Potential Accuracy of Military Rifles

[303Guy]

I keep hearing that the trusty old Lee Enfield was not accurate and so on, so, what accuracy were the old warhorses capable of? All of them right down to the Mosin Nagant and the AK47. Throw in the Martini Henry too and the Lee Medford with black powder.

I'd like to know what any or all these can do with both military ammo and cast boolits.

[Multigunner]

The U S Marines had the most accurate sniper rifle of WW2. These used the 1903 Springfield M1941 with the Unertl long range match type scope with high magnification of 7.8X. In one action a Marine sniper picked off an entire Japanese gun crew at 1200 yards, mountain top to mountain top shooting.
The scope with its recoil spring suspension could be fouled by sand, so they locked out that feature.

Here's the specs on the rifle and scope.
http://olive-drab.com/od_other_firearms_rifle_m1941usmc.php

PS
The Enfields are capable of amazing accuracy, if you get a good one with minimum tolerance bore size and carefully bed the fore end. You also have to find the best quality ammunition or better yet tailor a handload specifically for the individual rifle.
Its a challenge to get match grade accuracy from an Enfield. I personally like the challenge.

[historicfirearms]

I've owned a number of AKs and most of them were decently accurate. The problem with them is two fold, first being the sights for me. It's hard to get an accurate sight picture with them. The second problem is that most AK owners have a love for cheap ammo. Wolf, Tulammo, etc are usually only good for about 8 moa in my experience. Use good quality ammo, or preferably good reloads with a properly sized cast boolit and groups will be much better.
One other thing to think about is that these guns, in their original designed use, are not needed to shoot tiny little groups. They are foremost needed to be reliable. Accuracy is good enough if you can hit a torso sized target at the expected combat range.

[jonk]

Given a good crown, proper bullet fit, good bedding, shiny bore with crisp rifling, and a load the gun likes, sub MOA. I have seen guys with K-31s and Swede 96s do it. Usually for every day shooting, if I get 2" at 100 yards over open sights from a bench, I'm happy. As run of the mill, if not pitted or whatever, I would say 2-3".

[Outpost75]

With ordinary service grade FMJ ammunition 1 mil is the expected dispersion of a 10-shot group, 100 mm at 100 metres, 200mm at 200 metres, etc.

Match grade ammunition in a good rifle can halve that. Only the very best will beat a half mil over the long haul for a series of five or more consecutive ten-shot groups.

Firing 5-shot groups you will get occasional very good ones as the expression of random variations of chance, so to get any realistic evaluation of accuracy you should shoot not less than five consecutive 5-shot groups without excluding anything. Firing ten groups is better.

When working non load development, looking for trends firing a single ten-shot group will tell you alot. Getting a round group with a dense center is a favorable indication.

There are no "lucky" ten-shot groups. In a military bolt rifle a 2 inch ten-shot group at 100 yards is attainable and a worthy goal. The groups below were fired in an '03 Springfield with Lyman 48 rear sight and Lyman 17A front at 100 yards, with a subsonic gallery load of 6 grains of Bullseye and the NEI#69 bullet, which was the original precursor to the HM .312-160-5 of the current group buy.

82919

[Sensai]

How fast can a Chevy go? I think you're asking the same type question. Military weapons are made with loose tolerances to increase reliability under conditions that no one in his right mind wants to be under. That doesn't mean that some of them aren't accurate, it just means that accuracy in today's terms wasn't the primary concern during their design or manufacture. I'm not a hundred percent convinced that tight tolerances have a direct relationship to good accuracy, but I've seen more accurate rifles with tight tolerances than I've seen accurate rifles with loose tolerances. I did have a 1903 that shot very well indeed but was hard to load for because the chamber was almost oval shaped and absolutely huge. I wish that I knew which stars have to line up to have an accurate rifle, but until I find out I'll just have to play the odds and go for the tightest tolerances. But I'm not telling you anything new!:bigsmyl2:

[frnkeore]

I had a SKS with a 16" barrel that took AK mags and I still have a AK with a 20" barrel, both Norinco. I took both of them to the range, using the Laupa ammo that I bought in 1995.

In shooting 5 shot groups, the SKS averaged ~2" groups, while the "Sniper" AK averaged ~3" groups, both at 100 yards with issue sights. I traded the SKS for a 1899 Savage but, I still have the "Sniper" :)

Frank

[303Guy]

Thanks all. Now the 6.5 Swede is reputed to be the most accurate military rifle of its era - any truth to that? The Ross hasn't been mentioned yet - that's supposed to be an accurate rifle too.

I have a non military caliber SMLE actioned rifle that has shot sub MOA for me at 180yds. I think it was ½ MOA. Long skinny barrel like an SMLE, free floated.
I have this 'rust tectured' bore two-groove No4 that shoots really well. Haven't shot groups with it though. That too is free floated.
Then I have an MLE with a No 4 barrel that shoots 1¼ MOA 10 shot groups, also free floated.
I had a Mini-14 that with taylored loads would shoot 1½ MOA 10 shot groups. These are/were scoped rifles. Only the Mini-14 could be considered 'military'.

I've seen an SKS shoot pretty well with cheep Wolf or Barnaul ammo.

[truckjohn]

I find the primary driver of "Accuracy" in most of those old military rifles is the condition they show up in.... When they have a minty, tight bore and are properly adjusted - many shoot quite well.... When the barrel is worn out or badly abused - they hardly ever shoot well.... Unfortunately 99% of them show up in Condition #2....

Now... The big thing that gets most folks is the Sights.... The vast majority of military sights are horrible things.. but they are rugged and not apt to be destroyed by the soldier in question.... As an aside - that was the major issue with the USMC 1903 sniper rifle - it was QUITE fragile... Look at it the wrong way and it won't shoot right... Turns out that most sniper rifles were quite fragile... and that's one of the reasons they only gave them to specially selected and trained professional soldiers.... They didn't issue them to the "Masses"..... They almost never issued Snipers with Bayonets - as ONE bayonet practice session would knock the whole rifle out of adjustment.... Those fellows got pistols for close in work....

I find the same thing with "Normal" rifles... 30-30's are a good example... 3" guns is what folks say they are... Properly mount an optical scope on them and Many will hang in there sub-MOA.... It's not that they can't shoot well... It's that their sights aren't friendly for accurate shooting....

Thanks

[merlin101]

I have an old Argintine Mauser in 7x57. Never shot paper with it but if you can guess the range correctly you break 12" balloons every time out to 700yds. Metals in great shape to bad the stocks bufugly.

[Bad Ass Wallace]

This 20 shot group was fired from my 1915 vintage SMLE 303 with jacketted rounds from a bench (the 5 lower shots were before a sight correction)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v152/BAWallace/Mystery2Target.jpg (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/BAWallace/media/Mystery2Target.jpg.html)

These 10 shot groups fired with even older vintage rifles and cast boolits; note that each group has a cluster of 5 into a ragged hole which is about as good as 60+ eyes can manage

LSA LE 1900 manufacture, after scrubbing. polishing and load development;

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v152/BAWallace/LE1900ActionampMag_zps7098e5ee.jpg (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/BAWallace/media/LE1900ActionampMag_zps7098e5ee.jpg.html)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v152/BAWallace/LECastBullet150913_A_zps0f00adc0.jpg (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/BAWallace/media/LECastBullet150913_A_zps0f00adc0.jpg.html)

1896 HRB & Co Martini Enfield

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v152/BAWallace/IMG_0080_e_zpsde5eede3.jpg (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/BAWallace/media/IMG_0080_e_zpsde5eede3.jpg.html)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v152/BAWallace/QMECastBullet150913_A_zpsd83d3326.jpg (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/BAWallace/media/QMECastBullet150913_A_zpsd83d3326.jpg.html)

[JHeath]

Given a good crown, proper bullet fit, good bedding, shiny bore with crisp rifling, and a load the gun likes, sub MOA.

