Most Accurate Military Bolt Action Rifle

[bouncer50]

I have shot a lot of different military rifles. My pick for the most accurate would be the K-31, 1903 springfield , 1917 Enfield, Sweed Mauser, K-98 mauser.and the 303 British early model. Just my personal opinion yours maybe different of coarse

[Adam Helmer]

bouncer50,

You ask a question not easily answered. MUCH depends on the shooter, the rifle and the ammunition. I would say your question is akin to: "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?"

Adam

[wch]

Overall, I'd bet on the 1903 Springfield.

[bouncer50]

bouncer50,

You ask a question not easily answered. MUCH depends on the shooter, the rifle and the ammunition. I would say your question is akin to: "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?"

Adam You are correct sir. All the rifles were shot with military ammo.

[Outpost75]

The Finn M39, when fed good ammo, ranks with the K31, both of them being more accurate than the Springfield or Mauser, in my experience.

The Swiss ammo is wonderful, equal to our M72 Match in the '06. My Norma match ammo in 7.62x54R is all gone, so my M39 gets fed Sierra .311" 174-grain Matchkings in Norma brass with Federal 210M primers and 44 grains of RL15 or Varget.

[Comrade Mike]

All things equal, the 1903, the K31, the Swedish M96 and the Finn M39 are the kings of their era. Picking one over the other is a fruitless debate.

[wch]

The Finn M39, when fed good ammo, ranks with the K31, both of them being more accurate than the Springfield or Mauser, in my experience.

I have shot the '03 on the course at Camp Perry (as well as the M-1) and I can tell you absolutely that there was no military rifle in the known world that could outshoot the boys with the '03.

[pworley1]

There is no correct answer to this debate, but I think that we should all keeping testing each of those rifles mentioned as often and as much as we can.

[Multigunner]

Best way to decide which was the most accurate rifle of its day would be to look up the scores of the international matches of the day.

Interestingly the Carcano long rifle made pretty good showing in at least some matches. Carcano match rifles with double set triggers show up now and then.

Overall I get the impression that the Springfield 1903 was recognized as the most accurate both in the field and on the range.
In archery they say a poor quality bow can still get fairly good accuracy so long as the arrow is of good quality, but no matter how good the bow is it won't be accurate if the arrow is of poor quality. Same goes for rifles and ammunition.

[W.R.Buchanan]

I have to differ slightly on this one. From what I have seen the Swedish Mauser M96 in 6.5 x55 caliber appears across the spectrum to be the most accurate of the rifles mentioned above.

When I say across the spectrum I mean an average of all guns made not just a few here and there.

The Swedes didn't make as many rifles as we did, and they were never under direct wartime pressure to the degree that their quality control was diminished to any great degree. Thus these guns overall were superior in quality of manufacture and consistently above anything else produced during that time frame. The Swedish ammo was also of higher general quality for the same reasons.

That is my reasoning here and the fact that I have a gun made in 1899 that will shoot inside 1" with factory ammo. My Springfields won't, My Enfield won't, I'd like to see if a Finn Nagant would, but I doubt it would simply because of too many problems with the available ammo.

None of these problems exist with the Swede.

Randy

[bouncer50]

I have shot the '03 on the course at Camp Perry (as well as the M-1) and I can tell you absolutely that there was no military rifle in the known world that could outshoot the boys with the '03. I respect your answer. But what makes a 03 more accurate is it the sights, barrel, lock up of action, betting of the stock, ammo. I just like to know why with all due respect ? I do agree it would be in the top 10 And i do love my 03 i have.

[Outpost75]

I have shot the '03 on the course at Camp Perry (as well as the M-1) and I can tell you absolutely that there was no military rifle in the known world that could outshoot the boys with the '03.

I've shot at Camp Perry, Bisley and Canaught. I own a couple '03s and Model 70s. Yes, the Springfield is a good rifle, when fed good ammo, but your religious fervor for it is misplaced. The K31 and the Finn M39 shot off machine rest, comparing all rifles with handloaded Sierras, will put the average Type S service grade '03 (not specially tricked out, glass bedded match guns) to shame.

