WWII bolt action sniper rifles.

S

SurplusShooter

New member
1. (Usa) Springfield 1903
2.(Germany) Kar 98k
3. (Japanese) Type 97
4.(Britain and commonwealth) Lee enfield
5. (Soviets) Mosin Nagant m91/30
6. (Other) Give example

Which do you think is the best and state why.
 
The best I would say is the Finnish sniper (under other) it is built on the bombproof mosin action, but adds the Finishing (pun intended) touches it needs to beat the crap out of the others.

Up in second would be the K98

Third the T97

Fourth the SMLE

In last would be the 1903, because it had a rubbish scope and was by all accounts an insufficient sniper.
 
lee enfield...........but

The Brit Lee/Enfield is likely the best sniper. The optics/mount were purpose built for the rifle/system, the reliability was equal to the other contenders, as was the ctg. The rifle itself was not overly long (clearly shorter than the Mosin-N). The Lee/enf 10 rd ammo capacity, a plus not only for the infantry man, but the sniper/DM as well.

The Mauser had optic probs, as did the Springfield and the Ariska. The Mosin had the optics resolved, but was overly long and ungainly, an issue from cover and concealment.

The Russian likely had more snipers, and were more widely hailed by the commie propaganda machine, but I think the Brits had the best rifle.
 
Who's the shooter?

You do know the top sniper in history, Simo Häyhä, used a finish mosin with iron sights.

Next were russian snipers using mosins.
 
The Germans had the best Optics. The Brits had the largest mag capacity. The Russians had the most (quantity has a quality all it's own). Since these "sniper rifles" were simply accurate service rifles pressed into sniper duties their accuracy standards were all pretty similar.

Most scopes had simple cross hair or post reticles, nothing fancy like "rangefinding reticles" that I know of.

But the 1903 with an M73 scope shot the M1 Ball ammunition, a 174gr 9 degree boat tail spitzer. In terms of accuracy, this was the best ammo to shoot, if they could get it. Considering that riflemen were taught to shoot out to 500 yards, the optic would be secondary (as Simo Haya so aptly showed with his M28/30 civil guard MN).

And since most snipers weren't issued "sniper" or "match" ammunition but simply accurate lots of ball ammo, the best combination I can see from any sort of quantitative standpoint is the 1903 with M1 ball.

Jimro
 
My pick would be the Lee Enfield as it was the best all around. It had good enough optics, it was very accurate, it had a large magazine, and most importantly could be semi mass produced while still having excellent quality.
 
Your question was recently addressed in one of the gun mags. I've got it, but I'm not walking to the library (bathroom) to get it to tell you which magazine. They tested the Moisin, the Lee Enfield, the 03 and the Mauser and they did it with ammo from WWII (or as close to that period as they could get ammo) and with scopes that were used on those specific rifles. To their huge surprise, the Moisin turned out to be the best shooter. Now we all understand that the optics weren't equal, nor was the ammo, and the rifles may or may not have been precisely representative of all of the sniper rifles of their respective types. Still, the Moisin did some amazing shooting, even out to 1000 yards. A very interesting article, and certainly worth reading.
 
Did you make it to the library yet to let us know what magazine were looking for? Also, was the m1 being used as a sniper rifle yet? im not sure when they were starting to be isssued as sniper rifles, or if they ever were in large quantaties...
 
Kahr 98 as it has the best gun and the best optics.

However, its all in the shooter, and the best were the Russians and the Finns.

Opportunity and the tactical situation dictates a lot of that.

LE was the fastest action, but not the most accurate.

M1 Garand beat the LE no matter what they say for fast. The fastest and best trained Brit could shoot his LE faster than the average GI, but the average GI would out shoot all but the best trained Brit. Ergo, on the average the M1 beat the LE.

Tacitly the Germans oriented around the MG, so bolt action was to protect the flanks of the MG which did the damage offense and defense.

As the US did not have MG42 type, they had far better distributed fire power with the m1 and could pick the best advance route and outflank the MG.