+1. Good crown, correct bedding including forearm pressure, and the right load do it. Shiny bore may be optional.

Rifles with inconsistently rattling, loose components including bedding, bolt/gas system, etc. will never shoot well. Most bolt guns can be bedded and crowned and are potentially accurate. Two piece stocks can make it harder. AKs have low potential.

[Dale in Louisiana]

I have a Ross .303. I only recently started casting and loading .303 and it's been too darned hot for range work, but I will be trying her out soon. I was surprised when I first bought the rifle. With commercial factory ammo she pulled about half an inch at fifty yards. I expect good things once I play with some cast loads.

dale in Louisiana

[texassako]

The Finns really knew how to make the Mosins accurate. My M28-76 that shoots sub-MOA with cast and some of the better quality surplus and Factory loads may be a bit newer than you were thinking, but it is built on a 1907 receiver. One that may surprise some people is 7.35 Carcanos. They have a very tight, almost a match style, chamber that I have to neck turn brass just to get a .002" over cast bullet to chamber. The one I have scoped will shoot about MOA using longer bullets, ie. not the stubby Hornady factory jacketed bullet. I have a 155gr custom mold from Accurate for it that should be a bit longer and heavier for better accuracy I think since it shoots a 170gr jacketed bullet that matches the military profile the best. It was real long but lightened with aluminum in the nose of the bullet. Kind of strange since they put sights on the Carcano that were for hitting minute of torso, not targets.

[303Guy]

That Martini group is not bad at all for the horrible sights they had - assuming it has those horrible sights. The sights alone would produce vertical dispersion.

Does anyone have a 577/455 Martini for grouping? What about the 45-70 Trapdoor?

Something that's puzzling me is the fore-end pressure question. My guns are all free floated (the fore-ends are too short to provide upward pressure near the muzzle anyway) and they seem to shoot pretty well like that. Yet military match rifles are all bedded to provide fore-end pressure. Has anyone tried to compare the two bedding methods?

I have two SMLE sporters still with the centre barrel band which secures the fore-end to the barrel. I've never fired them so I have no idea how they shoot.

[beemer]

I had a No1 that was bound up in the stock. Both free floating and fore-end pressure was used. About 5 lbs. made the rifle shoot as good as any Enfield and I have ever owned.

A No 4 Mk2 was a different story. The rifle was unissued, it had fore-end pressure and shot well. After I had it about a year the fore stock warped enough to move the poi about 12 in. at 100 yds. The fore stock had been sawn out close to a knot, the change in grain direction caused the problem. I shortened the fore end and accuracy went out the window. I played with it for about a year with no luck and finally replaced the fore stock with a new one. I ended up free floating the barrel, accuracy was maybe a little better with fore-end pressure but the poi is less likely to change due to humidity. It would not shoot well free floated with the short stock but did with the full length one. That's one that doesn't make sense.

I guess that each rifle is different, and responds differently.

Dave

[303Guy]

So free floating was a little worse than with fore-end pressure. Very interesting. I wonder whether pressure on the barrel near the middle is bad because it's right on a node.

There's a barrel harmonics program that allows manipulation of the barrel geometry and placing a weight in the middle increases muzzle axis deflection and thinning it in the middle and thickening it near the muzzle reduced muzzle deflection.

[303carbine]

I had a No1 that was bound up in the stock. Both free floating and fore-end pressure was used. About 5 lbs. made the rifle shoot as good as any Enfield and I have ever owned.

A No 4 Mk2 was a different story. The rifle was unissued, it had fore-end pressure and shot well. After I had it about a year the fore stock warped enough to move the poi about 12 in. at 100 yds. The fore stock had been sawn out close to a knot, the change in grain direction caused the problem. I shortened the fore end and accuracy went out the window. I played with it for about a year with no luck and finally replaced the fore stock with a new one. I ended up free floating the barrel, accuracy was maybe a little better with fore-end pressure but the poi is less likely to change due to humidity. It would not shoot well free floated with the short stock but did with the full length one. That's one that doesn't make sense.

I guess that each rifle is different, and responds differently.

Dave

When I read about the No4Mk1, I gathered that it originally was made with a heavier free floated barrel. I have always had better luck accuracy wise when I could move the barrel around at the tip where it didn't touch anywhere. Some shot better with near top loads, others did better with starting loads. they are all a bit different.

[bandit7.5]

With my 1911 schmidt-rubin I can hit anything with gp-11ammo out to 450 yards with my old eyes. My mausers do better with the scopes on them with milsurp ammo. I have not pushed cast as hard but it works well even with my old eyes

[Multigunner]

I have two SMLE sporters still with the centre barrel band which secures the fore-end to the barrel. I've never fired them so I have no idea how they shoot.

A friend had a sporter SMLE with band still in place. It was passably accurate but groups were larger than they should have been.
I made some washers from plastic and put these under the band so that instead of pulling the barrel down tight the band pushed up on the barrel. Group sizes immediately shrank by half.
This might not work out for all such sportered fore ends, but its worth a try.

Another friend had a No.5 that shot well enough but had a badly damaged handguard. he made a replacement guard from seasoned walnut I gave him but it was not a good fit at first. When the stock band was tightened the gauard pressed down hard on the barrel. Surprisingly this greatly improved his long range accuracy and he was able to get sub MOA groupings at 600 yards using tailored handloads with some leftover twenty year old IMR 4198 powder I gave him to experiment with. I had also ordered a No.3 bolt head for him when I ordered mine. The reduced head gap made reloading easy and also improved accuracy.

[303Guy]

No.4's were free floated? I thought they had barrel pressure up front? Mind you I also thought SMLE's were cork packed but I've been told that was only done for match rifles. Now I'm not sure of anything.

My accurate two-groove and No.4 barrelled MLE have tight chambers. The MLE has a heavy forearm so adding upward pressure would be easy. The wood is well matured by now, some 35 years after I made it. Ill be heading back out to the range soon after a long break to do some testing.

[303carbine]

No.4's were free floated? I thought they had barrel pressure up front? Mind you I also thought SMLE's were cork packed but I've been told that was only done for match rifles. Now I'm not sure of anything.

My accurate two-groove and No.4 barrelled MLE have tight chambers. The MLE has a heavy forearm so adding upward pressure would be easy. The wood is well matured by now, some 35 years after I made it. Ill be heading back out to the range soon after a long break to do some testing.

As I said, all the stuff I read about the No4Mk1 rifles were made with heavier barrels than the No1Mk111 rifles and were free floated.
The last No5Mk1 I had didn't shoot as good as it could, I took it apart and sanded the barrel channel with sandpaper wrapped on a wooden dowel. The upper handguards hardly ever had to be touched as the didn't warp like the fore end wood can.
The No5's were made with the same heavy barrels, they were shorter and I found they shot better without any barrel bedding. Of course I didn't touch any of the bedding around the magazine or trigger guard. The kingscrew can work loose over time, this is not good for accuracy, I usually clean up the screw threads and use blue Loctite to make sure they don't back out again.
The best accuracy improvement for the No4 or No5 was to free float the barrel and be sure the mating surfaces around the mag well and trigger guard are tight and flush fitting.

[Outpost75]

I've never seen a No.4 which came from the armory with a floated barrel. Some Yankee home gunsmith has been fiddling with it.

