 used by the Spanish Mauser 95's, which we brought back from Cuba in bulk.

It is pretty clear that the 1903 Springfield is inspired by the Mauser patent (with a few changes), by comparing the rifles side by side.

[Multigunner]

In American Rifle, by A. Rose, IIRC it never went to court over the 1903, The U.S. quietly paid royalties. Even the rim on the .30-03/06 is the same size as the 7X57 used by the Spanish Mauser 95's, which we brought back from Cuba in bulk.

It is pretty clear that the 1903 Springfield is inspired by the Mauser patent (with a few changes), by comparing the rifles side by side.

Thats not the point, plenty of rifles were "inspired" by other known successful designs, the Gew 88 and practically every other turn bolt design since then being inspired by the Lebel.
What I would like to find is which design elements were truly Mauser inventions, and what design elements of the Mauser were developments of previous designs whether successful in their own right or not.

Patent protections don't last forever, when a patent protection runs out anyone can use elements of that design without paying royalties. Before the protection runs out, anyone can still use these design elements but must pay a royalty, which is what the Chief of Ordnance offered to do.

In an article I read long ago it was said that Paul Mauser had gone to great lengths to buy up every firearms patent he could find from defunct gunmakers and private inventors. His goal was to avoid possible legal hassles in the future.

I'm fairly certain that I've seen a more primitive version of the Mauser non rotating controled feed extractor and its collar used on a early BP era cartridge repeater. I can't remember where though. It may not have been part of a rifle design.

If DWM had bought exclusive rights to the rimless cartridge case, then most of europe would have infringed on it in very short order.

I've seen it claimed that DWM claimed the Spitzer bullet as its own design. As Captain Hardcastle stated in his notes on his development of the "Swift Bullet", bullets of the same general shape, though of much larger caliber, had been used by American competitive shooters in the 1870's.

Whenever these Mauser or DWM connections are brought up, gunwriters seem to stumble over each other in portraying the legitimate use of these as some sort of underhanded trickery. In doing so they ignore the fact that others came up with the ideas first and Mauser adapted pre existing elements of those designs to his own designs.

[spqrzilla]

Multigunner, it is rare that a gun writer actually understands patent law. That's why you see writers implying underhanded behavior where there isn't necessarily any.

[gew98]

In American Rifle, by A. Rose, IIRC it never went to court over the 1903, The U.S. quietly paid royalties. Even the rim on the .30-03/06 is the same size as the 7X57 used by the Spanish Mauser 95's, which we brought back from Cuba in bulk.

It is pretty clear that the 1903 Springfield is inspired by the Mauser patent (with a few changes), by comparing the rifles side by side.

It's also pretty clear the german made examples are a far better combat rifle as they were not saddled with delicate sights and inadequate stocking of the type target shooters loved.
It took the germans to put together the type of cartridge and rifle to dominate military forces of the day...it's only equal rival the Enfield ,and both eclipsed the bastard mauser 03 in reliability and longevity of stellar service.

[Multigunner]

It took the germans to put together the type of cartridge and rifle to dominate military forces of the day.

Germany lost both World Wars, so in the end they did less dominating than they had planed to do.

The Mausers are on the whole very good weapons. The Germans stole the best features of the Lebel, just like they stole everything else that wasn't nailed down.
This was outright theft, hiring a French traitor to steal a Lebel as he defected and hand it over to Spandau for study.

Not all Mausers had particularly sturdy rear sights. The Ladder sights of some were prone to damage in the raised position, as was the ladder sight of the No.4 and P-14.


My old Persian Mauser carbine had a very well protected front sight, it looked like the sight base and ears were milled from the barrel blank. I could see no sign of a join. I've heard that these were actually sweared on, a integral band fitting flush, but perhaps that was a method used later on to speed production. Either way its about as solid as they come.

Mauser seems to have ripped off the basic nose cap bayonet mount of the SMLE for some carbines, the 94/14 Swedish Mauser has a very similar set up though in two pieces.

I've never run across any complaints about the reliability and durability of the '03
In contemporary sources, aside from the known defective receivers of a tiny fraction of the rifles built, and more than a few that praised its superior accuracy.

There was a problem with defective barrels supplied by a subcontractor, but this affected bothe the M1917 and P- 13/14 rifles at one time or another as well. The contractor bumped up the breech end of a otherwise too small barrel blank an old method that had worked fine in black powder days and with the relatively low pressures of shotguns, it didn't work out so well with high intensity cartridges.

The British wanted Remington to build a modified 1903 rifle chambered for the .303, and later ordered many standard 03 rifles to outfit allies.

Someone mentioned cost of manufacture of the 03 on another thread. According to testimony during the Canadian Ross Rifle debates when the subject of costs came up the Springfield as built by the Government Arsenals turned out to be far less costly than its competition. The cost of the rifle as then manufactured was $14 USD. The P-14 cost the British $50 , and WW2 era commercial contracted 1903 rifles also cost around $50 or probably more.
Of course Government facilities had many advantages over commercial ventures of this sort.

If the Springfield had not used the front locking bolt, which the Germans outright stole from the French, then what system could have been used?
Since the majority of the militaries involved in WW1 also copied this feature in one form or another why make a big deal of it?

I seem to remember Paul Mauser's brother losing an eye when one of their rifles blew up in his face during test firing, so no rifle manufacturer of the day had a perfect safety record.
During the Boer War the British found that due to the flexing of the action body during normal operation the slightly higher chamber pressures generated when ambient temperatures were much higher than in Europe caused the from the factory sights to be way off, some were modified in the field while others had to await a modified rear sight to compensate. Another reason the Boers out shot the British on many occasions.
It appears that almost all the so-called British Rifles and Machine guns were invented by non British citizens (James Paris Lee, Hiram Maxim, Lewis, etc), most were American inventors. Hiram Maxim became a British subject long after he invented his machine gun.
BSA did a great job of perfecting some of these now well known weapons.

By the time WW2 ended the U S was well supplied with autoloading rifles and carbines, the Springfield soldiered on as a top notch sniper rifle and as a shipboard sharpshooters rifle for several decades.
The British were busily engaged in losing their shirts as the pre WW2 Empire began to fall apart, and had no autoloading main battle rifle for another decade or so. Keeping the No.4 and No.5 in service was the only real option till an autoloader replacement came along.
Since the French, at least on a limited basis, still use a 7.62 NATO Sniper rifle based on the MAS 36 this rifle eased the No.4 (T) and L-42 rifles out so far as longest serving bolt action sniper rifle was concerned.
Mosin Nagant sniper rifles are still in use in some parts of the world.

The Canadian Rangers still use the No.4 rifle, their Danish counterparts use the Winchester Model 70 in .30-06 for the same purposes.
Canada has been intending to replace the No.4 with a more modern all weather rifle for some time now, they don't seem to have much in the budget for such a changeover.

[spqrzilla]

But the British Boxer gave us our priming system.

[mroliver77]

"
There was a problem with defective barrels supplied by a subcontractor, but this affected bothe the M1917 and P- 13/14 rifles at one time or another as well. The contractor bumped up the breech end of a otherwise too small barrel blank an old method that had worked fine in black powder days and with the relatively low pressures of shotguns, it didn't work out so well with high intensity cartridges."

This was and is an acceptable method of barrel production. The problem came from overheating and "burning" the steel.

A good thread!
Jay

[Multigunner]

But the British Boxer gave us our priming system.

And the British used the Berdan Primer amost exclusively after a shipment of Boxer promers detonated while being loaded aboard a shipp killing numerous people on the docks.
I ran across a British law against shipping Boxer primers with anvils already installed. They would have had to ship primers with out anvils, the anvils being inserted before seating, so I guess the Berdan primer seemed more attractive.


This was and is an acceptable method of barrel production. The problem came from overheating and "burning" the steel.

A good thread!
Jay
Could be why the British NRA issued safety warnings on a Australian manufactured target rifle barrel a few years back after several barrel failures ruined actions.
A M14 clone suffered carastrophic failure when its aftermarket barrel split in the same manner.
Give a manufacturer a oportunity to screw up and it will happen again sooner or later.
The founder of Remington is said to have first come up with the idea, merely bouncing the heated end of a barrel blank on a stone floor to bump it up. I would not be suprised if the idea was much older.

[gew98]

I can't tell you how many M1A barrel failures there have been !. Too much sub par quality commercial aftermarket stuff out there.

As for the german rifles.... they did'nt whin wars , the troops & generals did. And being ( thankfully ) german politicians failed their troops and generals they lost both wars.

Where do you get that the germans 'stole' the best points of the lebel from ?. It only had one good maybe two good points... the smokeless propellant and smaller diameter jacketed bullet of the day. I have owned several Lebels , and a handfull of Berthier's , made my own brass and reloaded for them. That would be one of the last rifles I'd ever want to handle in combat had I been there then.

"Mauser seems to have ripped off the basic nose cap bayonet mount of the SMLE for some carbines, the 94/14 Swedish Mauser has a very similar set up though in two pieces. "

Waste of bandwidth there.

"Not all Mausers had particularly sturdy rear sights. The Ladder sights of some were prone to damage in the raised position, as was the ladder sight of the No.4 and P-14."

Oh man.... you show me a german military mauser with as delicate front and rear sights as the 03 and I'll eat my hat. I have seen more 03's with rear sights peened to keep the loose play in check...have had one where every shot I had to check the windage knob as the rear sight walked consistantly. I have yet to come across a gew98 or 98k with a damaged rear sight or one sloppy floppy loose unless it had been used by the turks... plus never had one fall off like an 03 either.
The Patt'14 , M'17 and the No1 and yessir No4 had considerably more strudy and pracxtical sights. I have yet to have encounter any of these with a damaged rear sight. Most I have encountered is a broken leaf spring and or an older windage rear sight pinned to take out the play and grunt factor.

