FL-NC
Member
I wasn't in VN, but I can tell you that today, a 50% hit ratio for a sniper inside of 200 yards is totally unacceptable, under any conditions. As in, said sniper being relieved from that position.
WW2 sniper rifle/rifle moa
- Thread starter Lash3006
- Start date
- Status
Llama Bob
member
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2016
- Messages
- 2,258
As I said, I expect it to be quite a bit better today. However, it's also important to differentiate between the hit rates achieved in various types of exercises, and those achieved in the field. The most obvious example of this is basic rifle qualification - over a 50% hit rate on targets out to 300y is required to qualify. But in the Iraq and Afghanistan theaters, we know we ship over 100,000 rounds of small arms ammo for every enemy killed which suggests a hit rate many, many orders of magnitude lower. There is simply no relationship between CEP in training/qualification/matches and CEP in the field.
FL-NC
Member
In the sniper world, there is a DIRECT relationship between performance standards in training and those on a mission. The capabilities of the trained sniper team, their equipment, and the level of expertise places a high standard on their performance in combat, and the expectations of their command and those they are supporting. As someone who held this position for a number of years, as a former sniper team leader, and senior sniper instructor I am very intimate with these standards. As far as the amount of small arms ammo shipped to a theater, its inappropriate to attempt to strike a balance between what a shipping document says and what ends up in a body bag. THOUSANDS of rounds are expended by our servicemen in country on things like weapons zero, test firing, live fire mission rehearsal, and other training in country. The amount of small arms ammo I expended on mission is dwarfed by the amount of rounds we utilized in those other tasks. Some of our troops need to do their regular qualifications during deployment either due to command mandate or to keep their records in order for promotions. More thousands of rounds are passed to the indigenous "friendly" forces, as well as our coalition partners if their supply chains are "lacking" (which they often are). Still more rounds of ammunition are destroyed because it has been in the field too long under less than optimal conditions- when it starts to get excessively tarnished, machinegun links get rusty, etc. it is standard practice to dispose of this stuff. Finally, a 1/1 kill ratio- or anything close to that- is a ridiculous notion regarding the tonnage of small arms ammo used on mission. Riflemen are taught to engage enemy personnel at close quarters with multiple rounds. Often, they are engaging an enemy during a 2-way firefight, in full kit from an unstable position, with only a partial exposure of a body part. So, much harder shots than those presented on qualification tables. Machineguns are area weapons used in 6-9 round bursts. Miniguns- well, they are miniguns. So looking at a shipping document or a hand receipt and dividing the number of rounds by the number of EKIA reported doesn't mean that the bad guys were "missed" several thousand times before someone got lucky and put a lethal shot on target. Its just bad math, and that's it.
Remember the old saying.
In the great war the Americans came with a target rifle, the Germans with a hunting rifle, and the British brought a battle rifle....guess you could say the french brought an antique and the folks from the land of hockey brought an even better target rifle.
In talking about snipers in the great war....really the germans started it all....the allied powers very slow to figure it all out....the british did not start a "sniper school" till about halfway into the war.
Glass on the rifles nothing like today....your $19.95 tasco is light years ahead of anything they had back then.
The real issue (during WWI) was ammo....it was really horrid stuff....but when you think you would shoot over a million shells from the big guns in a 4 mile sector...just think of the small arms.
You also have to remember the "wastage" in just day in and day out at the front....Wastage was what the british called it....I think I read they estimated 1000+ rifles lost per day due to this or that....and that was if nothing was going on. They did have programs to put the "best guns" aside....but the efforts very small.
In the great war the Americans came with a target rifle, the Germans with a hunting rifle, and the British brought a battle rifle....guess you could say the french brought an antique and the folks from the land of hockey brought an even better target rifle.
In talking about snipers in the great war....really the germans started it all....the allied powers very slow to figure it all out....the british did not start a "sniper school" till about halfway into the war.
Glass on the rifles nothing like today....your $19.95 tasco is light years ahead of anything they had back then.
The real issue (during WWI) was ammo....it was really horrid stuff....but when you think you would shoot over a million shells from the big guns in a 4 mile sector...just think of the small arms.
You also have to remember the "wastage" in just day in and day out at the front....Wastage was what the british called it....I think I read they estimated 1000+ rifles lost per day due to this or that....and that was if nothing was going on. They did have programs to put the "best guns" aside....but the efforts very small.
