No. 5 Accuracy

[Peter Laidler]

I know it's a glib point Ridolpho, but it begs the question why did the Army discover this and why did they seek to rectify the problem? And why did the problem(?) continue for so long afterwards? We knew about and experienced this into the late 60's....., well before it was disclosed to the outside collectors world. The bodies were flexible at the rear.

Just like my Spanish made VW Polo. Never put a foot wrong and flogged mercilessly. My friend wouldn't have another if you gave it to him. Nice little rifle but I wouldn't take one out to use in a competition that involved advance to contact snap and rapid shooting..........

Information

Warning: This is a relatively older thread This discussion is older than 360 days. Some information contained in it may no longer be current.

[Ridolpho]

I know it's a glib point Ridolpho, but it begs the question why did the Army discover this and why did they seek to rectify the problem? And why did the problem(?) continue for so long afterwards? We knew about and experienced this into the late 60's....., well before it was disclosed to the outside collectors world. The bodies were flexible at the rear.
.

Thanks Peter. Can you explain to a non-engineering sort, like myself, why the flexibility would lead to the observed accuracy issues? What changes from shot to shot or group to group? It reminds me a bit of a similar historically documented accuracy issue with another fairly light weight, rear-locking rifle- the Tokarev SVT 40. The Soviets documented substantial headspace expansion upon firing due to stretch plus the bolt lockup is asymmetrical. The SVT, supposedly, would put the first shot many inches away from the remaining 9 which might group well. This first shot flyer was, obviously, a big problem for the newly designated sniper rifle. Strangely, I haven't been able to replicate this phenomonon with any of my SVT's using standard military spec ammo. Regrards.

Ridolpho