Mark-Smith
Member
What is the most accurate out-of-the-box battle rifle that's ever been issued to standard infantry? (Dragunov would not count for example 
)
)
Most accurate out of the box battle rifle?
- Thread starter Mark-Smith
- Start date
- Status
AethelstanAegen
Member
Your question is going to be pretty much impossible to answer. Since there's pretty much no one who's been able to fire one of each type of "unissued" rifle, there's no way to really compare. That said, one of each type wouldn't be enough to make an accurate conclusion either. So unless there's some awesome study put together with access to unissued rifles (not widely available for the older rifles) than we can't tell you which rifle was the most accurate. We can give you personal anecdotes of rifles that were accurate, but you won't get a single answer. Discussions of modern battle rifles are also difficult as they are not available to the public (sure you can buy a clone of these rifles, but it is still a clone, so hard to say for sure).
For what it's worth, Finnish Mosin-Nagant rifles have a reputation for accuracy (Simo Hayha has a confirmed 505 kills with an unscoped Finnish M-N during the Winter War). Of the milsurps, the Swiss K-31 is generally thought of as being top of the line accurate as well as the Swedish Mausers, IIRC.
For what it's worth, Finnish Mosin-Nagant rifles have a reputation for accuracy (Simo Hayha has a confirmed 505 kills with an unscoped Finnish M-N during the Winter War). Of the milsurps, the Swiss K-31 is generally thought of as being top of the line accurate as well as the Swedish Mausers, IIRC.
451 Detonics
Member
1903 Springfield would get my vote followed by the A-2 M-16.
Part of the difficulty is definition - a battle rifle is a .308 equivalent, likely magazine fed, and often could fire full auto, although not very well. That's why civilian clones may not be actual issue weapons.
Another is that most accuracy testing, like done for the US military, uses standard milspec ammo. And that standard is 2MOA shot through a milspec barrel. A good handload could reduce the group size to 1MOA.
Another issue is that most military rifles aren't built to high accuracy standards. 2MOA is the battle standard for many countries. That's a 10" circle at 500 yards, the typical maximum the average soldier might attempt - if they had an easily visible target that remained stationary, and confidence in their skill. Ten inches of an 18" to 24" hit zone is sufficient for combat. Woodchucks, prairie dogs, or antelope would be much more difficult.
Since soldiers dont have a need for more accuracy in battle rifles, makers don't spend the money on precision barrels. In the day, as rifles were assembled, if one test fired with great accuracy, it was held aside for precision use. That likely was one in a thousand, and it was cheaper to do that than build special ones.
Other issues get involved - wood stock guns with barrel band swivels aren't free floated, so sling tension will make them shift the point of impact. Rifling buttons were standard profile, and the process part of mass production, not precision work. Complex receiver designs with pressed or pinned assemblies meant you couldn't adjust the headspace as much as just get it in the tolerance window.
Compare that to the AR15, which has run off the battle rifle in precision competition, simply because the design supports a lot of improvement, without expensive gunsmith level work. AR15 are dominant for very good reasons - ergonomics, straight line action, little recoil, easy to free float, barrel installation done without a press or expensive tools. Optics mount over the bolt carrier, controls work properly from the trigger hand without shifting the grip, and the off hand complements it.
Argue about where to put the piston all we want, what most don't see is that most of the other Stoner principles are included in new combat rifle designs. Operating rods, open, stressed receivers, and wood stocks are not coming back. They are inefficient, bulky, and classed as curios and relics of a bygone age.
Another is that most accuracy testing, like done for the US military, uses standard milspec ammo. And that standard is 2MOA shot through a milspec barrel. A good handload could reduce the group size to 1MOA.
Another issue is that most military rifles aren't built to high accuracy standards. 2MOA is the battle standard for many countries. That's a 10" circle at 500 yards, the typical maximum the average soldier might attempt - if they had an easily visible target that remained stationary, and confidence in their skill. Ten inches of an 18" to 24" hit zone is sufficient for combat. Woodchucks, prairie dogs, or antelope would be much more difficult.
