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

[Mohawk]

Lets throw another variable into the mix. These snipers were not shooting at static targets on a range, they were in field conditions and weather, shooting at live targets. One cannot compare apples to oranges in this case. Yeah, the range is a great place to zero a rifle, but the rubber meets the road in live battlefield conditions. Top that of with nervousness, fear, lack of sleep, lack of proper diet, and that brings a whole new world to light. No matter what You do on the range, its the true battlefield that would determine which was the better rifle.

[TDH]

Like the Marine in Viet Nam that took out 18 NVA with 18 shots in the dead of night with an M14 with a starlight scope in under 30 seconds. No that gentlemen is shooting. The tried to duplicate the feat in daylight using stationary ballons as the targets and only got 16 in 30 seconds.

[Surpmil]

Well with 1950 dated Canadian ammo, my first No4(T) a mismatched 1944 BSA was competitive enough at 1000 yards that the gent using the Swing in 7.62x51 who was paired on the target was "sure" the markers were marking his shots as mine; which was obviously impossible since we were alternating our shots! Then I spoiled the effect by adjusting the range drum incorrectly and putting one into the top of the butts!

I'm afraid I rather glaze over at the ammo spec debates online, but I wonder if the pulling of cartridges and using commercial Winchester brass may not have improved things.

As for which rifle was best: the best combo would be the PU scope and mounts on a No4 IMHO. Must put that together some time...

[bearhunter]

Training and familiarity with the rifle are where the rubber meets the road. In stressful conditions, training often times takes over and in some cases, does it very quickly.

The European snipers of WWII on all fronts were well trained and conditioned. There may have been a few that were pushed into the snipers role by circumstances but most were pretty much trained up on the use of their rifles and highly confident in their shooting skills as well as their survival skills. I will admit, everyone is effected by the moment. Keeping a stable head is probably the first survival skill to be learned. What seems like an untenable suicide mission to an untrained person is an opportunity to a trained individual. That's why properly deployed snipers are such enormous force multipliers in their assigned zones.

As for the performance of the rifles, the Russians were confident enough in their Mosins that they didn't even bother to check them for accuracy until they were already a finished product. They just made to many and the demand from the front was at the point of desperate. They used their snipers more than any other nation in the WWII conflict and had more than anyone else when the war started. The Germans were desperately short of suitable sniper rifles and were even rumored to have issued telescoped sporters until their industry could catch up with demand. They pressed every Russian Mosin sniper into service that they could get their hands on . Their ZF4 scopes were modeled on the Russian PU scopes. The early axis scopes were abysmal to say the least. In hindsight I wish I would have kept the early K98 sniper with the tangent sight mounted LER scope. It was so awful, I got rid of it soon after shooting with it.

The UK, had a pretty decent rifle in the No4 MkI T and some of the WWI dated No1 rifles with the Warner Swasey scopes were OK but IMHO, as crude as it was, The Russian Mosin gets my vote.

Just for full disclosure, I have a No4 T, M1D, M41 Swede, Mosin Nagant (original) Pu and a PE model. I have used German 98Ks, Japanese Arisakas and an abortion that was supposedly a French Mas 36 that was more awkward to shoot than any other sniper I've ever used. The way that scope was mounted, it was impossible to get a cheek weld and the unadjustable focus/paralax made it almost impossible to use

If I had to make a choice, I would take a Mosin 91/30 with the PE scope as first choice. Main reason is ergonomics, toughness and will shoot most ammunition acceptably for its intended purpose which is to wound or maim, not kill. #2 would have to be the No4 MkI T. It's main factor for second place is its weight and the early MKI scopes. No other real reasons. The later K98 scopes and rifles were fine as well. When push comes to shove, all three are acceptable, reliable and accurate enough to do the job.

By today's standards they leave a lot to be desired but in the right hands, they could still play a fomiddable role.

One rifle I didn't mention is the Springfield O3-A4. The only example I ever used, I considered to be to delicate and the field of view was terrible. It needs a lot of light to be effective as well. In properly trained hands though, I don't think I would want to be down range of it either.

In the end, it's more about the shooter than the rifle. If the shooter is skilled in the rifle's limitations and has a sound head, he/she will be a formiddable weapon when combined with the weapon they were issued with.