I've always bedded my barrels to have firm contact at the Knox form under the chamber, and with centre bearing at the lower band, and then the handguards relieved from contacting the barrel from the rear band forward. Centre bearing is supposedly the Canadian method, whereas I understand the Brits like muzzle bearing. I've tried both and think that in the No.4 at least, the centre bearing is easier to achieve and to obtain good results.

[303carbine]

I have never had to take the wood down under the knox, I leave that but make sure the rest of the barrel doesn't touch.
When I epoxy bed my modern hunting rifles, I free float the barrel and epoxy bed under the chamber only. This is the same way the No4 ends up as, free floated barrel with the wood under the knox form touching that acts like the epoxy bedding in the modern rifles I have, it works.
The No1Mk111 is sometimes tougher to get to shoot, I have seen what they call "packed rifles", which has multiple bedding points all with differing pressures.
I lucked out with my No1Mk111 rebuild, it went together with no issues at all and it's accurate without any tuning. One of the No1Mk111 rifles I had last year was a bear to get to shoot good, I had to bed the magwell, add thin cork to the upper band and under the nosecap.
After all the tweaking, I manged to get it shot be a real decent shooter, it just took longer than my recent BSA build.

[Multigunner]

They tried out a number of bedding methods for the No.4 rifles including free floating. Armorers also made alterations to bedding in attempting to get a rifle to shoot well.
The standard bedding had pressure from the hand guard tip, this was not to improve accuracy but rather to reduce shifting in point of impact between firing with out and with bayonet mounted. This fore end tip pressure actually adversely affected accuracy over all.

To offset affects of wood swelling in humid climates Indian armorers developed a method of free floating the barrel except for a small metal staple driven into the barrel channel about midway between receiver ring and lower band. The metal staple gave light upwards pressure, but soon got beaten down by barrel vibrations. I've used an alternative method by inletting a strip of hardwood at the same spot. Results were very good.

PS
Just found a clue to the alloy used for the No.4 rifle action body. Major Reynolds lists the ingrediants but not the percentages.
Carbon
Nickel
Chrome
Tungsten
Manganese
Molybdenum
Zirconium
Vanadium
Silicon


PPS
Back to the USMC 1903a1 rifle M1941 for a moment.
Much has been made of ammunition quality. In one source its stated that the M1941 gave groups of .58 MOA at six hundred yards using M72 Matchgrade ammo. Since this ammo was in short supply they mainly used M2 Ball ammo which gave groups of 1.25 MOA at the same range.
So it would appear that the ammo quality situation was over blown for the most part, though no doubt there were occasional bad lots of M2 ammo.
The accuracy of the M1941 rifle with Matchgrade ammo was on par with the best of modern 7.62 NATO sniper rifles.

Good barrels were a major factor. The Marines chose National Match grade rifles for conversion when available. These barrels were usually star gauged for close tolerances.

[MtGun44]

IME, the 1903 Springfield is probably the most accurate, with the Finn M39 (and variants) in second, with
the 6.5 Swedes and K31 right in there, too. Pretty much depends on condition of the particular example
and quality of ammo. After that - most of the rest are good for 3" at 100 yds as they stand, on the greater
average, with a few examples exceeding that but not by much. As to AKs, I have never personally witnessed
one shoot better than about 5" at 100, and I have never been able to exceed 6" with any that I have owned,
only a couple.

One of the big issues obscuring this is that MANY maybe even most milsurps have barrels between fair and worse
condition, and a lot of the ammo that they are using was only mediocre quality when it was new, and much of it
is old, was stored (in many cases) badly and this is unlikely to have increased the accuracy of the ammo.

It's only fair to compare guns with at least very good barrels and quality ammo.

Bill

[gew98]

IME, the 1903 Springfield is probably the most accurate, with the Finn M39 (and variants) in second, with
the 6.5 Swedes and K31 right in there, too. Pretty much depends on condition of the particular example
and quality of ammo. After that - most of the rest are good for 3" at 100 yds as they stand, on the greater
average, with a few examples exceeding that but not by much. As to AKs, I have never personally witnessed
one shoot better than about 5" at 100, and I have never been able to exceed 6" with any that I have owned,
only a couple.

One of the big issues obscuring this is that MANY maybe even most milsurps have barrels between fair and worse
condition, and a lot of the ammo that they are using was only mediocre quality when it was new, and much of it
is old, was stored (in many cases) badly and this is unlikely to have increased the accuracy of the ammo.

It's only fair to compare guns with at least very good barrels and quality ammo.

Bill

Apparently you never snuggled up with a Patt'14 in original trim. They will outshoot the '03 with none of the dangers of breaking loose and or cheesy stocking up. AK's are nothing more than a bullet hose..no more needs to be said there.The swede and swiss rifles...well with the exception of some serving the finn's against the russians none of them saw combat and hence were more or less target pieces over their combat capabilities...much akin to the '03 thingy.

[gew98]

They tried out a number of bedding methods for the No.4 rifles including free floating. Armorers also made alterations to bedding in attempting to get a rifle to shoot well.
The standard bedding had pressure from the hand guard tip, this was not to improve accuracy but rather to reduce shifting in point of impact between firing with out and with bayonet mounted. This fore end tip pressure actually adversely affected accuracy over all.

To offset affects of wood swelling in humid climates Indian armorers developed a method of free floating the barrel except for a small metal staple driven into the barrel channel about midway between receiver ring and lower band. The metal staple gave light upwards pressure, but soon got beaten down by barrel vibrations. I've used an alternative method by inletting a strip of hardwood at the same spot. Results were very good.

PS
Just found a clue to the alloy used for the No.4 rifle action body. Major Reynolds lists the ingrediants but not the percentages.
Carbon
Nickel
Chrome
Tungsten
Manganese
Molybdenum
Zirconium
Vanadium
Silicon


PPS
Back to the USMC 1903a1 rifle M1941 for a moment.
Much has been made of ammunition quality. In one source its stated that the M1941 gave groups of .58 MOA at six hundred yards using M72 Matchgrade ammo. Since this ammo was in short supply they mainly used M2 Ball ammo which gave groups of 1.25 MOA at the same range.
So it would appear that the ammo quality situation was over blown for the most part, though no doubt there were occasional bad lots of M2 ammo.
The accuracy of the M1941 rifle with Matchgrade ammo was on par with the best of modern 7.62 NATO sniper rifles.

Good barrels were a major factor. The Marines chose National Match grade rifles for conversion when available. These barrels were usually star gauged for close tolerances.

And again your vague love fest for the 03 shows it'self.Have you read books like "shots fired in anger " or "Ordnance went up front"....both books written by experianced from target to combat rifleman whom both disliked the 03 and it's issue ammunition to heretical lengths. But I digress as the vague alloy this or that data is so ah wow.... and the nuts and bolts of all else with whom actually used same on the ground mean nothing apparently. I luvz de internetz !!.

[JHeath]

I was told by an expert high power shooter that M1As needed a good amount of downward forearm tension on the barrel. He built his own this way and they were extremely accurate -- like 1/2 minute. I later had an M1A bedded by a smith who free-floated the barrel contrary to what I thought I told him. When I arrived to I pick up the rifle, I expressed disappointment about that part of his work. He offered to re-bed the rifle, but asked that I accompany him to a range to test-fire it first. He closed his shop and we drove together to the range. We both shot 3/4" groups at 100 yards with the iron sights, so I shut up and accepted it.

[Multigunner]

And again your vague love fest for the 03 shows it'self.Have you read books like "shots fired in anger " or "Ordnance went up front"....both books written by experianced from target to combat rifleman whom both disliked the 03 and it's issue ammunition to heretical lengths. But I digress as the vague alloy this or that data is so ah wow.... and the nuts and bolts of all else with whom actually used same on the ground mean nothing apparently. I luvz de internetz !!.

