Which is the best Sniper?

Lee Enfield ‘T’ or PU Mosin Nagant..... Two very famous Allied snipers..... But before I get a million answers to this question (I can guess the answer on this forum:)).

I aim to do an unconventional comparison between the two and not on the rifle range!!
But in a hunting/stalking environment I plan to take both rifles on a weeklong deer stalking trip to the central north island of New Zealand hiking and hunting, I will try to find both rifles strong & weak points and come out with an overall preferred rifle and also see what could if any have been done better. I am trying to see just how these rifles were like to live with and use back in the day, and if I’m lucky a big red stag to boot.

Is anyone interested in such a comparison?


https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo.../Snipers-1.jpg

Here's another thread on this subject which you might find interesting ... ;)

Myth Meets Fact (World War II Sniper Rifles - how good were they?)

I'm not sure I agree with their conclusions, but it attempts to address your question.

Regards,
Doug

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Badger

I'm not sure I agree with their conclusions, but it attempts to address your question

---

Thanks but this is just another range test/report

I am not really interested in going to a range and shooting off a bench to see which rifle is the most accurate (I already know that), I am attempting to simulate there usability under field conditions by deer hunting with them for days on end.
The trip will consist on hiking in (20km) and camping in a bevy and hunting from dawn till dusk, there will be two of us and each will alternate rifles so as to evaluate their use under field conditions & not just shooting at another target.

Chris

Sounds like a very interesting experiment, I look forward to your write up Chris :thup:

:Dyou tote a gun a lot more than you shoot it, i would think in that aspect the nagant would come out on top. but give me the british i love it!

Do some photos during the hunts if you get a chance. Not just dead critters, but the terrain and other influencing factors that might cause you to favor one system over the other. olskool makes a very good point- it's how the rifle (and in this case, probably scope as well) perform BEFORE the trigger is pulled. Ballistically, they're pretty much equivalent and certainly powerful enough.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Chris7171

Is anyone interested in such a comparison?

---

Although I personally don't hunt with them, I do think all our members would really enjoy reading a well documented article on your experience with them ... :thup:

Perhaps we could make it into a permanent MKL article when complete....

Thanks for offering to do this ... :beerchug:

Regards,
Doug

Here's something that was done along the "hunting impressions" line for 2010:

Hunting With Milsurp Weapons- 2010 Edition


And general hunting w/ milsurps over the past couple of years:

Just got back from deer hunting (warning - dead deer pics)


I'm sure you can do better than my feeble efforts, Chris7171!

I have never fired ether with a scope but from the looks the one big thing that I think I would have trouble with the Nagant would be the scope mounting. Way to high for me. the one I shot with open sights was a little awkward as compared to my enfield as well.

Between the two of them, IMHO the two best sniper rifles of WWII, there isn't a lot of practical difference. The raised, add on, cheek piece makes the No4 T more ergonomically appealing but they are both similar in accuracy, repeatability and reliability. The No4 Ts were selected for accuracy first and then built into sniper rifles. The later war time production Mosins were just taken off the line and made into snipers before testing for accuracy. An interview I read of one of the Russian producers of the Mosin sniper rifles said there just wasn't enough time for such luxuries and that they were confident in the Mosins accuracy right off the line. That speaks volumes. The Russians fielded more snipers than any other nation during WWII.
To show how highly the axis forces regarded the M91/30 sniper rifles, all that were captured in serviceable condition were reissued or stripped for parts to keep their existing rifles operational. They liked the PU scope so much that they used its design for the basis of their ZF4 scopes, bases and mounts.

As far as the scopes on the Mosins being to high, that was pretty much standard practise for European sniper rifles. Even the No 4 T scope is to high without the cheek piece.

Personally, I would think that in trained hands it would be a toss up of which would be the winner.

My comment was in no way intended to deride the Mosin Nagant rifle's accuracy. It was more of an ergonomics thing for me personally. Most of my hunting is done with a Winchester Model 70 that to get the scope where I wanted it I mounted it so low that I had to remove the open sight because of an annoying shadow in the bottom of the scope from it.
I find the Mosin to be generally just a little cumbersome to operate and shoot particularly when compared to the No.4 Enfield but again that is mostly a personal fit issue.

Well since it's all settled , let's just pitch the lot and go out and buy brand new synthetic stocked stainless steel rifles w/ laser range finding scopes and test them... Anybody interested?


All right then!:p

Sorry I could not contribute more milsurp field data this year, but the deer or the weather weren't cooperating.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jmoore

Well since it's all settled , let's just pitch the lot and go out and buy brand new synthetic stocked stainless steel rifles w/ laser range finding scopes and test them... Anybody interested?

