the 1903A3 has nearly as much of a reputation as the K31 for accuracy.
Was its ammunition? As with the 6.5x55 Swedish Mausers, the ammo was just as much, if not more, the reason for the rifles' accuracy at the time.
the K31, albeit a very fine battle rifle has no historical value as a weapon that won or lost a war, therefore the Springfields have more collectors value.
You mean it has no
sentimental value, in a patriotic sense. I can sorta agree with that. To say it is not historical is incorrect, however, being a highly advanced, incredibly well made, and probably the most expensive bolt rifle ever issued to main-line troops, which has seen as much if not
more post-war sporting use success per-rifle than any other. I won't even get into how undervalued the guns still are now that ammunition is widely available, in comparison to 1903-variants which have long since bid up to collector's prices and whose ammunition is no longer attainable for .50$/round in match quality.
K31s for the most part had beech stocks with very few having walnut. walnut is a sturdier wood and guns with walnut stocks have better resale value. American service rifles from 1903 on all used walnut stocks all the way up to the M16.
Other than beech showing dents/stains more than the darker walnut, they are exactly the same quality and sturdiness as each other. Americans like dark rifles, hence we bid the more-common walnut guns higher. That's really all there is to it. To be honest, since the guns are all non-historical and all, it behooves buyers to acquire as recent a model as possible for less-worn components and bore; it will likely be a beech. Walnut is the closest thing to a decent stock wood that Americans grew natively in quantity (it happens to be really good, too). Our only other options would be something like pine or maple; nowhere near as good a stock material.
in the case of the 1903A4, only an estimated 30,000 were ever made making them extremely rare in comparison to the K31.
Getting back to question of how they managed to win the war... The Swiss guns saw just as much training use during the war to at least
reasonably prove their mettle; do keep that in mind. A great many were used, and trained with regularly, and there were few complaints. To be specific, the rifles were never
privation-tested, but I'm not sure the 1903A3 was much, either.
You have to do the same with the Springfield. The bolt throw is that car back.
I'm convinced, since I do not have to move my head on my K31, that the stock shape difference and personal preference are the culprit, here. I've even heard of people snugging up on the receiver and getting nose-bit by the ring upon recoil. I think the super-straight stock of the K31 just makes people want to lean more forward. A clamp on St. Marie scope and one of those awesome leather lace-up cheek risers that "someone" around here has (
) would likely make you lean more to the side and make it a non-issue.
the rate of fire is negated by the fact that you have to remove your cheek from the stock to cycle meaning that you lose your sight picture and have to re-acquire it after every shot.
I have found the K31 can be prone to short-stroking or FTF during extended rapid-fire; my suspicion is that it is mostly short-stroking, coupled with a somewhat weak mag spring force by the time the last round or two are up to bat. I might have to 'jimmy' the bolt handle a little when this occurs slowing me slightly. The 1903
is a bit more robust, here, and the stock/bolt design do make reacquiring the trigger and sights a bit faster, but let's be honest; aside from bragging rights, rapid fire is about the least important factor in a bolt gun. We had M1 Garands and (later) STGW57's for that. Besides, I thought we were talking about precision sniping guns with magnified optics. No one's doing a Mad Minute with a 4X objective scope with vintage eye-relief reciprocating in front of their eyeball. That stupid
target (not "field") drill was the source of this whole dumb 'rivalry' as far as I can tell.
TCB, tell me about your 57. What ammunition are you using? The 57 is fully capable of moa with a decent scope, and even with the diopter once you're used to it. Something's not right.
GP11, nothing else will do (and I don't want to tempt the rifle's delay timing. I'll never fully trust delayed blowback further than it can throw pieces of the rifle). With the...
interesting ergonomics fit for a 8ft Strong Man Competition contestant, and crude (by comparison to the K31) trigger, I expect and always understood it was slightly more open than 1MOA (like 1-2, instead). The current 'spread' is solely due to me being new to iron sights, and peep sights in particular. I'm better with a K31's partridge sights, but my FN49 and STGW I'm still yet to have an epiphany with. Most of it is just practice; the sturmgewehr is a fairly uncomfortable gun to shoot, and the surprisingly mild (even for its weight) recoil has nothing to do with it. The trigger's like 3/8" wide, the pistol grip 4" or so below the bore, and the stock like sighting down a rubberized 2x4. I've also got a reproduction receiver, this being a re-weld, which may or may not be affecting the rigidity and dynamics of the whole thing. The sights are off because I skipped a step when clamping it all up for re-weld
(not doing that again, although I got away with it once before doing the AR70
)
Attached is
that beast with the accessories I've accumulated so far (for some reason standard Energa practice grenades fit the Swiss launcher profile). The fitted drum is a 63 round DPM conversion setup I'm still debugging --looks totes menacing, though
TCB
--shoulda done that bore-sighting before burning those welds, all right 