Most accurate WWII bolt rifle?

"well lets see, if we discount anything designed before 1940 and still used in WWII that leaves.... the FG42 which was a semi, the MP44 which was a select fire, and the... oh wait.. the 1903A3 is the only contender."

The FG-42 was select fire.

If you're going to include the 1903A3, which is really only a manufacturing derivation of a much older design (it still had the original bolt design and magazine cutoff of the M1903), then you need to include the various post 1940 Marks of the No 4 Mk I Lee Enfield.
 
"It was a semi-auto though but the charging handle was kind of on the left hand side."

I've heard that there were G43s with the charging handle pointing to the right. Anyone know if that's true or not?
 
Ok, and yes, Kimio.....that's the rifle! I see you somehow grabbed a clip from the movie.

The rifle was used by an American and no explanation as to why he was using a German rifle.

Sorry for the thread diversion and thanks to all for info......I had Googled WWII sniper rifles without success and it was nagging at me.

:)
 
K-31 hands down.

Beats the 1903A3 in all aspects except sights.

-Faster to Cycle
-Greater Capacity 6+1 vs 5+1
-Detachable box magazine
-Extremely easy to disasemble (turn the safety halfway and just pull the bolt apart to dissemble. No springs to depress.)
-More Accurate :)
-Great for knocking snow and ice off of cleats.

:D
 
Bart B., while Kimio, the OP did use the word "develop" he also mentioned the Swiss K31, a rifle that was most certainly not developed in WWII, or at least the European Theater of WWII where we generally consider the opening of hostilities much later than 1931.

Generally historians list WWII as 1939-1945, with the onset of hostilities in Europe, not the 1931 invasion of Manchuria by Japan.

Jimro
 
Very few, if any, bolt actions were designed or developed during W.W. II. It wasn't just the U.S. Ordnance Dept. that worked on a semi-auto prior to 1939.
W.W. II started in 1939(Germany invaded Poland in '39, not '38.), not 1940 or 1937. Certainly not 1941.
FN Mauser's are post war. If you don't count occupation made rifles. Not designed or developed by FN anyway.
The 1903A3 exists due to Remington's simplifying the design to ease manufacture. Not designed or developed by them either. Smith Corona just had a contract.
A W. W. II movie has nothing whatever to do with reality. However, everybody involved played with a utilised the other side's kit. Moreso in North Africa, but it happened elsewhere too. Germans used kit from anywhere they could get it. Invaded France, etc. in 1940, using lots of Czech designed and built tanks.
 
There was an interesting article in a shooting magazine I have. It tested scoped WWIIsniper rifles, using the scopes originally used (in one case a repro scope had to be used). Much to my surprise, the Moisin tested best at 1000 yards.
 
The Germans fielded a hunting rifle, the British a battle rifle, the Russians an antique rifle, but the Americans brought their Tommy guns.

Peace through superior firepower.
 
"While it's a popular belief that barrel length (sight radius?) improves accuracy at long range when it's longer, it doesn't really work out that way. The front sight visually moves about the desired impact point in the same subtended cone angle regardless of the distance it is from the rear sight. If a rifle shooter can keep his line of sight inside a 2 MOA subtended angle and the range is 1000 yards, his aiming point stays inside a 2 MOA area on target. How far apart the sights are doesn't matter. It all looks the same regardless of how far apart the sights are."

How many Germans did YOU shoot in 1943-44? The guy who made the statement had to use what was available and the P17 rifles that were available were more accurate(and/or easier to shoot) than the 03 Springfields or Garands.
__________________
 
Doesn't matter where I was in the 1940's.

My point was, and still is, a longer sight radius do not improve ones ability to aim a rifle precisely. The P17 may well have been easier to shoot more accurate for several reasons, but its longer sight radius was not one of them.

And the SMLE .303's had better long range accuracy than the 1903's or 1917's because of positive compensation for their huge muzzle velocity spread.
 
"And the SMLE .303's had better long range accuracy than the 1903's or 1917's because of positive compensation for their huge muzzle velocity spread."

And I seriously doubt this due to the SMLE two piece stock and the trigger/sear configuration.
 
