WWII bolt action sniper rifles.

In terms of accuracy and glass, I'd go with the Finnish barreled Mosin-Nagant rifle. Excellent barrel and good glass.

Second place would be the British No 4 (T) which got 2" MOA at 100 yards and had a sturdy 4 x glass scope.

I'd rate the Russian M91/30 higher than the Kar 98 because the German ammunition was indifferent. I think I read this in Senich's book on the German sniper rifle. So, it wasn't that the gun was bad but it was hard for the snipers to get real good ammunition.

The Japanese T97 was a good gun, but I don't know that much about it.

I'd place the M1903 Springfield dead last because of the bad optics. The Weaver 330 was a miserable scope and the Unertl used by the USMC really required a lot of TLC to keep in order. The Unertl and its mount couldn't take the abuse the mounting system of the British No. 4 (T) or that of the Moisin-Nagants or T97 could absorb.
 
To kraigwy, when I said the Marines probably kept sniping alive, I was referring to the period between WWI and WWII. Don't get me wrong, however. I served in the army. When did the Army Marksmanship Unit come into being? (And did you know the first army drill sergeant went to the USMC DI school?)

To the discussion about the difference between a designated marksman and a sniper, I'd have to say the difference would be in the equipment. As you probably know, "advanced" sighting equipment is liberally issued in the army these days but a sniper, in theory, should have optics that are more powerful than the rest. But beyond that, the object of of both is to kill enemy soldiers. Please note there is no suitable word to substitute for "kill."

However, they are found in different places in the organization and again, in theory, should be employed a little differently. But it is ultimately up to the unit commander, presumably the battalion commander, to effectively employ snipers as snipers when there are opportunities. Likewise, in theory, the job of the squad designated marksman is to cover the gaps in the weapon capability of the rest of the squad, although it may not be seen that way.

Because the job of the sniper is to kill individual enemy soldiers, it sometimes has a negative connotation and that may be part of the reason enthusiasm for sniping falls off between wars, which I think I already said. But we have constant war these days, so that should no longer be a problem. But you will notice that when an American serviceman gets shot, it is always by a sniper?
 
Last edited:
mailgooglecom.jpg
This mauser is the best one from WW2 because it was taken from its shooter and you can know how and sent home by my uncle. It has never shot an amercan solder again.
 
MEATSAW said:
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.
Click to expand...

+1

The ZFK31/42-43 is an extremely accurate rifle as is it's predecessor the ZFK55. Both are capable of sub moa with mil-surp GP11 ammo.

ZFK31/43
K314301.jpg


ZFK55
k3155full3.jpg



Best WWII bolt action sniper rifle? My choice would be the No4T Enfield. My T holds under 2moa since I had Wheatie rebuild my scope last year.

finished03.jpg


These near 70 year old No32's still get the job done.

finished02.jpg
 
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).
Click to expand...

Fair point, I should have made myself more clear. DM's operate within a fire team, are more mobile and need faster but less accurate engagement. Snipers are independent in the sense of troop movement. I'd like to compare it to DM = automatic rifleman, sniper team = machine gun team.
 
DM's operate within a fire team, are more mobile and need faster but less accurate engagement.
Click to expand...

Like on buildings supporting the maneuver element of the squad. Or shorter range up to 7-800 yards or so.

Or want ever the commander task them to do, like snipers, machine gunners, etc.

The hardest job a sniper instructor has is not teaching sniper students, but teaching commanders the benefits of snipers. In looking over some of my lesson plans in that regard, I find the SD and Sniper overlap in most cases. In reality its the way they are used, the mission, whether is a sniper, DM, or just private Snuffy who happens to be dern good with his trusty M16a2.

Thats why I reluctant to choose a automatic or semi auto sniper rifle, not because they can't do the job, but with that sort of weapon, the commander has a tendency to use them as another auto-matic rifleman, and in some cases there is nothing wrong with that.
 
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.
Click to expand...
If I recall the scope is in the way of using a stripper clip. I love mosins but they would probaby be my least favorite due to the design of the buttstock.
 
I like how everyone is saying the Lee-enfield because of the ten round magazine... when the idea of the thread is about a sniper rifle. AKA the accuracy and dependability, not how many rounds are at his disposal.

It's a toss up between the M/N and the Kar98, I Hate HATE the PU scope. The ZF39 was a decent scope and had the lower profile. The sight picture in both I like, the three intersecting lines with the pointed center. But I think the ZF39 could take a little more abuse than the PU. But if I had to carry one, I think I'd still take the Mauser.
 
Plumbernater - please share more details about that Mauser 98K. Did your uncle say anything else about that gun?

BTW, I don't think the U.S. Marine Corps kept its sniper training program after World War I. It was back to basics and they had to start it from scratch. Credit should be given to USMC General van Orden who tried to get the USMC to adapt the Winchester M70 equipped with a telescopic sight before WW II. The Marines didn't want to introduce another rifle into the supply system and didn't follow up on the suggestion.

Even after WW II, the USMC (and the Army) didn't bother with sniper training and both had to re-start it for Korea. I know the USMC later turned to the Royal Marines who along with the Russians were the only folks to continue sniper training post World War II. Funny but the Russians dropped military sniping after the collapse of the Soviet Union. They did go on with police sniping for their military. It was after the First Chechynan War that the Russians went back to military sniping.
 
