Is there a general consensus of what was the most accurate military bolt rifle?

[AbitNutz]

Not the most accurate sniper rifle but general issue rifle...

Such as:

Springfield 03, 03A3
Enfield P14, P17
Mauser 98 (Man....just name some version)
Mannlicher (Man, just name some version)
Enfield No. # whatever
Arisaka
K-31 (a ringer?)

Well, you guys get the idea. I'm sure the sights have a huge impact. I have an Enfield Ishapore 2A1 in 308 that was hopeless...untill I maneged to come up with a Parker Hale PH5A. Boy did that change where the holes in the target were.

So you can change the sights within reason (no scopes) and do your favorite handloads but that's it. Which rifle makes the most holes in the 10 ring?

[Texas by God]

Of the list you gave, IMO the K31, the 96 Mauser, and the 1903 in that order.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

[Gewehr-Guy]

With issue sights and equal condition bores, I think 1903, then 03-A3, followed by the K-31. The 1903 has infinitely adjustable sights,but harder for me to see as I get older, the 03-A3 sights are easily adjusted for windage but not quite as precise . The K-31 with target sights would be hard to beat, but I am only comparing as issued rifles. I haven't really shot the others so I cant form an opinion on them.

[AbitNutz]

I'm starting to think the K31 is just a ringer and throws the rest out. Although I have a P14, yes in .303, that is shockingly accurate. It also has a great trigger...which also really helps.

[Earlwb]

IMO it is the 1903 first the K31 second and the Mauser 98 third. But you have to hand it to the Japanese as their Arisaka Type 38 was quite good though. Now then the Boers during the second Boer War used a lot of Mauser 1895 rifles to good effect, out shooting the British. So maybe this is the real rifle for accuracy. Although the Enfield P14, 17 do have some rifles that are amazingly accurate, I would think that the rimmed cartridge would affect it some.

[Larry Gibson]

Given "equal bores and equal sights" along with equal quality bullets the '03s, M95 - M98 Mausers, the M1917 and P14, and the K31s are all equal in accuracy potential (moa capability). If there is any difference between any of them in any "test" it will be small and probably reversible in any subsequent test.

[Artful]

With issue ammo - I'd vote K31 with GP11 as the winner of what you listed

[leebuilder]

I can only comment on what I have handled.
M96
K31
M39
Off the rack with any ammo or as issued ammo.
It all stems from the work and standards put into the rifle, ammo and the rifles design.
Be well

[beemer]

Most military bolt rifles are solid well built rifles made to go to war and if in good condition with a bit of tinkering and good ammo will fool most people. I have found that proper bedding and quality bullets can make a huge difference. A lot of the issue ammo is not the best.

As far as issue rifle and ammo the K31 is hard to beat. The one I had was crazy accurate, not once but repeatable. My reloads were good but could not out do Swiss issue ammo even with a scope. It might nor make sense but I didn't like the rifle so now someone has it who does.

Dave

[Multigunner]

From reading of the match results of the era when these rifles were standard issue for their respective militaries I'd rank the Springfield 1903 first followed by the Mauser 1891.

The P-14 and M1917 rifles were perhaps a RCH less accurate than the above choices but in use they maintained a high level of accuracy for far higher round counts than any other bolt action military rifle. This was due to Enfield pattern rifling coupled with cooler burning single base powders of the .303 MkVIII and .30-06 Ball cartridges.
Most other rifles began to lose peak accuracy in less than 6,000 rounds with the best available ammunition, with 18,000 + being the limit of acceptable long range accuracy. The M1917 had a bore life of 50,000+ rounds before long range accuracy dropped below acceptable limits.
Enfield rifling was also less vulnerable to damage from cleaning rods and mechanical wear.

[AbitNutz]

I have a Ross but the barrel is absolute toast so I never bothered to shoot it for group size. Maybe I should. Who knows? It could surprise me. The rest of the rifle is choice.

[leebuilder]

I have a Ross but the barrel is absolute toast so I never bothered to shoot it for group size. Maybe I should. Who knows? It could surprise me. The rest of the rifle is choice.

Use a heavy flat base bullet, it may suprise you. I don't know what it is about the 303, off the rack only a few are outstanding most are good. I have seen many that the throat is baked, bores are rough at best and the headspace mariginally boarder line and the still shoot good enough.
Be safe

[GONRA]

GONRA's not a bolt action rifle guy (so should keep my big yap shut) but
am pretty sure any rifle that has front locking lugs at least
HAS THE POTENTIAL for great accuracy.