---

All ready did that.
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...ture0421-1.jpg
No lasers though and not stainless. Heavy as all get out and no where near as interesting as the milsurps.

An interesting question - and what about the german K98 mauser? Is it because of the wide variety of scopes used that it is hard to get a 'typical' version - or was it not up to the other two? If not I'm surprised given the devotion of the mauser-philes and the general high opinion in which the rifle is held.
As a matter of interest, I was just reading William Lubbeck's At Leningrad's Gates. He was in the 58th Div in Army Group North which was involved in the static siege around Leningrad where there was a lot of sniping. One comment he made which I found interesting was along the lines that the German snipers highly prized the soviet rifles with telescopic sights and if they could get hold of one, used it in preference to their mausers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bearhunter

Between the two of them, IMHO the two best sniper rifles of WWII, there isn't a lot of practical difference. The raised, add on, cheek piece makes the No4 T more ergonomically appealing but they are both similar in accuracy, repeatability and reliability.

Personally, I would think that in trained hands it would be a toss up of which would be the winner.

---

I agree with you completely, I am approaching this test with no biased to ether rifle and will try to be as fair as I can with my findings.

I will post a report after the trip for all to read.

Chris

Chris, I've personally tested an M1D, No4 Mk1 T, Mosin 91/30PU, Mosin 91/30PE and an M41 Swede. I've also owned and used German 98 Mausers and a beautiful but unreliable(ammunition fault) Kar43. Both the German rifles were scoped.
The Mauser 98, had one of those awful little LER scopes that was abysmal at best. The M41 Swede was accurate and repeatable but not as well balanced as the Mosin. The Aga 3X scope is good but has a lot of paralax as most of the WWII era scopes do and was hard to get my head in the same spot every time as it was so high. Both Mosins were fine but the PU scope was also to high for my short neck, very similar to the M41. The mosin with the PE mounted scope is fantastic and the target is easily engaged and quickly. It's also my favorite. The No4 MkI T is a very close second. The only problem I had with it is weight from an off hand stance. The T I had at the time was an Indian conversion to MkI/3, with a MkI scope (nightmare to adjust) It was well balanced and accurate with issue ammunition.
The M1D was only OK. If it didn't have tailored ammunition, it was all over the paper. As such I wouldn't consider it reliable or repeatable and in the field, I would be leery of it and therefore non confident in its performance. It has all the necessary cheek pads and flash hider as well as the leather sling and is very pretty but still, maybe I just need more time with it. The Breda M1 that I have, will shoot just about any surplus or commercial ammunition into 2 inches or less.

The M1D is for me a wash out and is more likely my fault than the rifle/scope(M84). The PE Mosin, my favorite, shot into 1 1/2 inches at 100m, 2 1/2 inches at 200m and 4 inches at 300m. I is the only sniper of all of them that I can consistently hit a 12 inch gong at 600m, if I do my part and the ammunition likes the rifle.
The PU Mosin was similar but at 300m the group opened up to 7 inches, my fault because I was having trouble centering my eye to the exit lens.
The No4 T shot well at all ranges out to 300m 1 1/2 to 2 minutes of angle with good consistent ammunition. Completely reliable no hiccups.
The K98 with the LER scope was impossible to sight in or focus. It suffered from a very close depth of field and for me, was always out of focus. If the light was low at all, it was useless. The rifle itself, was accurate but the scope hindered it rather than enhanced it.
The Kar 43 with the ZF4 system was very accurate, after I added a lace on 1 inch high leather cheek piece. I used this because of the offset scope and to center my eye on the exit lens. It came close to the PE mounted Mosin but was severely effected by the commercial ammunition I was using. It was in VG+ to Exc condition and wouldn't cycle reliably. I ended up loading one round at a time. It grouped as well as the PE mosin and the No4 T, It rivaled the Mosin right out to 300m where the groups started to open. I suspect that was more due to ammunition than the rifle. Just to let you know how highly the Axis powers regarded the PU scopes, the ZF4 is almost identical in sze and adjustments.

All of the rifles were fired on the same day, one right after the other on targets that were set up horizontally across a multiple target frame. The day was warm, from 15C to 22C with only a few small clouds and very clear. Perfect fall conditions. I fired the 100m targets from a prone position the 200m and 300m from a bench. The targets set at 400m, 500m and 600m were all shot from a prone position. After sighters, five shots were made on each target. The 600m target, was a 12 inch chrome carbide surfaced plate.

I wish I still had the Kar 43 but a fellow was willing to pay an exorbitant price for it and away it went, just like the minty Springfield 43 dated M1 Garand. I should have known better than to have put them out on the rack at the gun show. They just draw so much interest that it's like having a revolving blue light at Walmart. I will have to think long and hard before I do that again. Even the "not for sale"sign wasn't a deterrent for collectors with deep pockets and a hard on for the rifles.

