Which is the best Sniper?

[Surpmil]

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.

[Thunderbox]

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.

[Surpmil]

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!

[Mk VII]

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.

[fergs]

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

[RobSmith]

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.