[Slater]

Probably a matter of opinion, but was there any one particular weapon that could be called the "best" sniper rifle of WW2?

[DMK]

I don't know, but I'd think the Enfield No.4 Mk1T was a sweet shooter.
http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?s=&postid=450770

[Gewehr98]

1903A4 Springfield. As lovingly restored by yours truly. ;)



http://mauser98.com/03a4rightsmall.jpg

[4v50 Gary]

Another vote for the Enfield.

Durable rifle and the scope was equally rugged unlike the miserable Weaver 330 mounted on most Springfield O3A4s. While the Lyman Alaskan, M81 or M82 were better scopes, they were issued as alternatives and in limited quantities.

The German Mauser 98k with the ZF (fergit the #) 1.5x forward eye relief scope wasn't very good either. Problems with the ammo and the optics were inferior to the Enfield.

The M1C came out very late.

Finally we have the Moisin Nagant 91/30 with either the 4x PE or 3x PU scope. Both were excellant but I think the British Enfield and the Mk 32 scope could take more abuse. Of course, there's a subvariant in the Finnish M91/30 that were among the most accurate of all M-N.

Rifles not considered are those used by neutral powers.

[MLC]

How much do those Enfields run for?

[ShaiVong]

I paid $110 for my N4Mk1 Enfield, made in 1944. It's not a "T" though. Don't know what the real difference is. I was suprised that the barrel is pretty much freefloated though, except for the very end where the metal cap is.

I know i can get a scope mount for mine, and there is a screw in a hole where i guesss it would mount to the left side of the receiver. I don't know what else to do to accurize it, besides handloading.

[ShaiVong]

Oh, as for accuracy, I don't know how it groups... But I can hit clay pidgeons at ~100 yards with it using the micrometer sight dialed to the bottom 8 outa 10 times. Pain in the ??? to adjust for windage though.

Thats with that African PMP ammo from cheaper than dirt.

[Vic303]

Most Enfield No4 Mk1 T's I've seen with scope are running in the neighborhood of $1300 US. Up or down from there depending on condition, orig. scope, goodies etc...

[cool45auto]

The most popular will probably be the Springfield but I'm a sucker for the 91/30 Mosin-Nagants.

[goon]

In terms of number of kills, I would bet that the Mosin-Nagant rifles would win out.
They were used by the Finns to make the Soviets pay dearly for every inch of ground they took (Winter War), and they were used by the Russians to do the same to the Germans.

[B27]

I paid $750 plus for my No4 Mk1(T) about 12 years ago. I imagine it is worth somewhat more now...

http://www.fototime.com/6451D43D0E77D12/standard.jpg

It was built in 1943.

[4v50 Gary]

B27 - I paid about $695 back around '88 for mine. Considering inflation, you did better. :cool: Mine came with the plywood box for the gun and a cannister for the scope. Originally I shot it w/Indian surplus ammo and got 6" groups. Arggh! They're suppose to do 2" at 100 yards. Then I got better ammo and viola! 2" groups. :D

[B27]

I got no crate, Gary. But the sling and lens covers are in incredible shape.
They really knew how to tan leather back then.
I've never shot mine. It's a collector only.
I drive the hardcore collectors crazy enough by shooting my Savage No4 Mk1* :D

[Sunray]

No, there isn't any one that's better than the rest. Real WW II Sniper rifles have value because there weren't a whole bunch of them built to start with compared to PBI issue rifles.
$1300 is a great price for an Enfield sniper. Assuming it's real. Lots of 'em have been faked. So have 03A4's.

[Cosmoline]

Whether the M-28, the M-28/30 or the M-39, the Finns made the most accurate and toughest rifles of the war. Their front-line grade rifles were far better than most other military's sniper grade rifles, incluing our overrated Springfields. Scopes weren't even needed most of the time.

Plus, Finnish snipers racked up more kills in WWII than the US military has in a dozen wars.