The quality of M72 and M118 ammunition manufactured after about 1967, when the old WW2 Bliss presses and tooling started wearing, went rapidly to pot, especially when they abandoned discreet lots of component parts and mixed bullets and casings from different batches and sets of tools together.

Larry Moore was able to get LC to assemble some wonderful 20- and 60- lots of M118 for the military teams, but once they went to M118 Brown Box the stuff was no better than ordinary Caliber .30 Ball M1 loaded during the 1930s, until LC finally started loading the Sierra bullet and after a few million rounds learned how to LAP (load-assemble-pack) the LR without wrecking it.

[gew98]

Patt'14.....it put 03's to shame. Of the sporter 03 w/scope and a stock remmy 03...my patt 14 buries them in accuracy and ruggedness. I desire accurate combat rifles...not delicate range queens.

[Houndog]

I must beg to differ on this one! When you compare a run of the mill issue bolt action military rifle to an M40A1, an M24 or one of Gayle McMillan's creations the issue rifle doesn't even stand a chance, and you DID ask for the most accurate MILITARY bolt rifle! That includes specialty sniper rifles.

[Multigunner]

The .303 and 6.5X55 cartridges have a distinct velocity disadvantage compared to the .30-06 when it comes to retained velocities at extreme ranges. I wonder how that would affect scores at 1,000 yards or more.
This seems to have become an issue with those No.4 rifles converted to 7.62 NATO when higher velocity match grade ammo in that chambering became common to allow super sonic velocities out to 1200 yards.
The P-14/M1917 rifles can handle much higher pressures than the 96 Mauser action, within the accepted margin of safety at least. If higher velocity .303 hand loads were used that could cancel out the velocity disadvantage of the P-14.
According to Reynolds the P-14 was the favored rifle for Bisley shooting at ranges beyond 600 yards. It seems to have been a superior sniper rifle as well, though the scopes in use at the time weren't always the best choice for this work.

The M-1 Ball cartridge with its heavy boat tail bullet seems to have been very accurate, but fell out of favor due to its extreme danger space beyond the berms of available ranges. That level of recoil would also have contributed to shooter fatigue.

For the most part cartridges intended for long range MG fire and synchronized aerial guns appears to have been more accurate than standard infantry ball. The consistency of ignition of the primers was of great importance when ammo was used in a synchronized gun.
While wing mounted guns became the norm in the 1940's many late 30's aircraft designs still used cowl mounted or wing root mounted guns that required synchronizing gear to avoid damaging the propellors.

[Rustyleee]

I've seen a Swede M96 that has some high quality micrometer sights on it. I can't help but think it must have been the equivalent of one of our NM rifles. I'd say more depends on the jerk on the trigger than the rifle it's self.

[gwpercle]

Of the ones I own,
1911 Schmidt Ruben Carbine- 7.5 Swiss
1895 Spanish Mauser- 7X57
1903-A3 Springfield- 30-06
No.4 MKI 303 British Enfield
Model 98 Mauser -8X57

The 1911 Schmidt-Rubin is hands down the most accurate...it was made by some very skilled craftsmen...like a Swiss watch!
I think the longer throat is definitely a help with longer cast boolits.

Gary

[tdoyka]

m99 in 50 bmg

https://www.barrett.net/firearms/model99

makes even the taliban duck and run for cover!!!

[jugulater]

probably going to catch some flak on this one, my vote goes for the 1891 Argentine mausers made by loewe. it is the most accurate gun i own, beating out a 1893 Spanish, a converted 1895 chliean, and my M38 Turk (that last one is a close call).

i am in the progress of restoring a 1896 swede made by carl gustafs in 1899, so i will soon be able to experience the accuracy of the swede.

[MtGun44]

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

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

[PAT303]

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

[Char-Gar]

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

[Char-Gar]

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

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

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

[Ola]

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

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

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

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

[Multigunner]

probably going to catch some flak on this one, my vote goes for the 1891 Argentine mausers made by loewe.
The 91 Mauser had an excellent reputation for accuracy, it came in second to the Springfield at one early Palma Match.

