looking for input.

Yeah, and in a couple years we'll have a Dodge Barracuda :rolleyes:. I always figured St. Marie was a maker/owner of a specific model of mount, which sounds close enough to the reality (in terms of defining a specific product). Good to know Swiss Products is the one go-to shop, anymore :cool:

TCB
 
Well, if I did want to modify/sporterize my beloved K-31, I would most likely choose you guys. I don't do much research in aftermarket stuff, as I try to keep my rifles milspec.
 
I know, I just want to keep my rifle the way it is currently. I've only fired 6 rounds through it and it grouped pretty well at 50 yards.
 
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.
Click to expand...
I was responding to these comments
[1903,1903A3,1903A4 are] ridiculously overpriced. You can get a far better rifle for less money(K-31 for example). I was considering getting one until I saw the price and I learned about the K-31.
Click to expand...
Hypothetically, it would have been better than a 1903 in war, in my opinion, due the the straight pull bolt which allows for greater rate of fire, detachable magazine, 6+1 capacity, and the fact that they are largely in part more accurate.

I just don't think, in World War 2, that the Springfield would have been a very practical weapon other than by snipers. That's just my opinion
Click to expand...

the conversation spread a bit from snipers to general issue variants.

I'm done beating the dead horse though, time to get back to the original intent of this thread.

I see quite a few recommendations for K31 over scoping an existing rifle.
 
by december of 1941 there were only 500,000 M1 garands, there were several million 1903s, which do you think saw more front line service throughout most of the war?
Click to expand...

By Dec. 1941, there were less than 1 1/2 million Springfields. The only "front line" service Springfields saw (other than some used later by Marines) was in defensive actions in the Pacific against the Japanese. Remington was asked to produce the 1903, then the 03-A3, but, by the time they had geared up for large-scale production, Garand production had begun to catch up for the needs of the Army. Springfields were relegated to rear echelon and National Guard units, and many were never issued at all. The first real major combat the U.S. armed forces saw were in North Africa in 1942. I don't have statistics to know how many Springfields, if any, were used in North Africa, but I doubt it was a lot.
 
Tahunua, arguments aside, i think you would really enjoy a K-31. Considering how accurate they are with irons, I can only imagine what a scope would do. Good luck with your future purchase (maybe you'll get a good a deal as I got :D).
 
You can get a far better rifle for less money
Click to expand...
To be fair, the cheapest 03A3 on Gunbroker is like 650$, and generic 1903's that aren't sporterized seem to start around 500$. Granted, the 1903's do seem to be in very good condition all around, with slightly nicer stocks, but slightly uglier metal (just because park doesn't wear quite as nicely as bluing). So, the difference in "deal" isn't as stark as it was when the Swiss were under 300$, but it is still there, nonetheless.

I see quite a few recommendations for K31 over scoping an existing rifle.
Click to expand...
And a good chunk of this is because scoping the K31 itself is also pretty easy; best of both worlds :D

TCB
 
Comparing the US Springfield to the Swiss K31 is ignoring the background. The US rifle was designed for mass production in the standard American industrial system. It was perfect for gearing up to a ten-million man Army. Absent the Enfield contracts with the British in 1917, we would have produced Switzerland's annual output of K31s (then K11s) in a single day or week.

The Swiss K31, was not designed for large-scale mass production. The Swiss could produce thousands of rifles in a year, that was sufficient to arm their entire civilian population if needed, and keep the factory open.

Which one is better? It's Ford v. Chevy.

Both were obsolete in the mid-1930s, as a general-issue military arm.
 
Walking the Walk

.

Even if your form is perfect --

Hitting your spot at long range, and especially shooting little cluster groups, is all about dealing with one issue.

W.I.N.D . . . .


And sometimes

m..i.r….A…G..E

I don't give a damn if a person has a rifle that can shoot through the same
hole in an indoor range from a machine rest. Conditions can make a fool out
of an armchair sniper's "consistent" small group braggadocio.

Try actually doing some shooting at 4 or 500 yards sometime and
you will immediately see what I'm talking about. Even at 250 with
much condition at all it's tough nuts on tight groups.

Except for the really experienced and highly trained rifleman, taking shots at game over 300 yards is totally unethical. I thought I would throw that out
there while I was thinking about it.

Tinker with this program on the advanced setting and see what just a light wind variation does to trajectory --

http://www.hornady.com/ballistics-resource/ballistics-calculator

End of sermon. Do I hear an Amen ?

.
 
Or............. www.shooterready.com
This is Stewart Wilson's original training site. If you're not sure who he is..... He developed the Windrunner series of rifles. This is him at the USMC High Angle Range in Hawthorne making 1 mile shots.



I have one of his proto-type rifles.
 
thank you for the sermon DR, but I'm a little confused what has prompted this? there really isn't any talk here about long range shooting other than cartridges being capable of reaching the ranges.

also, I have taken 300 yard shots on game and brought home meat so I would apreciate it if we can avoid turning this into an ethical discussion. Ethics are subjective and unique to each individual, there is no set value for ethical and unethical, especially when it comes to hunting. please leave them at the door. every one of the hunts that I took last year were considered to be unethical by one person or another and every tag I worked on was filled, with minimal suffering from the animals I hunted.

thank you.
 
Probably just trying to stir something up. Bench rest or no as long as your pulling the trigger, you still shooting. Also, if my dad can kill a ground hog from 400 yards from the hood of his truck with 1 round to the head, that's not really unethical.

And saying words like "armchair sniper" is going to cause nothing but trouble among the long distance bench rest shooters.
 
I wouldn't read too much into phrases like "armchair sniper", "mall ninja", "Obama"... people on this site throw those around a lot(myself included). there are a heck of a lot of people that "know" a lot about long range shoot from what they've read in magazines but few have ever actually done it and really shouldn't be offering advice because much of that is second hand and possible out of context. right now on this site there is a thread of a fellow who wants to start shooting long range with little rifle experience, a person on there actually suggested that he buy a $3500 338 Lapua with a $2500 scope:eek:. there are many who refer to themselves as snipers who have never actually received the title from an official marksmanship school, and there are some truly terrible shots that think that the more expensive rig you have the better your shot will be, this is not always the case.
 
The K31s were not sniper rifles, they were battle rifles designed & built in Switzerland.
They are a beautifully designed, beautifully built piece of precision Swiss manufacture. They were NEVER used with corrosive ammo so their bores are usually quite nice.
The fit and finish of their metal parts is truly superb, their triggers are excellent two stage, clean and crisp.
Placing a K31 alongside a 03 Springfield, '17 Enfield (US rifle of 1917), a Garand or a .30 carbine (And a Mauser K98, any Mosin or French rifle) will clearly show the significant difference in quality of construction and precision. (You can check them all out if you look in my safe)
It is also my OPINION that the K31 would not be a good battle rifle due to its precision and intolerance for dirt, sand and other detritus of war.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top