[GD]

The sniper with the most kills ever was a Finnish soldier called Simo Hayha. He primarily used a M28 (some historians believe it was actually a M28/30). That feat was done during the Winter war (he served for about 3 months). The Finns made great rifles and had courageous men firing them.

[cool45auto]

No body count GD?:p

[Gewehr98]

Their front-line grade rifles were far better than most other military's sniper grade rifles, incluing our overrated Springfields.


If a plain-vanilla 1903A4, based on it's 1903A3 cousin, using an outdated 2.5x 3/4" Weaver 330 or 7/8" Lyman Alaskan, can put 5 rounds into 1" at 100 yards, why is it considered overrated? :scrutiny:


This was with LC 68 M2 ball ammo at 100 yards:

http://mauser98.com/03a4target.jpg

[4v50 Gary]

Gewehr98 - I have a Mauser 98k with a Weaver 330. Using factory ammo (Sellier & Bellot) I got a 1 1/2" horizontal string at 100 yards (no greater than 1/2" tall). Sub 2" MOA is acceptable by WW II standards and your Springfield and my Mauser both qualify. The Lyman Alaskans (along with their derivative M81 & M82) are better sealed scopes than the 330. BTW, I bought my Mauser b/c it had the 330 and Redfield base & rings.

However, get the 330 into wet or ice cold conditions or heavy rain and then the superiority of the British Mk 32 scope becomes evident. Per Senich the 330 had problems with fogging up or condensation.

[Gewehr98]

Someday, I'll take my 1903A4 out in the cold November woods for deer hunting, and see how that primitive scope holds up. I've seen mention of Weaver K4-60's mounted on 1903A4's for service early in Vietnam. I bought one for my gun, along with a set of split rings, to try it out. I still have the split rings, but the Weaver K4 ended up on a NoIMkIII* Lithgow Lee-Enfield - it shot so well, it stayed attached. And then it was sold to a guy who wanted a scoped SMLE, his aging eyes dictated his recent rifle purchases. I miss that rifle. :(

When I started my 1903A4 restoration process, I was surprised by how quickly and easily the 1903A3 became the 1903A4. Different bolt body, Redfield Jr. scope base and rings, Weaver 330 or Lyman Alaskan, or their military offspring, and no front sight band and post. If you didn't have the offset Z-series serial number, and the properly-cartouched Scant or C-stock, you'd probably never know.

The No4Mk1 Lee-Enfield was probably just as easy to convert to the No4Mk1(T), but it needed the comb piece to raise the shooter's eye. If my scoped Lithgow SMLE was any indication, the No4Mk1(T) should be one hell of a shooter.

Now I just need a Warner-Swazey scoped WWI 1903.

[4v50 Gary]

Good luck finding a Warner Swazey. I'd love to have one, but I'm not spending a fortune for an antique. My oldest "sniper" is the Lee Enfield, followed by the M-1D (compliments of Bill Klingon's gubmint) and then a trio of M91/30s. Did I mention I have a passion for sniping (though I need a shotgun to hit anything)? ;) There's more modern stuph too, but that's another topic.

BTW Gewehr - check out my thread in the Blackpowder Forum. Except for the sniper confessional thread here at the rifle forum, I took this morning to merge all my sharpshooter threads together into one happy, bedtime story.

[Sir Galahad]

The thing was, Simo was using an iron-sighted Mosin rifle, not a scoped one. So, that is remarkable in and of itself. He killed 500+ Soviets, though some were killed with a Suomi submachinegun. But 500+ is pretty remarkable and he never used a scoped weapon to do it. A scoped rifle off the bench can do lots of things. It's doing it off a cobblestone in the ruins of Stalingrad or in the snow of Finland and not getting caught or killed that matters. The Springfield is a nice rifle, but U.S. snipers were never fielded to the extent the Soviets did in World War Two, nor in the same tactics. Soviet sniper Vassily Zeitsev killed a pretty impressive number of Germans and there was a female Soviet sniper who killed an impressive amount of Germans herself. During WW2, female Soviet snipers killed quite a few Germans. While the U.S. dragged its feet on a sniper program, the Soviets had already realized its value. The Soviets had already fielded the Dragunov sniper rifle before the U.S. even started an official sniper school. So, this is why the Mosin has been tapped as the most used sniper rifle. There were simply more of them, for one thing. They killed more people, for another.