"The British wanted Remington to build a modified 1903 rifle chambered for the .303, and later ordered many standard 03 rifles to outfit allies."

Poppycock. Those modified mausers..not springyfields to .303 were for export...the brits were not so silly to make such a mistake. You obviously refer to the "Bannerman" rifle which was a mauser actio with a US made barrel in 303 caliber that he donated a "large" number to the English government. These were not very functional and homeguard use was what they got slated for to free up Enfields for the front. And during the secnd war the US supplied in lend lease mainly M17 rifles , some M1's and some 03's....all of which went to the homeguard to free up Enfields for front line use.



"I seem to remember Paul Mauser's brother losing an eye when one of their rifles blew up in his face during test firing, so no rifle manufacturer of the day had a perfect safety record.
During the Boer War the British found that due to the flexing of the action body during normal operation the slightly higher chamber pressures generated when ambient temperatures were much higher than in Europe caused the from the factory sights to be way off, some were modified in the field while others had to await a modified rear sight to compensate. Another reason the Boers out shot the British on many occasions.
It appears that almost all the so-called British Rifles and Machine guns were invented by non British citizens (James Paris Lee, Hiram Maxim, Lewis, etc), most were American inventors."

When you pioneer new technology you may get hurt indeed. That's funny about the enfield as the brits overcame such and it soldiered on . The boers simply out shot the brits as they even when armed with captured enfields were hunters and understood rifle accuracy where the even professional british army at that time had not such marksmanship standards and training for such in place. The brits learned , adapted and corrected that too.
Ah , whom really cares where one comes from as the inventor... if it's better go with it. Don't do like the french for example and have the "not invented here mentality" which have saddled them to this day with very deficant rifles.

"By the time WW2 ended the U S was well supplied with autoloading rifles and carbines, the Springfield soldiered on as a top notch sniper rifle and as a shipboard sharpshooters rifle for several decades."

You surely jest. The 03 was one of the worst sniping rifles ever issued...mainly due to the hideously poor attempts to scope it out. Just like that US 45th division Sniper at Anzio found out when he tossed his O3A4 away in favor of the superior german sniping rifle he got. Read up on the considerable problems US sniping rifles of the 03 color had all the way , and it was never rectified. Hence rifles like the Win mod70 and the Rem700 took the ball and ran with it during vietnam , oh and much worked on M14's to make them suitable for sniping. Never heard nor read of a single account of an 03A4 in vietnam in use - if you have I'd like to hear of it.

Since we have known the canuck rangers still use the No4 , and so do pakis and indians and nobody uses the 03 ,What's the point ...and the rant about british colonialism ?.

[Von Dingo]

Since the industrial revolution, rifles, like most things have evolved. Not by leaps and bounds, but at a pace, which has slowed to about a snail's pace for the last 50 years. The Mauser may not have been all original idea's, but everything was simplified, and made to be as rugged as possible, and ergonomic for the right handed populace, in the same amount of space with minimal moving parts. The '03 was copied from a Mauser 93, not a French rifle.

I'm a lover of Enfield's, '03's, and Mauser's, none are perfect, and in their own way, they are all great rifles.

[Multigunner]

Heres a site with good basic information on the 03A4 and 03A1 Sniper rifles, and some of the scope sights used for each.

http://www.snipercentral.com/m1903a4.htm

With a .58 MOA capability when M1 Ball was used the 03A1 would remain competitive even today. When M2 Ball was used accuracy was still decent for the day at 1.25 MOA.
The 1903A4 was not quite as accurate but gave good service in WW2, Korea, and the early days of the War in Vietnam, serving till more sophisticated Sniper rifles were introduced.

The 8X Unertl scope would allow much better target identification at the extreme ranges that the 03A1 was capable of.

Another site with an article that includes comments made by the officer responsible for revamping U S sniping equipments and training.
http://www.americanrifleman.org/articles/usmc-sniper-rifles/

From what he says the Model 70 out fitted for sniping didn't come along till the fifth year of U S involvement in Vietnam, so WW2 and Korean War sniping equipment was still in common use in the early days.



Among rifles shot by those young Marines was one that was never officially adopted by the Corps, but used extensively by Marines—the U.S. Army M1903A4. The one on hand that day had a scant stock. Land says the rifles were never chosen for accuracy as were the Marine Model 1941s, although many shot well. “The ’03A4 rifles were produced with six different scopes. It started off with a Weaver 330, 2.5 power; then it went to the M73B1, which was a Weaver 330 with a military designation; then it went to the Lyman Alaskan all-weather; then they went to the M81 (crosshair) and the M82 (crosshair with post). Land said he believes that for all the hype about German optics, American wartime scopes were actually far superior.

For his remarkable live-fire hands-on demonstration, Land also provided two pristine M1 sniper rifles. The Marine Corps M1C differed from the Army version, having a much more robust Griffin & Howe side-mount rather than the standard Griffin & Howe unit. The Marine M1C, which saw extensive use in Korea as the MC-1952, also sported an uniquely USMC Stith-Kollmorgen 4X scope, according to Land, the best optic yet produced for the Corps. It saw service in Lebanon and Panama.



Comparasipn of Lyman Alaskan scope to the British No.32 scope.


"We consider Alaskan best choice. It has tapered posts with cross-wire and luminosity ahead of (No.)32. In theses tests we were able to distinguish targets 15 to 20 minutes later in the evening than with the 32."

http://www.milsurps.com/content.php?r=430-1944-Enfield-No.4-Mk1*%28T%29-Long-Branch-TP-Sniper-Rifle

[gew98]

There you go with the 03 fanboy thing ..again. I can't take anyone seriously that states ,

"Land said he believes that for all the hype about German optics, American wartime scopes were actually far superior."

Apparently this fella has never handled nor shot A high turret or LSR 98k rig with either 4x or 6x optics.... which are considerably more superior than the itsy bitsy tube on the 03A4 .

What did brophy have to say on that : "The shortcomings of the M73B1 ( weaver 330c )telescope were the low magnification (2.20x), Delicate construction ,and lack of moisture proofing" And further from TM9-270 28 sep 1943 : " 6. At this time Weaver telescopic sight No. 330C (M73B1 ) is being mounted to the M1903A4. A Lyman "Alaskan" type telescopic sight will be used as an alternate , but as it's details are not available , it is not covered here."
The Alaskan was in short supply and used on few of those rifles , and in no way is superior to the german 4x & 6x optics used on 98k rifles used during the 2nd war , that's a simple fact.

"With a .58 MOA capability when M1 Ball was used the 03A1 would remain competitive even today"
You of course mean for target range work as taking such a Iron sighted rifle to a sniper fight would be suicide . But then again it shows the 03 for what it really was... a target rifle.

Again , I'll stick with the US sniper Alvin Mc Millan that used the 1903A4 in Anzio and ditched it in preference for the superior german scoped rifle he picked up off a german he killed .

[thxmrgarand]

I must say that I found this discussion (thus far) to be superior to at least 95% of what I read in gun magazines. Thanks for it.

[Multigunner]

Again , I'll stick with the US sniper Alvin Mc Millan that used the 1903A4 in Anzio and ditched it in preference for the superior german scoped rifle he picked up off a german he killed .

Key words there are "picked up off a German he killed".
The 03A4 was given progressively better scopes while in service, the Marine 03A1 had a much higher magnification scope than any of the competition and was proven to be the most accurate.

Not all German scopes were the same either for that matter, and some German snipers prefered captured Russian sniper rifles with the PU scopes when they could get them.

I ran across a test firing of German , Russian, British, and American sniper rifles. The 03A4 printed 6.5" groups at 300 yards, the British No.4 (T) printed 8.5" groups at the same range, the Russian and German rifles printed 7.5 inch groups. The 03A4 definitely proved to be the most accurate.

And as for a "Sniper Fight" you cite one such where the U S Sniper killed the German sniper and took his equipment. Better man? more than likely. Better equipment? who's to say, since the 03A4 was definitely up to the occasion.

PS


Retired USMC Major and NRA Secretary “Jim” Land is considered the founder of the modern Marine Corps sniping program and has spent 40 years assembling what is likely the best collection of Marine sniping arms in private hands. When he made that collection available to modern day instructors and students at Quantico’s Marine Scout Sniper school, history was made all over again.

Whenever Maj. Edward J. “Jim” Land (USMC-Ret.) lectures at his former command, the Marine Weapons Training Battalion at Quantico, Va., the young Marines—Scout Sniper instructors and students alike—regard him with deference and respect. After all, Maj. Land, who today serves as Secretary of NRA, is widely recognized as the father of modern Marine Corps sniping, having created and commanded the Corps’ highly successful tactical field program in Vietnam and helped shape its formal progress over the ensuing years.


Darn good credentials I'd say.

[gew98]

Moolti ; Alvin Macmillin was using an 03A4 when at fairly close rounge he had a german drying out a blanket on a rock. He shot the guy and when he got to his kill he found the german scope 98k next to the dead german. He thought it a superior rifle all around and ditched his 03A4 and used the german rifle to murderous effect....until he got wounded at Anzio. To quote him " I crawled down to where he was and he had a snipers rifle too , a real good one , So I used it for quite a while".

From "Out Of Nowhere" by M. Pegler , page 211 ; " The marine scout snipers who landed on guadal canal in august were armed either with the Spgfld equipped with a winchester A5 or LYMAN 5A scopes , or 1903A1's with Unertls , but the Marine command still viewed these as a stop gap measure. Col Van Orden was not the only proponent of a cohesive marine sniper training program , but he had repeatedly demanded the intorduction of a dedicated scope equipped sniping rifle that was not just a modified service weapon. This was radical to the point of bordering on heresy, and 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 , and armorers were limited in the type of scope and mountsthey could fit without extensive reworking , which was both time consuming and expensive. As well as trting to find an ideal scope for the springfield."