US squad with a good MG42 equivalent would have been killer, but we did not have the MG42 that the Germans had.

MG42 was the best MG of WWII, both functionally as well as the bi pod allowing low lying concealed firing.
 
My pick would be the Lee-Enfield but mainly because I owned one. I believe the Lee-Enfield was the only one that came complete with a spotter scope as part of the equipment but I doubt that any stayed with the equipment when they were disposed of. But the rifle doesn't make a sniper.

The Red Army probably fielded more individuals that were called snipers than any other army. There were, according to one source, 54,000 sniper rifles on hand when the war started. Yet, their standards may have been somewhat lower than those of snipers in other armies and more of them may have been closer to what we called a designated marksman today. The Germans also had a kind of designated marksman at platoon level towards the end of the war. In that case the difference in that position and a sniper (don't know where the snipers were in the organization) was in the optical equipment.

Both the British and the Germans had a sort of gamekeeper tradition to draw upon for snipers, something lacking in other countries. But overall, sniping (true sniping) generally tends to be ignored or forgotten between wars. In this country the Marines probably kept the idea alive. Another things is that during WWII the level of the equipment would today be considered minimal or barely adequate. But they probably thought they were doing pretty well.
 
In this country the Marines probably kept the [sniper] idea alive.
Click to expand...

Nah that would be the Army Marksmanship Unit. After Vietnam, the Marines like everyone else slacked off. It was the AMU that kept it alive. The Sniper Instructors for the Army, FBI, Civilian LE, and yes even the Marines, attended the AMU to provide a cadre of instructors to start their respective schools.

There may have been a few unit schools but the Main service (and civilian) schools got their start because of the AMU.

As too which was the best vintage sniper rifle............well we have our own opinions based on our likes and dislikes. One way to tell is to look at the sniper records throughout the years. There is another gun site that has that list. Basically through out the 19th century, the Russians are way a head of anyone else so that would be the Mosin. That's post WWI, during WWI it was the Canadians and I'll assume that was Enfield.

In reality it wasn't the rifle, in war time it was the Countries thoughts on sniping in General. Russians kind of relied on sniping because they had to, they couldn't compete with the German war machine.

We didn't rely on sniping as much for the simple reason we didn't need them, we had PARATROOPERS.....................................(just had to sneak that in)
 
I personally prefer the Mosins, due to the side mounted scope allowing for the use of stripper clips and aiming down the iron sights. PE and PU scopes were of great quality too, based on Zeiss design. Hell, even German snipers were known to use conquered Mosin-Nagants.

EDIT:
Yet, their standards may have been somewhat lower than those of snipers in other armies and more of them may have been closer to what we called a designated marksman today.
Click to expand...

Soviets were one of the first to introduce the true "sniper" concept, being that of a stealth unit that picked high value targets. They started using the term "sniper" for designated marksmen around the introduction of the SVD.
 
Last edited:
Answering from the standpoint of a gunsmith, and looking strictly at the rifles (not the scopes) I would say hands down it would be the 1903 Springfield.

If I were to answer from the standpoint of the issued "system", I'd say the mid war K-98 Mausers.
By "system" I am speaking of the rifle, the scope and the ammo, in combination.

It’s got to be remembered that there were variants in the systems of ALL the countries listed in the question, but if we were to look at the potential for what could have been had in 1945, the Mauser is the best combination for the package.
 
Ahhhh, designated marksmen, this one I find is funny.

You want to see a Marine or Army Sniper School grad have a heart attack..just refer to the designated marksmen as a sniper. They go ballistic.

But in reality, why cant they be. Let say, you're a member of a battalion Recon Plt. You have two guys in your squad. one a sniper and one a designated marksmen.. You have two trail junctions you have to cover. They both do their job, covering their target area with a rifle. One a M40, and the other a M16a2. Let say they shoot 2 bandits each.

Is not the designated marksman a sniper? Some say NO because he didn't go to sniper school. So what, I don't recall any regulation that says one has to go to sniper school.