[B27]

Of course the inflation of numbers for wartime propoganda use must also be taken into account.
I have read a large portion of the official Soviet history of the "Great Patriotic War".
If true, they did not actually need our or anybody else's help in defeating the Nazis. All those Liberty Ships could have stayed home.
I don't mean to pick on the Russians here.
All countries make outrageous claims for wartime propoganda uses.

[Gewehr98]

The U.S. military sniper program waxed and waned with each major conflict. It wasn't until well into each campaign did the Army and Marine Corps decide to ramp up their sniper school, and upgrade/modernize their issue weapons and tactics. The fact that the military maintains a current program is somewhat amazing to me now, maybe the lessons of Vietnam and earlier have finally sunk in to those who would otherwise say it's too expensive for the Pentagon's budget. ;)

[4v50 Gary]

The pattern of raising corps of highly capable riflemen and then disbanding them is an American tradition that dates back to the Revolution. We did have a few regiments during the War of 1812, but they were disbanded after the war with the last one being disbanded around 1830. Did the same thing during the Civil War. Three entire regiments and several battalions were raised along numerous companies. They were all disbanded after the war. During one of the Indian Wars, a company was raised but they disappeared quickly too. So, when it happened again in WW I, WW II, Korea & Vietnam, it was tradition. It wasn't until the '80s that the snipers convinced the brass of the viability of the program.

To their credit though, Russians were one people that never seem to have forgotten.

BTW, there's a sniper thread here at the Rifle Forum and it's kinda like Sniper Confessional. Do a search for it and it's a good read.

[swingset]

Let's not forget those rifles that were of WWII vintage but didn't see action (or much).

The M41B Swede sniper is a deliciously accurate gal.

So is the K31/43 Schmidt Rubin.

My personal vote goes to the No4T Enfield. Rugged, accurate, good optics, fast action and 10 shot mag? That spells a winner to me.

[M67]

From what I've read, Simo Hayha (and probably others) chose not to use a scope for a couple of reasons. The obvious one is reliability, especially in cold weather. "Cold weather" during the Winter War was when it dropped below -50 Celsius/-60 Fahrenheit. Another reason for not using a scope was that it allowed the shooter to get lower on the stock, presenting less of a target. In an interview I saw, I think it was with Simo Hayha, but it may have been one of his colleauges, that point was stressed as important. Two inches made a real difference. Besides, a lot of the sniping was at fairly close range. I have also seen references to Finnish snipers who may have had higher scores, many of them did not bother to count, they didn't see it as a competition, they only did what they had to in defence of their country. I heard an interview with one of these guys on the radio years ago. He was asked if he killed a lot of enemy soldiers, the answer was "I don't know how many, several hundred, but I didn't count." Somewhere I read about one who was thought to have scored 900+, but there was no confirmation. In any case, Finns do not make a fuss, about anything.

In 1930 the Norwegian army adopted a sniper rifle, Krag Jørgensen m/1930, that did not have a scope. They did not trust scopes to work under adverse conditions, especially cold weather. They probably thought the benefits of a scope were limited anyway, and they may have had a point. During the German invasion in 1940 Norwegian riflemen outdistanced the Germans by a considerable margin. These riflemen were conscripts, civilians with little or no military training who put on a uniform for the occasion, often using their own private rifles. But they could shoot. Head shots from 600 meters and beyond were not all that uncommon - with iron sights. Head shots were in fact so common and so unpopular among the Germans that some Wehrmacht soldiers started to claim that head shots were against the Geneva convention(!). I have heard stories about German soldiers under sniper fire who threw hand grenades into nearby bushes, apparantly because they thought they were being fired at from close range with suppressed weapons, when in reality the snipers were so far away that they could not hear the sound of the shots. Half a mile in open mountainous terrain and the right wind direction will do that to the sound of a 6.5x55.