[vzerone]

. The Swiss K31 and 11 are the most accurate and it's repeatable over and over. Don't forget the Swiss are known for precision. I'm an American and would love to think we make the best of everything, but we don't. There may be some exception rifles in other models, but like said they are exceptions.

[AbitNutz]

I read that if they were to produce the K31 today it would cost about $1,200. This was apparently done as part of some university study.

I love the idea of a straight pull action with interrupted locking lugs like the Ross MKIII.

After seeing an episode of forgotten weapons where they do a mud test on an SMLE No.4 Mk 1 and it failed immediately and hopelessly. I no longer even consider any argument regarding a particulat bolt action being suspeptable to debris.

[vzerone]

I read that if they were to produce the K31 today it would cost about $1,200. This was apparently done as part of some university study.

I love the idea of a straight pull action with interrupted locking lugs like the Ross MKIII.

After seeing an episode of forgotten weapons where they do a mud test on an SMLE No.4 Mk 1 and it failed immediately and hopelessly. I no longer even consider any argument regarding a particulat bolt action being suspeptable to debris.

What's nice about the SMLE's is that if they do get dirt or mud in them they are easier to clean it out. You don't have a bolt going inside a front receiver ring like in the Mausers. The SMLE is one hell of a battle rifle with lots of years under it's belt.

[Bigslug]

It's a tough question to answer when talking about unmodified rifles, as they all suffered from varying degrees of low to high stress from wartime production demands. Pre-war Mausers and Arisakas are jewels, but with some of the last ditch ones, I'd be concerned about their ability to even hit the ground. If you want to see "roughly finished", look at the Moisin Nagants that were made between Hitler's invasion and the battle of Stalingrad.

I've seen a lot of military rifles that will hold MOA with just a little bit of care in making sure slop is taken out and that which should be locked down is, and nationality didn't seem to play into it much. The Swiss K31 and Swede 96's as general categories would be a safe bet because their home nations had relatively fewer wolves at the door when they were being made. I'd have to give the P14/1917 a lot of potential points on the size and rigidity of the thing, and then there's the fact that the 1903 is one of the few with an actual heritage as a serious match rifle. . .and finally, can a hundred million Mauser 98's be wrong?

[Kraschenbirn]

From my personal experience...and, except for the '03 and an Arisaka, my milsurp collection includes at least one of every rifle mentioned thus far...I'd call accuracy a 'dead heat' between my 96/11 and my 1898 Krag. Both shoot better than I can hold. Of course, I've never shot the Krag with issue ball but my CB loads, essentially, duplicate original .30-40 ballistics.

Bill

[AbitNutz]

Really? The Krag shot that well? I would not have thought it would have placed that high. I don't own one and have never shot one, prices are really getting silly, even for marginal Krags.

[Multigunner]

The Krag was always considered to be an accurate rifle within the limitations of its cartridge.
The Krag cleaned the clock of every other military rifle at the Palma matches one year but was disqualified because the rifles used had custom made barrels and the ammunition used was specially made match grade ammunition nothing like the standard mil spec Ball ammo.

[6bg6ga]

We could condense this and just say that they all were pretty accurate in the right hands under the right conditions. Having shot them all one would really be hard pressed to pick a real winner my opinion.

[AbitNutz]

And spoil a good argument? Are you nuts?

[AbitNutz]

The Krag was always considered to be an accurate rifle within the limitations of its cartridge.
The Krag cleaned the clock of every other military rifle at the Palma matches one year but was disqualified because the rifles used had custom made barrels and the ammunition used was specially made match grade ammunition nothing like the standard mil spec Ball ammo.

I had no idea....my only exposure to that cartridge is to a Winchester 1895 I have in 30-40 Krag.

[WILCO]

There are reasons why the Mauser design is still popular and the most copied.

[Speedo66]

I would have to put a vote in for 6.5x55 Swedes. Mauser 1896.

[Bigslug]

And spoil a good argument? Are you nuts?

Well we could really muddy the waters:

What would you rather have; a NIB, pre-war Italian Carcano, or a 98K made after the plant tooling was "recalibrated" by a B-17?

[bob208]

having owned and shot most of the rifles. I can say there is not a wits bit of difference between them. it is all in the sights. as far as sights the simpler they are the easier to teach raw recruits to use them. with that the number 4 enfield and the 1917 enfield and 03a3 win out. maybe no as finely adjustable but then too fine can be a curse too.
it was said the americans build a target rifle. the germans build a sporting rifle the british build a fighting rifle.

[vzerone]

There are reasons why the Mauser design is still popular and the most copied.

.....and most turn bolts with two front locking lugs are derivatives of the Mauser action.