Strange how the only sources you respect are those who share your "herectical" distaste for fine weapons.
As for the alloying agents mentioned, theres long been a difficulty in finding exact contents and percentages for the No.4 and 2A Indian rifle, with speculation on whether vanadium was actually used with either alloy.
The percentages and acceptable tolerances are available for most other WW2 rifles and some WW1 rifles.
The wide acceptance tolerances for the alloy used for the SMLE is probably why some hold up better than others.
At its high end the Nickel content of that alloy is in line with that used for the P-14 and M1917 rifles, but the low end has nearly a percentage point less nickel.
The less Nickel the less resistance to plastic deformation when stretched.
Believe it or not many collectors and shooters are actually interested in the steel used and machining details of the rifles they own.

No doubt a marksman who had fired many a round of match grade M72 ammo would be very disappointed by any diminution in accuracy when using the M2 Ball cartridge.

I certainly can't see where you get the cheesy stocking up remark. The 03A1 used high quality wood and expert bedding procedures.

Your limited experiences with reactivated drill rifles or beat to death clunkers may have given you some false impressions.

The British had very little good to say about your favorite German rifles, yet that has not dimmed your ardor a bit now has it.

[country gent]

In my experience with the 03, p17, garand, M1A/14, ar 15/16 most with good ammo will outshoot most shooters. I laid down with several issue garands at perry ( sighting in for CMP beginners match) and shot 1 1/2-2 groups with rack grade rifles and ball ammo. Most were in the 2-3 min area but still for ww2 rifles stored poorly and with little care not bad. 250 rifles were sighned out from erie ordanance for this match.The old service rifles will shoot decent with a ;little tuning they can become tack drivers

[303Guy]

I actually enjoy gew98's view point and comments. :mrgreen: If no one expressed opposing views I'd be inclined to develop a notion that the Lee Enfield the best there is. But it's not. It's still a great rifle though, for all its faults and it has a few. There's nothing uglier than the SMLE but then I may have already mentioned that.8-)

I wish I was in a position to challenge you folks with your 'other than Lee Enfield' rifles to a postal shoot out.:Fire: Maybe we could actually do that? Just shoot a 10 shot group and post the results. (I'd like to see a Martini Henry and a trapdoor's results).

By the way, I thought the gew98 was supposed to be both reliable and accurate? Why did the Brits not like the German rifles? Mind you,I wouldn't like the rifle being used to shoot me with!

[country gent]

Yeppers 303 guy same reason the Japenese and germans didnt like the garand or Springfield or the 1911. The draw back to most military rifles are the military sights. They are built tough and heavy. not easily used for fine work. Being an old NRA service rifle competitor for many years ( I started with a garand then M1A and finally AR15) I have seen and shot great military rifles. As the greatest form of flatery the japenese had actually reverse engineered a garand copy towards the end of the war.

[303Guy]

I think the Garand was a marvellous rifle and it's 8 round clip was brilliant. How well did the Garand shoot? And how well did the Garand stand up to dirty battle conditions?

[Multigunner]

I think the Garand was a marvellous rifle and it's 8 round clip was brilliant. How well did the Garand shoot? And how well did the Garand stand up to dirty battle conditions?

Only notable problem the Garand exhibited was in sub zero weather when the standard lube could freeze solid. The charging handle rode a shallow track on the right side of the receiver and when frozen tight the charging handle could break off when fired.
To prevent this soldiers in Korea, where the problem first presented itself, began lubing the action with Vitalis hair oil in place of the standard gun oil. Later they used a thin coating of Lubriplate grease for the purpose.

Since the Garand can be quickly and easily stripped for cleaning without tools accumulation of fouling or grime was not a problem.

The Garand action was torture tested using specially constructed proof cartridges of 125,000 CUP. After many firings one bolt lug sheared but the receiver was not damaged so testing continued with only one lug.
An early problem with jamming if a clip had the first round on the wrong side was traced to a manufacturing flaw. A portion of the clip guide rails had been drilled away during boring out of the receiver ring. That flaw was corrected and early receivers repaired by welding and recutting of the guide.

Accuracy was very good for an auto-loader but not as good as that of the 1903. With proper bedding the Garand has been a long range Match rifle.
I've plinked widely spaced 12 oz water bottles at two hundred yards using a rather doggy looking Garand, firing from a standing position and hitting 8 out of 8 rapid fire. That's certainly good enough for government work.

The British tested captured W2 German sniper rifles and were not impressed. They were more impressed by the WW1 German sniper rifles that used commercial scopes. The WW1 German rifles far out classed the Scoped SMLE.
Some of the WW2 German rifles had very low powered long eye relief scopes of 1.5X that don't seem to have held up very well. Others used excellent commercial scopes of 6X or so.

Sniper rifles with scopes of 4X or less are more battle field sharpshooter rifles than true long range sniper rifles. USMC marksmen with iron sighted Springfields could often out shoot adversaries armed with scoped rifles.
The U S Army had rather poor attitude towards sniping, and few U S Army snipers had any specialized training. When you hear someone dissing the 03A4 its most likely because they themselves were not nearly as good a shot as they thought they were. They then have to blame the rifle in oder to salvage their self image.
Observer bias also plays a part. Someone who despises a particular rifle before ever trying it is unlikely to be able to shoot that rifle very well at all. They defeat themselves before they start.

Modern sniper rifles seldom bear any resemblance to battle rifles. These are specialized rifles built from ground up for the purpose.

There's an old but true adage about archery. A mediocre bow can get great results with a very well made arrow, but the best bow can not get good results if a poorly made arrow is used. Much the same can be said for rifles.

PS
I like the SMLE rear sight with windage adjustment better than any other open sight, but the windage adjustment was dropped with the MkIII* rifles and for the most part disabled on earlier rifles at some point. The P-14 aperture sight did not have windage adjustment.

[303carbine]

I think the Garand was a marvellous rifle and it's 8 round clip was brilliant. How well did the Garand shoot? And how well did the Garand stand up to dirty battle conditions?

I wish the Garand had detachable 10 and 20 round mags that could be topped off instead of waiting for the ping.
The Garand is a super battle rifle, but the Enfield still is my choice. As far as reliabilty, I think they are equal.

[Multigunner]

I wish the Garand had detachable 10 and 20 round mags that could be topped off instead of waiting for the ping.
The Garand is a super battle rifle, but the Enfield still is my choice. As far as reliabilty, I think they are equal.
There were experimental conversions, the Garand fitted with the BAR magazine. The Italians also built several versions of the Garand in 7.62 NATO and fitted with 20 round magazines.
Personally I prefer the enbloc clip.
A large capacity magazine just throws off the balance (even though theoretically it shouldn't) and forces a shooter in the prone position to a slightly higher profile.

The original prototypes in .276 Pederson used a ten shot clip.
Reloading using the enbloc clip is faster than using a stripper clip would be.

[303carbine]

There were experimental conversions, the Garand fitted with the BAR magazine. The Italians also built several versions of the Garand in 7.62 NATO and fitted with 20 round magazines.
Personally I prefer the enbloc clip.
A large capacity magazine just throws off the balance (even though theoretically it shouldn't) and forces a shooter in the prone position to a slightly higher profile.

The original prototypes in .276 Pederson used a ten shot clip.
Reloading using the enbloc clip is faster than using a stripper clip would be.

I have shot the Garand, probably not as much as some have, I prefer a mag that can be topped off when needed.
The M14 is my favorite, the M16 doesn't doesn't make it for me.