Page 213 " These hand built rifles were designated M1903A1 but this combination was not to remain marins chosen weapon for long. Early field reports recieved by HQ in 1942 stated that the Unertl suffered from and 'had not proved effective in combat' ".

Further down the same page is : "Careless handling which could damage the DELICATE mounts, and sand which could enter the mounts , preventing the scope from sliding on recoil and returning to position".

And further down same page : "The lenses were prone to fogging from oisture and there were occasional problems with graticules from failing ".

On page 214 regarding lyman alaskan scopes : " mounting the scopes would also accomodate the Lyman Alaskan , although in practice almost none were ever fitted due to supply problems, as bausch & Lomb were unable to provide lenses during the war."

As well the cover of a recent book on kriegsmodell 98k sports GI on patrol carrying a turret type 98k sniping rifle. I could go on , and on.

[gew98]

Ok ; I'll give you one more from Senich's book " the complete book on US sniping".

Page 100 : " While capable of producing satisfactory results when carefully prepared by qualified unit armorers , the M1903A4 was not favored by US marksman , particularly among those possesing the knowledge to recognize it's deficiencies. A report of Sniping activities , dated 25 March 1952 , dealing with tactical employment of snipers in Korea , presented the following concensus among snipers serving wihtthe US 2ND iNF dIV ;

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

A) Present telescopes do not have sufficient magnification ( 2.5x )
B) Adjustments for elevation and windage cannot be readily made.
C) The weaver 330C telescope is easily thrown out of adjustment.
D) Telescope crosshairs are too coarse and obscure the target.
E) Stocks should be better designed to facilitate taking good firiing position.
F) Trigger pulls are neither adjustable nor crisp enough to permit a good squeeze.
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.
H) Present sniper rifles do not maintain their zero from day to day , thus requiring frequent targeting."

[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/displayitem.cfm?itemnum=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."

[waksupi]

Interesting, the Boer's licked up on the British while defending Ladysmith with Mausers, at 1000 yards plus. Made a hell of a pile of bodies, with iron sights.

[gew98]

And installment #4 from good ol'Roy's work:.....

"Despite all Uncle's claims to it's excellence , the M2 151-grain flat based bullet will not do so well, or at least it would not in most loadings. A friend and I did considerable experimenting witht the M2 even before we went to war , he using a national matchSpringfield and I a National match springfield action fitted with a Niedner target barrel and target stock. We used target sights and did all our shooting at 200 yards from both bench rest and prone rest positions , and never did get satisfactory results with the M2 bullet , either in arsenal loaded ammunition or handloads. We tried all suitable rifle powders rifle powders and loaded for velocities ranging form 2,000 FPS to 3,000FPS in each , with both gvernment and commercial primers.
In no case were we able to get reliable groups less than 5" in diameter , while I was able to shoot groups less than half of that size using non cannelured boat tailed 172 Grain bullets at around 2,500 FPS. Most of our M2 groups ran 6" to 8" in diameter.. Our interest of course was finding what the bullet and cartridge would do in rifles on the range as a practical test. What the factories and laboratories report from their Mann barrels does not always correspond to what the firing line gets with the same ammunition. For absolute comparison of bullet performance tests should be conducted at 300 yards and at 600 yards with each loading , bit we were not able to find suc facilities."

So was Roy a flake , fool and liar too ?. I rest my case.

[Multigunner]

I'm sure the Germans were overawed by the technical magnificence of the mighty STEN Gun.
Its particularly telling that possibly the best of the STENs the MkIII were manufactured by the Lines Brothers Toy Company.

I can just see the NAZI high command telling Hitler they must stop the manufacture of the MP40 in order to divert resources to manufacturing as many STEN guns as possible.

Personally I could care less about full auto weaponry, a waste of ammo more often than not. What counts is where the first shot goes. If you use enough gun one shot is generally all you need.
I seriously doubt that after battling the Russians armed with the PPD and PPSH that the Germans were at all impressed by the Woolwoth gun.
The Germans built a lot of very cunning last ditch weapons, the STEN being simple enough that it could be built clandestinely by Resistence fighters was about its only strong suit.
The sights are a joke, the magazines flimsey and hard to load, being copies of the single feed mags used with much more success by the Germans.
The Sterling was a great leap forward compared to the STEN. At least the later versions with the improved magazine design and quality manufacture were.

The British came up with the STEN because they couldn't afford a better gun, thats the long and the short of it. Those who used the STEN after WW2 did so because it was dirt cheap and could be built with little outlay in tooling.
Once the Israelis got their hands on better manufacturing equipment they came up with the UZI as a long over due replacement for the STEN.
When Iraq needed a home grown SMG they chose to copy the Sterling, not the STEN.

Of course thats all academic now days, the pistol caliber SMG is on its way out as effective body armor has pretty much negated its usefullness for anything other than butchering civilians, a use some Iraqi Jihadis found the Sterling is still good for.

If I were in the market for an SMG, which I'm not, I would not waste the license fee and tax on a bargin basement STEN gun.
I'd also have to pass on any dealer who sang the praises of the STEN even if he had better guns in stock. No telling what sort of dogs he'd be trying to pass off on the gullible that would buy his speil.


http://www.gundigest.com/military-firearms/the-m1903a4-sniper-rifle-an-old-soldier-still-hits-the-mark



We don’t own firearms that we don’t shoot and so shortly after obtaining our M1903A4, we boresighted it and headed to the range to zero it. We zeroed the rifle using Black Hills 168-grain match grade ammunition, but for this evaluation we also tested the ‘03A4 with Greek 1985 production military M2 Ball, duplicating the World War II 150-grain military load.

We also tested Serbian Privi Partizan 180-grain ammunition, imported by Wolf. The Black Hills match delivered 1.25 minute of angle (MOA) at 100 yards. Translated into layman’s terms, that is 1.25 inch at 100 yards, 2.5 inches at 200 yards, etc. For what it is worth, MOA (one inch at 100 yards) accuracy is considered acceptable for modern sniper rifles, so the ‘03A4 – at least our ‘03A4 – gives up little to modern precision rifles in terms of accuracy.

Surprisingly, the Greek 150-grain ball ammunition was as accurate as the Black Hills 168-grain match, probably because the M1903A4 was designed around the M2 ball round. The Seriban Privi Partisan was about two MOA at 100 yards. The bottom line is that our M1903A4 delivered acceptable accuracy that would probably improve once the barrel was broken in by having a couple of hundred rounds fired through it.

The M1903A4 is an excellent representation of sniper rifle technology of the 1940s. As we have mentioned, sniper rifles of both our allies and enemies weren’t superior to the ‘03A4 in any meaningful way and the rifle delivers good accuracy using quality modern match or service grade ammunition. World War II snipers didn’t have access to match-grade ammo like their modern day counterparts, so the Greek ball ammunition test groups are probably more in keeping with battlefield reality.


There may well have been some very poorly manufactured M2 Ball floating around, and some may have suffered from poor storage in tropical climes, but I would seriously doubt that ammo as bad as some report would not have been condemned if tested by lot.
The Mann accuracy barrel was used for lot testing, ammo that failed a minimum mean radius figure would be condemned.
If totally worthless ammo ended up in the war zone someone wasn't doing their job, or a sabotuer was doing his job.

Now this is third hand but I can try to find the original documentation.


From Mil-C-46931F, Cartridge, 7.62mm NATO, Ball, M80, Paragraph 3.5:

3.5 Accuracy. The average of the mean radii of all targets of the sample cartridges, fired in standard accuracy test weapons over a range of 600 yards, shall not exceed 5.0 inches for ammunition scheduled for packaging in cartons or clips, nor 7.5 inches for ammunition scheduled for packaging in links.

The same wording was included in the Mil-Spec for cal. 30 M2 Ball (Mil-C-1313) until sometime before 18 July 1968 (Mil-C-1313E), when the accuracy requirement for all M2 ball was changed to mean radius not to exceed 7.5 inches. without prejudice as to intended packaging.


So accuracy requirements for M2 ball were relaxed sometime shortly before 1968. M2 Ball Ammunition loaded to specs in force during WW2 should be consistently more accurate than M2 Ball loaded from 1968 onwards to some uncertain date between now and then.
If delinked MG ammo manufactured post 1968 was used it would almost certainly be less accurate than pre 1968 Ammo marked for use in the service rifles.

A Mean Radius of five inches at 600 yards doesn't sound so bad for a 150 grain flat based bullet.



The U.S. Marine Corps retained stocks of M1 ammunition for use by snipers and trained marksmen throughout the Solomon Islands campaign in the early years of the war.[6] In an effort to increase accuracy some snipers resorted to use of the heavier .30-06 M2 armor-piercing round, a practice that would re-emerge during the Korean War.[7] Others sought out lots of M2 ammunition produced by Denver Ordnance, which had proved to be more accurate than those produced by other wartime ammunition plants when used for sniping at long range.[8]
The worst figures I find quoted for WW2 manufacture M2 ball are 2.5 MOA when fired from a rifle, not from a Mann Barrel.

I'd long ago heard of the use of the M2 AP round for sniping. The M2 AP round was also propular for long range match shooting well into the 1960's,
The replacement of most .30 caliber flexible guns with the .50 Browning on medium and heavy bombers freed up tens of millions of rounds of AP ammunition for ground use. The AP round became fairly common for use by BAR gunners and riflemen in the last years of WW2.

[Multigunner]

Interesting, the Boer's licked up on the British while defending Ladysmith with Mausers, at 1000 yards plus. Made a hell of a pile of bodies, with iron sights.