And the story continues. The last non-scoped Norwegian sniper rifle to enter service was adopted in 1967! I think some of those rifles were scoped, but most wear aperture sights and some are still in service although a new model wearing Schmidt und Bender optics was adopted some years ago.

[Dr.Rob]

My vote goes to those that were used. The Moisin-Nagant, The Mauser and to a lesser extent the M1C.

[B27]

Dr Rob-
The No4 Mk1(T) was extensively used. :)
Reference "With British Snipers To The Reich" by Capt. C Shore.
Lest we forget where the ghillie suit came from.;)

[ShaiVong]

Head shots from 600 meters and beyond were not all that uncommon - with iron sights.

I don't want to sound like I'm doubting you here... But are you SURE they were getting consistant head shots at 600m? I mean... Maybe I'm just broadcasting how terrible my vision is, but at 600m I'm sure that *I* couldn't differentiate a torso from a head, especially in regards to the front post of an iron sight! A standing human would just look like a fuzzy dot!

[Mk VII]

it's easier if the target is outlined against the snow. But at 600 I find it pretty difficult to see a head target at all in normal weather with iron sights even when I know it's in the general area. Unless you catch the movement you've not got much chance.

[M67]

But are you SURE they were getting consistant head shots at 600m? No. :)

It happened. I didn't mean to imply that it happened consistently, as in every time someone tried, or indeed that very many tried for head shots at that range in the first place. I assume most would aim for whatever they could see at that range. I do know that it was discovered through trial and error that the 6.5x55 failed to penetrate German helmets beyond a certain distance, and that the solution was to aim below the rim of the helmet. This would of course have been at ranges less than 600m. What I meant was that head shots at long range happened, and that "head shots (from closer range) were in fact so common...".

But I did not mention 600m as an arbitrarily chosen number. That was the standard competition range before the war, so it was a natural distance for those riflemen to open fire at. They would be able to estimate that range pretty accurately because of experience, and they would be confident they could hit reasonably well. I do not know for sure what the target size was back then, but a reasonable guess would be that the 10 ring wasn't that much bigger than a head, although the aiming black would be a lot larger. On sniper and target rifles the "iron sights" were of course aperture sights, not notch and post. BTW, the notch and post sights on the standard infantry rifle, 6.5x55 Krags, were graded to 2200 meters! Somewhat optimistic, yes, but it shows that someone believed in long range riflery. (The actual reason is of course that in the 1890s they were thinking about volley fire against area targets at long range, as for example an enemy unit marching across a field a mile and a half away.)

And Norway does have a tradition for rifle shooting. The best of these riflemen were really good. I think "CMP"-type rifle shooting was more popular back then than it is now, and this year's national match in Norway attracted more than 5700 active competitors. In a country with a population the size of Colorado's. I think there were two or three current world champions shooting the national match this year, none of them did particularly well. I have never been at the national match myself, but as a junior I did attend a couple of regional matches with almost as many shooters. It's a real circus. :)

I know you Americans consider yourselves to be a "nation of riflemen". You're not necessarily the only one. Some of the confrontations in Norway in 1940 could probably be compared to mounting an infantry attack on the firing line at Camp Perry. I expect that would have resulted in a few head shots at 600m too. I don't know how consistently, but I wouldn't want to be the one betting my head to find out.

Sorry about the long post. Can anyone tell me Sam's secret? He seems to be able to say more with 7 words than I do with 700. :)

Maybe something like: Scopeless sniper rifles still used in Norway. :D