testtest

What Was the Best Sniper Rifle of WWII?

I was disappointed with the article. Most of the author's premises were confusing at best and many I think flawed.

If we are seeking the BEST, perhaps a good starting point might be the best quality starting point. So we might want to limit those to PRE War and maybe early war production guns. That being the case, the M91s would seem to be the lowest of the list but still serviceable. Nothing was mentioned about special ammunition; but clearly that matters. Optics were generally of lower power (2x to 4x); although the US did start with a 10X Unertl and there were some 6x German options. WW2 scopes were not sealed, so fogging was to be expected; but that was universal amongst all nations.

I think its a mistake to compare WW2 sniper rifles with their modern descendants. Today we expect sub MOA, while WW2 guns were in the 2-4 MOA. A modern budget deer rifle will perform out of the box better than a WW2 sniper. The roles of a WW2 sniper were also vastly different and intended to be employed at a much shorter distance than today

Its also a mistake to claim that the German optic mount variations was a weakness. In fact, I would argue very much to the contrary, they were simply improvements and a result of war time production capabilities. Likewise the Soviet optics and mounting degraded from the 4x PE to the lessor power PU scope.

Claiming that the British No4T was a better design because it had an added cheek piece, fails to note the different shooting styles on the continent. Yes the Brits were also issued a 10x telescope for observation. It may have been tier one for the day; but it would suffer by todays standards

Also remember that one of the highest number of kills was from a Finn and that many of his kills were from an iron sighted Finn version (better quality) of the M91...as well with a SMG
 
What would I pick? Assuming the logistics of a foreign weapon wasn’t a problem?

Maybe the British No 4 Mk I (T), but I might go for the Swedish M/41B. The Swedish M1896 6.5X55 base rifle starts out pretty good.

It’s too bad the Swiss K-31 sniping variants didn’t come about until after WWII (I think).

But what I would’ve REALLY wanted would’ve been a Winchester M70 Target in .30-06. Which optic would be the question. A Unertl might be most people’s choice, but I think I’d rather have an internal adjustment scope. Maybe a Lyman Alaskan or Weaver instead, in spite of the reduced magnification.
 
PieterCoetzee said:
I was disappointed with the article. Most of the author's premises were confusing at best and many I think flawed.

If we are seeking the BEST, perhaps a good starting point might be the best quality starting point. So we might want to limit those to PRE War and maybe early war production guns. That being the case, the M91s would seem to be the lowest of the list but still serviceable. Nothing was mentioned about special ammunition; but clearly that matters. Optics were generally of lower power (2x to 4x); although the US did start with a 10X Unertl and there were some 6x German options. WW2 scopes were not sealed, so fogging was to be expected; but that was universal amongst all nations.

I think its a mistake to compare WW2 sniper rifles with their modern descendants. Today we expect sub MOA, while WW2 guns were in the 2-4 MOA. A modern budget deer rifle will perform out of the box better than a WW2 sniper. The roles of a WW2 sniper were also vastly different and intended to be employed at a much shorter distance than today

Its also a mistake to claim that the German optic mount variations was a weakness. In fact, I would argue very much to the contrary, they were simply improvements and a result of war time production capabilities. Likewise the Soviet optics and mounting degraded from the 4x PE to the lessor power PU scope.

Claiming that the British No4T was a better design because it had an added cheek piece, fails to note the different shooting styles on the continent. Yes the Brits were also issued a 10x telescope for observation. It may have been tier one for the day; but it would suffer by todays standards

Also remember that one of the highest number of kills was from a Finn and that many of his kills were from an iron sighted Finn version (better quality) of the M91...as well with a SMG
Click to expand...
Please, write us a full article and articulate what you would like published.
Matter of fact, why dont you publish an article yourself.
 
KillerFord1977 said:
Please, write us a full article and articulate what you would like published.
Matter of fact, why dont you publish an article yourself.
Click to expand...
I sense some sarcasm.

I have published both articles and a few books; but if YOU are offering to publish my stuff, Id be open to discussing fees. Where should my agent contact you?

I stumbled onto this forum when searching for info on the PPSh41. The stuff I found on the website concerning the PPSH was pretty good so I stuck around for the forum
 
PieterCoetzee said:
I sense some sarcasm.

I have published both articles and a few books; but if YOU are offering to publish my stuff, Id be open to discussing fees. Where should my agent contact you?

I stumbled onto this forum when searching for info on the PPSh41. The stuff I found on the website concerning the PPSH was pretty good so I stuck around for the forum
Click to expand...
Your attack on the author calling multiple times his work as a mistake was uncalled for
 
KillerFord1977 said:
Your attack on the author calling multiple times his work as a mistake was uncalled for
Click to expand...
Well it wasnt so much an attack as it was pointing out errors. Either you knew that or you totally missed my points. I said it was a mistake to claim the different versions of German mounts was a weakness. How is THAT an attack?

I said, I think its a mistake to compare WW2 sniper rifles with their modern descendants. As in expecting the WW2 versions to be on par and have similar features and capabilities. How is THAT an attack?

