WW2 sniper rifle/rifle moa

There have been sub MOA and 1000 yard rifles since the Civil War. Many barrel makers still use machines from WW1 & WW2. Some of the most accurate rifles are Milsurps.

Ive had several 1903s and 03-A3s both scoped and iron sighted that have produced 7/8" to 1 1/4" groups for 5 shots with decent ammo. The 1903s pretty much all had quite good barrels on them.

Decent ammo has been 1980s PMC 150 gr ball ammo. It doesnt take match grade ammo. One sporter liked rem 180 gr SPCL ammo OK, it did 7/8" prone with 4x scope. It wasnt bedded.

Mind you, I am no specialist in this but am reasonably informed about WWI and WWII era rifles in general and general military history. However, there are some people that probably do nothing but study the development of sniping and they might be along later.

This is stuff that I have learned from reading histories of the time, collector forums, and about the rifles themselves.

WWI Sniper rifles suffered from poor optics and sometimes very poor quality ammunition. From what I recall from A Rifleman Went to War, some WWI German units had individuals who were foresters even used commercial sporters that were quite accurate. Britain had a sniper school in WWI for the Allies but was hampered a bit by the Lee-Enfield's limitations. Canadians used Ross rifles which were a bit more accurate on average and kept them for sniper use even after re-equipping with Lee-Enfields . P14 Enfields were also used later in the war and again in WWII as sniper rifles. Don't know of any French, Russian, Austrian, or Italian sniping information for WWI. McBride may touch briefly on what the French were doing it in his A Rifleman Went to War book--McBride did cover German practices as snipers often dueled on the Western Front in WWI.

WWII, the Russians and Germans were most organized--both used optics and snipers and the Russians did pick the cream of the crop of Mosins for sniper builds. The Finns used snipers pretty successfully using a Mosin and the Swedes (Mauser 96 based) had a darn fine sniper rifle (M41 based) despite not being in the war. The Brits in WWII used Holland and Holland among other gunsmiths to produce carefully constructed sniper rifles from stock ones with quite good optics. The Japanese also used snipers but know nothing of how the rifles were selected or how good the optics were. The Americans seemed to have basically stuck a decent scope on the Springfield early and very late did so with the Garand.

However, remember that the std. was more or less minute of man so a 3 MOA rifle represented a pretty big change from a 5-6 MOA issued rifle. Things like wood stocks, poorly sealed and attached optics, average ammo, battle damage, wartime production problems, humidity, etc. all affected the performance versus a re-enactors or military training unit's accuracy.

Hope you found this somewhat useful.

I'll see if I can locate the sources I used when I researched this question myself. In general the standard was something close to better then 2 MOA, and was usually tested at somewhere between 200 and 400 yards. This was for selecting rifles from the normal production runs and converting them to sniper rifles. As noted civilian target rifles have been used in a lot of wars, and were frequently far more accurate then this.

Far as ammunition went, the majority of the time they simply fired the issued ammunition. Occasionally you'd have a situation like the US found it self with having two or three different types of .30-06 floating around, with one having markedly better long range performance. In this case there might be some kind official attempt to funnel this to the sniper sections, but it seems to have largely been an informal process.

The whole hyper accurate modern sniper/tactical rifle, really didn't start to exist in the military till Vietnam and later here in the US to the best of my knowledge. In the civilian LE context, a sniper rifle wasn't anything beyond a hunting rifle with a scope a lot of places into the mid 80's.

-Jenrick

I haven't stayed in a Holiday Inn Express in a while, but I have shot in a few CMP Vintage Sniper matches. Rifles shot, at various times, were Springfield 1903-A1 with a vintage Unertl 8x and another with an 8x Hi-Lux.(WWII Marine corps.), 1903-A4 with various Hi-lux and Weaver K-2.5's (WWII US Army), Swedish 1941 with original era 4X AJACK scope, and a Mosin-Nagant 91/30 with a reproduction scope (cant remember the power). The only one I own is the 1903-A4 which is a Gibbs reproduction. The others belonged to my team mates.

In a nut shell, I think that any of these rifles are capable of MOA accuracy. I've shot 5 shot MOA groups with my A4, but consider 1.5 MOA to be the general 5 shot accuracy. I would expect any of those other rifles to be as capable, especially the 1941.