[JamesB]

If I had to make a choice, I would take a Mosin 91/30 with the PE scope as first choice. Main reason is ergonomics, toughness and will shoot most ammunition acceptably for its intended purpose which is to wound or maim, not kill.

Why would you say something like that? Were they such bad shots that they kept killing their targets? All snipers have and will shoot to kill.

[jon_norstog]

Pretty interesting, specially the results they got with the Mosin rifle. Who would have guessed?

jn

[bearhunter]

JamesB, that may be true if the snipers roll were assassination. As often as not, depending on the situation, his job was to observe and report without firing a shot. If he was deployed as a force multiplier, his job was to create diversions and mayhem. Wounding a man created a lot more trouble for the enemy than killing a man, unless it was the leader of a unit or squad. Even then, maybe. There is a very good reason many opposing combatants will kill an enemy sniper rather than take him/her prisoner. The pain and anguish they dish out to the enemy, is often paid back as retribution if they are captured.
I've seen cases where snipers were shunned by their own side. They are a special breed, trained to do some incredible things and survive under conditions most can't even imagine. They scare the hell out of most soldiers.
If there happens to be one in a fire zone, and you pull guard or recon duty, your hair stands on end, your heart races and your senses are on a razor thin edge. None of this will help one bit of course, unless you have similar training and know what to look for and what to avoid. Anyone that has ever been in an area that is being swept by an active sniper, knows the feeling well.

My memories go back 40 years. The snipers I encountered scared the hell out of me, especially if they weren't on my side. If a sniper gets a squad pinned down, he/she can harrass it all day under the right conditions. He/she can keep a whole fire base pinned down or completely stop a column of light skinned vehicles. Not only that, if he/she has advanced training they can get away with it and go back home.

Bodies are just that, they can be left behind if it means more injuries or loss of life. Leaving a wounded buddy behind or watching him/her bleeding etc in front of you is another issue completely.

Like I said, I know what a good, even self taught sniper could do 40 years ago. The boys and girls doing the job today are like the difference between a Camel biplane and an F18. Better training/education/conditioning/equipment/communications/weapons, makes them a very formiddable weapon with the right commander that knows how to deploy his teams.

[sweobserver]

The M41 had a cheek pice too it. Something in leather, filled with fabric and horse hair. Somehing fitting shooters cheek in wood or cork and glued on works better. The system was phased ut from our Brigades in the mid 60s and enterd the storerooms of the Home Guard. In the earlie 80s we tryed to get the HG to use them as marksmen, but of course the glory of snipers and Gilledresses where much higher than the ability to stay cool and hit what you aim at.
We have a target with five minifieldtargets, 1/5 in size, on called Rosersberg and at 100m distance you can easy determin if you have a windbag or a marksman on the line. Fire 5 at prone and get 5 hits!
We soon found out that the only ones doing this on demand, was old snipers and active fieldshooters (200-900m in the green).
So we turned page and did get the GenQM to fix us some SSGs. After a few years result was very much the like as with the old M41s.
At that time the intrest was rose for a real 1200 m rifle, after years of trial and test we got the PSG90, AI AM, with a Hensholdt 10x42 with NL.
Still the diffrence lies mostly in the shooter. But flying time is a big factor since in real life, when the rubber hits the gravel, you can't read wind out there, and practice rounds with tracers only gets your target under cover.
As you might understand we where a small unit in the middle of it.
As for the M41 sniper round in 6,5x55 the demand was that it should be abel to a 90 mm circle at 300m from a very good barrel, 10 rounds group. Now very few marksmen can hold that good in the shaft. But the start is there.
The need to hit specific targets will always be there. If you have Qs I will try to get an A.

[Malygris]

"I fault the authors for not testing it with current match fodder"

You may be misinterpreting the spirit of the test. I think the idea was to use as near as possible to the actual loads that were used in '39-'45, from the guns to the ammo. Using modern loads that were unavailable then would not be accurate at all in my book. At least not for the test they were performing.

[viking guy]

The author's could have shot WWII ammo and current ammo in the T as they did with the Springfield. I remain very impressed with the accuracy,trigger and optics of the Enfield and would have liked it to have received an equal evaluation against the other players.

The Russian Pu sniper remains impressive.