Archie
Member
One major difference between 'the past' and now is the doctrine of use for a sniper. Up until the Vietnam War (more or less), snipers commonly worked alone. They had no spotter or coach with them. They had no computer for wind, light, coriolis effect or voodoo. Ranges were commonly (not always) in the 'extended combat range' zone. Consequently, the accuracy standards for rifles was considerably less than current. (Very few shots at over a mile, f'rinstance.) Accuracy standards were probably codified in some some official order, but generally, a head shot on a specific member of the unholy within four hundred yards was the practical standard.
And shoot officers and senior non-coms. The ones pointing and directing.
Rifles were normal issue rifles, selected as 'better than average accuracy' shooting. Optics were commercial scopes. Scopes were typically 'hunting' type as they held up better under field conditions. Ammo was selected by lot for best accuracy, but still the 'issue' type loadings.
And shoot officers and senior non-coms. The ones pointing and directing.
Rifles were normal issue rifles, selected as 'better than average accuracy' shooting. Optics were commercial scopes. Scopes were typically 'hunting' type as they held up better under field conditions. Ammo was selected by lot for best accuracy, but still the 'issue' type loadings.
Llama Bob
member
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2016
- Messages
- 2,258
Well you're certainly welcome to point to any available statistics on the field accuracy of snipers (or anyone else) in the current conflict.
However, If there is one thing that's been a constant throughout military history since the rise of firearms, it's that the number of shots fired and the number of bodies found on the ground don't match up very well, suggesting extremely poor field accuracy. It was true in the colonial era, the civil war era, WWI, WWII, and given the stats put out by the GAO seems to be quite true now as well.
There's always plenty of people ready to make excuses, but the reality is lots of rounds get fired and almost no enemies get hit hit. The last GAO report I saw worked out to something like 250,000 rounds per kill in Iraq. Even if we assume 90% - heck, 95% of the ammo was lost, given away, or shot outside combat (highly unlikely) we'd still have to conclude more than 10,000 rounds were fired in combat for every kill. There is simply no way to square that with an army full of people who qualified by getting more than 50% hits at reasonable combat distances except to say that there is a many orders of magnitude difference between training/qualification accuracy and field accuracy.
FL-NC
Member
I prefer to speak from personal experience, but I can't and won't provide documentation to support the fact that I can account for every round I fired in theater whether from rifle, carbine, or handgun,over multiple deployments, both as a member of the US Army or as a US government contractor. First off, I don't have access to those documents. Second off, i prefer not to move into Pvt manning's old room. Third, its just not something I would do for a variety of personal reasons.
Llama Bob
member
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2016
- Messages
- 2,258
Well, that's fine. The GAO reports are available for everyone to read and draw their own conclusions.
Interestingly, there are certain historical battles where the total rounds fired is very well known, because one side exhausted a documented supply of ammo. For battles of any size, I have never seen the casualty ratio be better than about one for every 500 rounds shot, and those kinds of numbers are generally seen in colonial battles.
Interestingly, there are certain historical battles where the total rounds fired is very well known, because one side exhausted a documented supply of ammo. For battles of any size, I have never seen the casualty ratio be better than about one for every 500 rounds shot, and those kinds of numbers are generally seen in colonial battles.
Last edited:
HB
Member
- Joined
- Dec 18, 2007
- Messages
- 2,376
To keep this on topic, snipers shoot at specific targets and everybody else shoots at potential targets, walls, trees, etc where a target likely is or was.
As far as mil surp rifles go, I haven't found most to be terribly accurate. Certainly accurate enough to hit a man size target out to 200 yards however.
Most "sniper rifles" until WWII were standard arms with scopes adapted. In Vietnam, they were basically target rifles. By the 1980s the role of the sniper had been established and his equipment evolved with that mission
As far as mil surp rifles go, I haven't found most to be terribly accurate. Certainly accurate enough to hit a man size target out to 200 yards however.
Most "sniper rifles" until WWII were standard arms with scopes adapted. In Vietnam, they were basically target rifles. By the 1980s the role of the sniper had been established and his equipment evolved with that mission
caribou
Member
Some Rifles are just 'That Good!' and dont need better triggers, floated barrels and chunky stocks with bull barrels. Some countrys find that apex of a fine rifle, quality& consistent, accurate ammo and excellent training.
If I had to choose, most any US Firearms are accurate, for the most part, and outside of the US I'd be partial to a Finn M-39 or M-28 Mosin's.