Now the optics of that era were quite inferior to what we are used to today. The Unertl is not very clear and you have to reset it after every shot because of the recoil spring was not used by the marines. Its been sent in for repairs twice so far. The AJACK is crystal clear but there is no windage adjustment other than whats in the mount, and the elevation dial is a guess. The scope on the 91/30 is mounted way too high to get any kind of cheek weld. The old Weaver K-2.5's are probably the best of the bunch but weren't really used on the original rifles.

The old rifles are fun to shoot but nothing compared to what a modern deer rifle is capable of..

Lash3006 said:

Something just popped in my head when looking at old WW2 and WW1 rifles, how accurate were those rifles? From what I've read most sniper rifles where just normal infantry rifles with a telescopic sight put on them

Click to expand...

And some of the company level sharpshooters didn't even have sights on them. Shifty Powers did some of his best "work" with a full size M1 Garand on open sights. A pretty good biography was written about him and its on my reading list.

https://www.amazon.com/Shiftys-War-...&qid=1500702898&sr=8-1&keywords=shifty+powers

So far ive owned 2 nagants, an Arisaka, and a 1903. All could be made to shoot sub 2" at 100yds, with best loads usually coming in very close to 1". My sporterized 03, and Nagant would shoot the best of the bunch, but they also had the most work done.

With what surplus ammo i could get, neither of my Nagants shot worth crap, and my 1903 shot poorly.

All of my rifles have modern optics, so no opinions there, but I agree, ammo was also probably a limiting factor.

At that time there were no snipers in the US army or Marines as I understand it. They were "designated marksman" that were attached to regular infantry platoons and given a different rifle. The movie version of a sniper we think of today did not exist yet. Since combat generally did not take place at great distances a 3 moa rifle would not have been a great handicap.

"...most sniper rifles where just normal infantry rifles with a telescopic sight..." Nope. Normal PBI rifles with better barrels. Barrels tested by weapons techs on both the '03A4 and M1 C's and D's. Thing about a sniper is the guy's much higher skill level in field craft and being able to hide and move in the open without being seen. A regular PBI troopie doesn't do that. And shooting is a very small part of the job. Nobody cared about MOA then either. Hitting a man sized target at long range was what mattered. Not group size.
My '03A4, with a 2.5 to 8 Bushnell Scopechief on it(real issue scopes ran $200US 35/40 years ago. More than a week's pay.), will shoot sub MOA groups with match grade bullets on a good day if I do my part. It was made in 1944. Didn't buy the M1 C/D when they were $250 because the scopes go on the wrong side. Been kicking myself over that.
Free floated barrels guarantee absolutely nothing. Not all rifles like a floated barrel.
"...movie version of a sniper we think of today..." Don't exist today. There's no removing and reinstalling a scope without loss of zero.

https://archive.org/details/snipinginfrancew00pricrich
This might give you some idea

jmar said:

There have been sub MOA and 1000 yard rifles since the Civil War. Many barrel makers still use machines from WW1 & WW2. Some of the most accurate rifles are Milsurps.

Click to expand...

Do you have a source to validate that?
I ask as I'm surprised if this is true.
With all of the advancements in manufacturing it seems like it wouldn't be true.
That said, I know old lathes and mills are still very desirable and machines are capital assets and not something a business is going to replace without a great deal of thought, planning and expectation of a larger ROI. So while I woundnt expect it, I can see it as being possible

What he is referring to is the equipment used to make cut rifled barrels, which is still used by a few match barrel makers and the process hasn't changed much for 100 years. The equipment used to make production button rifled and hammer forged barrels is a modern computer controlled process.

View attachment 757979

This is a 1943 Remington 1903/A3 I picked up recently from the CMP. Wood is ok/rough, but 7/43 Remington 2-groove barrel gauged 0.0 /0.5. First shot was corrected 2clicks right. 200yd elevation. 5-shots @100yds. Load was 150gr Hornady FMJBt over 47.5gr H4895, Federal case, CCI 34 primer. Not a match load, but what I shoot to include Garand matches with my Garands. I got it to shoot GSR/vmr matches, and because my Dad carried an identical one in WWII. I now know why he dumped his Thompson M1 on an airborne paratrooper prior to D-day. He was a Co. 1st Sgt over a MP company. He claimed to an uncle it was lighter and made a better club. Supposedly, he carried it and 10rds in stripper clips and never loaded it or fired it the whole war, in both theaters. This one could fit that bill! I don't feel sorry for him or doubt his choice now!