And the SMLE .303's had better long range accuracy than the 1903's or 1917's because of positive compensation for their huge muzzle velocity spread.
Click to expand...
__________________


huh? Can you be more specific as to what that means.

Howe about just talk about all the bolt action rifles USED in WWII

That pretty well takes it all in

Sight radium may not improve accuracy but it can improve the sight picture so there is a valid argument that the radius does help (or so I think)

IMNSHO the 1917 peep sight (lifted) and a good slid blade as well as the sight picture were top notch used in WWII, but that's me.
 
Sight radius does not effect the accuracy of the rifle.

But, sight radius does effect the aiming of the rifle.

For an example, a .0061 error in sighting moves the bullet impact 1 inch at 100 yards with a 22 inch barrel.

It would take a .0072 error to move the impact 1 inch with a 26 inch sight radius.

Along the same lines I shoot better with a thick front sight then I do with an thinner front sight. But that's me, my eyes, not the rifle. Switching the front sight does not effect the accuracy of the rifle, but my ability to aim the rifle.

In reality the error is caused by the shooter and not the rifle.
 
For an example, a .0061 error in sighting moves the bullet impact 1 inch at 100 yards with a 22 inch barrel.

It would take a .0072 error to move the impact 1 inch with a 26 inch sight radius.
Click to expand...
Where's the error?

Front sight aligned off center in the rear aperture but centered on the target?

Or misalignment on the target image but centered in the rear aperture?

Remember a rifle aimed with metallic sights and the front one centered in the rear one will have the front sight appear the same amount for a given angle off the target center regardless of the distance between them. They're in a straight line at some angle relative to the bore axis and they stay there for every shot until one of them's moved. The further down range one measures their positions, the further apart they are, but the angle between them stays the same.

A rifle with a 15" sight radius with its front sight 1 MOA off to one side of the eye/rearsight-target axis, the front sight will be .00415" off the eye/rearsight-target axis. With a 30" sight radius and the front sight's 1 MOA off the eye/rearsight-target axis, it'll be .0083" to the side of it. The rifle has to be move 1 MOA towards the target center to correct it regardless of the sight radius.

Regarding the .303 British rifle having positive compensation:

https://archive.org/details/philtrans05900167

Click on the PDF link on the left to read about the physics behind it.
 
Last edited:
Bart B.,

Sight radius has nothing to do with the accuracy of the rifle.

But the human eye is made in such a way that a longer sight radius makes it easier to shoot accurately. It is the same reason why rear apeture sights are easier to shoot accurately than Patridge sights. By increasing the distance between sights and increasing the radius, making the rear sight closer to the eye, it becomes "more ergonomic" to the eye.

After all, if sight radius or sight components had no affect on accuracy, we'd see AK's shooting just as accurately as AR's inside of 250 meters. But we don't, as it is much more difficult to use the over barrel rear blade with short sight radius of an AK than it is to use the over the action apeture sight with long sight radius of an AR-15. Also the reason that the A2 style AR-15 dominates competition and NO ONE bothers to use an M4 clone for service rifle competition.

Same reason m91/30s are easier to shoot accurately than m44s.

It isn't in the rifle mechanics, it is in human biology. Put any of the rifles from WWII in a rest and the mechanical accuracy will be very similar.

Jimro
 
Jimro, I understand what you're saying.

My reference was an aperture rear sight mounted at the rear of the receiver and a front sight post close to the muzzle. Sight radius with that arrangement doesn't matter. This is the way M1, M14, later M1903 and M1917 sights were set up. A comparison of the same aperture-rear-post-front systems. The reason the M1903's rear sight was moved from the barrel back several inches to the receiver bridge was due to M1903's used in competion with receiver-mounted aperture sights produced better scores than those with barrel-mounted V-notch ones; both in slow fire matches and more so in rapid fire ones..

But with open sights with the front one near the muzzle and the rear one a ways in front of the receiver (original M1903 and M98) as you mention, sight radius does make a difference.

It's both sight spacing and locations that matters.
 
Last edited:
My pick would be a factory selected M91-30 sniper rifle, mounted with a 3.5X PU scope --- which should give every other WWII sniper rifle a run for there money!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top