More like 800 yards, the range always grows with the telling.

http://www.ladysmithhistory.com/the-siege/boer-weaponary/mauser-rifle/

The 7mm Mauser cartridge has always been considered more inherently accurate than the 8mmJ or 7.92mmS bores.
This does point up the fact that the ladder style sights of the 93-95 Mausers and the 1903 Springfield while antiquated in appearance could allow for a very effective shot at extreme ranges.
These were certainly not inferior to the gosh awful Lange sights of the Gew 98.

In the updated Regulations for Musketry of 1915 an early chapter goes into the German practice of the day of not opening fire beyond four hundred yards, with 300 more common. The Germans felt individual riflemen were incapable of making hits on a man size target beyond that range.
The hit probability of single rounds fired at individual targets may well have been low at that range for the average German soldier of the day, since individual marksmanship had not been emphasized as much for some years before WW2.

[gew98]

Mooli as usual you discount the guys that were there and did that. You have a "manualaffliction" of the highest order. Roy Dunlap was there and did that...so you disreagrd him with so much eloquence , or lack thereof as usual.
If I may , you are a classical example of no practical experiance.

[Multigunner]

I don't discount anything, but I don't automatically consider a worst case scenario as being the final word.

heres part of the section on WW1 German musketry training and tactics.

3. German Musketry.* — (i) The Germans consider it un-
necessary Co teach men to fire at distances beyond 400
metres. Their plan of infantry attack (see diagram, p. ix) is
devised to get within this range without opening fire. Ac-
cordingly, judging distance is practised by officers only,
and no attention is devoted to the indication of targets,
concentration of fire, or to fire direction and control gener-
ally, as practised in the British Army. To concentrate the
fire of a platoon or company on one spot at 1,000 yards
range was considered by Germans to be a waste of ammuni-
tion. Their training seems to have been limited to inde-
pendent firing by battalions on large areas of ground.


Just as in WW2 the Germans put too much faith in the MG and did not utilize the individual rifleman to full effect.
The USMC and Army both recognized the value of individual marksmanship as well as the value of heavier weapons in their place and time.

In both wars Germany lost after early successes against less sophisticated opponents.
While the U S has never been short on self criticism, its also profited from studying earlier errors, the Germans never did catch onto that and made the same mistakes over and over again.


PS


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 ,
Every Garand I've fired has been capable of much better accuracy than that, and not accurized target rifles either. Even beat up specomens with cruddy looking bores performed better, and with ammo of unknown foreign manufacture as well as 50's surplus M2 Ball.
If Dunlap couldn't get decent accuracy out of a Garand its his shooting that was off not the rifles.

And it comes back to this, existing original 03A3 and 03A4 rifles in good condition shoot just fine, so if fed decent ammunition they would have shot just as well or better back in the day.
The 03A4 was used to some extent as late as the Vietnam era, and to good effect from the sparse information available.

One could probably find a few specimens of the best modern sniper rifles that wouldn't hit the ground if you dropped them if some sad sack wrecked the bore with careless cleaning practices, or it was fed defective ammunition.
The fact that the existing specimens of this rifle that remain in good condition perform far better than your sources claim puts your sources in a bad light rather than putting the rifle in a bad light.

[Vulch]

A picture speaks a thousand words...

Sam won't listen, so why bother?

[Multigunner]

A picture speaks a thousand words...

Sam won't listen, so why bother?


Says the man with 190 enfields who never once examined the bolt heads till I prompted him to.
Still convinced that the SMLE is supposed to have at least 10 degrees of overclocking there Vulcherino?

Geez anyone that would admit that they couldn't get better than 4 MOA out of a Garand must be a national hero in Australia.

[Vulch]

I suspect you need more blood pressure meds Sam... you seem to be on the attack lately.

I should measure my overclock WHY exactly, besides what your precious manuals state? Why would I be bothered with such a thing when they all shot very respectfully? I am SO deeply sorry that I had no compunction to be bothered to measure it. Maybe if it overclocked significantly I would, but...

Hmmmm.

[Multigunner]

I suspect you need more blood pressure meds Sam... you seem to be on the attack lately.

I should measure my overclock WHY exactly, besides what your precious manuals state? Why would I be bothered with such a thing when they all shot very respectfully? I am SO deeply sorry that I had no compunction to be bothered to measure it. Maybe if it overclocked significantly I would, but...

Hmmmm.

You never knew whether they overclocked significantly or not, but put yourself up as authoritative in proclaiming that the entire design was Predicated" on the bolt head overclocking by at least ten degrees.

Since you've decided to kill this thread in true Ed Horten manner it makes little difference whether you had anything of value to say on the subject of the thread, your only experiance with the Springfield 03 being that clapped out reactivated drill rifle you picked up and then found to be cracked just exactly where a reactivated drill rifle would have had the barrel weld rewelded and smoothed over.

You should check out your suppliers more carefully when dealing with a rifle you know nothing about. Same goes for Gew 98 from what he said about his blown firing pin.
Too many fly by night gun dealers out there as it is.

Now for all Gew 98's blustering all he has managed to repeat endlessly is that the Weaver 330 scopes weren't properly sealed against moisture, something not in dispute and having nothing to do with the mechanical qualities of the rifle itself.
Outside of that he has repeated worn out NAZI propaganda and misinformation based on misrepresented propaganda photos.
I'm suprised he'll even admit that Germany lost both World Wars, if in fact he does accept that even now.

PS
Now to get back to the actual subject at hand.
The mention of how the Boers out shot the British does bring up another point in favor of the Springfield 1903 rifles windage adjustable rear sight.
One reason the British rifles were so ineffective in long range duel was because the difference in ambient temperatures between England and Africa resulted in the .303 rifles throwing their shots a bit differently than normal, all Lee Enfield front sight bases being off set to the left to compensate for action body flexing.
By the time the British realized this they had sent thousands of rifles to Africa with the sights set several MOA off from where they needed to be.
A temporay fix was made using rear sight blades with the notch offset to one side, but it came too late for many British troops who could not match the Boers in long range shooting simply because they had no method of adjusting for windage.
The SMLE rifles up to MkIII had a windage adjustable rear sight, but this was deleted from the MKIII* onwards. The No.4 also lacked windage adjustments.
The 98K never had a windage adjustable rear sight, which cost them dearly when called on to shoot beyond three hundred yards.

[waksupi]

Reading first hand accounts of the receiving end, they stated that many of their engagements were at a minimum of 1000 yards, with 1500 being more common. They recorded killing rifle shots of 3000 yards at artillery emplacements. Granted, there was a lot of luck involved, but the telling use at 1000 yards was recorded. 16,000 were taken out of action in the movement,. with minimal damage to the Boers.
Sir Arthur Conan Doyle joined the medical division, as he would not be admitted to the regular ranks. His account is credited with being the most accurate stating of the full action, and I go by his personal observations, and the troops on the ground.


By the way, the Brits were not using Enfields in this engagement. Where did you get that from? Think Lee-Metford. And the method of engagement by the Brits was the downfall, nothing to do with any off set of sights, or such balderdash. Another one I wonder what the origin is?


More like 800 yards, the range always grows with the telling.

http://www.ladysmithhistory.com/the-siege/boer-weaponary/mauser-rifle/

The 7mm Mauser cartridge has always been considered more inherently accurate than the 8mmJ or 7.92mmS bores.
This does point up the fact that the ladder style sights of the 93-95 Mausers and the 1903 Springfield while antiquated in appearance could allow for a very effective shot at extreme ranges.
These were certainly not inferior to the gosh awful Lange sights of the Gew 98.

In the updated Regulations for Musketry of 1915 an early chapter goes into the German practice of the day of not opening fire beyond four hundred yards, with 300 more common. The Germans felt individual riflemen were incapable of making hits on a man size target beyond that range.
The hit probability of single rounds fired at individual targets may well have been low at that range for the average German soldier of the day, since individual marksmanship had not been emphasized as much for some years before WW2.

[Multigunner]

Reading first hand accounts of the receiving end, they stated that many of their engagements were at a minimum of 1000 yards, with 1500 being more common. They recorded killing rifle shots of 3000 yards at artillery emplacements. Granted, there was a lot of luck involved, but the telling use at 1000 yards was recorded. 16,000 were taken out of action in the movement,. with minimal damage to the Boers.
Sir Arthur Conan Doyle joined the medical division, as he would not be admitted to the regular ranks. His account is credited with being the most accurate stating of the full action, and I go by his personal observations, and the troops on the ground.


By the way, the Brits were not using Enfields in this engagement. Where did you get that from? Think Lee-Metford. And the method of engagement by the Brits was the downfall, nothing to do with any off set of sights, or such balderdash. Another one I wonder what the origin is?
Yep Lee Metford rather than Lee Enfield, same action same action body flex, same cartridge, different rifling. Both Lee Metford and Lee Enfield rifles were in use during the Second Boer War of 1899.
The maximum range of the 1893 Mauser was given as around 3500 (maybe 3700)yards when fired at a 45 degree angle in the Mauser manuals, so any hit at 3,000 yards was dumb luck, you'd have to have a field glass to even see a mansize target at 3,000 yards.

Exagerations about such battles are commonplace. Theres a US Army site on evaluation of oral history you should look up some time.
The Boers had to use homegrown double base powder made at a dynamite factory to handload for their Mausers when ammo ran low, Its unlikely that these handloads would be as accurate as the store bought ammo.
They also had a problem with their Mausers blowing up in their faces because of these handloads. A recorded fact so not open to question, except as to exact cause.
The 7X53 Kort Nek cases you may have heard of, requiring a thick green grease at the case neck to prevent jacket seperations. The British thought the grease was a poison and executed Boers caught with the greased bullets.

If you want to believe that a Boer could pick out an individual target at 3,000 yards and hit him with a single well placed homegrown handload be my guest, no worse than tales about Paul Bunyon and his Blue Ox Babe I suppose.