[bouncer50]

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

[ukrifleman]

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

[Outpost75]

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

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

[gew98]

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

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

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

[Char-Gar]

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

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

[John Boy]

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

[Mauser48]

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

[Ed Barrett]

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

[Artful]

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

http://photos.imageevent.com/badgerdog/generalstorage/tempworkingdirectory/Scan_Doc0016.pdf


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



"ROYALTIES FOR THE USE AND MANUFACTURE OF PATENTED ARTICLES.

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

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

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

1905.)

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

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

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

Manufacturing, repairing, procuring, and issuing arms at the

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In paragraph 6 the Chief of Ordnance further says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Patent Infringements for which Royalties were paid:


467180 , Shell Extractor 20 cents per arm

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

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

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

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

547933, Safety, covered by 590271

590271, Sept, 1897 25 cents per each arm


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

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

US Patent Office. Patents of Fabrik Mauser, Paul Mauser

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

[Artful]

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

[smokeywolf]

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

smokeywolf

[303Guy]

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

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

[Multigunner]

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

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

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

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

[PAT303]

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

[Multigunner]

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

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

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

[Ed Barrett]

This is more like 10 men looking a 10 good looking women and saying which one is the best looking. We all have our favorites, that's what makes horse races so popular.

[1johnlb]

This is more like 10 men looking a 10 good looking women and saying which one is the best looking. We all have our favorites, that's what makes horse races so popular.

But, if ,I could only choose 1 it would have to be the k31....

Or maybe the Finnish m39.....

Or maybe the Swedish Mauser....

Or...... Etc. etc...

The hardest decision is deciding which 1 to leave behind in range day.

[MtGun44]

Actually, the women comparison is a poor one. Target groups are
objective criteria, feminine beauty is entirely subjective.

[303Guy]

A question on military rifle accuracy (or lack thereof), which battle rifle can shoot the best with the worst ammo and battle conditions? That's assuming the worst is more or less equal all round.

Speaking of target groups, could we have some? Target groups would of course be the best specimens with the best hand loaded ammo - or not. It would be great to see some groups either way.

[gew98]

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

So true.....but some springy lovers treat their "love" like a haji treats their religion.

[tdoyka]

i would go with my 1898 springfield armory in 30-40 krag(sporterized). before i gave it to my son, i would say a '98 mauser in 7x57 douglas premium barrel. its not the best rifle but a world war 2(paps until it became my dads) 30 carbine. it shoots 110gr remmys at 100 yards close to 3 - 3 1/2"(5 shots) and if it goes full clip it go 4 1/2 - 5".

in the army i shot a m16a1 in 5.56(223 rem) with a m203 grenade luncher and a m60 in 7.62(308 win) and the ma duece (m2) in 50 caliber. right before i got out it was m240 in 5.56(223 rem). every one of them shot pretty good.

i want either a 1903a3 or a 1917 in 30-06.:wink::grin:

[tdoyka]

Ahhh heck inside it's range the 1917 Trench gun is the most accurate ya just can't miss ..........

i never thought of that one!!!:mrgreen::bigsmyl2:[smilie=w:

[Jeffjmr]

Since you asked. This was no-drill scoped with a scout mount and 8 power scope on an otherwise as-issued 1912 Steyr built Chilean Mauser. Pay no attention to the .77 entry (wishful thinking) but the group was actually .785" at 110 yards. Still putting my 1903A3 together so I can eventually compare apples to apples. A K31 is on my wish list as well.
138595
No clue why this ended up upside down. It was right side up when I uploaded it.

[bouncer50]

Since you asked. This was no-drill scoped with a scout mount and 8 power scope on an otherwise as-issued 1912 Steyr built Chilean Mauser. Pay no attention to the .77 entry (wishful thinking) but the group was actually .785" at 110 yards. Still putting my 1903A3 together so I can eventually compare apples to apples. A K31 is on my wish list as well.
138595
No clue why this ended up upside down. It was right side up when I uploaded it. Great shooting there. Even a K31 or a 03 will have a tough time matching that group.