[Multigunner]

I have shot the Garand, probably not as much as some have, I prefer a mag that can be topped off when needed.
The M14 is my favorite, the M16 doesn't doesn't make it for me.

One possible advantage of a long heavy magazine would be to act as a counter weight to prevent unconscious canting of the rifle when firing.

[303carbine]

One possible advantage of a long heavy magazine would be to act as a counter weight to prevent unconscious canting of the rifle when firing.

I never do that,but yeah.:razz:

[Multigunner]

I never do that,but yeah.:razz:

Canting is especially bad for long range shooting. The horizon wire of the British no. 32 scope is there to help prevent canting. It does not move when adjusting for elevation, the sight having a post reticle.
The horizontal cross hair of the more common type of reticles can be used as a horizon wire.
I modified the fit of my No.4 butt stock to have a good deal of toe out to aid in avoiding canting when in the prone position.
Most British shotguns have this sort of toe out along with cast off to give a more natural hold, the African game double rifles usually have this as well. Most American rifle and shotguns are straight stocked or nearly so.

The Sniper versions of the Garand have a feature that is handy for those with a left dominate eye.
A friend who has left dominate eye but is right handed uses his Garand with offset sniper scope mount but without the lace on cheek piece to fire from the right shoulder while aiming with the left eye.
The WW1 scoped SMLE rifles also used off set scope mounts, to allow charger loading. This presented a problem in firing though a loophole. They later developed an inverted L shaped loophole to accommodate the scope. This left a larger opening vulnerable to enemy return fire.

Offset scopes are not as big a drawback to accuracy as one might expect. When sighted for long range the bullets path is never further from the line of sight than the offset at intermediate ranges and converges till it intersects. At closer ranges you just use a hair of Kentucky windage.

[Dale in Louisiana]

I think the Garand was a marvellous rifle and it's 8 round clip was brilliant. How well did the Garand shoot? And how well did the Garand stand up to dirty battle conditions?
Off the rack with issue ammo, the Garand will work over a human-sized target ALL DAY at 600 yards.

If you give one to a good armorer who knows how to match-prep one, and then feed it good ammo, it will hold the ten-ring on a target all day, but you'll have a delicate little flower of a weapon in place of the greatest battle implement ever made (George Patton's words, not mine).

The same goes for the M14/M1A.

And then we have the big Awakening: The M-16 platform took over the highpower match bizz twenty years ago and hasn't looked back. Unlike the steel and wood rifles, the M-16 is generally less susceptible to 'needing the bedding refreshed' because essentially there is no bedding. Of course, turning a rack-grade M-16 to a target rifle means that you've changed the barrel, the bolt, the trigger, the forearm, the sights...

You get the picture. Service rifles are hardy bits of kit that will deliver lethal accuracy on man-sized targets at reasonable distances. If you want to play with them, you can make them shoot better with a bit of TLC and jiggering with ammo.

Or you can turn one into a pimped-out match rifle that has about as much in common with the original as a shih-tzu has with a polar bear.

dale in Louisiana

[JHeath]

And then we have the big Awakening: The M-16 platform took over the highpower match bizz twenty years ago and hasn't looked back. Unlike the steel and wood rifles, the M-16 is generally less susceptible to 'needing the bedding refreshed' because essentially there is no bedding. Of course, turning a rack-grade M-16 to a target rifle means that you've changed the barrel, the bolt, the trigger, the forearm, the sights...



Two elements will produce mechanical accuracy in anything from a Berthier to an AK. One is that the rifle including action, bedding, barrel etc. has to vibrate or oscillate the same with every shot. They all oscillate, but you have to make it consistent. It's easier to do this with a Model 700 than with an AK . . .

The other is that the bullet must be stabilized, which is a combination of the right weight for the twist, clean bullet base, good crown, and other stuff.

If the rifle oscillates the same every time and the bullet stabilizes, you can get mechanical consistency shot-to-shot.

Then there are the peripherals like the shooter "interface" via sights and trigger. These allow the rifle to be aimed to the same point each time the shot breaks.

And the basics like 'is the scope loose'?

The tough part is that occasionally a rifle seems to want difficult-to-discover combinations of load with either forearm pressure or free-floating. Lots of variables there.

Bolt guns are usually easiest to sort out. Two-piece stocks, forearm hangers, tube magazines, barrel bands etc. add variables. M1As have lots of variables but the high power guys sorted those out for kids like me.

The AR became dominant in high power shooting because the low recoil gives a rapid-fire score advantage over the M1A. But it took decades to figure out how to make the "poodle shooters" work at high-power distances, because of bullet weight/twist-rate issues.

M1A and bolt-gun shooters avoid removing barreled actions from stocks because doing so can only wear the bedding. They are also careful to invert the rifle when cleaning to keep solvents out of the bedding. And they clean barrels very seldom, only when they have a good reason to believe that fouling has built up. I don't think they have to re-bed much, but they do have to be careful with the bedding.

[Win94ae]

Sorry for the bad quality video, one of my first.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OeKl7Q55Aek
Eddystone US model of 1917, surplus using ammo from 1957. If I remember correctly, that was a 2 inch 4 shot group at 200 yards.

New AK-47 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pzBMgK6UbX8)
AK-47 using TulAmmo, 2.125" 3 shot group at 100 yards.

That is all the military weaponry that I have which are stock... of course the AK is altered.

I know all about the doubters, I am ridiculed at other sites for displaying my AK and Win94 groups. Even at dedicated AK sites they'll troll me if I even hint at an AK shooting well. I think it says a lot more about the shooter than their weapon.

[MtGun44]

Actually, I recently acquired a P14, but have not had time to create some quality ammo
to give it a fair test. The only ammo I have shot is some crummy milsurp I had on
hand. I do have a US Enfield in superb condition and it is much less accurate than my
multiple -03s and 03A3s, so I am a bit skeptical of the P14 at this point. My experience
with the US 1917 Enfield does not match those that have found them to be very accurate,
mine is mediocre at best, even with best grade match ammo (Fed GM).

Bill

[HARRYMPOPE]

look over the CBA military rifle match data and records.The 1903(A3),39 Finn and Swiss K31 are what wins most often.A couple P-17's do get pretty close though.This is all that needs to be said.

George

[Multigunner]

The M1917 while not quite as accurate as the M1903 remained accurate after firing many more rounds than the 03 or any other contemporary rifle. This was due to a combination of the deep Enfield style grooves and the American use of cooler burning single base propellants for the .30-06 cartridge.
A Springfield began to lose long range accuracy at between 4,500 and 5,000 rounds, with 18,000 rnd the usual limit for good combat accuracy. The M1917 could fire from 30,000 to 50,000 rounds and still give respectable combat accuracy.
A lot depended on how well the bore was cleaned and the more substantial lands of the M1917 bore held up better to rough cleaning methods.
The deeper grooves could also hold more fouling before they choked up. A level of metal fouling that would adversely affect accuracy of most rifles had far less effect on the Enfield rifling of the M1917.
I've cleaned a Garand bore that looked like a smoothbore till I broke loose the hardened fouling in the grooves. Many military rifles did not get a proper cleaning throughout their service life, especially in near daily combat or when used by partizans and ill trained conscripts.

[gew98]

Actually, I recently acquired a P14, but have not had time to create some quality ammo
to give it a fair test. The only ammo I have shot is some crummy milsurp I had on
hand. I do have a US Enfield in superb condition and it is much less accurate than my
multiple -03s and 03A3s, so I am a bit skeptical of the P14 at this point. My experience
with the US 1917 Enfield does not match those that have found them to be very accurate,
mine is mediocre at best, even with best grade match ammo (Fed GM).