BTW
I like Arthur Conan Doyles Sherlock Holmes stories best of his fictional accounts.

Also


Sights Front: Inverted V
Rear: V-notch, adjustable
from 400 to 2,000 meters
Got any idea how much hold over that extra one thousand yards would require?
Perhaps the Boers had a patented ladder sight stretcher we haven't heard of yet.

To be fair you may be thinking of the semi automatic cannon the Boers used to great effect.
These were a Hotchkis 37mm Pom Pom type gun. They fired ten shot strips at one time to bracket British gun emplacements and killed quite a few gunners with shrapnel from these small explosive shells.

Heres a link to the online text of Conan Doyle's account.
I gave a few chapters a once over but found no mention of three thousand yard hits from rifle fire as of yet. Theres a good deal of heavy fire from rifle caliber maxim guns and the autoloading Pom Pom guns at that sort of range, and mention of British troops driving to within 1500 yards of the Boer breastworks under heavy machinegun fire and cannon fire.

If you would be so kind as to give me the chapters where you read of the Boers making hits at 1500 or 3,000 yards with the Mauser rifles I'll give it a look see.
!500 yards would be within the realm of possibility for volley fire, but not for single shots at individual targets.

[Von Dingo]

Isn't this tread about patent infringment, between the '03 and and the Mauser?

[gew98]

Isn't this tread about patent infringment, between the '03 and and the Mauser?

Yes that was the bait ol' sammy used...so the real story is how truly bad a copy US ordnance made of the mauser system. Like how the M14 was a boondoggle too that needed alot of tweaks to make it serviceable , and then the M16 how it was dumbed down and supplied initially with garbage ammunition. The 03 was'nt the first half baked weapon that got foisted on the American fighting man , and won't be the last.

[bydand]

I really have to LAUGH when you said the Mk3 STEN was the best version. It was the ONLY one that was discontinued DURING the WAR because it often fell apart! Simplification taken one step too far. You are just as DEAD if you are shot by a STEN or an MP40
Now as for the german MP40, the germans always OVER ENGINEER anything. It may be built last for ein tausand years, but in combat it could be destroyed in days. Thir tanks were so complicated that spare parts were always a problem and they needed expert mechanics to keep them running.

Now as for the germans putting too much faith in the MG, it was simply a different tactic. We had the machine gun supporting the riflemen while in the german army the riflemen supported the machine gun.

[Von Dingo]

gew98,

If you haven't already, you really need to read American Rifle. Lots of good insight there, like how Ordnance was full of career officers in the 19th century, who never went for a walk in a line unit. The debacle that was the M-14 program, how the great depression shaped the M-1 Garand, and you get the idea.

[Multigunner]

I really have to LAUGH when you said the Mk3 STEN was the best version. It was the ONLY one that was discontinued DURING the WAR because it often fell apart! Simplification taken one step too far.
A matter of opinion there, the MkIII eliminated the rotating magazine well/action cover that caused problems with the other versions and when worn induced jams. The sight raduis was better and the sights less prone to damage, and the barrel better protected with a more effective handguard to protect the shooters hand, They simplified something meant to be simplified and reduced the elements that led to damage or distortion of parts during disassembly for cleaning.




You are just as DEAD if you are shot by a STEN or an MP40
Or a zip gun for that matter.
I'm no fan of the MP40 but its a far more sophisticated weapon with a far better track record for reliability and effective range. For that matter I can't think of any WW2 SMG that didn't have a better record than the STEN except perhaps the Japanese SMG, which was used to little to ever gain a rep either way.




Now as for the german MP40, the germans always OVER ENGINEER anything. It may be built last for ein tausand years, but in combat it could be destroyed in days. Thir tanks were so complicated that spare parts were always a problem and they needed expert mechanics to keep them running.

Gee now the MP40 is a piece of over engineered junk. Where will it end?
The main problems with the German tanks were underengineered transmissions and drive trains. The Sherman despite its faults had a much better transmission and drivetrain and was far less likely to break down under stress. The German drive trains sheared gear teeth fairly easily because they weren't canted and meshed as the US gears were.
When the bearing factories were blasted by bombing they had to resort to poured solid bearings, These didn't last long and squeeked and squealed in operation giving away the presence of their tanks due to the distinctive sound no matter how well they muffled the exhaust.



Now as for the germans putting too much faith in the MG, it was simply a different tactic. We had the machine gun supporting the riflemen while in the german army the riflemen supported the machine gun.

As the interogations referred to in the Regulations for musketry revealed this over confidence in the machinegun, at least in the advance as opposed to the defensive roll, led the Germans to de emphasize individual marksmanship and the German Troops were less effective on the whole despite the excellent range and accuracy of their rifles. By limiting their troops to firing at ranges of four hundred yards or less they may have saved ammo but lost men because of it.
Someone once said its better to waste bullets than men.

[Multigunner]

Yes that was the bait ol' sammy used...so the real story is how truly bad a copy US ordnance made of the mauser system. Like how the M14 was a boondoggle too that needed alot of tweaks to make it serviceable , and then the M16 how it was dumbed down and supplied initially with garbage ammunition. The 03 was'nt the first half baked weapon that got foisted on the American fighting man , and won't be the last.

As a one trick pony might see it anyway.
Theres no need to bait you at all, you automatically fall onto any discussion whether the Springfield is mentioned or not with your patent dissing of all things American and your worshipful devotion to all things German.

Strange that the M14 is still in service as a designated marksman's rifle. I guess accuracy and penetration power still has its place on the battlefield.


Also I like how you still wouldn't admit that Spandau and later Mauser both stole the idea of dual opposed front locking lugs from the French Lebel rifle.
The sucess of the early Mausers depended almost solely on the front mounted locking lugs stolen from the French.
Earlier Mauser designs did not include either controled round feeding or stripper clips, these may or may not have been Mauser inventions since Mauser bought up the patents of many gunsmiths and gunmakers to avoid future infringement woes.

The P-13/P-14 action is in no way supperior in design to any other rifle of the type, inspired by the same 1893 rifle that inspired the 03 Springfield. The p-14 did benefit from superior metallurgy, using basically the same Nickel Chrome alloy used for the best of the SMLE rifles.
Metallurgy not design flaws plagued low number Springfield receivers, along with the occasional defective subcontracted barrels pre 1917 and the same defective ammunition problems that plagued every rifle used during WW1 to some extent.
Some P-13 prototypes blew up, and some production P-14 and M1917 rifles blew up, for the same reasons that some ow Number Springfield actions blew up, though with less spectacular results though no fatalities have been recorded for even the most picturesque Low Number blow ups and very few serious injuries, which can not be said for the rash of blown up Lee Enfield rifles in Canada in a two year period before 1908 where at least one death and a number of serious injuries are recorded in the records of the Ross rifle debates in the House of Commons.

BTW
Earlier you mentioned a mister De Hass as a gunsmith and authority on singleshot rifles.
I looked up an interview with mister de Hass and he imphatically stated that he was "not a gunsmith".
Guess he is like many who study the rifle and create their own solutions, a talented and thoughtful craftsman with no illusions to greatness.

[waksupi]

The book is "The Great Boer War". I don't have it in hand, so can't give chapter for references, but it was repeated several times of the ranges.

There is an ebook available online for free.

[gew98]

Moolti ; One of my best friends carrys and M14 EBR in A'stan as we post ( he's due home feb next year). He hates the damn thing as the EBR alloy stock is about impossible to disassemble for cleaning without removing a dozen cap screws alone !. He's not impressed with it , but as it is a cheap expediant to use on hand according to the gub'mit they went that route to save dollars , but spent about $3k per abomination to get the EBR in the field. Typical gopvernment waste when a good bolt action mauser based sniper would have done the same at far less cost !!!.
Hey nut it's not in a manual so I can see where you can't deal with practical experiance.

[Multigunner]

The book is "The Great Boer War". I don't have it in hand, so can't give chapter for references, but it was repeated several times of the ranges.

There is an ebook available online for free.

I had already found it, and so far I find no statements about the exact ranges of effective individual rifle fire.
Theres one incident where British troops were trapped in a valley one mile long, but the rifle fire appears to have come from the surrounding hills two hundred yards distant on either side.

The most deadly fire came from the Hotchkis/Maxim pom pom guns and some truly impressive artillery the Boers had obtained before the war.
They appear to have been well supplied with Maxim Guns as well.

A mention of Mauser bullets going through three or more men "at this range" during an assault on earthworks suggests this was at close range.

Theres a account of fighting in Cuba available at the Internet Archive with a very detailed study of wounds inflicted by the 7mm Mauser at various ranges. The round nosed FMJ bullets appear to have given very clean and most often survivable wounds with little available medical care. Of course in those days when antibiotics were primitive at best any wound could be fatal if not cleaned quickly.

I suspect the green bullet grease used on the Kort Nek 7X53 cartridges may well have encouraged infections.
Non standard bullets or bullets with jackets damaged by being fired from the too short case necks of the Kort Nek cartridges may also have broken up in the wounds when standard round nosed FMJ bullets seldom did.

The breech explosions of 93 Mausers during the Boer war were no doubt the reason why the Model 98 bolt design, and the Springfield 1903 as well, included a sturdy safety lug.


Theres several theories as to why these rifles exploded, but the out of specification 53mm cartridge cases were the single common theme.
Theres been little clue as to how these cases got into the supply line. Possibly scrapped cases from a cartridge that did not see production, or reformed 7.65X53 cases.