Youve clearly picked me to be the target of your morning constipation, and thats fine; but calling my pointing out obvious errors was NOT and attack
 
Last edited:
PieterCoetzee said:
I sense some sarcasm.

I have published both articles and a few books; but if YOU are offering to publish my stuff, Id be open to discussing fees. Where should my agent contact you?

I stumbled onto this forum when searching for info on the PPSh41. The stuff I found on the website concerning the PPSH was pretty good so I stuck around for the forum
Click to expand...
Many come on forums stating they did this and they did that, we even had a member posting his so called gun pics and in turn they were all staged pics from the web, so until there is proof that you published any articles, most will brush them off and think it’s just hearsay, not picking on your posts, just stating what most are probably thinking, just saying, also if you weren’t actually there, how do you know there were any mistakes….
 
PieterCoetzee said:
Well it wasnt so much an attack as it was pointing out errors. Either you knew that or you totally missed my points. I said it was a mistake to claim the different versions of German mounts was a weakness. How is THAT an attack?

I said, I think its a mistake to compare WW2 sniper rifles with their modern descendants. As in expecting the WW2 versions to be on par and have similar features and capabilities. How is THAT an attack?

Youve clearly picked me to be the target of your morning constipation, and thats fine; but calling my pointing out obvious errors was NOT and attack

Did you write the article? You sound like a helicopter parent? At best the article is a C level for an English 101 class and maybe a D for a History class. Thats real world its not an attack. You can call it an attack if it makes you feel better
Click to expand...
My mistake.
I forgot you are Prof Marvel, the Wizard of Oz
 
Annihilator said:
if you weren’t actually there, how do you know there were any mistakes….
Click to expand...
OMG, did you read what I said in reference to "mistake". Its not about being THERE, its about the author making inferences that arent substantiated

As for posting pics from the net, many were my guns and some staged guns were actually my guns. I dont carry pics of all my guns on my phone and when Im writing I will sometimes post a picture of a model that Im speaking about BUT just for you from now on Ill say this is a pic from the interwebs.

We are all anonymous here, so believe what you want. As for me Ive paid for much of what Ive learned with stitches and bad knees.
 
PieterCoetzee said:
OMG, did you read what I said in reference to "mistake". Its not about being THERE, its about the author making inferences that arent substantiated

As for posting pics from the net, many were my guns and some staged guns were actually my guns. I dont carry pics of all my guns on my phone and when Im writing I will sometimes post a picture of a model that Im speaking about BUT just for you from now on Ill say this is a pic from the interwebs.

We are all anonymous here, so believe what you want. As for me Ive paid for much of what Ive learned with stitches and bad knees.
Click to expand...
I wasn’t referring to you on the pics of guns, it was a formal member who isn’t here anymore…..chill out
 
Annihilator said:
I wasn’t referring to you on the pics of guns, it was a formal member who isn’t here anymore…..chill out
Click to expand...
Brother its been "mentioned" before in reference to me directly. I let it go in the pass and I will now but this seemed like a good time to clarify.

I acknowledge that a few of us here are beyond ALPHAs (lets call us super Alphas) and sometimes we clash. Thats fine, I just hope that we can move past the clash before the next one comes up

Best
 
So, not to be argumentative but to jump to something fresh...

I kinda agree with BarryinIN about the Swede M96. I don't know if Mr. John has ever had a chance to shoot one of these beauties, but I own one, a Waffenfabrik Mauser Oberndorf AN from 1899. It came with the AGA44 scope using the Jackenroll mount. Bought it used in 1972 at a gun store, but it had a replacement stock. Long and heavy, the store owner threw in a lined, suede rifle case that I swear must have been made for a flintlock. Longest rifle case in the store.

When I bought the Swede, I took it to a shooting range in the SW area of the Twin Cities called 'Moon Valley'. The lower half of the range on your left was the shotgun and pistol ranges, and the rise above the other ranges on the right was the rifle range. Target setups from left to right were 200, 100, & 50 yards, shooting slightly uphill. All bench resting, one cartridge in the rifle at a time.

I did some iron sights plinking at 50 & 100 yards to get a feel for the Swede with a few rounds using the scope at '0' at 100 yards. The range owner was in the firing shelter and I asked him to spot me for a couple of rounds out to 200 yards, center target of his 3 x 3 arrangement. I also asked him to watch the weed line at the left edge of the rise for me since we had a strong breeze that day. Scope was still at '0' since I wanted to see what kind of drop the 139 grain bullets had.

After two shots a couple of minutes apart, the results were a pair of side-by-side holes touching each other, dead center inches below the bullseye. Kinda looked like the number eight lying on its side. The range owner said that for the 6.5 that drop was perfect. He also told me that that Swede was the best shooting rifle he had ever seen at the range. The guy two chairs down from me who was sighting in his new .30-06 hunting rifle was also pretty impressed.

BTW - I am not a trained marksman, sniper, or former military. I give all credit to that Swede. Thanks for putting up with this long posting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top