[oldhenry]

I would have to put a vote in for 6.5x55 Swedes. Mauser 1896.

+1

All 3 of mine are crazy accurate.

Henry

[Ballistics in Scotland]

I'm sure there is more difference between individual rifles of the same type, than there is between different types. That goes double in military service, where a rifle may have gone through a lot of heavy use, excessive rapid, and ben soaked and dried out in less than ideal conditions.

I can't think of any situation which strikes me as making open sights superior to aperture ones, and the P14 and M1917 Enfields were by decades the first to have that in an easily adjusted and well protected form. Windage was by using a screw adjuster on the front sight, and elevation was corrected to the engraved range mark by substituting a different front sight blade. But that should be all the ordinary soldier, using standard ammunition needs. I should think more have gone wrong through unwise twiddling of a windage knob, than from not having one.

[vzerone]

I'm sure there is more difference between individual rifles of the same type, than there is between different types. That goes double in military service, where a rifle may have gone through a lot of heavy use, excessive rapid, and ben soaked and dried out in less than ideal conditions.

I can't think of any situation which strikes me as making open sights superior to aperture ones, and the P14 and M1917 Enfields were by decades the first to have that in an easily adjusted and well protected form. Windage was by using a screw adjuster on the front sight, and elevation was corrected to the engraved range mark by substituting a different front sight blade. But that should be all the ordinary soldier, using standard ammunition needs. I should think more have gone wrong through unwise twiddling of a windage knob, than from not having one.

Where do you get that the P14 and M1917 had a windage adjustment screw on the front sight? Am I missing something?

207274

[Artful]

What's nice about the SMLE's is that if they do get dirt or mud in them they are easier to clean it out.

Hmmm


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZobRzO4bSS8

Compared to


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFsx2XS2wA8

vs


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0msFCTY7hI

and


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrV3Wq59mz0

[AbitNutz]

yeah...I was unimpressed by the ability of a bolt action to recover from mud as well...

[lefty o]

my own experiences say you may get a very accurate example of any of them, but the most likely will be an 1896 swede mauser.

[Ballistics in Scotland]

Where do you get that the P14 and M1917 had a windage adjustment screw on the front sight? Am I missing something?

207274

I may not have explained clearly enough for everyone that the P14 and M1917 had front sight windage adjustment by a screw accessory, which normally only a unit armourer would have. It was a little clamplike device, which could move the front sight. It is all the ordinary combat rifleman needs.

The WW1 sniper I knew in childhood was smaller, weaker and infinitely less assertive than the female soldiers of today, considered it his Christian duty, for four years, to send Germans home to take their pension whenever he had the choice. He said shooting was the easy end of his business, and zeroing adjustments were for the range. But forty years after he last used a high powered rifle, he could look out of his window, six hundred yards to the railway pier, and say "Twenty-eight inches left today".

[Ballistics in Scotland]

What's nice about the SMLE's is that if they do get dirt or mud in them they are easier to clean it out. You don't have a bolt going inside a front receiver ring like in the Mausers. The SMLE is one hell of a battle rifle with lots of years under it's belt.

None of them work reliably if they are cycled with mud covering the action. In the old photographs of men in vile conditions, the things to note are whether they are still smiling, and whether the rifles are cleaner than the men. The SMLE was easier to get back in working order after being jammed with mud, though, and the oversized chamber so much complained of today was a help too. All the accuracy in the world is no good if the opposition gets to shoot first.

The Swiss believed that a straight-pull action was less likely to work dirt into the bolt way than a turnbolt, and I find that convincing. I very much like the 1895 Austro-Hungarian rifle, which I think compares very well with the modern commercial straight-pull actions, although none of them can be cycled in silence. But I think even that would more easily admit mud between bolt and bolt-head than my Swiss 1889, which isn't quite as modern, strong or compact as the 1911.

I do believe the most accurate military rifle I ever shot was a Martini-Henry, converted to .303 in the 1890s.

207281

[kens]

I got the '96 Swede, 1903, M98, and a M39 nagant.
The M39 is my 'go-to' steel gong ringer.

[vzerone]

I may not have explained clearly enough for everyone that the P14 and M1917 had front sight windage adjustment by a screw accessory, which normally only a unit armourer would have. It was a little clamplike device, which could move the front sight. It is all the ordinary combat rifleman needs.

The WW1 sniper I knew in childhood was smaller, weaker and infinitely less assertive than the female soldiers of today, considered it his Christian duty, for four years, to send Germans home to take their pension whenever he had the choice. He said shooting was the easy end of his business, and zeroing adjustments were for the range. But forty years after he last used a high powered rifle, he could look out of his window, six hundred yards to the railway pier, and say "Twenty-eight inches left today".