[Multigunner]

Moolti ; One of my best friends carrys and M14 EBR in A'stan as we post ( he's due home feb next year). He hates the damn thing as the EBR alloy stock is about impossible to disassemble for cleaning without removing a dozen cap screws alone !. He's not impressed with it , but as it is a cheap expediant to use on hand according to the gub'mit they went that route to save dollars , but spent about $3k per abomination to get the EBR in the field. Typical gopvernment waste when a good bolt action mauser based sniper would have done the same at far less cost !!!.
Hey nut it's not in a manual so I can see where you can't deal with practical experiance.


Yep give the most advanced fighting force in the world a good ol' 98K, thats a laugh.
Theres Bolt Action 7.62 Sniper Rifles already in action, the Autoloaders are used where Autoloaders are called for.

I'd hate to think a stuck screw was such a big deal. But then you went on and on about a stripped screw on your Springfield front sight as if it were the end of the world. As if we haven't seen stripped or stuck screws on every sort of firearm ever made at one time or another, those that have screws of any kind at least.
I guess you'd toss a 1911 in a ditch if it had a loose grip screw.

PS
To clarify


The DM's role is to supply rapid accurate fire on enemy targets at ranges up to 1,000 metres (1,090 yd) with a rifle capable of semi-automatic fire called a designated marksman rifle equipped with a telescopic sight. Like snipers, DMs are trained in quick and precise shooting, but unlike the more specialized "true" sniper, they are also intended to lay down accurate rapid fire.

================================================== ======================

The DM role differs significantly from that of a specially trained sniper. A sniper is a specialist highly trained in fieldcraft who carries out a range of specific missions independent of others, and more specialized than standard infantry tasks. In contrast, a DM is a soldier who has received some additional marksmanship training. The DM's role is to provide an additional capability to the infantry platoon, which is the ability to engage targets at greater ranges than the other members of the squad or section.





The EBR is also expected to serve as a CQB weapon capable of controled bursts of highly effective full auto fire with far greater penetration than the 5.56 rifles or carbines.
Easier to deploy and more mobile than a GPMG yet just as effective at close range.
Its also accurate enough for most designated Marksman roles.

Gee I guess they could duct tape a STEN Gun to a 98K and have the best of both worlds.

[gew98]

Ah ; gunner sam.Ed/horton/multifool ... whichever handle you prefer...... my buddy's EBR is not for CQB and is NOT full auto. Again your fountain of useless factoids falls flat. So cozy up to your 03 and your Mk 3 sten and live the good life in fantasy land. It suits you ( is there a manual for that ? ).
See you miss the reality of it all... under our present economic stress there is no budget for new bolt rifles...but by playing with numbers as gub'mit bean counters can they fooled procurement into pulling out M14's from storage that they had not yet demilled and said were upgradeable for "sniper use" below what the real ACCURATE Bolt sniper rifles cost. Guess what they lied ( no way that's not in a manual ) and the EBR fiasco costs more than a solid bolt action sniper (lest it be an 03 abomination ). But since you have been there and done that I guess you know the manuals are spot on. Cheerio mate !.

[Multigunner]

Ah ; gunner sam.Ed/horton/multifool ... whichever handle you prefer...... my buddy's EBR is not for CQB and is NOT full auto. Again your fountain of useless factoids falls flat.


The United States Navy Mark 14 Enhanced Battle Rifle (EBR) is an American selective fire military rifle chambered for the 7.62x51mm NATO cartridge. It is a variant of the M14 battle rifle and was originally built for use with units of the United States Naval Special Warfare Command, such as the United States Navy SEALs.[6][7] The EBRs are made with the intention of carrying out both designated marksman and CQB roles in combat. Since 2010, the U.S. Army has made available two M14EBR-RI rifles per infantry squad for units deploying to Afghanistan. The M14EBR-RI has a standard weight 22.0" barrel and lugged GI flash hider, it is not to be confused with the MK14 Mod 0 or Mod 1.


You dig your hole deeper with every clam you make, and your sly childish insults speak to your character.
If your buddy doesn't like the weapon assigned to him then let him ask to be assigned another weapon and that EBR (if it is in fact an EBR and your buddy not a figment of your imagination) passed on to someone else.


So far you and Vulch have pulled some remarkable boners, like presuming that the U S military no longer has any need for .45 ACP ammunition and that no one in the U S military uses the 1911 pistol.
Or that the Winchester self loader could replace a full power infantry rifle, thats a real doosey.
I'd be suprized if you are older than fourteen, though theres a few grown men with no more sense than you've shown these are usually institutualized by now.

Now I know Vulch came along hoping to stir up an argument soley with the intent of having someone banned, and you've followed along as his lapdog. Since Vulch has completely destroyed his own tenous self image by revealing his ignorance about how the Lee Enfield works, and every post you've made reveals your own basic ignorance about how anything firearms related works, you've managed to do more harm to yourselves than anyone else could have.

Keep up the good work, I doubt theres more than two or three on this board that have yet to recognize you for what you are, and even they are begining to catch on fast as you pick up speed on the way downhill.


PS
Rather than wasting a complete post to answer Gew 98's drivel and his childish insults I might as well clarify what I meant about German tanks being under engineered.
The Panther tank is the best example of this. They loaded this pretty decent tank design down with thick armor and a powerful gun, then gave it the worst possible final drive gear box possible for a tank of this weight range.
The Sherman and some of the Tiger series used a "Herringbone" final drive. The gear teeth being milled in a V rather than across at a shallow angle. The Herring bone gears did not transfer axial stresses to wear out and break away gear teeth.
More than 50% of Panther losses after D-Day were tanks abandoned by their crews when the final drive blew. The designers and engineers had begged to be allowed to use the Herringbone gears but the Bean Counters wanted the cheaper to manufacture gears to increase production figures. So the German tankers were left with an otherwise fine tank that blew its drivetrain if they attempted to turn while backing up, leaving them with no escape route, or simply broke its gears if a driver were startled and jack rabbitted instead of easing forwards.

The engineers knew what they were talking about but some knucklehead who wanted a promotion for increasing production numbers won out.

As for the STEN MkIII they produced half again as many of the MkIII than of the MkV which was the last model manufactured in quantity in England.
The MkV STEN has got to be the ugliest weapon ever fielded other than one other third world chattergun that used some STEN parts.

The Australian AUSTEN sub gun used some design elements lifted from the MP40, but it was never as popular or as reliable as the Owen SMG despite its better bolt and mainspring tube..

[waksupi]

So, does this mean I need to give three people a ten day ban for a start?

[gew98]

Hey mmolitool , My buddy is US Army , and his EBR is NOT full auto. It' more accurate than his M4 poodle shooter , but since he is not a schooled sniper he did ot get the Bolt rifle. And as I mentioned it is one horrible rifle to disassemble for thorough maintenance with it's alloy stock.
His unit SOP in 3/1 for CQB is use your M4A1. You have to know the USN SEALs do things differently and their own way , but since my buddy is there doing that with an EBR I guess you prefer a manual.
You carry on about german tanks... why such a digression form the main theme again...the delicate american mauser copy ?.

"The engineers knew what they were talking about but some knucklehead who wanted a promotion for increasing production numbers won out."

I could apply your quote to all manner of items to include your sacred cow 1903. Why such things are adopted in half measures is either an engineers ego , a beancounters decision , a target shooters demands all coupled with rarely listening to the grunts that had to carry such into the sharp end until some political career might be affected by it.
And so it goes , so it goes.

[Dean D.]

Ok Folks, one user is now enjoying a 10 day vacation from Cast Boolits. Who's next? I did not delete the posts that facilitated his vacation so everyone can learn and know better. If you want to fight take it elsewhere, we do not welcome it here.

[Multigunner]

Thread degenerated, but some interesting information was generated.

Plenty of misconceptions about all the weaponry mentioned, mainly due to glamorization that always colors historical accounts.

The timeframe is the key to judging the effectiveness or desirability of any such weaponry.

When no effective body armor was available to the vast majority of troops in the field pistol caliber SMGs were very effective at close range so long as the enemy was not dug in and did not take advantage of the common available cover such as substantial structures and auto or truck bodies scattered about bombed or shelled villages and towns. The full power battle rifles can penetrate most such cover when the SMG can only act to keep the enemy's head down while riflemen find the best position to rain highly effective fire onto the enemy position.
The rifle grenade was an important weapon since theres a limit to just how far any man can throw a grenade. The rifle grenade has its limitations as well, its of little use in dense forests or when the enemy has taken advantage of overhangs and such.
The comparatively flattened trajectory of the various dedicated grenade launchers make this far more useful, but they have their limitations as well.

The GPMP is highly effective at ranges beyond that of the standard infantry rifle, but rapid aimed semi auto fire, especially from multiple shooters concentrating their fire, is often as effective as full auto fire from the less mobile LMG or GPMGs at normal rifle range of up to 600 yards.

So far every military authority seems to be in agreement that the assault rifle is not so well suited as had been supposed. Its easier for a untrained third world warrior to learn to use an assault rifle, but a well trained and dedicated professional can get the greatest use from the full power rifles.

Attempts to improve the penetration power of the 5.56 have pretty much reached the limit. Longer and heavier bullets have reached the point of diminishing return.

The 7.62 cartridge is capable of far better performance than the simple M-80 ball would suggest. The mindset of fragmentation being necessary for delivering incapacitating wounds is more a hold over from the smaller caliber cartridges and the now ancient round nose FMJ.
A .30 spire point bullet will tumble in the body producing devastating wounds without the need for fragmentation. Reducing the cartridge's effectiveness by using thin brittle jackets is a poor trade off.

A number of WW1 era cartridges have begun to make a comeback. Till recently Pakistan had continued to manufacture 8mm replacement barrels for the MG42, and that weapon is still in use by some third world rebel forces.

The 7.62X39 chambered squad autos have fallen from favor, though still found in use by those who can't get a more powerful LMG and need a squad auto that can use the same ammo as their AKs.

