Most accurate WWII bolt rifle?

I think the Swiss K31's are very accurate.

The K31's have a pretty good rep of being really accurate. The mosin nagants are pretty accurate(I have one) but I have heard the K31's are better with accuracy.
 
Mine tends to shoot my handloads a lot better than GP11. I need to practice more with it, though. Only ran about 100 rounds through it so far.
 
I don't think a answer will be found to the question. Different factories and wear on tooling played a factor. It would be easier - possibly- to determine the specifications required for the service arm by each country. WWII was a pretty dynamic war with little in the way of static fighting conditions as in WWI. It's not uncommon to hear of 300 meter head shots from the trenches with standard issue arms. Even if a person has an example of every arm used the results would be for the individual arms tested against each other.
 
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!
Click to expand...

You're kidding right?

I recommend you visit a couple CMP Vintage Sniper Matches and re-evaluate that statement.
 
"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."

I have seen this claim aired before---on a popular Enfield venue with a bunch of Australians as regulars.
Essentially the idea is that the SMLE and No4 rifles can throw curveballs---like the actors do in that ridiculous Angelina Jolie movie.
Need we say more?
Regardless of theory or opinion, if this worked, long range shooters would be snatching up Enfields to use competitively...and they're not.
As a matter of fact, British competitors at Bisley matches have abandoned the .303 and the SMLE to go on with the gas-less, UK version of the AR 15.
-----krinko
 
Where's the error?
Click to expand...
it doesn't matter. if you have a straw sitting on a table and you lift one end and change the angle by 1 degree, it doesn't matter which end is lifted, the difference in angle is still one degree. an error can run any of the 360 degrees possible between the two sights(divide by two but mulitply by two because of the overlapping possibilities between the two sights) and you end up with 360 different possible points of impact, but regardless they are all off by the same amount. this is all assuming you're shooting a laser and not a projectile that doesn't travel in a straight line but the concept and theory behind it is the same. it's been a long established and commonly accepted truth that a longer sight radius makes a gun easier to shoot more accurately than a shorter sight radius because they are less forgiving of deviation. however this does not change the inherent accuracy of the rifle, only the ability of the shooter to fire the gun more accurately.
 
The Brits proved a century ago their .303's had positive compensation. Bullets shot with cordite had a huge muzzle velocity spread. Slower ones left later on the muzzle axis up swing, faster ones sooner. That's called positive compensation for bullet drop at long range. At short and medium ranges, the SMLE's weren't too accurate. They used M98 Mauser action based rifles for ranges 500 yards and less.

When they got rid of their .303's and switched to 7.62 NATO, the new ammo had a lower muzzle velocity range and their SMLE converted didn't fare as well; vertically. But their arsenal ammo didn't have very square case heads and it had horizontal shot stringing worse than vertical in front locking actions with lugs at top and bottom when in battery. So they allowed a new commercial 4-lug action be used made by Swing and that solved the horizontal stringing problem. Their modern 7.62 NATO 3- and 4-lug action based rifles don't have either problem.

I've talked with older Brits and others in their Commonwealth nations about those old .303's. All were pleased that the NATO ammo was better in front locking bolts compared to the rear locking SMLE's.
 
Last edited:
In order to gauge the accuracy of a WWII sniper rifle...all test guns should be supplied with original WWII mil-spec ammo.
 
Wouldn't it depend a lot on Where and When, and also design features. Compared to my 1918 made M1903 the sights on my 1917 made Ge98 are downright crude, and I have read that in WWI we hade the best target rifle, the Germans the best hunting riddle and the British the best combat rifle. Some of those late war German and Japanese rifle look a little rough. And how much time did a mid to late war German or Japanese-or Soviet- replacement marksmanship instruction get as opposed to GI Joe or Tommy Atkins ?
 
The Brits proved a century ago their .303's had positive compensation. Bullets shot with cordite had a huge muzzle velocity spread. Slower ones left later on the muzzle axis up swing, faster ones sooner. That's called positive compensation for bullet drop at long range. At short and medium ranges, the SMLE's weren't too accurate.
Click to expand...

Speaking as an "Older Brit" who was there at the time I've never heard of such a thing being mentioned ever!

I've talked with older Brits and others in their Commonwealth nations about those old .303's. All were pleased that the NATO ammo was better in front locking bolts compared to the rear locking SMLE's.
Click to expand...
I also have no idea where that gem came from?
The Rifle, No4 Mk 1 (or2) was replaced by the Inch pattern L1A1 SLR ( Browning FAL) which has a single, rear locking lug for the tilting bolt. What "front locking bolt" are you thinking of that the British had for 7.62mm NATO?

Even the sniper rifles were L39 or L42 Lee Enfields (complete with rear locking lugs) with 7.62mm barrels fitted.:confused:

Here's what I remember, from a squaddies POV.

The 7.62 wasn't initially liked as there was a perception that the smaller case was less powerful. Instructors went to great lengths to assure soldiers that the 147 Gr 7.62 bullet was actually a couple of hundred FPS faster than the old 174 gr. MkVII.

This was compounded by the mandatory gas setting for the L1A1 which caused the infamous #3 stoppage, a real bear to clear.

On target ranges .303'swere still preferred to the new 7.62 for the 1,000 yd stages because they were considered "more accurate" at those long ranges than the 7.62. This would imply a more consistent performance not less.

I still have some MKVII .303 that's cordite & some NATO spec 7.62. When it warms a little I'm gong to run both over a chronograph, just to drive a nail in that particular coffin.:eek:
 
Read the link in post #37 about the .303's compensation.