Bill

I'm no fan of the half breed bred too quickly Model 1917 rifle(s) . But the .303 Patt'14..it will outshoot the .30 cal M17 and the 03 "thingies" all day long... and nary a blow up !.

[MtGun44]

I think the comment that the matches are being won by 03s, M39s and K31s is right on, matches
are real tests and not just one fluke of a rifle. This agrees with my experience, too.

Bill

[JHeath]

I think the comment that the matches are being won by 03s, M39s and K31s is right on, matches
are real tests and not just one fluke of a rifle. This agrees with my experience, too.

Bill

Competition tends to weed out less-effective equipment. But there's a "sample bias" too. The '03 has over a century of testing and development as a target rifle among US shooters and is widely available.

Probably a lot fewer competitors tried to make (for example) a MAS 36 work, and those guys had to figure everything out for themselves unlike the '03 guys. Maybe in France the MAS wins all the matches and there's one lonely guy trying to figure out how make an '03 shoot, and everybody is telling him it's a waste of time . . .

Also, there's a difference between a mechanically accurate rifle and one that wins matches. I might have a 1/4-minute Carcano but the sights will keep me out of the black.

I'm surprised the Swede Mausers aren't more dominant. They seem to be good rifles, a friendly low-recoil cartridge, and have a lot of supporters with technical knowledge.

[Multigunner]

Probably a lot fewer competitors tried to make (for example) a MAS 36 work, and those guys had to figure everything out for themselves unlike the '03 guys.
Haven't heard of its use in competition, but the French 7.62 NATO bolt action sniper rifle based on the MAS36 action was in regular issue till recently.
The action of the MAS36 looks very much like a early Mauser rear locking action I've seen drawings of in a Mauser patent.
The patent was on some particular feature added to the design rather than the design itself, so there were no identifying details about the action itself.
Since Spandau developed the Gew88 from reverse engineering a stolen Lebel rifle I wonder if the French lifted the Mauser drawings and used these as a basis for the MAS36.

[Bad Ass Wallace]

That Martini group is not bad at all for the horrible sights they had - assuming it has those horrible sights. The sights alone would produce vertical dispersion.

Does anyone have a 577/455 Martini for grouping? What about the 45-70 Trapdoor?



I think I have my 577/450 sorted with this 10 shot group

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v152/BAWallace/577_450_50m.jpg (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/BAWallace/media/577_450_50m.jpg.html)

[robertbank]

The number 4 rifle in Longbranch form from my experience works best with a free floating barrel and some bedding just in front of the trigger guard. The ladder sights on mine obviously were designed for combat and with my aging eyes were never going to work when it comes to deciding of my rifle was a shooter or not. To offset my ageing eyes I cheated and put a 4x scope on the gun. Here is the result at 100 yards using cast boolits. I should really take it out and see what it can do with cordite cartridges from WW11 and current production cartridges made for the Cdn Rangers.
http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a387/robertbank/th_100ydswiththeLongbranch001.jpg (http://s15.photobucket.com/user/robertbank/media/100ydswiththeLongbranch001.jpg.html)





The rifle


The rifle

[URL=http://s15.photobucket.com/user/robertbank/media/002.jpg.html]http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a387/robertbank/th_002.jpg (http://s15.photobucket.com/user/robertbank/media/002.jpg.html)

The girls n Toronto could make very good rifles for their boys.

My K 31 has iron sights. With a scope mounted I suspect it would shoot inside my Longbranch.

Not sure if matches tell you as much about the rifle as it does the shooter. The Swiss rifles are made like their watches. Pull 10 K31's out of Army stores vs any other unaltered military bolt gun and my money is on the Swiss.

Take Care

Bob

[303Guy]

A tip that may be of interest. Lube the base of boat tails or rebated bullets or use a grease wad under the bullet. I do this for my rusty bore and get goo accuracy and zero copper fouling. I never clean the bore, only preserve it. I haven't noticed any difference with the first shot. So the bore is never clean and dry or dirty and dry. I make sure the bore has a film of lube in it for the first shot.

Thanks for that 577/450 group. That's the first time I've seen one like it. I have seen one being fired at close range but the loads were bad with too slow a powder giving a fizz-bang effect.

[Bad Ass Wallace]

Thanks for that 577/450 group. That's the first time I've seen one like it. I have seen one being fired at close range but the loads were bad with too slow a powder giving a fizz-bang effect.

Here is another target fired at 200m with as issued sights; the bore on my rifle is near mint which accounts for it's exceptional accuracy

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v152/BAWallace/Picture044.jpg (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/BAWallace/media/Picture044.jpg.html)

[milprileb]

I am on the 1000 yd line with my Canadian No4Mk1* , my match loads and in the 9 ring easy and 10 ring quite often. Winds get me at times. The rifle shoots .8 MOA at 100 yds and holds 174 gr BTHP 100 to 1000 yds. That ought to put a snap shot on what a 2 groove Long Branch can do.

The 7 inch or less category of accuracy at 600 yds: Easily my k31 Swiss, my M39 Finn, my (are you ready) No.5 Jungle carbine (but its tough ) and I don't know where my MAS 36 is hitting at 600 yds !

Right hand loads, weapon in near perfect condition and IF i don't foul things up. Lesser ammo and lesser condition weapons won't have a chance to be accurate. For the most part surplus weapons are rarely found in shape to shoot distance accuracy. Angle of man at 300 yds: they all can do that if you can do that.

[303Guy]

Well, I just happen to have a hardly used Canadian two-groove that has never seen cordite ammo. My rust 'textured' bore two-groove has a like new bore profile, probably started out as a mint bore before rust got it. Both are sporterized and scoped. I checked the bullet jump on the rust textured one and there's very little jump.

[madsenshooter]

Fellow I shot with in the Vintage Match at Camp Perry this year was shooting an MAS 36. He did pretty good, except for rapid fire. The guy was left handed, so working that bolt wasn't easy for him.

[Multigunner]

Fellow I shot with in the Vintage Match at Camp Perry this year was shooting an MAS 36. He did pretty good, except for rapid fire. The guy was left handed, so working that bolt wasn't easy for him.
Two friends who shoot from the left shoulder, one is left handed the other is right handed but with left dominate eye, liked the Enfield best because the low comb and position of the bolt handle allowed easier manipulation of the bolt.

Since the French 7.62 sniper rifle based on the MAS36 action is very accurate I believe the rifle can be made to shoot very well if properly bedded and fed quality ammunition.
When these were first imported a dealer at the local gun show was trying to get rid of his remaining stock because no one was buying. He offered a friend two rifles still in the wrap for $20 each.
My friend grew up in North Africa, family in the oil business, and hated everything French, so he passed. I was very PO'ed that he had not called me, I'd have had him buy both rifles and paid him double and been well ahead of the game.
Main reason these didn't sell locally was the absence of ammo of any kind. The local stores had ordered rifles but had no 7.5 ammo in stock. When ammo could be found it was over priced.

[303Guy]

How did the Rusky snipers fare with their rifles? I read somewhere that the Mosin sniper rifle was accurate to 500yds. That doesn't seem all that far.

[Multigunner]

How did the Rusky snipers fare with their rifles? I read somewhere that the Mosin sniper rifle was accurate to 500yds. That doesn't seem all that far.

During WW2 any hit from over 300 yards was presumed to have been made by a sniper. The term sniper was over used, most such shots were made by "sharpshooters" using standard rifles with iron sights rather than dedicated snipers with scoped rifles.
The Mosin Nagant was at one time used in match competition with few alterations. I have a set of drawings on a simple trigger alteration around here somewhere.
A well made MN rifle can be extremely accurate, the equal of its contemporaries. Bore sizes varied as much or more than war time production Enfields so the Finns preferred to re barrel these with much tighter bores. The Finn rifles are considered the most accurate, and some Finn gun writers consider the American made MN rifles to be the most accurate due to smaller than average bore sizes.