Added: he was shot at twice by Japanese snipers, and received three Silver Stars, two with Gold clusters, and two Purple Heart (one with clusters). Was wounded by being hit by tank when it recoiled shooting sniper out of tree grove, he claimed to an uncle. He never talked about war around me or my brothers. We saw him once in a guard/VIP detail in a Documentary with General Eisenhower touring one of the German concentration camps. I dropped my jaw, and we both tried to call each other on phone at same time. I lost it to power surge that fried my dvr.

The old saying is that the Germans built a "hunting" rifle (M98), the Americans a target rifle, (03/A3), and the Brits a "battle" rifle (#4Mk1 Enfield). I agree!

During WWII the British would take an above average Lee Enfield & give it to Holland & Holland where they did their magic. I don't recall what the accuracy requirements were & I know that most of the rifles were made by BSA. (M47C). I have a 1945 Lee Enfield no. 5 "jungle carbine" that will outshoot many rifles & it only has a 3x old Weaver scope. Go figure.

someguy2800 said:

What he is referring to is the equipment used to make cut rifled barrels, which is still used by a few match barrel makers and the process hasn't changed much for 100 years. The equipment used to make production button rifled and hammer forged barrels is a modern computer controlled process.

Click to expand...

Many and a few aren't the same. Hence my question. Your answer makes much more sense and seems to be what I'd expect.

That said, it's amazing to look at technology developed in the 30s and 40s for WWII. I'm not as familiar with firearms of that era as I am aircraft, but knowing the way things were developed and manufactured it's mind blowing.

Imagine if the engineers had the computers, CNC etc

As a former sniper instructor, I had the opportunity to use some of those older systems in training and do a bit of research on them. The 1903A4 rifles were the ones identified as the best from the lots of existing 1903 rifles. A star was stamped near the muzzle crown, and the required mods were done to them to mount the optic. The M1C/M1D rifles went through their own process as well. As I understand, most snipers preferred the 03A4, since the scope was mounted above and on line with the barrel, unlike the Garand variants. I would concur on this through my minimal experience. The Marines used variants of the Winchester model 70 in 30-06, but I don't think until Korea- not sure, since I was in the Army. The Marines used a lot of Unertyl scopes. As a previous poster mentioned, optics were nothing compared to what you can buy at any store today- much less effective, less magnification, lower quality mounts, etc., and the wood stocks didn't perform as well as synthetics we use now. My understanding is that the German Mauser sniper rifles were the best of the era.

Not really an expert on the topic, but based on what I've read formal training for what we now consider snipers didn't really happen until after we were involved in Vietnam, mostly afterward. Prior to that training was hit or miss. Some guys received some training, other times the guy determined to be the platoon's best shot was simply given a rifle with mounted optics and received little or no training. I've read that often guys who were already on military shooting teams and known marksmen were given the rifles. But with very little other formal training in tactics.

Also, a sniper has only recently become a respected military position. Up until at least WW-2 they were somewhat looked down on as cowards who didn't fight fair. Sometimes even by their own men.

And shots were usually much closer than most of us think. Taking out someone at extreme range did happen, but more often shots were at 100 yards or less at someone well hidden with only a small portion of their body exposed.

The problem with the wood stocks isn't accuracy. They can be every bit as accurate as a synthetic stocked rifle, but the point of impact changes constantly. A wood stocked, sporter weight rifle, even from 100 years ago can be quite accurate. A wood stocked rifle zeroed today may still shoot MOA next week, but the point of impact could be off several inches. In a book I read several years ago a Vietnam era sniper claimed that the problem was so bad during the rainy season that their rifles were ineffective beyond about 40 yards. They started getting fiberglass stocks near the end of the war and had far fewer problems.

Group size is a horrible metric for this sort of thing. MOA's a fine unit, but you really need to think in terms of circular error probable (CEP) or something similar - the as, the radius of the circle around the target which 50% of shots would fall within.

I would say with typical WWII equipment, under actual field conditions, CEP was probably somewhere in the 5-10 MOA range which would equate to a 10-20MOA across circle containing 1/2 the impacts - that is, 100y shots had pretty good hit rates, past that you started seeing misses. I know what you're thinking: "But this (insert WWII sniper rile) shoots 1.5MOA groups!". That's nice, but it doesn't matter. I'm talking about what can actually be achieved with all factors taken into account. That CEP was probably reduced by a factor of 2 with Vietnam era training and equipment, and another factor of 2 since then.