That's what I thought. Some of the Swede's had very good fully adjustable sights. The Mk III* Lithglow had a very nice robust windage adjustable rear sight. I think a U notch and blade front sight to be better in the dark then a peep sight.

[Bent Ramrod]

You might look for a copy of Dunlap’s Ordnance Went Up Front. He had a chance to fire almost everything that was used in WWII, and he had some commentary on the relative accuracy and reliability of the designs.

I seem to recall that he said we should quit sneering at the accuracy of the Italian and Japanese rifles once the 03-A3s were issued. Enemy prisoners questioned said that the only danger they were in past 600 yards or so was from extreme bad luck. May have been a “shooter problem,” of course.

[Multigunner]

.....and most turn bolts with two front locking lugs are derivatives of the Mauser action.

Actually the first bolt action rifle to have twin opposed forwards mounted locking lugs was the American Greene Bolt action manufactured during the US Civil War.
The Lebel with twin lugs also predated both the GEW88 and the Mauser rifles.

Most distinctive features of the Mauser actions were not patented by Mauser, the Extractor and magazine along with the stripper clips were Mauser patented designs.

[vzerone]

Actually the first bolt action rifle to have twin opposed forwards mounted locking lugs was the American Greene Bolt action manufactured during the US Civil War.
The Lebel with twin lugs also predated both the GEW88 and the Mauser rifles.

Most distinctive features of the Mauser actions were not patented by Mauser, the Extractor and magazine along with the stripper clips were Mauser patented designs.

That's true, but seems Mauser ges all the credit when they speak about any two front lug turn bolt!

[john.k]

You need to narrow your time frame,otherwise I m going to say whatever the US is using today for a sniper rifle.I suggest you narrow the field to 1914/ 1915 actual military general issue rifles,which was the heyday of the bolt action.This will rule out the P14/M17 twins.These were Kitcheners orphans,which nobody wanted after he was dead.The hands down winner is the Ross Mk III.With a scope and the wood cut down,it was the most accurate sniper rifle of the war.

[Artful]

You need to narrow your time frame,otherwise I m going to say whatever the US is using today for a sniper rifle.I suggest you narrow the field to 1914/ 1915 actual military general issue rifles,which was the heyday of the bolt action.This will rule out the P14/M17 twins.These were Kitcheners orphans,which nobody wanted after he was dead.The hands down winner is the Ross Mk III.With a scope and the wood cut down,it was the most accurate sniper rifle of the war.

Umm, the original post said

Not the most accurate sniper rifle but general issue rifle...

Such as:

Springfield 03, 03A3
Enfield P14, P17
Mauser 98 (Man....just name some version)
Mannlicher (Man, just name some version)
Enfield No. # whatever
Arisaka
K-31 (a ringer?)

[WILCO]

I love military surplus bolt guns.................................

[RPRNY]

If there is not a consensus on the 1896 Swedish Mauser, it can only be the result of ignorance and poor breeding.

[john.k]

OK,you got me.I plead diminished responsibility,due to reading too many gun forums.Or not reading as the case may be.

[Artful]

If there is not a consensus on the 1896 Swedish Mauser, it can only be the result of ignorance and poor breeding.

It's OK if you have not shot enough GP11 thru a K31 - we forgive your ignorance :kidding:

[Ballistics in Scotland]

The Mk III* Lithglow had a very nice robust windage adjustable rear sight. I think a U notch and blade front sight to be better in the dark then a peep sight.

It is petty and pernickety, except under the greatest temptation, to pick on spelling errors. That sort of accident happens to me a bit. But that name does lend some credence to what you say. An M16-style flipover choice of two apertures might be the best of all, but with a daylight aperture and ghost ring rather than different heights.

I don't think anybody is in great danger from ordinary riflemen at 600 yards, in modern or nearly-modern war. They were, and considerably further, in the Boer War of 1899, the only war in which the breech-loading rifle has ever been the dominant weapon. But the difference was that the soldier then had scarcely anything to learn except drill, keeping clean and musketry. Nowadays demands on the soldier are so multifarious that I doubt if any large army demands better accuracy of the ordinary infantry soldier, than was achievable with the Minié muzzle-loader. Long-range machine-gun fire, either interdictory or for effect, is probably more useful, although it is easier to dodge a burst than a volley.