Since soldiers dont have a need for more accuracy in battle rifles, makers don't spend the money on precision barrels. In the day, as rifles were assembled, if one test fired with great accuracy, it was held aside for precision use. That likely was one in a thousand, and it was cheaper to do that than build special ones.
Other issues get involved - wood stock guns with barrel band swivels aren't free floated, so sling tension will make them shift the point of impact. Rifling buttons were standard profile, and the process part of mass production, not precision work. Complex receiver designs with pressed or pinned assemblies meant you couldn't adjust the headspace as much as just get it in the tolerance window.
Compare that to the AR15, which has run off the battle rifle in precision competition, simply because the design supports a lot of improvement, without expensive gunsmith level work. AR15 are dominant for very good reasons - ergonomics, straight line action, little recoil, easy to free float, barrel installation done without a press or expensive tools. Optics mount over the bolt carrier, controls work properly from the trigger hand without shifting the grip, and the off hand complements it.
Argue about where to put the piston all we want, what most don't see is that most of the other Stoner principles are included in new combat rifle designs. Operating rods, open, stressed receivers, and wood stocks are not coming back. They are inefficient, bulky, and classed as curios and relics of a bygone age.
KodiakBeer
member
The term "battle rifle" is open to interpretation, but for my money I'd say the Swedish Mauser. I think that is mostly due to that long stable 6.5 round, but for whatever reason those rifles are uniformly good shooters.
Kachok
Member
I'll second the old Sweed. Scarry accurate even by todays standards. Many people still get sub moa out of those things despite their age and heavy use. The old 98 mauser was darn accurate too. I was supprised how accurate my m16 was at 300 yards, but without a scope I could not give you any exact mesurments on it's capability, my eyes are not that good. I scored 20 out of 20 hits at 300 yards and they all hit the head on a human sized traget (sigts were not set to my eyes I was aiming center mass.)
Like Tirod said, that question is so vague and open to interpretation, that it can go in a myriad of directions, from WWI era bolt actions to the FN SCAR-H. A few parameters would help. Are we talking bolt action? Semi auto? Full auto? Models only offered to the civilian market? Like I said, you could go in pretty much any direction with this thing.
Jason
Jason
Mark-Smith
Member
1. The gun was issued to standard infantry in a standing army at any point in time.
2. Civilian variants that are mechanically identical save for things that have little to no effect on accuracy would count in my mind.
3. Any action, from breech loaders to bolt, to open bolt semi, burst, fully automatic, etc.
Generally speaking, guns that made sense to arm a large force with. Which tends to rule out complicated safe-queen style sniper rifles or rifles that were only issued to a very small percentage of troops.
A cost effective gun that an infantryman isn't going to break, is reliable, and accurate (as such guns go).
You can always slap a Krieger barrel and a match trigger on something and call it accurate, but something that was out of the box accurate, reliable and produced at a reasonable cost is a bit tougher.
caribou
Member
Finnish CivilGuard M28/30 and its Army M-39 equivilant.
Tom609
Member
I have a M39 that slightly edges out my Remington 03a3. They are my pride and joy and get my votes.
_N4Z_
Member
Out of the box? M39 Finn Mosin.
They supposedly had to be able to put 3 consecutive rounds under 1.5" @ 100 meters to be considered Finnish military acceptable.
I have two that will do that, and then some.
They supposedly had to be able to put 3 consecutive rounds under 1.5" @ 100 meters to be considered Finnish military acceptable.
I have two that will do that, and then some.
The Mauser would be my first choice, personal experience showed the M16A2 as very accurate at 400 yards with iron sights. I always got the silhouettes at that distance. In a firefight I don't know every weapon was always on full auto or it seems that way to me.
Blue Brick
Member
91/30 is a strong contender…
This one really shoots.