If I had to choose, most any US Firearms are accurate, for the most part, and outside of the US I'd be partial to a Finn M-39 or M-28 Mosin's.
Or hunting with "sporting" scopes.
It really took till about the 80's for the military to have "sniper" type weapons, back in the "old days" rifles got poo pooed by the military as slow to load and just not worth it for the style of war that was fought back then. Snipers in the pre US civil war era used rifles for high value targets....Timothy Murphy is one from that era, and he shot a british general. After the civil war (for the most part) they used common military arms, yea the germans in WWI used sporting arms again, but after the first few years of that war standard military rifles got used.
far2much4me
Member
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2004
- Messages
- 21
A good read on the subject is Shots Fired in Anger by John George (if you can find a copy, it is now out of print). He was himself a high power competitor before the war (won the 1939 (?) Illinois State Championship). When his unit shipped out in 1942 he made his own sniper rifle from a star gauged 1903, and mounted a Lyman Alaskan with a Griffin and Howe mount. He used that rifle on both Guadalcanal and in Burma for sniping. Fully one third of the book is devoted to Japanese versus American arms. He has a fairly detailed description of a brand new Japanese sniper rifle he found and tested on Guadalcanal. He was quite impressed at the quality of the rifle and its accuracy, but felt Americans could build a better sniper rifle. He also condemns the American sniper rifles they received in Burma as junk. The scopes were not sealed and had no end of fogging and mold issues. And the scope mounts were poor. If I recall correctly, he said some were even two-groove rifles.
jim in Anchorage
Member
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2009
- Messages
- 2,849
I must beg to differ on the wood stock rifle shifting zero. Possibly a full length bedded one would, but the free floated ones, with glass bedded actions wood stock guns I have been using for 45 years have never shifted zero on me.
It sounds like the 1903-A4 rifles that you are describing. They used Lyman and Weaver scopes. If scopes were gassed back then, I doubt that they were, the sealing mechanism would have been subject to leaking. The Army soon realized that those weapons were inadequate. If I recall, Carlos Hathcock used a M70 with a Redfield or Unertl scope in Viet Nam.
My question is did the snipers have to use the M2 ball ammo? If they did, their long range accuracy would have been impacted adversely.
Don't let anyone kid you, a two groove barrel shoots as good as a 4 groove.
You have to remember the logistics back then. Getting specific ammo would be a non starter.
This is why you see things having to shoot the standard service cartridge...you want to be able to use the thing if nothing else.
So much bad info out there on Japanese small arms.....usually spewed by people that have no clue as to what they talk about after having watched a movie they think is fact.
Japanese had very good rifles, both the 38 and the 99 as the two biggies.
oneshooter
Member
Except for the Marines
On 7 Dec. 1941 the US Marine Corps had a rifle and the men to use it.
The Standard issue M1903A1 with a star gauged National Match barrel, 8 x Unertl scopes. Ammunition was National Match 145gr ammo. http://olive-drab.com/od_other_firearms_rifle_m1941usmc.php
PaFrank
Member
Once upon a time, I had an 03A4 and a M1D. Both from came from the CMP. The M1D was fresh from a rebuild and never shot. with the M84 scope, the best I could do with that was about 2" at 100 yds consistently with LC ball ammo.
The 03A4 had a k4-60B scope, and later the Weaver 330C, and while I would occasionally get a 1 1/2" group with it, I'd say it averaged about 2 1/2" again with LC ball ammo.
The 03A4 had a k4-60B scope, and later the Weaver 330C, and while I would occasionally get a 1 1/2" group with it, I'd say it averaged about 2 1/2" again with LC ball ammo.
According to Ian and Karl at InRangeTV a great number of Japanese rifles didn't have the ability to make adjustments past the factory... and if the scope that was paired to the rifle was separated you could get a rifle that didn't shoot at all where it was aiming. Ian and Karl did a number of videos on WW2 sniper weapons, and ammunition. The WW2 exploding ammo made by the Soviets and the Germans was no joke.
Much of the gear they are using is actually WW2 vintage rather than 'new', and you probably can't make sweeping statements about glass clarity when it was issued, etc.
I have to say my late war Brno 98k gets much better accuracy than my Remington 03-A3 made in 43.
Much of the gear they are using is actually WW2 vintage rather than 'new', and you probably can't make sweeping statements about glass clarity when it was issued, etc.