It has always annoyed me to hear people pouring scorn on the Carcano. It goes with the old "only fired once and dropped" jokes, although authorities as different as Rommel and British and Imperial private soldiers considered some Italian soldiers as good as anybody's. Those made by Beretta were always well made, and so were most of the others. Shortening the barrel to carbine length was a bad idea, when you cut off the fast part of gain-twist rifling, but purpose-made carbines were fine. The cartridge, although loaded unnecessarily weakly for the rifle, is closer than most people realise to the 6.5x54 Mannlicher-Schoenauer, and interchangeability might have been possible in some rifles. The latter is a highly regarded cartridge (I've got mine), and might be an excellent solution as a rifle-cum-machinegun cartridge for those who think modern cartridges are too big and too small. So, if it comes to that, would the 6mm. Lee Navy.

Charger-loading, in a form intended for the turnbolt Remington-Lee, had been patented by Remington's L.P. Diss in 1887, within a few days of the sample Remington-Lee's being presented to the Small Arms Committee in the U.K. They didn't adopt charger loading until the new century, though. In 1896 James Paris Lee sued Mauser for infringement, and lost (under German law) on the basis of prior British and American patents for a central box-magazine. But these patents didn't show effective magazine lips, and Mauser never tried to use Lee's magazine detachability until much later. I don't know if anything about charger loading came into Lee's claim.

[vzerone]

It is petty and pernickety, except under the greatest temptation, to pick on spelling errors. That sort of accident happens to me a bit. But that name does lend some credence to what you say. An M16-style flipover choice of two apertures might be the best of all, but with a daylight aperture and ghost ring rather than different heights.

I don't think anybody is in great danger from ordinary riflemen at 600 yards, in modern or nearly-modern war. They were, and considerably further, in the Boer War of 1899, the only war in which the breech-loading rifle has ever been the dominant weapon. But the difference was that the soldier then had scarcely anything to learn except drill, keeping clean and musketry. Nowadays demands on the soldier are so multifarious that I doubt if any large army demands better accuracy of the ordinary infantry soldier, than was achievable with the Minié muzzle-loader. Long-range machine-gun fire, either interdictory or for effect, is probably more useful, although it is easier to dodge a burst than a volley.

It has always annoyed me to hear people pouring scorn on the Carcano. It goes with the old "only fired once and dropped" jokes, although authorities as different as Rommel and British and Imperial private soldiers considered some Italian soldiers as good as anybody's. Those made by Beretta were always well made, and so were most of the others. Shortening the barrel to carbine length was a bad idea, when you cut off the fast part of gain-twist rifling, but purpose-made carbines were fine. The cartridge, although loaded unnecessarily weakly for the rifle, is closer than most people realise to the 6.5x54 Mannlicher-Schoenauer, and interchangeability might have been possible in some rifles. The latter is a highly regarded cartridge (I've got mine), and might be an excellent solution as a rifle-cum-machinegun cartridge for those who think modern cartridges are too big and too small. So, if it comes to that, would the 6mm. Lee Navy.

Charger-loading, in a form intended for the turnbolt Remington-Lee, had been patented by Remington's L.P. Diss in 1887, within a few days of the sample Remington-Lee's being presented to the Small Arms Committee in the U.K. They didn't adopt charger loading until the new century, though. In 1896 James Paris Lee sued Mauser for infringement, and lost (under German law) on the basis of prior British and American patents for a central box-magazine. But these patents didn't show effective magazine lips, and Mauser never tried to use Lee's magazine detachability until much later. I don't know if anything about charger loading came into Lee's claim.

I always want to get that **** "L" in that name. The Carcano is very underated rifle. As you said the Berettas were well made. I understand that they used the finest steels and the early barrels were Bofors steel. I know of a test to blow up a Carcano didn't succeed very well. I think some get a false impression that any rifle with a split rear bridge, say Mannlicher, is a very weak action. That's not so.

So then you don't think that the M1 Garand and M14 had excellent sights? I like them myself and think maybe they may have even been better with a flip peep to offer that larger orifice. We see they did that on the later M16 sights.

[Ballistics in Scotland]

The M1 and M14 rear sight is pretty good, and the longer range of some earlier sights isn't much of a factor in actual military use. But they aren't as well protected from damage as those on the P14 and M1917 Enfields.

Here is .something else on the Swiss 1889. Rear sights which operate by ramp and slider are easily damaged by a blow from above. But this one simple snaps down to the lowest position, and is unharmed when you raise it up again.

207379

[vzerone]

In my opinion the British seemed to want to protect their sights. I can't imagine what went through the U.S's mind when they left that fragile thin blade sight up there on the Krags an 1903's unprotected.

Yes long range sights and magazine cutoffs have gone to history.