So they say snipers are trained in Recon. So is the DM, remember their both members of a recon plt. OK one can call in Arty...........any infantryman worth his salt can call in Arty. Just give the FO the grid cord. If you can't do that chances are you can't find your trail head. What next, the rifle? M16s are capable of man size targets at 800 yards. The average sniper shot in Vietnam just north of 400 yards. Cover and Concealment.........you get that in basic and AIT.

Sorry folks, what makes a sniper is the mission. Not the rifle, I can make a case for a 2 inch revolver being a sniper rifle.

I've started more then one fuss trying to make that point with sniper school grads. Makes for a good lively conversation.

No one has yet to show me what a school trained sniper can do that a good infantryman rifleman can do.

But I guess we drifted off topic.
 
Picking a single "best" isn't really possible IMO, or worthwhile. What mattered more was the skills of the soldier behind the rifle. The indian, not the bow as they say.

That said, the Finnish rifles, including the M39 ranks up there. I consider myself fortunate to own this nice example (SAKO). Got to get out and shoot it more often :( .


DSC05107.jpg
 
**OFF-TOPIC**
kraigwy, you refer to a platoon with both a DM and a sniper. Truth is that this is the main difference between a DM and a sniper. Only a DM would be given tasks within his unit. A sniper is an independent unit (mostly consisting of two men) who don't engage in combat with their platoon.

Per se they differ greatly in mission and training, with snipers not being well suited for infantry combat (as the Brits found out when they gave AI AW sniper rifles to their DM) and DM's not having the equipment for sniper missions.
 
Only a DM would be given tasks within his unit. A sniper is an independent unit (mostly consisting of two men) who don't engage in combat with their platoon.
Click to expand...

That isn't true. When a unit commander is given a warning order, he goes back to plan his mission. During that planning he addresses what assets he will need to complete the mission. He then sends his request for those assets.

He then goes about his mission. Now lets say sometime during the mission the unit gets re-supplied. GIs being GIs they throw away a lot of crap. Example C-rat Ham and Eggs, or what ever. After being re-supplied the unit moves out. After the unit moves out, the Bandits move in to go through your garbage pile for the goodies left behind. (unwanted food, discarded clothing, socks, etc etc). One of the best uses for a sniper is to leave him and his spotter behind to cover the re-supply point. Often with good success.

Also, you can see this in the news almost daily (or did before people got tired of the war) where Snipers would be put on some building top to cover infantry squads moving through villages or towns. (Military Channel is full of such scenes).

I could go on, but the use of the sniper is only limited by the commanders imagination.

Anyway, why in the above examples can't the DM do the same thing?

No sir, I contend that the main complaint of DMs being refered to as snipers is purely ego.
 
I would choose the M/N if for no other reasons the Finns and the Soviets made much more effective use of snipers, henc the M/N more historically significant IMHO. As least the explots of their snipers seem to be better documented and they were treated as heroes.
 
@brian123....Ok, I walked to the 'library' and retrieved the magazine. It's Guns Magazine from February of 2011. The article is "World War II Sniper Rifles - how good were they". The M1 wasn't tested. The top gun of that particular bit of testing was the Mosin Nagant 91/30 and the ammo was Russian from 1945. It appears to me that a couple of the guns were limited by ammo quality and some by optics quality, but the point was to test the rifles as-issued, or as close to that as possible. The 03's didn't shoot that well with the period ammo, but with match grade ammo one of them shot great. Still...the Mosin was good to 1000 yards, even with that poor excuse (my words) of a trigger.
 
Its too bad the Swiss didn't get involved. I would love to see how history would have judged their rifles and marksmanship through the lens of combat.

That being said I think the best sniper weapon of WW2 would be the Finnish Mosin, 91/30 or M39. History tells us that it could be effectively used even without optics as a devastating sniper's rifle. I think this is further evidence of what kraigwy is saying. You don't need "sniper" optics or a "sniper" rifle -- you need "the man, the mission, the moment"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top