NEW most accurate wwII rifle
- Thread starter WIN71
- Start date
I get that from what I call the RSC (Remington Receiver Smith Corona 6 grove n barrel)
Well twice! (grin). On the other hand it has a scope and a sporter stock...
Various 6/10 to 9/10 MOA when I do my end.
Not a very good trigger though working on it
For iron sights I go with the Model of 1917
Well twice! (grin). On the other hand it has a scope and a sporter stock...
Various 6/10 to 9/10 MOA when I do my end.
Not a very good trigger though working on it
For iron sights I go with the Model of 1917
If you can "touch type", the Smith Corona rifles might work best in the dark.
(Sorry, couldn't help myself. For those younger folks who don't know, Smith Corona made typewriters. For the even younger, typewriters were the mechanical interface that directly printed keystrokes to paper, one letter at a time. Hee, hee.)
(Sorry, couldn't help myself. For those younger folks who don't know, Smith Corona made typewriters. For the even younger, typewriters were the mechanical interface that directly printed keystrokes to paper, one letter at a time. Hee, hee.)
over 900,000 of them..."And I won't leave home without it!!!"tahunua001
New member
the following is my cut and pasted response to the old thread...
Strafer Gott
New member
Everybody's heard of the "Remington Raiders". Those Underwoods' were proud and nasty as well. Most U.S. issued shoulder fired weapons are very accurate. The typing must be perfect!
Until reading George's "Shots Fired in Anger", I wasn't aware of the firing pin, trigger, sear, ejector, and sight problems with the 03 Springfield. Accuracy was a major problem with the scope-sighted sniper models, (due to higher expectations, of course).
According to George, the average soldier at Guadalcanal could shoot the M1 much better, due to improved sights and reduced recoil, but weight was an issue in the tropical conditions.
According to George, the average soldier at Guadalcanal could shoot the M1 much better, due to improved sights and reduced recoil, but weight was an issue in the tropical conditions.
bamaranger
New member
accurate but....
AS Bart B noted, the Win 70/Unertle's heavy barrels that went to Vietnam with the Marines, were match rifles that went to war. Collectively that small number may have been the most theoretically accurate.
Seems like I read somewhere that Hathcock's CO (Lamb?) was quoted much later as stating that he thought the GYSGT's rifle was capable of 2MOA, which in these days is not considered exceptional at all. But Hathcock was grim death itself with that degree of precision.
It was a long time before I realized that the M70's in 'Nam were chambered in '06.
AS Bart B noted, the Win 70/Unertle's heavy barrels that went to Vietnam with the Marines, were match rifles that went to war. Collectively that small number may have been the most theoretically accurate.
Seems like I read somewhere that Hathcock's CO (Lamb?) was quoted much later as stating that he thought the GYSGT's rifle was capable of 2MOA, which in these days is not considered exceptional at all. But Hathcock was grim death itself with that degree of precision.
It was a long time before I realized that the M70's in 'Nam were chambered in '06.
A 2-min rifle will put about 66% of it's rounds about 3/4 min. from group center. That will kill a lot of people out to 500 yards or beyond.
As a teen, I killed a lot of small game with my first semi-auto Stevens before ever shooting a group with it. I was appalled at how lousy it grouped, but couldn't argue with it's effectiveness on critters and plinker targets.
As a teen, I killed a lot of small game with my first semi-auto Stevens before ever shooting a group with it. I was appalled at how lousy it grouped, but couldn't argue with it's effectiveness on critters and plinker targets.
We are mixing sniper rifles with service rifles.
Of course the Model 70 target rifle will out shoot any of the service rifles used in WWII, and I'd say they can hold their own with the modern sniper rifles we have today.
But 70 years ago????? The Unertl scopes were too fragile and had too much power for most conditions.
The Commandant of the USMC, Lt Gen. Alexander A. Vandegrift (who commanded the ground forces during the invasion of Guadalcanal Campaign ordered the Unertl contract canceled and the marines were issue the Army's M1903A4s. They were much more effective in jungle warfare then the Marines M1903A1s with the Unertl.
It should mean something that there were about 1800 a1's with Unertl's adapted vs. about 24,000 "A4s.
Yeah you hear about some extreme long range sniper shoots but they were rare as hen's teeth. You don't hear about the misses...........people don't brag about misses.
In reality, in SE Asia (Vietnam) the average sniper shot was less then 400 yards. It was the same in the South Pacific in WWII..........AND.......if you read of todays sniper's its the same in Iraq and Afghan.