[Earlwb]

Yes the machine gun replaced the infantry volley fire of old. Also at present, is that all of the militaries in the world consider in city street fighting to be the thing to prepare for. So they prefer short barreled weapons for the infantry to be the thing to have. Which is interesting as in Afghanistan and Iraq they had to do a lot of open desert, mountainous terrain longer distance engagements too. But they still have had lots of in city street fighting later though. Except for snipers long distance shooting, it is the machine gun that handles the longer distance shooting at present.

Yes the Carcano is quite good. I used a carbine as my truck gun for a number of years when I was a teenager. I still have it and had a scope mounted on it later too. People tend to forget that Oswald assassinated President Kennedy using one too. Plus he was a moving target no less as well.

[OS OK]

Most accurate rifle?

Simple...any of the above placed in the hands of a Marine! . . . :bigsmyl2:

[Happyguy]

I have always been partial to the SMLE or 1903a3.

[vzerone]

I have always been partial to the SMLE or 1903a3.

I'm not smiting your choice or anyone elses, but a real eye opener it going to Youtube and punching in Mud Test for ???? and seeing the results. I just watched them for the Mosin, 98 Mauser, Arisaka, and the SMLE and I was totally shocked at how they all did.

[Jeff Michel]

I have or owned all the rifles or variants on the OP list. Most shot fairly well, especially the Springfield and several breeds of Mauser, but none were in the same league as the K11 or better still the K31. I have commercial rifles that have trouble keeping up with either one. But to be fair, I'm no sort of legend in shooting circles.

[oldblinddog]

Most accurate rifle?

Simple...any of the above placed in the hands of a Marine! . . . :bigsmyl2:

Even to six hundred yards.
<---- see avatar to left.

[Larry Gibson]

I'm not smiting your choice or anyone elses, but a real eye opener it going to Youtube and punching in Mud Test for ???? and seeing the results. I just watched them for the Mosin, 98 Mauser, Arisaka, and the SMLE and I was totally shocked at how they all did.

Given the question of this thread is; " Is there a general consensus of what was the most accurate military bolt rifle?" perhaps you can explain the relevance of that particular "mud test" to the accuracy of a rifle? I have conducted and read a lot of accuracy tests but never have I seen globbing mud on the rifle to be part of the test. Even then I didn't see any "accuracy" testing conducted in any of those videos. Just pondering the relevance is all.......

[Multigunner]

An advantage of the M1903 was a phenomena that was the subject of much study at the time and should be studied by any modern firearms maker.
All Bolt Action receivers that have any sort of ejection port have a slight flex when fired. The more open the receiver the more flex and rear locking receivers flex most of all.
With the 1903 with its front lugs and sturdy left hand wall the flex was miniscule and results in only a few hundreds of an inch of bullet jump at the muzzle. The bullet starts off thrown very slightly to the left in relation to the bore line. As the right hand twist spin drift takes effect the bullet moves ever so slowly to meet the bore line till it coincides with both bore line and line of sight at something less than 600 yards. After that spin drift becomes a factor in longer range shooting, but the leftwards muzzle jump results in far less need to compensate than would other wise be the case.
I figure this was why the original 1903 combat sight was regulated to 500+ yards. At that range you could generally bore sight the rifle at the factory and expect it to be very close to dead center in the horizontal plane out to 600 yards or more.

[Ballistics in Scotland]

An advantage of the M1903 was a phenomena that was the subject of much study at the time and should be studied by any modern firearms maker.
All Bolt Action receivers that have any sort of ejection port have a slight flex when fired. The more open the receiver the more flex and rear locking receivers flex most of all.
With the 1903 with its front lugs and sturdy left hand wall the flex was miniscule and results in only a few hundreds of an inch of bullet jump at the muzzle. The bullet starts off thrown very slightly to the left in relation to the bore line. As the right hand twist spin drift takes effect the bullet moves ever so slowly to meet the bore line till it coincides with both bore line and line of sight at something less than 600 yards. After that spin drift becomes a factor in longer range shooting, but the leftwards muzzle jump results in far less need to compensate than would other wise be the case.
I figure this was why the original 1903 combat sight was regulated to 500+ yards. At that range you could generally bore sight the rifle at the factory and expect it to be very close to dead center in the horizontal plane out to 600 yards or more.