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=258433
This one really shoots.
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=258433
Blue Brick, if your out of box is not a crappy, counterbored, mismatched, loose bolt piece of questionable commie WW2 long mosin rifle, you are correct. I wish you the best of luck finding one, but if you do, as you said, you will have a superior rifle.
35 Whelen
Member
I'd have to say a toss-up between the Swedish Mauser and the Swiss K-31. I think the best barometer for accurate as-issued military rifles are the results of the Camp Perry Vintage Military Rifle Match. The match has very strict rules for the rifles being as-issued. By and large the Swede and Swiss rifles dominate the upper tier of shooters. The U.S. M1917 makes a good showing as well, but I doubt seriously the rifle is as accurate as either the Swede or the Swiss but rather does so well due to its aperture rear sight compared to the others tangent sights.
Here are the results from the 2010 match:
http://clubs.odcmp.com/cgi-bin/report_eventAward.cgi?matchID=5690&eventID=14&awardID=1
I've been in love with Swiss K-31's for some time now because they're so incredibly accurate. I've owned about 8 different rifles and they all shot very well.
On the other hand, the few Springfields I've owned were no slouches either. Specifically, I have a 1943 model 1903A3 with a NOS barrel. It is 100% as-issued and amazingly accurate. It especially loves cast bullets:
35W
Here are the results from the 2010 match:
http://clubs.odcmp.com/cgi-bin/report_eventAward.cgi?matchID=5690&eventID=14&awardID=1
I've been in love with Swiss K-31's for some time now because they're so incredibly accurate. I've owned about 8 different rifles and they all shot very well.
On the other hand, the few Springfields I've owned were no slouches either. Specifically, I have a 1943 model 1903A3 with a NOS barrel. It is 100% as-issued and amazingly accurate. It especially loves cast bullets:
35W
BADUNAME37
Member
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2008
- Messages
- 4,434
One particular brand might be the best, for one rifle off the assembly line and all the rest might be poor. Another particular rifle might be good off the line, and all the others poor.
Every gun shoots differently, every gun seems to like a certain ammo. To say that a particular model is the most accurate is like saying which brand-new car will have the least problems! One car might never give you a problem and the next one off the assembly-line might be a lemon.
When working with things that have moving parts, the more moving parts, the more the chance for error in fitting those parts, and, in the case of a rifle, could mean accuracy problems.
Every gun shoots differently, every gun seems to like a certain ammo. To say that a particular model is the most accurate is like saying which brand-new car will have the least problems! One car might never give you a problem and the next one off the assembly-line might be a lemon.
When working with things that have moving parts, the more moving parts, the more the chance for error in fitting those parts, and, in the case of a rifle, could mean accuracy problems.
Accurate is just one criteria in the development of a military rifle. Weight, reliability, cost are important criteria and which are considered most important is depends on the weighting.
As Tirod said , military rifles are not target rifles.
Out of the rifles I own, I would say the M1903/M1903A3 is the overall best for accuracy. If the K31 came with adjustable sights I might put it as #1, but what is the use of having a tight group four inches from center? Anyway with the sights that it came with, the K31 then the M1896 Swede.
I have a number of 7mm long barrel mausers, they are very accurate, maybe tied with the M1896 Swede.
As Tirod said , military rifles are not target rifles.
Out of the rifles I own, I would say the M1903/M1903A3 is the overall best for accuracy. If the K31 came with adjustable sights I might put it as #1, but what is the use of having a tight group four inches from center? Anyway with the sights that it came with, the K31 then the M1896 Swede.
I have a number of 7mm long barrel mausers, they are very accurate, maybe tied with the M1896 Swede.
35 Whelen
Member
Curious...what part of the K-31's or Swede's sights do you find unadjustable?
35W
jerkface11
Member
How about the .308 AR that Knight is making for the army?
Kachok
Member
Not exactly a standard issue battle rifle.
- Status