The .30-06 was pretty much replaced by the 7.62 NATO, and the latter is a ballistic duplicate of the '06 cartridge, even following the same evolution as to increasingly more effective loadings. The earliest 7.62 NATO Ball duplicated the ballistics of the WW1 era '06 cartridge, more recent loadings duplicate the later WW2 loadings.

Delinked M118 Special Ball was used on a limited basis by U S sniper when a foul up several years back resulted in the temporary suspension of use of M118 Long Range due to concerns over the open point.
The M118 SB is not nearly as accurate as the M118 LR, and delinked MG ammo thats been riding around in ammo cans in 120+ degree temperatures for months isn't going to give stellar performance anyway.

A good rifle can't improve the performance of poor ammo by much if any.
A poor quality rifle can't be expected to shoot much better with high quality ammo.

Theres no simple all encompassing answer to these continuing issues.

[Larry Gibson]

Delinked M118 Special Ball was used on a limited basis

"Delinked" M118 SB? When was M118 SB ever linked?

Larry Gibson

[Multigunner]

Delinked M118 Special Ball was used on a limited basis

"Delinked" M118 SB? When was M118 SB ever linked?

Larry Gibson

They used it for long range indirect fire.
M118 SB proved less accurate than expected in mass production and became MG fodder with M118 LR taking on the high accuracy role.

The Tech manuals state the switchover in nomenclature with M118 Long Range being seperated from the earlier M118 Special Ball , the distinction being mainly the open point bullet and the settling on a single propellent type.

I'll check the sources to be sure but IIRC the progression is from M118 to M118 Special Ball, to M118 Long Range.
The first two using standard open base FMJ configuration bullets similar the that used for the .30-06 M1 ball, and either double base or single base powders according to the manufacturer and Lot number.
M118 Long Range uses a single brand of Double Base propellent and an open point bullet with enclosed base.
When M118 or M118 Special Ball was used for sniper rifles the rifles had to be rezero'ed whenever ammunition from a different Lot number was used due to variations in the propellents.
Theres less variation between lots for M118 Long Range due to the standardization on a single propellent type from a single manufacturer. The powder used apparently shows little variation in velocity due to temperature extremes making it most suitable for regions where temperature extremes are common.

PS
Larry you may be right, I haven't found official documentation of use of M118 for long range MG fire, but this would leave the U S with no 7.62 heavy ball suited to long range MG use.
Of course the .50 Browning is better suited to extreme ranges, but you can't hump a M2HB up the side of a mountain very easily.
The delinked MG ammo substituted for M118 LR due to a mix up over whether the SMK open point is an expanding bullet is a fact though. M-80 Ball can be used in the 7.62 Sniper rifles, though the manual says this is only to be done if no M118 is available.
They may have also dusted off some of the older M118 still in stock, but the delinked 7.62 was the ammo mentioned in news stories at the time.
There weren't as many M14 rifles and derivitives in use as designated marksman rifles at the time, so there may have been no other source of 7.62 ammo in some areas. Also the M118 is authorized for use in the M14 based rifles, so users of these rifles would also have faced the same problem when M118 LR was temporarily pulled.


PS
if anyone is interested in the ranking of the STEN gun in recent competitions


Open Bolt/Iron Sights
Place Score Shooter Gun
1 138.86 Blaschik, Andy Beretta PM12
2 140.34 Lage, Richard Max-31A
3 145.97 Phillips, Chuck Sterling
4 167.49 Sneed, Randy Thompson
5 171.08 Emery, Bruce Mac 11
6 171.49 Montgomery, Dustin Thompson
7 178.8 Russel, Jeff Swedish K
8 182.26 Parker, Jeremy Sterling
9 183.07 Holden, JL Thompson
10 191.4 Mendenhall, Monty Beretta M38A
11 193.7 Montgomery, Ron UZI
12 201.13 McKown, Tony Uzi
13 201.75 Tapar, Paul Max11
14 201.76 Carrere, Joe Port Said
15 202.91 Carpenter, Tom UZI
16 209.55 James, Tom Thompson
17 210.76 Kummer, Mike MP 40
18 220.81 Grocox, Cain Uzi
19 240.5 Stevens, Clayt Max11
20 243.35 Sawyer, MG Sten Mk5
21 257.75 Varner, Ed MP 40
22 264.1 Kummer, Thomas MP40
23 264.2 Baillie, Joel Swedish K
24 266.36 Stevens, Karl Max11
25 277.45 Tice, George Swedish K
26 285.19 Asnip, Andrew Sterling
27 307.41 Bosio, John Uzi
28 325.06 Record, Russell Thompson
29 326.09 Wiersbitzky, Andreas Uzi
30 332.75 Dobbins, Hugh Thompson
31 381.67 Wampler, Andrew Uzi
32 389.11 Ottoni, Leo Swedish K
33 394.54 Crawford, Ryan Mac 11
34 408.74 Mohler, Mark Max11
35 426.08 Dunham, Douglas Sterling
36 486.1 Ezendam, Thomas Uzi
37 553.79 Norman, Dennis Mac 10


Pretty tough competition at Knob creek.

[Larry Gibson]

Multigunner

The progression actually went M118 (White Box), M852, M118 SB and then M118 LR. M118 was discontinued in favor of M852 and then M118 SB was brought out as the combat round for the M21/M24/M40 sniper rifles. M852 was then authorized for use in combat. Somewhere in there it awas discovered that many times M852 doesn't shoot well at 800+ meters. Sierra designed the 175 MK as a duplicate of the M1/M72/M118 bullet and soon match shooters were "mexican matching" it in M118 SB and using it in reloads. It proved so effective in the .308W/7.62 NATO that M118 LR loaded with that bullet and with QC of M852 was brought out. That's the short story with lots of tangents, intrigues and offshoots to the story as you mention.

I queried because I've used a lot of all the ammo types mentions over the years in my military service and in training military after retirement. I'd never seen nor heard of any M118 SB being linked for any reason. BTW; M80 serves very well in M60 and M240s to their maximum effective range of 1100 meters. That's as far as the sights allow. However, it is posible/probable that some knowledgable and enterprising machine gunners linked M118 SB up for use in a longer range machine gun idirect fire (called "plunging fire" in machine gunner parlance) application. I have myself used a tripod mounted M60 with T&E to do some really effective longer range shooting out to 2000+ meters with M80 ball. M118 SB would, no doubt, do a bit better.

Larry Gibson

[Multigunner]

I queried because I've used a lot of all the ammo types mentions over the years in my military service and in training military after retirement. I'd never seen nor heard of any M118 SB being linked for any reason. BTW; M80 serves very well in M60 and M240s to their maximum effective range of 1100 meters. That's as far as the sights allow. However, it is posible/probable that some knowledgable and enterprising machine gunners linked M118 SB up for use in a longer range machine gun idirect fire (called "plunging fire" in machine gunner parlance) application. I have myself used a tripod mounted M60 with T&E to do some really effective longer range shooting out to 2000+ meters with M80 ball. M118 SB would, no doubt, do a bit better.

Larry Gibson

I'm not sure where I'd heard of M118 SB being used for long range MG fire, but it wasn't recently, and perhaps not done with official sanction.
An old friend was in the coast guard for some years in the 80's and he may have mentioned it being done while he was in that service.
A coast guard vessel would likely benefit from more effective long range MG fire, especially since fleeing vessels are often substantial targets.

I don't doubt that the military has standardized on a specific weight range for MG projectiles, it would prevent problems with differing trajectories and sight settings.
The other commonly used MG ammo seems to all be in the circa 150 gr weight range +/- a few grains.

Extreme range RCMG fire is seldom called for, with the .50 auto cannon and other weaponry being better for the purpose.
A heavy bullet MG load for the smaller vessels would make sense though.

I guess I was extrapolating, assuming that if a good idea earlier on that with the increasing range of engagements in Aghanistan and longer ranges of desert fighting it would still be done.

[Larry Gibson]

Multigunner

It is too bad the military hasn't the time for real training such as long range MG plunging fire with the MG on a tripod or even volly fire with the M4/M16s. I onetime used 4 shooters with m16A2s on the 800 meter MG transition course on Range 92 at fort Lewis. I would call the range, the shooters would adjust the rear sight of the M16A2s and then fire on my command. We smoke every MG crew except for one of my female gunners with a M240 who also was adjusting the sights for each range (I trained her too BTW). So much institutional knowledge is lost to the military these days. Too much mandatory "sensitivity" training.

Larry Gibson

[Multigunner]

Multigunner

It is too bad the military hasn't the time for real training such as long range MG plunging fire with the MG on a tripod or even volly fire with the M4/M16s. I onetime used 4 shooters with m16A2s on the 800 meter MG transition course on Range 92 at fort Lewis. I would call the range, the shooters would adjust the rear sight of the M16A2s and then fire on my command. We smoke every MG crew except for one of my female gunners with a M240 who also was adjusting the sights for each range (I trained her too BTW). So much institutional knowledge is lost to the military these days. Too much mandatory "sensitivity" training.

Larry Gibson

Good to talk with someone thats really up on the subjects.

I just looked over Hatcher's comments on the unexpected problem of the original .30-06 cartridge not reaching the expected ranges when used for long range barrage fire from the Browning 1917.
According to his Notebook the maximum range of the .30-06 with 150 grain bullet was 3400 yards. Good enough for most applications but no where near the maximum range of the 8mm Lebel and not as far as the British .303.
The problem had come about due to earlier testing of the .30-06 having run into problems of keeping track of bullet fall beyond 1200 yards. The bullets staying on the target sheets at 1200 but becoming harder to get on paper beyong that range. They gave up direct measurements and simply calculated trajectory based on limited measurements at the closer ranges.
Atempts were made to supply ammo loaded with a 180 grain flat based matchgrade bullet, but it appears hostilities were over before that came about.