I have an old American Rifleman magazine around here with a story on an MN heavily modified for use in NRA competition. The owner went so far as to modify the bolt and rear bridge so the bolt handle is behind the bridge. This was to allow a central mounted Unertl long range scope. Apparently this was a reasonably efficient rifle for the 1000 yards matches.

[robertbank]

Some of the long range shots reported as common here were uncommon in actual fact. On one board an American vet, who served in WW11, NW Europe reported he never took a shot over 200 yards.

I had a golfing partner from Chilliwack who served with the Cdn Army with the UN force in the former Belgium Congo in the early 60's never mentioned any shots taken over 600 yards. His Belgium officer instructions were to go for head shots his comrades don't like to see their buddies brains lying on the forest floor. Most of his kills were white mercenaries from Europe and South Africa. He carried a Browning Hi Power to be used on himself if capture was eminent. When he returned to Winnipeg after his tour he told me it was months before he could walk in a park without scanning the trees.

Here is a picture of one our boys from WW11.

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a387/robertbank/566px-Sergeant_HA_Marshall_of_the_Sniper_Section_The_Cal gary_Highlanders.jpg (http://s15.photobucket.com/user/robertbank/media/566px-Sergeant_HA_Marshall_of_the_Sniper_Section_The_Cal gary_Highlanders.jpg.html)
Born 10 February 1918
Died 19 January 2013 (aged 94)
Calgary, Canada
Allegiance Canadian Army
Years of service Second World War
Rank Sergeant
Unit The Calgary Highlanders
Battles/wars Battle of Normandy
Battle of the Scheldt
Awards 1939-1945 Star
1939-45 War Medal
Defence Medal
Canadian Volunteer Service Medal with Clasp
France-Germany Star
He returned home to Calgary after the war.

Here is an article on the Russian snipers you might find interesting since you asked.

http://www.thedarkpaladin.com/russiansnipers.htm


Take Care

Bob

[BruceB]

One day in the early '70s there was a classified ad in the "Edmonton Journal"(Alberta) offering "double rifles" with no details. I called the gent in Sherwood Park, just east of Edmonton, and we had a nice talk.

He had no doubles which I could both like and afford, so I asked if he had anything else available.

"Oh," he said, "nothing to interest you... a few old military rifles". Like what? Like an AS NEW CASED #4 Mk1T sniper rifle with all its accessories, right down to the lens-cleaning cloth! How much? One hundred and twenty-five Canadian dollars!

He had my Money Order by Special Delivery two days later, and I enjoyed that rifle for years. That's a #4T rifle in that photo that Bob just posted. It was perhaps the ultimate development of the #4 Rifles, at least of those in .303 caliber.

With the issue scope and GOOD Mk8z ammo, mine would group around 1.5" to 2" at 100 yards for five rounds. This would allow torso hits to around 400-plus yards, which I considered to be quite adequate. I never did try to improve the bedding or anything else on the rifle, but it did group better with handloaded Hornady and Sierra bullets.

Many of the British #4T rifles were fitted-up by Holland & Holland... these were marked "S51" wiht a stamping just behind the cocking piece... at least on the examples I've seen.

The #4T rifles appearing at the Big Reno Show in recent years have been priced up into the $4000-dollar bracket!

[Multigunner]

Very good to excellent No.4 (T) rifles in original transit chest with all accessories were once sold by mail order here in the USA for $79.95 in adverts on the back cover of the American Rifleman magazine.
Back then I never bought anything mail order, I would not buy anything I could not carefully inspect before hand.

The No. 4 (T) maintained a very high level of accuracy so long as only ammunition with single based propellants was used. It took only a few hundred rounds of MkVII with Cordite to erode the throat to the point that accuracy began to drop off.
The rifles with eroded throats still handled MkVII ammo fairly well, due to bump up and the over the charge card that promoted sealing behind the bullet, but the blowby prevented best accuracy with Mk8z and MkVIIz.
EGB Reynolds wrote of testing a No.4 that showed excellent accuracy when MkVII ammo was used (2 MOA) yet keyholed every shot when Mk8z was used. The previous use of MkVII ammo had ruined the bore for any other available ammunition. He estimated that as little as 200 rounds of MkVII could cause this effect.
The testing had come about because due to supply line difficulties some units were being issued the Mk8z machine gun ammo for use in their rifles, and it was reported that accuracy was non existent with some rifles when that cartridge was used.

Experiments on use of the MkVII cartridge without the card in place showed that Cordite could destroy a machinegun barrel in one sixth the number of rounds fired compared to the issue cartridge with card in place.

I ran across an old photo of a sectioned machinegun barrel that had been used in similar tests. The photo was marked as being the results of 3,000 rounds fired, which coincides with Hiram Maxim's recorded results using Cordite in an early Maxim machinegun that had worked well with the older black powder cartridge. These early barrels were not oil hardened as later barrels would be.
In Maxim's report he said accuracy was gone at the 3,000 rnd mark. An "egg shaped chamber being eroded in the leade for about three inches past the chamber mouth, which is what the photo I found showed.
Interestingly you could still see rifling in this eroded section, the hot gases removing metal from grooves faster than from lands. Mechanical erosion operates exactly the opposite with lands wearing faster than grooves.
The counter intuitive appearance of a case of thermal gas erosion is one reason why slugging a bore and taking note of resistence at different points is a good idea, with star gauging being even better.
Gas erosion was even more of a problem for British sniper rifles of WW1, with long range precision accuracy compromised at between 500 and 1,500 rnds fired.
The longer the pause between shots the longer the bore would last.

PS
Due to the effects of Cordite erosion on the early Maxim barrels the British continued to use black powder cartridges for machine guns till they developed a method for oil hardening the bores of machine gun barrels. Later better alloys increased the bore life of the MG barrels to over 10,000 rounds when used for long range indirect fire, with 18,000 rounds being the limit for use at intermediate ranges if barrels were in short supply. Each barrel was marked for use with either cordite or the z (sideways N) nitrocellulose cartridges.
The Cordite cartridge could be used in a badly worn Z barrel with some degree of accuracy but not the other way around.

[gew98]

One day in the early '70s there was a classified ad in the "Edmonton Journal"(Alberta) offering "double rifles" with no details. I called the gent in Sherwood Park, just east of Edmonton, and we had a nice talk.

He had no doubles which I could both like and afford, so I asked if he had anything else available.

"Oh," he said, "nothing to interest you... a few old military rifles". Like what? Like an AS NEW CASED #4 Mk1T sniper rifle with all its accessories, right down to the lens-cleaning cloth! How much? One hundred and twenty-five Canadian dollars!

He had my Money Order by Special Delivery two days later, and I enjoyed that rifle for years. That's a #4T rifle in that photo that Bob just posted. It was perhaps the ultimate development of the #4 Rifles, at least of those in .303 caliber.

With the issue scope and GOOD Mk8z ammo, mine would group around 1.5" to 2" at 100 yards for five rounds. This would allow torso hits to around 400-plus yards, which I considered to be quite adequate. I never did try to improve the bedding or anything else on the rifle, but it did group better with handloaded Hornady and Sierra bullets.

Many of the British #4T rifles were fitted-up by Holland & Holland... these were marked "S51" wiht a stamping just behind the cocking piece... at least on the examples I've seen.