I have to say my late war Brno 98k gets much better accuracy than my Remington 03-A3 made in 43.
Flatbush Harry
Member
At the risk of restating the obvious, marksmanship is useful to a sniper, as it is in hunting. The most important skill of a military sniper, however, is his/her fieldcraft...the ability to reach a target, make a shot, and the ability to escape. From a prone position with every rifle I own (either before or after work), including three set up for precision shooting, I can shoot sub-MOA out to 300 yards. That's considerably more accuracy and precision than any sniper needs for most work; MO Center of Mass is the requirement. Getting in and out is essential...and it's also important to remember that "Scout" is also a key function.
Now I was a USAF pilot, not a sniper, though I knew which end of a rifle was the dangerous one (not a universal skill in the USAF). The USAF decided that the key to a successful landing was to return an airplane that could be reused (assuming it was reusable on final approach). From that, and a bit of hunting experience, I easily understand the key to sniping. I would also note that "Snipe Hunting", a well thought-of activity in HS, is not a necessary skill, although it was great fun in the '60s when I was in HS).
Harry
Now I was a USAF pilot, not a sniper, though I knew which end of a rifle was the dangerous one (not a universal skill in the USAF). The USAF decided that the key to a successful landing was to return an airplane that could be reused (assuming it was reusable on final approach). From that, and a bit of hunting experience, I easily understand the key to sniping. I would also note that "Snipe Hunting", a well thought-of activity in HS, is not a necessary skill, although it was great fun in the '60s when I was in HS).
Harry
Varminterror
Member
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2016
- Messages
- 14,888
What he is referring to is what he said, which is laughable:
He doesn't say "cut rifling technology has been around since WW1 & WW2," he says barrel makers still use machines from WW1 & WW2.
To which, I would also like to hear exact references. If there are many, providing several, or even a few should be easy.
But when I read it, I find it just as laughable as his other comment:
Because we've all seen so many milsurp rifles winning on the firing line against custom rifles. Rebuilt milsurp actions need not apply, as I wouldn't call a rebarreled and sporterized milsurp an accurate representation for what was fielded originally.
You're going to want to watch the 27:25 mark of this video.
http://www.prattandwhitney.com/images/customer-files/pratt_whitney_history_book3.pdf
"The rifling machines found in custom barrel shops are invariably Pratt & Whitney machines"
http://www.firearmsid.com/feature articles/rifledbarrelmanuf/barrelmanufacture.htm
In the future it would pay to do some research before calling someone out like that.
Varminterror
Member
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2016
- Messages
- 14,888
I missed the public memo where "world war 2 and Korea" became the same as WW1 and WW2. Check your facts before you push incorrect data. A HUGE majority of the firearms industry runs on 70yr old machines, run through Hornady's plant in Grand Island or around Lake City in MO (not sure if you still can?) sometime and you'll see a ton of equipment produced in the 1940-1960's. Going back to the 19 TEENS as you stated is a very different story.
Of note - Pratt & Whitney didn't even open up shop until the mid 1920's, almost a decade after WWI.
Of note - Pratt & Whitney didn't even open up shop until the mid 1920's, almost a decade after WWI.
I said WWI and WWII because it is true both are still in use, if the WWII machines happen to be used more often my statement is still correct. Obviously the WWII machines are used more as they are more advanced as new rifling techniques came out. Link number 2 I posted shows a Pratt & Whitney rifling machine from 1895... Their modern plant opened later but before then they made thousands of Sine Bar machines that barrel makers bought and used. The Sine Bar Pratt & Whitney's dating from WWI are more common than the later B series from WWII. I don't think anything I said is "laughable", or "incorrect data".
wally
Member
I've no military experience beyond a stint in ROTC in college, but I shoot lots of military surplus in a variety of old and modern rifles. Most all these guns will put 10 shots of this ammo into about 2" at 100 yards and hitting an IPSC torso at 400 yards prone or off sandbags is just not that big of a deal unless the wind is strong and variable. Even with my .308 Saiga and 4X PSOP scope and 1980's DAG surplus ammo I have to be pretty sloppy to miss the IPSC torso steel plate at 400 yards on a calm day.
Things are very different when the bullets are flying both ways, but my no pressure plinking IMHO gives a pretty good idea of what the equipment is capable of -- lots of other factors make me suspect the need for significantly "better" except for certain high value targets is dubious.
- Status
