angled charger bridge experiments?

[Surpmil]

The Imperial German armies had to mount their scopes offset to use chargers; the SMLE could have changed magazines instead. The authorities either didn't consider that, or rejected it as being not the approved method of loading the rifle. Presumably when the overbore Aldis mounts were produced later in the war that was the method used, whether it was officially approved or not.

One of the few advantages of the Winchester scopes was that they could be slid forward out of the way to clear the charger guide & magazine. The MkIII Ross with the Winchester A5 was loaded that way. This doesn't seem to have occurred to the authorities either in regard to the SMLE, as they mounted the Winchesters offset as well. Probably it did occur to Messrs. A. J. Parker as they offered a base for the Winchester scopes that was pinned into the backsight base of the SMLE. As their catalogue does not say more than that it was "designed" during the war, it was probably not used.

Attachment 68099

One account of rapid fire by a sniper:

Attachment 68101Attachment 68100

[Peter Laidler]

Seems that the UK Military sniping blockheads still have a lot to learn as they STILL use single shot, non charger loading bolt action rifles. I'd venture to suggest that they've got it right and maybe there is no need for charger loading or rapid fire for snipers Rob......... The very last thing snipers need is to draw attention to themselves

[Flying10uk]

Surely with a bolt action rifle you get more bang for your buck than you would a semi auto, using the same ammo, because you are not using up some of the charge to cycle the weapon? I would have thought that the trajectory would be flatter giving grater accuracy and the weapon would have grater range. Is it not still a British soldier who holds the world record for the longest known sniper kill using a bolt action rifle some years ago in Afganistan?

[CINDERS]

They have probably exhausted themselves testing both types B/A and S/Auto the latter may sacrifice a bit in accuracy but if you want to put a second round with corrections onto a target quickly then the S/Auto may hold the edge all gets down to practice and the shooter......
Some weapons may not take some of the gasses to utilize cycling but be a direct blow back system, in non-recoil-operated firearms, it is generally the entire firearm that recoils. However, in recoil-operated firearms, only a portion of the firearm recoils while inertia holds another portion motionless relative to a mass such as the ground, a ship's gun mount, or a human holding the firearm. The moving and the motionless masses are coupled by a spring that absorbs the recoil energy as it is compressed by the movement and then expands providing energy for the rest of the operating cycle.

Since there is a minimum momentum required to operate a recoil-operated firearm's action, the cartridge must generate sufficient recoil to provide that momentum. Therefore, recoil-operated firearms work best with a cartridge that yields a momentum approximately equal to that for which the mechanism was optimized. For example, the M1911 design with factory springs is optimized for a 230-grain (15 g) bullet at factory velocity. Changes in caliber or drastic changes in bullet weight and/or velocity require modifications to spring weight or slide mass to compensate.

[Peter Laidler]

Re the gas take-off. It's worth noting that so little gas is actually bled off to operate a weapon that while the amount is measurable of course it makes absolutely no (?)* difference to the m/v of the weapon. This is due to several things including the compressability of gas, Boyles Law and a few other things. In fact, cutting a barrel short by a very small amount would make a more measurable difference.

Not quite the answer if it was an exam question I hasten to add and there's more to it than that

* student tests show that with an L1A1 rifle gas port closed or open the difference in m/v is akin to the slight variations that you'd get from production ammo. So it IS measurable but will be lost in the practice..... if that makes sense!

[enfield303t]

About the difference between bolt and semi-auto accuracy. I have a friend that has a semi M14 that was too expensive IMO, added a expensive scope and it will shoot a cloverleaf at 100 yards and appropriate MOA or less out to 300.

He is using factory Match Grade Nosler 168gr and is now reloading attempting to get even better accuracy (reloading hasn't made a difference)". He is trying to disprove a bolt gun is more accurate than a semi and time will tell if he is able to continue to get MOA or less past 300 yards. I think he is doing very well considering what he is using and it will be interesting to see how things go at longer distances. Just talked to him and he thinks his gun will shoot with any bolt, it is just more difficult to "tune" it to be very good?