The US Army didn't have a service-wide recognized full-time sniper school until the 1980's. Prior to that, training was at the unit level (if the unit chose to even have such an asset) and there was no consistency or uniform standard for how snipers were trained or utilized. In addition, different units resourced and allocated available assets differently- meaning the "quality" of the overall sniper capability was determined largely upon the level of priority placed by unit commanders. Even Special Operations didn't have a command supported school until the late 1980's. Nowadays, these schools are highly supported and recognized for the capabilities the graduates bring to units, while inter-unit capabilities and resources still vary unit to unit.

Llama Bob said:

I would say with typical WWII equipment, under actual field conditions, CEP was probably somewhere in the 5-10 MOA range which would equate to a 10-20MOA across circle containing 1/2 the impacts - that is, 100y shots had pretty good hit rates, past that you started seeing misses. I know what you're thinking: "But this (insert WWII sniper rile) shoots 1.5MOA groups!". That's nice, but it doesn't matter. I'm talking about what can actually be achieved with all factors taken into account.

Click to expand...

I don't know where you got your data, but I think that good shots, who I assume were chosen for the sniper role, can do way better than that. With the equipment of the day.

Using the CMP Vintage Sniper Match as a measure, all but the worst shooters or those with an equipment failure do much better than that. The match is set up to require identical rifles of that era with somewhat relaxed optics requirements (Same power as original, make and model specified if not original). The shooter has 2 big, dirty, and usually wet sandbags to use as a rest, or can shoot prone with a sling. Targets are only exposed for 20 seconds per shot. All meant to at least simulate some of the conditions a sniper might encounter. Each team member shoots 10 shots at 300 and 600 yard highpower targets. The ten ring is 7 in. at 300 yds. (2.33 MOA) and 12 in. at 600 yds. (2 MOA).

Granted, ammunition choices are unlimited, and certainly more accurate than what was available to a WWII GI. A good topic for research would be "was ammunition other than M2 ball available to the WWII snipers"?

Typically, several shooters will clean one, if not both, of their strings of fire. You had better get scores in the low to mid-90's for both strings or you will finish near the bottom.

This years national match at Camp Perry is this upcoming Monday. The results will be posted on the CMP site.

I can't shoot in this years match. Do to an upcoming wedding, I can't make this years match, the first one that I missed since the inaugural in 2012.

I don't know about the sniper rifles, but an old G&A Annual article rounded up examples of several countries' military match rifles. Most were MOA rifles under good conditions with good ammo.

Re rifling machines, a lot of companies got started with mil-spec Pratt & Whitneys. Some the sine bar machines built for the old factories with wood floors, some the later twin spindle hydraulics used so much in WWII. I recently read that Mike Rock uses the P&W twin spindle machines. I am sure that most of them still in use have been upgraded and rebuilt.

Lash3006 wrote:
...how accurate were those rifles? ... None (from what I know of) had free floated barrels, thick target barrels, better triggers like today, the best stocks for accuracy, bedding jobs, etc.

Click to expand...

It would be a mistake to assume that older rifles were inherently less accurate than rifles today.

I don't know that there has ever been a study of the inherent accuracy of 19th and early-20th Century rifles, so an objective answer to your question may not be available, but the anecdotal evidence is on the side of antiquity. There are many tales on the scale of Vasilly Zaytsev shooting a German sniper through the barrel of his own telescope or Annie Oakley shooting a playing card on edge from 30 yards. These were, of course, very gifted shooters, but their equipment had to be a match for their talent.

And perhaps that's the lesson we should take away from this. The effect of all the gimmicks (i.e. free-floating, thick barrels, smooth triggers, ergonomic stocks and the like) make a marginal contributors to accuracy - that is, they can make the performance of an expert a little better, but they don't turn an average shooter into an expert.

Laphroaig said:

I don't know where you got your data, but I think that good shots, who I assume were chosen for the sniper role, can do way better than that. With the equipment of the day.

Click to expand...

I've never seen much in the way of coherent stats for WWII, but for Vietnam the number bandied about was that about 50% of shots taken by snipers were hits, and the "typical" distances were 100-200 yards. Mind you, this factoid was quite well received since they were shipping 50,000 small arms round to theater for every enemy hit. But it also tells us ballpark what those shooter's CEP was - if we assume 150y range and a 10" across exposed target, they had a CEP of about 3.3 MOA. I don't think many people would disagree that WWII sniping was quite a bit worse, and modern is quite a bit better.

I would expect there to be exactly zero correlation in the CEP seen at a "vintage sniper" match and that seen in the field.