Two awesome rifles, good luck with the trial tho. Not much between them, My money is on a complete tie or maybe the lighter rifle will just make it, just. They look to be in great condition and i can only wish they were in my safe!

What are the conditions where you will be hunting? Will you be on foot or in a blind/stand? Thick brush, open country or somewhere in the middle?
My prediction, open country from a rest? Equal or close to it. On the move quick shots? the Enfield

X2 rumplehardt, that's where the cheek rest really pays off.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PrinzEugen

An interesting question - and what about the german K98 mauser? Is it because of the wide variety of scopes used that it is hard to get a 'typical' version - or was it not up to the other two? If not I'm surprised given the devotion of the mauser-philes and the general high opinion in which the rifle is held.
As a matter of interest, I was just reading William Lubbeck's At Leningrad's Gates. He was in the 58th Div in Army Group North which was involved in the static siege around Leningrad where there was a lot of sniping. One comment he made which I found interesting was along the lines that the German snipers highly prized the soviet rifles with telescopic sights and if they could get hold of one, used it in preference to their mausers.

---

I thought of posting a similar question....but I'm guessing that the choice was between these two as those are rifles the OP owns?

Moisin is a clunky ungainly thing, but the mount is brilliant and the scope very good. Have to admit that I've never had a PU in my hands, so don't know if it was like the 1937 PEM I had that had no detents on the adjustment drums: not very clever that, and they turned quite easily. Still, at least you could read the adjustment scales with the rifle in your shoulder, unlike the Zeiss Zielvier.

The only mount system I'm aware of that could be screwed onto any rifle, then zeroed on the base alone, with repeatability if removed. Hopefully someone deferred their travels east with that design.

I've found most German military Mausers to be surprisingly poor shooters - including the sniper models. No idea how their armourers were supposed to service a pool of about 20+ different models of sniper rig....

I think the 4(T) and the PU Mosin have to vie for title of "best sniper rifle", but they are chalk and cheese, so hard to rate against each other. The PU Mosin is very simple and an excellent combination - lightweight reliable scope, and a rifle that is remarkably accurate for its rough production (once you nail down the wandering handguards!). The 4(T) by contrast, is arguably the first modern "sniper system" - i.e. a system engineered to be maintained, stored and issued in large numbers as a complete equipment set. The heavy, clunky #32 and pads arrangement is a bit vulnerable, but the overall set-up is astonishingly good for a mass-produced cheap rifle.

Its a pity that both .303 and 7.62x54R are not current calibres in the west (ok, apart from Finland). Both still offer potential to be developed into real state-of-the-art target rounds. The inter-war development of the ".303 magnum", which morphed eventually into the military MkVIIIz, shows some of the possibilities.

The MN scope mount is a brilliant design, and the sight is probably almost as good optically as a No32 with half the weight. Of course if the range drums aren't indexed as per the PE and PEM scopes, that is a big drawback. The scope mount is too high due to the design of the bolt, which does not have its handle at the back end like the Lee Enfield. A big defect, but the MN is a clunker anyway IMO: too long, 5 round mag, overly complex and hard to clean front locking bolt system, skinny little stock, open iron sights etc.

Still, the two are close enough that it would mostly come down to the skill of the user.

Edit: I see I'm repeating myself; it was January last time, so that's my excuse!

The MN mount is much too high and the dismal trigger makes it hard to snap a quick shot accurately. Lack of focus in the PU means I have to put my reading glasses on now to use it.

Once again it would all comwe down to the shooter and a miriad of factors, all up though if you have a **** shooter it wouldnt mattrer how good the rifle was. With either rifle they will knock off those poor little dear at quite a distance. My Father in law was using a mauser in308 back in the fities with open sights to knock of those little fellas from the side of mount niccholas, had some good trophis from it and the picks to prove it.
Regard
Fergs

Overall I'd say mosin, if anything for it's simplicity.

In an environment where men would have been expected to operate on their own without support for extended periods of time, there are just too many little things that can go wrong with the Enfield and can't be fixed in the field. With the Mosin you can take it all the way down to the barreled receiver using nothing more than the issued cleaning kit and tinker with it so you can get it back into action. Overall accuracy would have been in the same ballpark since in those days there just wasn't the body of knowledge that there is now to design purpose-built sniper rifles from scratch. As far as I know all they pretty much did was mount optics on a rifle taken right off the production line that just happened to show a better accuracy potential than others, while not really having an understanding of why that was. A purely accidental thing.