The problem with WWII scopes is they weren't sealed. They would fog if care wasn't used.
If interested, Joe Poyer put out too books, "Collecting the American Sniper Rifle 1900-1945" and "Collecting the American Sniper Rifle, 1945 to 2000".
Excellent reads.
As to service rifles, that being Arms Room Guns you will find at the unit level; I am convinced the WWII guns are more accurate in the "as issued" condition then todays "as issued" M16/M4s you find in the arms rooms today.
I think the A3 and Garand are the most accurate. In pure accuracy the 'A3 has the Garand beat, but the sights on the Garand give it the edge. I would classify the M14 with the Garand. Not the M1A, because there are no M1A arms room guns.
But as a combat rifle, its hard to beat the M16 series, if one learns to use them they are accurate, but when it comes to firepower, they have the A3 & M1's beat. Not to mention the cost, today you couldn't build a Springfield or Garand as cheap as you can M16s.
Of course the Model 70 target rifle will out shoot any of the service rifles used in WWII, and I'd say they can hold their own with the modern sniper rifles we have today.
But 70 years ago????? The Unertl scopes were too fragile and had too much power for most conditions.
The Commandant of the USMC, Lt Gen. Alexander A. Vandegrift (who commanded the ground forces during the invasion of Guadalcanal Campaign ordered the Unertl contract canceled and the marines were issue the Army's M1903A4s. They were much more effective in jungle warfare then the Marines M1903A1s with the Unertl.
It should mean something that there were about 1800 a1's with Unertl's adapted vs. about 24,000 "A4s.
Yeah you hear about some extreme long range sniper shoots but they were rare as hen's teeth. You don't hear about the misses...........people don't brag about misses.
In reality, in SE Asia (Vietnam) the average sniper shot was less then 400 yards. It was the same in the South Pacific in WWII..........AND.......if you read of todays sniper's its the same in Iraq and Afghan.
The problem with WWII scopes is they weren't sealed. They would fog if care wasn't used.
If interested, Joe Poyer put out too books, "Collecting the American Sniper Rifle 1900-1945" and "Collecting the American Sniper Rifle, 1945 to 2000".
Excellent reads.
As to service rifles, that being Arms Room Guns you will find at the unit level; I am convinced the WWII guns are more accurate in the "as issued" condition then todays "as issued" M16/M4s you find in the arms rooms today.
I think the A3 and Garand are the most accurate. In pure accuracy the 'A3 has the Garand beat, but the sights on the Garand give it the edge. I would classify the M14 with the Garand. Not the M1A, because there are no M1A arms room guns.
But as a combat rifle, its hard to beat the M16 series, if one learns to use them they are accurate, but when it comes to firepower, they have the A3 & M1's beat. Not to mention the cost, today you couldn't build a Springfield or Garand as cheap as you can M16s.
IIRC, the minimum acceptable standard for accuracy of the M4 is four inch groups at 100 yards (expreessed differently but that is what it amounts to).
That was the same standard in WWII. And WWI. And the SAW. And the Civil War with Springfield rifle muskets. So we are making fabulous progress.
One hopes that more M4's meet the acceptable standard than .58 rifle muskets did, but I won't bet on it.
Jim
That was the same standard in WWII. And WWI. And the SAW. And the Civil War with Springfield rifle muskets. So we are making fabulous progress.
One hopes that more M4's meet the acceptable standard than .58 rifle muskets did, but I won't bet on it.
Jim
tahunua001
New member
that may very well be the minimum acceptable but what is the average with all those weapons? I have no doubt that an M4 can shoot better groups than an 1863 musket any day of the week. and I am fairly certain that most 1903A3s were capable of way better than 4 MOA.
Long range shooting relies a lot on how well the shooter can read the wind.
Of course I also think that it's kinda using the wrong measuring tool by which general purpose infantry rifle is more accurate at 1,000 yards.
None of the sniper rifles in WWII were chosen based on their 1000 yard performance. Group size at 100 for five shot groups seems to have been a pretty common acceptance standard.
Jimro
Of course I also think that it's kinda using the wrong measuring tool by which general purpose infantry rifle is more accurate at 1,000 yards.
None of the sniper rifles in WWII were chosen based on their 1000 yard performance. Group size at 100 for five shot groups seems to have been a pretty common acceptance standard.
Jimro