The real advantage to the semi IMO is a quick second shot, nothing else and agree with Captain Laidler a smart sniper never wants to be seen so possibly you better think twice about taking that second shot. Now in a place like Afghanistan at LONG range maybe a semi would be a good gun as the chances of the enemy spotting you might be lessened. Today snipers are referred to as "Scout Sniper" and the scout part of the job has become paramount. Give me a Barrett 82A1 and I would be willing to do my best at LONG range and not worry about being spotted by the bad guys.

In many of our conversations with Sniper Sgt. Sandy Scott he reminded us the key to survival is NEVER being seen, often it would be fatal if you were. You have to be a very good shot but being "invisible" is most important and the ability to take the easy second or third shot from a semi would might contribute to your demise. The single shot will probably keep them guessing where it came from.

Over the years I find I am a better shot using a bolt gun, not that it may be more accurate but the fact I know it must count and if using a semi in the back of my mind I know I can throw another one down range if I miss, maybe not a smart thing to do. When I use a bolt gun I always load one round at a time especially easy in a push feed, take a couple seconds more in a Lee Enfield.

[Eaglelord17]

For a bolt vs semi it really depends on what your goal is.

I know when the Canadian Snipers compete with the US Snipers, we tend to do better at the 800m because we are using a bolt and they are using a semi (M14). Doesn't mean they both aren't kill shots, just means the bolts grouping is tighter.

A semi makes more sense for shorter range sniping/designated marksmen type concept (like how the Soviets used the Dragunov). If your shooting longer range, then a bolt quickly makes more sense. There is a reason the longest range sniper shots were all done with bolt actions.

I can understand why charger feeding would have been important to early snipers. If you think about it, they usually would have been sniping within 600m or less due to the fact they only had 2-6 power scopes available. At those ranges you likely might need/want to shoot quickly (as you still are easily within iron sight range), and you might even be forced to work as infantry depending on the circumstances (the only nation I can think of not to have back up iron sights on there sniper rifles were the US).

[Flying10uk]

It's a good point that Cinders makes concerning a blow-back type of semi auto absorbing some of the recoil. Are there many sniper rifles that are blowback operated?

[Bruce_in_Oz]

I spent some time in the "good old days" playing with M-14s and tweaking several into facsimiles of the (X)M-21 system.

If I started with a good rifle (preferably a TRW body and barrel, as per the M-21 standard), and carefully followed the AMTU instructions, a rifle that could consistently shoot 6 to 7 inch groups at 500 yards was achievable. Not modern benchrest precision, I'll admit, but good enough for "Government work".

ANY deviation from the recipe produced degradation in performance with both M-80 ball (if it could be had) and Oz F4 with its slightly lighter (144gn), and better-grouping, bullet. As one would expect, heavier bullets printed to a completely different point of impact, as did lighter 125-130 gn HPs.

With the Matching Leatherwood ART scope, (or modern equivalent), the M-21 was, and in fact, still is, a force to be reckoned with. They are, however, all getting old and, even when "new", were not exactly a "shake and bake" maintenance item.

The beauty of the system is that multiple targets may be easily engaged in short order. Add the Sionics "muffler" or modern equivalent to the old M-21 and they were a definite force multiplier.

The matter of the ejected cases giving the game away needs some thought. If you can see 7.62 x 51 cases being ejected from a rifle firing from concealment at 300-plus yards, you have EXCEPTIONAL eyesight and you probably already have some idea of located the general location of the firer. If the cases were treated with, say, a black "wash", you'd be in the Superman class.

Someone shuffling a "manual" rifle bolt rapidly is likely a bit easier to notice, but probably not by much if done carefully and from some sort of concealment.

[Peter Laidler]

As for blow-back Flying 10........ It can be a complicated subject for a full power weapon and just the theory takes up a lot of time, even on a fairly complicated module of the weapon design course. Put simply, blow back is one step before a breech explosion. Unlocked breech and all that........ Leave it WELL alone in weapon design exccept for low power, parallel cased pistol ammo! (And yes....., I know all about the 20mm Polsten cannon.........)