My uncle was with the core of engineers or something like that. They were with patton. From my understanding they went along behind and scrapped up every thing they could after the battles to keep Pattons equipment going. In the proscesse of doing their job they were getting hit pretty bad from snipper fire. When locating the snippers location the 50 gunner opened up on the tree line an killing the snipper. My uncle was the one to check the kill and kept the souviners from the snipper. The gun was sent home along with the cartrige pouch you see in the picture. The pouch still has 8mm rounds in it with the date on them and in strippers. The rifle was given to my dad long ago and has been keep up by him till a couple of years ago. I gave my dad a marlin 94 in 44 mag to shoot coyotes. He then gave me his old mauser . I havent shot it since the 70s when we would go hog hunting. I do remember she would nock the dust of a hog no problem. The 8mm packs quite a punch
 
In the book "Band of Brothers", the member of E company that was the best shot said that his garand had a pit in the barrel that he got marked down for at each inspection. After getting to Germany he turned in his old weapon for a shiny new one. He said he couldn't hit a thing with the new rifle.

It makes me wonder how many good shots didn't make the cut because they were issued the wrong rifle.
 
Funny you should mention that. My father said the same thing about a rifle he had, which had a bad barrel. He said he finally convinced the company commander to try the rifle and the CO agreed it was a bad rifle. I can't imagine anything like that ever happening when I was in the army a mere 22 years later. But he was 28 at the time and I was 18 when I was in basic.

The Finns quite likely had a superior rifle, at least to the Soviet rifles, but they probably ended up using more captured Soviet rifles, including sniper rifles, than they did of their own. Some of their own rifles were made by Sako, I believe.

While the idea of the American rifleman is a little exaggerated, it is true there was something of a cult with marksmanship with the 1903 Springfield in the inter-war period. There was even a form of pro-pay offered for the best scores on the range but it was not always paid because of tight budgets during that period. Some both in the army and outside the army preferred the bolt action Springfield over the M1 because the former was more accurate, or so they claimed. The M1 was probably a better infantry combat rifle but there weren't going to be enough of them (never are) so the 1903 was manufactured for a few years even after the M1 was introduced. We tend to think that when something new is adopted that by the end of the week everyone will have one but the arsenal of democracy wasn't that fast.

I've never even been within range of a sniper course but I understand that as far as the shooting goes, there is little taught that is different from what is taught in infantry basic/AIT. The real difference is that the trainee believes it.
 
'Better than an 03A3' should be taken as a compliment on the better rifle, not a condemnation of the 03A3. 1903s and 1903A3s are fine rifles, accurate and reliable
 
After reading kraigwy first post, I did a Google search on Simo Hayha.
This is a serious read! That Finnish sniper was something. You guys should give it a read. Never heard of anybody like Simo Hayha. Amazing.
 
as far as the shooting goes, there is little taught that is different from what is taught in infantry basic/AIT.
Click to expand...

That brings out an interesting subject. "Sniper Schools". Post Vietnam, the Military backed off Sniping. The Army Marksman hip Unit kept it going with their sniper school. Their main goal was to provided a cadre of sniper instructors who were to go back to their unit and start a program (That's something I had to convince them I would do when I went.


The AMU School was a bit different then the Marine & Army schools we have to day. I was talking to the staff at the AMU, and asked about the lack of field craft 'n such at the AMU course.

The marksmenship phase of the AMU is a whole lot different then the marksmenship training of basic/AIT. That's the main topic of the course. It is quite a bit different.

That "field craft" stuff, Reconnaissance, Camouflage and Concealment, Map reading, Calling for and directing Artillery, etc etc, are common task solder skills. They are taught in Basic & AIT.

Commanders were to pick their best soldiers to attend the course. Those to who excelled at the above. Plus those that could work without supervision. Those are the individuals whom the AMU figured they could turn into snipers. The best of that crop into Sniper Instructors.

If a soldier has 4-6 years in an infantry unit, and has to be taught the common soldier skills of the infantryman, then he shouldn't be sent to the school in the first place.

The AMU course concentrated on the advanced Marksmenship skills needed by the soldier, not the soldier skills needed by the shooter.

Its easier to teach a soldier to shoot then it is to teach a shooter to soldier.
 
mauser optics

German optics are reknown, but the kar98 had a mishmash of glass attatched, including the forward mounted versions/long eye relief which were not successful or popular if what I have read is correct.

There are supposedly accounts of German snipers using mosins and tokarevs as they were not happy with the kar arrangement.

The lee enfield had a purpose designed scope and mount, very robust and likely the equal of the Mosin PPU (?) scope. The shorter length and the mag cap make the lee/enfield the winner for me

The Springfield struggled with sport optics adapted for the military, as did the Mauser, I believe especially early in the war. . The Ariska does not even come close.
 
The scope on the Mauser my uncle sent back is a german Oigee That was mounted on a machined in quick conect system on the receiver. Looks to be done quite well Its a nice scope as far as cross hairs style but is not nitrogin filled and will fog and is a fixed magnifacation. Like I said in earlier post I shot hogs with it and she was dead on then. I always thought it a pretty good scope for its time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top