There was a more pronounced compensation effect in the Lee-Enfields, greatest in the light-barrelled SMLE, but present in the long Lee-Enfield, No4 and even the heavier barrelled target rifles. The SMLE could string inconsistent military ammunition up and down quite badly at 200 yards - not too badly for an exposed human target, but badly for a loophole or a tank slit. But it was inconsistent in the direction of low-powered rounds going high, and high-powered ones going low. At 1000 yards or so they had a very useful tendency to meet up again. Well, useful to the civilian enthusiast or the n

For many years the main centrefire target discipline in the UK required miltary actions with a barrel of a specified medium-heavy weight, and issued ammunition, first .303 and later 7.62x, althoug51. At the shorter ranges, or at any when the ammunition was good, the P14 Enfield and Mausers probably had an edge, although not a big one when Lee-Enfield bedding was so well figured out. But at the long ranges in a year of bad ammunition, the Lee-Enfields came into their own again.

[beemer]

In post #9 I mentioned a K31 that was very accurate with issue ammo. The rifle had one quirk, when I fired cast loads the rifle shot 6-7 inches to the right. It did the same with lower powered jacketed loads but as power increased the poi moved back toward the poa. Was I correct in assuming this was due to the action flexing differently as the power level changed ?

Dave

[jeffs4wheeler]

I think the springfield 03a3 is the most accurate

[44magLeo]

I just read through this thread.
I recall an article I read a few years back, Can't remember the magazine, anyway the author took a rifle fielded by all the participants in WW1 and shoot them for accuracy by shooting at man sized targets out to what ever each rifle couldn't keep all it's shots on the target.
Most quit at 300 yards or so, a few went to 400. The only one to make to 600 yards was the Mosin Nagant.
I know it isn't on the list but Mine shoots very well at the ranges I can see the sights well enough. 100 is about max and I can't see the sights as well as I did a few years back. At that range when I do my part I get 2-3 inch groups. That's with most factory loads.
My hand loads at this point are a bit larger groups but I haven't tried all the combinations with all the different bullet diameters yet.
My first attempt at cast loads are not near as well, but coming along.
Leo

[azrednek]

Lend my two cents as I haven't gone through all the posts.

From my experience it is a toss up between my 1908 dated 03 with a WW2 issue 03A3 bolt and a Model 1909 Argintine sniper rifle.

Save the warnings been shooting the low numbered 03 for over 40 years and she ain't blown up yet. The Argie bought in the early 70's from SARCO for about a buck and a quarter. Came with the early German turret scope mounts, no scope and matching factory turned down bolt. Hated to see the Argie go but couldn't resist a straight across trade for a 50's M-1 Garrand.

The Argie only rivaled my Springfield with hand loaded ammo. I did have a box of 15, 1970's Argie mfd soft tip sporting ammo that left me kicking myself for not buying more before it disappeared. An interesting note on the Argie Ammo. Had a warning in Spanish not to shoot in 91's. My 03 simply shoots clusters with anything including cast.

[Multigunner]

An interesting compensation related problem resulted in the perception that the older Lee Enfield was not as good as the 1893 Mauser at long range during the Boer Wars. In fact the Enfield in use there were coming no where near the mark as the Mauser bullets were taking a bloody toll.
It was due to the double base propellants in use at the time, all of them not just Cordite.
They found that when loads worked up for the .303 or any other British cartridge of that power range were used in Africa the velocity was higher and the burning rate faster. In the LE rifles the difference caused the POI to shift even further to the left that the front sight off set could compensate for.
An order was sent out to turn in all the rifles to have the front sight off set increased. This was not feasible so they developed a rear sight ladder slide with the notch off set to the right.

The heat sensitivity problem got so bad that many rifles ended up with blown through tubular type bullet jackets ironed into the bores further affecting accuracy.
In one account a British officer wrote of his men being ambushed by Boers mainly armed with captured LE rifles. Some of his men were hit by small lead slugs with only enough velocity to raise a bruise or barely break the skin.
On examining a few recaptured LE rifles they found the bores were lined end to end with blown through jackets. The lead cores were what were hitting his men.
This resulted in making changes in jacket and core manufacture and ultimately ditching tubular jackets altogether.

The rear locking lugs of the LE made it more sensitive to variations in velocity but the problem was more propellant based.

British sporting arms gun makers then began to develop loads specifically for use in tropical heat.

Later greatly reduced Nitroglycerin content in double base powders seemed to do the trick.

[Larry Gibson]

"An interesting note on the Argie Ammo. Had a warning in Spanish not to shoot in 91's."

That was because the M1909's sights were regulated to the new lighter weight spritzer bullet at higher velocity. The M91's sights are regulated to the original 200 (+/-) gr RN bullet at lower velocity. I have pressure tested several lots of the spritzer 7.65 Argentine made in Argentina and Belgian 7.65 made by FN long with Norma, Graf and Hornady 7.65 Argentine commercial ammo. They all average right at the CIP PMAP which makes them with in the pressure range for the M91.