The #4T rifles appearing at the Big Reno Show in recent years have been priced up into the $4000-dollar bracket!

One of the beautiful things about the No.4T's is they were very rugged. I'd say wit hthe exception of one or two german scoped variations and the Russian PU there were no others as sturdy. The US for example failed badly with uber delicate scope systems on delicate rifles. When they adopted the M1C and later M1D's they were more or less the equivalent of the german G/K43's with optics---not a serious sniping weapon. "With British Snipers to the Reich" is an excellent work....do read it.

[Scharfschuetze]

This "S51" No 4T rifle is a true 1 MOA rifle for 10 shot groups using the Sierra .311 180 grain spire point hunting bullet and 4895 powder. The rifle serial number is on the scope mount and the scope serial number is stamped into the wood of the rifle at the wrist. It came with the fitted case and accessories (short the lens paper) noted in posts above.

I often took it out to SOTIC refresher training and it was the accuracy equal of our M-21 and M-24 systems in use at the time. Its only drawback at longer range was the scope's inability to "mill out" ranges and the coarse vertical post reticle ruled out hold overs on targets at extended range.

[Multigunner]

The No. 32 Scope was originally designed for mounting to the BREN Gun and light Anti-Tank guns. It was certainly robust.

The fore end of the No.4 (T) was just as prone to breakage and loss of bedding as any No.4. It took quite a bit of ingenuity to keep these rifle performing at top quality.
A number of bedding methods were tried during the years the rifle was in service.

PS
The variant of the No.32 scope used on some anti tank guns had no post reticle, only the horizon wire.
These were once advertised as a source of parts for repairing the sniper scope but I've heard that this doesn't work out well.
There's been a market for No.32 repairs in the past. A Friend has one with one end of the horizon wire loose. The scope still works fine since the post is completely independent of the horizon wire.

[Larry Gibson]

I've had the pleasure of holding, fondling and shooting Scharfschuetzer's No 4T. It is indeed one sweet sniper rifle for it's time. I think I offered to buy it, even offered a profit for him, but he wouldn't sell............:sad:

Larry Gibson

[Scharfschuetze]

Ha, ha! Yes we've enjoyed some fine days at the range Larry. It's always been fun seeing who will come up with the most interesting rifle to shoot.

Multigunner, thanks for that info on Mk VII, Mk VIIz and Mk 8 ammo in 303 calibre weapons.

I should have added in my original post that the shape of the Sierra bullet is much like the the issue Mk VII FMJ and its trajectory closely follows the range scale on the elevation drum of the No 32 Mk III scope. I would imagine that the SMK .311 bullet would actually shoot flatter than the Mk VII load but I've never got around to trying that projectile.

Lyman's 314299 is next on the short list of projos to try in the rifle.

[robertbank]

There is a 4T here in Terrace that would make your mouth water. The owner paid about $3,500 for it.

My 1950 Longbranch is not bedded but with the scope and my 314299 cast boolits will shoot to 1.5" at 100 yards as posted earlier. Scharf when you get around to it try 23 gr of 4227 under the boolit. Works great in my Longbranch. OAL 3.065", Win LRP. I have the SK mount holding a 4X old Bushnell scope on it. Works for me. The SK mount is very sturdy and much improved over the military's version.

Take Care

Bob

[KCSO]

Lok up Shooting Times article by Mike V. who tested and wrote all this up. I was surprised that in his tests of military sniper rifles the Mosin came out on top.

[felix]

It was Jumptrap who really exposed the firmness of the Mosin. He attached it to a tire for firing destructive rounds which would have killed other barrel-actions. His analysis of the results were similar to that required of the Freedom single actions for production. Something like less than 0.001 expansion of the critical components when exposed to a full cartridge case of BE with commensurate projectiles. ... felix

[fouronesix]

Notwithstanding the warm and fuzzy, up the leg tingle a certain poster gets with the "Patt'14" versus the cerebral descriptions we're blessed with about the "thingy 03"

303Guy, check out pg 388 of Hatcher's Notebook. Even though the target was shot with I presume a NM M1903 or possibly a MR variant it is to me one nice target. It was shot at Frankford Arsenal (FA) during the development of ammunition by FA for the 1925 International and Palma Match competitions. The FA ammo loaded with M1 172 gr BT bullet. Not out of an as-issued battle rifle, but impressive ammo and target nonetheless. The 10 shot 328 yard group diameter is 1.33" and the 600 yard group diameter is 3.17". That certainly gives an indication of the potential of the M1903 and may provide input in some way to your OP.

[ROGER4314]

This was a pretty intriguing question so I went back and researched approximately 8 years of NRA position military match results and came up with some interesting results.

These were fired from NRA positions (standing, rapid fire sitting, rapid fire prone and slow fire prone). The rifle was an unmodified 1903A3 Remington with 2 groove barrel at 200 yards. Remember, this was position shooting....not from a rest. Ammo was Lake City Ball. There are 50 rounds fired with 500 score being perfect. Here are the results:
441-4x
442.5x
427-4X
444-4x
430-5x
444-5x
448-5x
433-5x
444-1x
432-5x
446-8x
433-2x

The Bullseye is 10 3/4" wide. The X ring is the size of a golf ball.

I won a 1st and a second place at 200 with a stock Yugo SKS using Wolf ammo. The sling was re-rigged so it pulled straight down instead of from the side. Otherwise, it was not modified. I found one of those scores....... 408-2x.

I could never get an AK-47 to shoot competitively at 200 even though I tried hard!

M1 Garand produced scores about 25 points lower than the 1903A3.

Most of my match shooting was done with the AR-15 at 200 and 600 yards. The best AR-15 score was 476 at 200 yards.

The AR will out shoot any of these rifles.............. even a full match M1A with match hand loads that I had.

I hope that gives some prospective as to what these war birds will do.

Flash

[MtGun44]

Other than the SKS ( my Chinese carbine is no prize) the matches my experience.

Bill

[303Guy]

A friend of mine has an SKS (a Chinese one I think) and it shoots pretty good with Barnaul ammo. I've never seen it shot off a bench though. Handy little carbine and with throw away-able cases would be quite fun to have.

I saw an in the grease Mosin with folding bayonet. The bore looked brand new as did the rest of it. We don't have much reloadable 7.62x54 ammo around my parts so it was past up for a similarly priced sporter No4 which is a better scope candidate which this one already had. If I'd had money to spare I would have taken it just to put in my safe. I wish I had made a plan.

As far as aesthetics go, I think the No4 T is the most handsome of them all.

[BD]

I make the following statement based on my pre-bifocal eyes in years past. It's been awhile since I've had the time or opportunity to try out every milsurp I came across.
I've never met a M96 swede, (excepting those wrecked by Bubba), that I couldn't hold under 1 moa with the issue sights at 100 yards using euro brass, (Lapua or Norma), loaded with 140 grain speers. This was maybe 25 rifles. My "truck gun" is a cut down M96 swede that I bought for $100 with a worn crown and a repaired crack in the stock. I cut it down to 22", epoxy bedded it into a cheapo Ramline stock and mounted a Leupold scout scope by milling down the rear sight base and screwing on a piece of weaver rail. I didn't spend $250 on that rig and using neck sized brass it will shoot 1/4 moa all day long from a rest in good conditions. The other M96 that I still own is "as issued" except that it has the Elit aperture sight with the hooded front sight used in the Swedish civilian competition matches. From a rest, on a day with good light, using neck sized brass, that rifle will stay under 1 moa for me to 200 yards. The limiting factor definitely being my 58 year old eyes and trifocals. I'm thinking that's not too shabby for a couple of 100 year old rifles, (actually the "as issued" rifle is only 96).
BD