[gew98]

Great shooting there. Even a K31 or a 03 will have a tough time matching that group.
oh lord you are flinging poo in the house of springy lovers...god be with you.

[Jeffjmr]

oh lord you are flinging poo in the house of springy lovers...god be with you.

As an M1, M1A and '03A3 owner, no poo intended. And as soon as I can find the appropriate stock for the currently sporterized 03 I'll be trying to give the Mauser a run for its money with it.

[leadman]

I have 2 1891 Arg. Mausers that shoot very well. My 1891 hunting rifle does shoot into 1 1/2" or less at 200 yards. I have a 1903a3 Springfield that was a junker sporter when I bought it with a barrel that is slightly eroded that has shot many groups of less than 1" with cast.
Last time I had my K-31 out it put 3 Sierra 168gr bullets in 1/3" at 100 yards.
These are all scoped and shooting handloads.
If I was going into battle I would pick one of my 1903a3s or my Garand. Course my AR15 Stag left hand shoots about 1 1/2 moa very consistently.

[Ballistics in Scotland]

A question on military rifle accuracy (or lack thereof), which battle rifle can shoot the best with the worst ammo and battle conditions? That's assuming the worst is more or less equal all round.

Speaking of target groups, could we have some? Target groups would of course be the best specimens with the best hand loaded ammo - or not. It would be great to see some groups either way.


I don't think there is much question that the SMLE Lee-Enfield isn't the most accurate with perfect ammunition, unless perhaps after some work which is too much to call it a military rifle any more. Equally though, it is almost certainly the best long-range rifle with really inconsistent ammunition. It is the classic example of compensation. A powerful round flips the barrel downwards more than the weaker round doesn't. So the groups can be terrible at close range, and yet turn out very satisfactory at a thousand yards. It is much more difficult than front locking rifles to jam beyond easy clearing with dirt, and it often delivers fair accuracy with a barrel which looks eroded beyond all hope.

Except for untypical examples like the above, there is really very little purpose to the question asked. Individual rifles vary more than types of rifle.

[quickdraw66]

My Lee Enfield shoots pretty darn good. I've also heard that the Swiss rifles like the K31 are super accurate guns.

[robertbank]

Well I have posted this one before. I will get out this week and see if I can better this group. Longbranch #4 with a scope. 5 groove barrel. Gun is stock with exception of the Bushnel mounted scope. There are 8 shots there after the two sighters.

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a387/robertbank/100ydswiththeLongbranch001.jpg (http://s15.photobucket.com/user/robertbank/media/100ydswiththeLongbranch001.jpg.html)

Take Care

Bob

[leebuilder]

Nice grouping Bob. Never could get 4227 to shoot that good for me. Nice LB tack driver you have there.

[robertbank]

Thanks I have to confess I am not much of a rifleman I am afraid. Any dog can get lucky now and then. This gun I am sure would do better in more skilled hands. It is kind of wasted on me. I have a young son (34) who I think would do better. It will be his when I am done with it.

Take Care

Bob

[alamogunr]

I have examples of most of the rifles mentioned here. My skills are such that I doubt I could pick one as more accurate. But then, I didn't acquire them for their gilt edge accuracy. I enjoy shooting and developing loads to at least equal my ability as a shooter. Again, that doesn't take much.

I don't envy those that have marksmanship skills exceeding mine because they have spent much more time developing those skills. At my age I don't have time to become a skilled shooter. I will spend that time enjoying the range time.

I have to admit that I very much enjoy shooting the 03A3. But, I also enjoy shooting the K31's and 1911. I don't have as much experience with the others.