Since the 7.62 NATO M-80 Ball nearly duplicates the .30-06 M2 ball , which itself is a slight improvement of WW1 era .30-06, the same range linmitations probably apply.
The cartridges more specifically intended for MG use, the M59 Ball, M61 AP, and M62 Tracer, all have bullets slightly heavier than that of M80 Ball and about 1/10" longer. This would likely extend range slightly, at least in the case of the M59 and M61 bullets. Both are depicted as having a central core of a harder lighter metal with lead fillers. I'm figuring a mild steel core for the M59.
All are shown as flat based.

With few large formations of enemy troops, ultra long range MG fire would seldom be profitable.
This might not always be the case though, so it should probably remain an option.

[Larry Gibson]

The M59 7.62 NATO cartridge was supposed to be the primary "combat" cartridge. In the June '61 TM M80 is "restricted for use in the temperate zone only at the present time". Of course that all went out with the advent of the Viet Nam War.

M80 also is much better ballistically than M2. Have to remember that very little M2 was made that met the original M2 spec of 2800 fps. Most of it was made to not excede the range fans of NG and many ranges. The velocity of such runs 2450 - 2650 fps depending on lot. Yes, our troops did go to war in WWII and Korea with substandard M2 ammuntion. That's why those "in the know" used the 165 AP M2 ammo because it was loaded to spec (2640 fps) and with that velcocity and the much better 165 BT bullet it did much better than the standard issue M2 ball. Most 7.62 M80/M59 with it's 147 gr streamlined FMJB does an honest 2750 fps (US made ammo out of 22" M14s). The improved BC and velocity of the M80 bullet vs the M2 150 gr FMJFB means it does fly flatter and much farther.

Back in the '60/'70s the addage was that match ammuntion will shoot flatter than ball ammuntion. That was/is very true with the '06 using M72 vs M2. Many old match shooters continued the addage with the adoption and dominance of the M14. However it just isn't true with the M14. The trajectories of M80 and M118 run pretty close neck and neck to 1100 meters. If you zero the M14 with either M118 or it's equivelent or M80 ball and calibrate the rear elevation range markings with the zero you'll fine that you can dial the range on the elevation knob and be amazingly close if not right on out to that 1100 meters.

Larry Gibson

[Multigunner]

The AP ammo I sometimes used with Garands had a long flat base bullet but the core itself is boatailed. Theres a copper plug in the base that keeps the boatail of the AP core centered. I was told this was 168 grain.
From what I remember having looked this ammo up the boat tail shape of the core was meant to reduced core breakage when the bullet nose dug into a angled armor plate.
There was no streamling effect since the bullet jacket and copper plug gave the bullet a flat base. There would be a streamlining effect of the bullet being longer for its weight than a lead core bullet.

I still have one of the pulled bullets somewhere, and did have some cores that were stripped of there jackets going through a poured concrete foundation.

I shot a bowling ball with one of these and it penetrated to within less than an inch of completely going through, the bowling ball split unevenly exposing the core with nose melted by friction.
Bowling balls are pretty tough.

I had thought the cores were tungsten, but found later this is an extremely hard electric furnace steel, whatever that means. Nearly as tough as tungsten but not quite, and much cheaper of course.

The stripped cores make great center punches for starting the drill when DT'ing for a scope base.


PS
Just to be clear, does M80 Ball use a Boatail bullet?
I'd always thought it did, but some cartridge drawings I've looked over recently show a flat based bullet.
I've pulled bullets from foreign Nato interchangable marked 7.62 Ball and found a flat base bullet, haven't pulled any bullets from US M80 yet.
The Soviet 147 gr Steel Core bullets (miked .3125) I have used for .303 loads have a nice boatail and shoot with better accuracy than I'd expected.

[Larry Gibson]

I've been told by WWII and Koean vets that the AP they used had a BT bullet. I've not seen any and only have seen the FB'd ones as you describe post mid '50s. I use the cores for center punches all the time.

Yes, the M80/M59 bullets are BT'd. Most foreign NATO spec 7.62 have BT'd bullets but some does have FB'd bullets. There is a lot of non NATO spec 7.62 ammunition that is milder loaded for use in G#s and FALs. Most of it has FB'd bullets also.

[Multigunner]

I had noticed that the cartridge drawings in the Ammunition technical manual for 1994 were not accurate representations.
They seem to have recycled drawings from the .30-06 in several sections, the drawings themselves being of the '06 cartridge and bullets with the dimensions given for the 7.62.

The cartridge drawing of the M80 Ball on page 11-17 shows a flat based bullet much longer than the real bullet would be but gives the length of the bullet as that of the real thing.

This particular Manual has been known for other inaccuracies, and is not a very good source of information due to this. Whoever compiled it did not do a very good job.
The ID number of the manual is TM-0001-27.
I'd found a later manual, from 2000 I think it was, years ago but haven't found it again lately.


Heres what I found on the AP .30-06


While further experimentation after WWI was limited, there is one or two experimental-type AP rounds that you can spot if you know what you're looking for. The first is what is referred to as the "M1920" on a case headstamped F A 20. This boat-tailed bullet with a cupronickel jacket has a magnetic core which the discerning collector will spot with his trusty magnet. The second AP round to look out for has an exposed steel point but with a very rounded ogive. This is what is called the Tull Bryant bullet and it dates from 1932.

Starting in the early 1930s, there was a huge amount of experimentation on high velocity armor-piercing bullets and these are not uncommon. Many of them featured reduced surface areas with narrow driving bands and cannelures on the case neck. Some had black bullet tips, many did not, and one has a small red tip but it is extremely rare. The tests continued through 1938 though one of them was adopted earlier as the M1 AP which was a high velocity round with a black tip and a faint raised band just above the case mouth.

In 1939, the U.S. adopted the AP M2 which had a flat based bullet weighing 163-168 grains and identified by a black bullet tip. This remained the standard .30-06 AP round until the caliber was phased out.


http://cartridgecollectors.org/30-06intro/
Sounds reasonable.
The 1920's and '30's AP with boat tail bullets would likely have been issued for rifle use during WW2 and some still around in Korea with the 1939 AP M2 being reserved for aircraft use which is what I'd heard long ago. The way I heard it once the .30-06 was phased out as an aircraft MG load, being supplanted by the .50 Browning guns, they began issuing this cartridge for ground use in the MGs and BAR then some use in the Garand if supplies of M2 Ball ran low. The greater penetration led to "reconnaissance by fire" operations to flush out dug in German MG crews and break up ambushes by rear guards before they sprang a trap.

[gew98]

I've pulled hundreds of WW2 and 1950's dated AP bullets as well as bought several thousand AP pulls. None had boat tailed bullets , some had boat tailed cores - but not all. Weights averaged about 164 grains excepting FN made AP Bullets witch topped 168 on the average. The WW2 produced AP had the most variation and also had two cannelures on each bullet.
As well here's one for you Eddie direct from "Shots fired in anger" :
Page 391

Accuracy - The last edge you could get at long range with the M-1903- was of absolutely no value in 99% of our fights.Most men could shoot the M1 Better anyway. All without whom I talked complained bitterly about the POOR combat sights on the '03.And in the matter of malfunctioning I am not sure that the M-1903 was not much less reliable than the M1. Strikers and ejectors broke , so did firing pin rods,sears and even bolt lugs.

Page 392

We were not issued sniper rifles in any form in time to use them on guadal canal. The models sent out later , with the weaver scope and two groove barrel, could barely be called more than reasonable excuses for sniper arms. The most that can be said for these outfits is that perhaps they did give a few men the advantage of a telescopic sight ( of very limited optical value however ) , and perhaps they may have accounted for a few germans and japanese who might otherwise have not become casualties.
It was obvious from the outset that little was being done ( on the proper staff levels) to develope a good sniper weapon or to even train snipers. The M1903 sniper rifle,WW2 version , was a substitute measure - and a poor one at that. It placed a delicate and optically inadequate of only moderate accuracy in the hands of troops untrained in it's use - and even that at a very late date. What we needed was a good sturdy scope on the M1, And we did'nt get that until the war was over.
Specific complaints against the M-1903 sniper rifle are as follows :
1) Scope insufficiently rugged and shock proof.
2) Scope optically inadequate-not enough luminosity.
3) Scope adjustments insufficiently foolproof and rugged.
4) location and design of scope mount precluded clip loading - a serious defect on any military weapon.
5) No auxillary Iron sights
6) Rifle insufficiently accurate.
By stretching a the point of tolerance to the limit, it might be permissable to say that the M1903 sniper job was a little better than no scope sighted rifle at all.Even that , however, is stretching a point. Since the gun proved on the range to be such a sad sort of cluck we did'nt make much use of it in Burma, where we did finally get it.

Page 393

Ammuniiton was not such an important factor when it came to sniping in the jungle. Shooting at short ranges as we did provided no real test of accuracy and mad eno great demands for super refined target type loadings. The ordinary M2 would shoot well enough for most sniping purposes.
However there were occasions when we needed good long range performance, and there were times when we needed gilt-edged accuracy for short range shooting, as in the instance of a very small target ,such as an exposed arm or helmet top. For all round sniping purposes the only satisfactory ammunition would have to be something like the national match ammunition we had before the war, loaded with boat tailed bullets. Men in the European theater of operations would know more about this ,where ranges were presumably longer
than in the pacific. I rather think that they would recognize target accuracy as a prerequisite for any sniper rifle and ammunition. But that is just the point.The rifles we were given were not up to realizing the accuracy of the ammunition we already had,so why try to improve ? no one worried about getting good ammunition for such junk as we were issued to use as sniping rifles.

More sage writings of a fellow whom used those "dogs" in the 2nd war.