Here's another reference:

http://www.sportingshootermag.com.au/news/lee-enfields-magnificent-long-range-performers

I think it's also mentioned in the book "Target Rifle Shooting" by Reynolds & Fulton.

Here's a place to calculate your own rifle's muzzle deflection to see where in its whip angle bullets will leave at.

http://www.geoffrey-kolbe.com/articles/rimfire_accuracy/barrel_vibrations.htm

And more info:

http://www.geoffrey-kolbe.com/articles/rimfire_accuracy/tuning_a_barrel.htm

http://www.varmintal.com/a22lr.htm
 
Last edited:
"They used M98 Mauser action based rifles for ranges 500 yards and less."

Exactly what M98 Mauser action-based rifles did the British use at 500 yards and less?
 
Mike, the British Commonwealth country competitors used war surplus or commercial Mauser 98 German actions on rifles used at the shorter ranges. Also used single shot FN Mauser ones. In South Africa, a gunsmith named Musgrave made his version of M98 actions that were single shot ones that worked well.

The British Commonwealth fullbore competition rules were set up based on the premise that to 'level the playing field,' everyone had to shoot the same lot of ammo; no hand loads or reloads allowed. It typically was standard military arsenal ammo, but some of it was very accurate. And only "approved" rifles were allowed.
 
OK, you're talking international marksmanship matches...

Except that doesn't apply to matches like the Palma match, which was shot with each nations' service rifles.

The British and other Commonwealth nations acquitted themselves very admirably with Lee Enfields over the years.
 
Exactly what M98 Mauser action-based rifles did the British use at 500 yards and less?
Click to expand...
Not quite, but almost.
It was pretty common back then to use P-14 (Mauser action copy) at shorter ranges & switch to Enfields further out.
It was also common to re-barrel P-14's to 7.62 with things like S&L "light bullet special" barrels as well.

I heard many *clever* theories about why things happened the way they did, some made sense, some didn't & many violated the principals of physics.;) The common belief was that out to 600 yds the 7.62 was "better" but that beyond that the .303 had tighter groups than the 7.62 could produce.

When people say the Lee Enfield was "More Accurate at longer range" they don't mean the groups got smaller the further out you went, they mean the dispersion over distance was less acute at longer ranges.

You're right about it being built as a battle rifle though. That was its real forte not paper punching. The wizards at places like Fultons could do some amazing (& terrifying) things to Enfields to wring better performance out of them.,
 
I know the P-14 was used as the basis for most WW I sniper rifles in British service, but I was unaware that enough had been made prior to outbreak of hostilities to make use of them in this manner.
 
On a separate note, regarding ammunition velocity variance.(Sorry about the odd tabbing this site never seems to like my data tables, even when I use the "#" function):p

Well as it wasn’t freezing cold & I had some differing lots of both factory & hand loaded ammo & I was bored out of my skull, suffering from Cabin Fever, I thought I’d do a little test & see what the results were.

I took 3 “representative lots” of .303 British & a “control” of my own handloads, to the range & fired them over my PACT chronograph at the customary 10 yards.

The 3 lots were.
South African R1M3Z <> A80 headstamped, A military ball round, but using 39.6 Gr. some kind of nitro cellulose stick powder.

Some Canadian made (Defence Industries) MkVII ball with a DI Z 1943 headstamp. Also a stick propellant of some kind.

British (Radway Green) cordite powered MkVII ball with a RG – 7 – 50 headstamp.

The “control” was R-P brass first time loaded with 174 Gr Sierra MatchKings powered by 37.9 gr of H335.

For giggles I fired 2 warming/fouling shots then set up the chronograph & fired a sample lot of my handloads to verify it was recording accurately.

My R-P handloads.
Code: 
String #	Shot #	Ind. Vel.	Low	High	AVG	E.S.	S.D.	A.D.	Group/Distance
1	5	2237	2181	2238	2217.0	57.3	20.6	16.0	1.5"@100yd'
I’d call this my “good plinking load”.

Next up the South African R1M3Z <> A80
Code: 
String #	Shot #	Ind. Vel.	Low	High	AVG	E.S.	S.D.	A.D.	Group/Distance
2	5	2450	2478	2527	2500 @ 10'	49.0	18.9	14.1	2.5" @ 100yd
Just a tad better than my load. But not a cordite-powered load.

Now the DI Canadian DI Z 1943 stuff.
Code: 
String #	Shot #	Ind. Vel.	Low	High	AVG	E.S.	S.D.	A.D.	Group/Distance
3	5	2450	2486	2622	2500 @ 10'	135.7	49.6	32.6	3" @ 100yd
Not quite as tight as the first two. Not horrible though the group was similar to the R1M3Z, neither as tight as my handload though. Not surprising as it was worked up specifically for this exact rifle.

Finally the “real deal” actual Radway Green 1950 cordite RG – 7 – 50 factory loads.
Code: 
String #	Shot #	Ind. Vel.	Low	High	AVG	E.S.	S.D.	A.D.	Group/Distance
3	5	2450	2364	2452	2410 @ 10'	88.3	32.4	23.1	3 1/4" @ 100yd.

Interestingly it came in right in the middle of the tests variations! The group was about “average” too. What I seem to have found is that a load worked up for a rifle is accurate, no surprise there! The 3 different “military, factory” loads were close to each other for accuracy (2.5” ~ 3.25”) & within the specs for the rifle & load in Military service. The load with the widest spread of velocities was the middle for accuracy! I’m not sure what (if anything) that proves, but it doesn’t seem to have the “wider dispersion of velocity” that we’re supposed to be compensating for compared to non-cordite rounds!

Perhaps I need to also grab a box of modern factory loads as a 4th test lot?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top