[leebuilder]

I hear you. My eyes could be better, shoot much better hung over because i shake slower. I am a service rifle shooter, getting good to excellent groupings in any weather under all conditions and at any range not excceding the ammos limits. My skill was developed on the water and on the shore, practiced in the forest and on the range and honed hunting and competing.
Then there are some days you can do no wrong.
be well

[303Guy]

So the groups can be terrible at close range, and yet turn out very satisfactory at a thousand yards.It seems the Mk VII bullet fired from an SMLE would yaw and travel in a spiral path which would dampen out at longer ranges so that the groups would actually become smaller (when measured in MOA). I've never seen this but heard about it from my uncle who was an armourer during WWII. Interestingly, he told of how they would sight and test the accuracy of rifles by setting up spent cases at increasing distances and shooting them (not shooting at them). I don't know the distance - not too far or they would not be seen. He seemed to think these rifle were pretty accurate. He said that a 'properly packed' (with cork) SMLE was very accurate at long ranges with select ammunition. The marksmen would select the bullets for loading by rolling them on a smooth flat surface to check for unbalance. That's competition target shooters. These rifles would have selected barrels too.

So the rifle design was fine for accuracy, it's the manufacturing that was the problem, both the rifles and the ammunition.


Ahhh heck inside it's range the 1917 Trench gun is the most accurate ya just can't miss ..........But the trench gun wasn't a rifle! ;-)

[robertbank]

Except for untypical examples like the above, there is really very little purpose to the question asked. Individual rifles vary more than types of rifle.

Truer words were never spoken. Saying an 03 shoots better than a Mauser is like saying one identical twin is better looking than his/her sibling. The 03 was built on a Mauser action. The military bolt guns were made for one purpose and that was to shoot man sized targets. Minute of man was good enough. What we do with them shooting paper and steel targets is not particularly relevant nor of much concern really. For the most part their day is done though unfortunately the need still persists.

Take care

Bob

[Multigunner]

It seems the Mk VII bullet fired from an SMLE would yaw and travel in a spiral path which would dampen out at longer ranges so that the groups would actually become smaller (when measured in MOA). I've never seen this but heard about it from my uncle who was an armourer during WWII.
Many of the internet experts will tell you this couldn't be true, but its a fact. I've seen both charts explaining this and I've seen lower velocity bullets and air gun pellets display this spiral path.
Its a factor with all rifled arms, not just the Enfields.

Main thing with the SMLE is the slender barrel which if properly bedded allows compensation for variation in velocity of the ammunition, reducing vertical spread at longer ranges, reducing the group size in the vertical but having no effect on the horizontal spreading.


The marksmen would select the bullets for loading by rolling them on a smooth flat surface to check for unbalance. That's competition target shooters. French Airmen may have begun this practice during WW1. They inspected their ammo closely before allowing their mechanics to load the belts.

[Jeffjmr]

The military bolt guns were made for one purpose and that was to shoot man sized targets. Minute of man was good enough. What we do with them shooting paper and steel targets is not particularly relevant nor of much concern really.

Bob

Notwithstanding my target post, I basically agree with you, Bob. But since I don't hunt, I am not a soldier on active duty in harms way, and my local club ranges max out at 300 yards, I find grouping on paper and ringing plates to be my favored form of lead-slinging entertainment. The pursuit of that "five shots through one hole" holy grail, regardless of the hardware used, and the casting and reloading that goes along with it, is my hobby. I don't get to do it often enough, but I have fun with every failed attempt!

Jeff

[robertbank]

Notwithstanding my target post, I basically agree with you, Bob. But since I don't hunt, I am not a soldier on active duty in harms way, and my local club ranges max out at 300 yards, I find grouping on paper and ringing plates to be my favored form of lead-slinging entertainment. The pursuit of that "five shots through one hole" holy grail, regardless of the hardware used, and the casting and reloading that goes along with it, is my hobby. I don't get to do it often enough, but I have fun with every failed attempt!

Jeff

I am with you on that. Not enough time in the day.

Take care
Bob

[44magLeo]

I was reading a magazine article where they tested old military rifles. they tested by shooting at man sized targets with mil spec ammo. Most held up ok out to 400-450 yards. At longer ranges the Mosin Nagant was still hitting the targets.
These were just run of the mil old rifles as issued. Using as issued ammo. No target grade stuff.
Leo