There was one commercial load I found to give excessive pressure for even the M1906. That was the no longer catalogued Norma 150 gr SP with a listed velocity of 2900+ fps. It came in at 66,900 psi(M43) and 2943 fps (24" barrel)......probably why it's no longer on the market. The "new" Norma 170 gr is with in CIP PMAP and is good, but expensive, ammo.

[arlon]

There are just too many variables with mil-surps. Bore condition, sights, stock to barrel fit, ammo, etc. I think a lot of the guns from smaller countries hold the edge over all. Mostly because they were just taken care of better. Swiss, Swede, Argentine,.. My best groups shot with a mil-surp were done with an 03-A3 with a 2 groove barrel that had Lyman sights added (since it has altered sights, it doesn't really count). At my age sights are probably more important than the gun they are on. I have a hard time getting good sight/target focus with straight open sights. If I were going to compete, I'd select the rifle with the best peep sights and work it up from there.

[303Guy]

Not a military rifle but a sporter factory built on one. A Lithgow SMLE actioned 25-303 with a SMLE profile long skinny barrel. At 200yds it shot sub MOA. Scary accurate. With scope of course but the point is, the action can do it, even with a long skinny free floating barrel.

[AbitNutz]

My Enfield 2A1 in 7.62x51 has a Parker Hale receiver sight on it...it out shoots all of my other bolt action military rifles.

[vzerone]

Not a military rifle but a sporter factory built on one. A Lithgow actioned 25-303 with a SMLE profile long skinny barrel. At 200yds it shot sub MOA. Scary accurate. With scope of course but the point is, the action can do, it even with a long skinny free floating barrel.

Of the SMLE's I prefer the Ligthgow the most.

[gwpercle]

I have most of the usual WWII military rifles and even though the 1903 Springfield can be a most accurate rifle if given a little special treatment ( match barrel and bedding ) the off the rack , run of the mill , military surplus Swiss Schmidt-Ruben 1911 Carbine (K11) will shoot better groups with both cast and jacketed bullets.
The Swiss built this rifle like they build their fine Swiss watch's ... If you have never shot one you have missed a pleasant shooting experience.
The actions smoothness has been described to me by a fellow shooter as " operating like greased ball bearings on glass". That's slick ! And the accuracy is there in spades .

My favorite to shoot with castboolits is my BSA Ltd. 1942 manufactured No.4 MKI 303 British Enfield. Always did think they looked like a proper battle rifle and mine has a tight chamber , throat and barrel dimensions so no problems with reloading for it.
Gary

[dogmower]

my 1903-a3 is the most accurate one i have, but not by much. the 7.65 mauser, k-31 swiss and arisaka are right there with it.

[Boolseye]

I have a K98 sporter that is a real tackdriver with the Lee 8mm 175 gr. boolit and 16 gr. of 2400. I think it's my most accurate rifle.
My 91/30 will also drive tacks with cast and 2400.

[hornady308]

The little 6.5 Arisaka just does not get much respect. It is a sweet shooter with very little recoil, yet is deadly accurate with IMR3031 and the Hornady 129gr bullet. I dropped a nice 6 pointer with mine during the current season. With cast boolits, my 1943 03-A3 is the most accurate gun I have shot.

[Discus420]

M1903 National Match

[Artful]

M1903 National Match

I wasn't aware that was a general issue rifle...

[Discus420]

I wasn't aware that was a general issue rifle...

it wasn't your correct ......but they sure are fun to shoot and amazing accurate

[largom]

it wasn't your correct ......but they sure are fun to shoot and amazing accurate

Owned a couple issue o3a3's that were super accurate.

[Eddie Southgate]

Not the most accurate sniper rifle but general issue rifle...

Such as:

Springfield 03, 03A3
Enfield P14, P17
Mauser 98 (Man....just name some version)
Mannlicher (Man, just name some version)
Enfield No. # whatever
Arisaka
K-31 (a ringer?)

Well, you guys get the idea. I'm sure the sights have a huge impact. I have an Enfield Ishapore 2A1 in 308 that was hopeless...untill I maneged to come up with a Parker Hale PH5A. Boy did that change where the holes in the target were.

So you can change the sights within reason (no scopes) and do your favorite handloads but that's it. Which rifle makes the most holes in the 10 ring?



I guess you can see the answer to your question is No . Everybody has their own most accurate . Mine is a straight stock m39 Finn and a $39.00 French bolt rifle , next guys is something else .

Eddie

[BD]

As issued, it's hands down the Swede's. Take 50 examples of any military bolt action as issued, compare the average accuracy, and the Swedes will win the contest every time.