He's in "special ops" so he's far beyond sniper capable.
He's in "special ops" so he's far beyond sniper capable.
New operator to this theatre??
I think that some of you are forgeting that those rifles were ment to be shot over a thousand yards at a man shooting out of a trench with iron sights. My uncle and dad both could take one of those guns out there and put it almost threw the same hole everytime. And as for most of your "hunting rifles" of lower price range they are not going to stay accurate after to many shots cause they are built for cold bore shots at animals. Also your sniper rifle is going to be as good as your scope. Cheep scope means less accuracy at longer range.
Here is the world's greatest sniper's scope ...
Sniper rifle is going to be as good as the loose nut behind the recoil pad.
I think that some of you are forgeting that those rifles were ment to be shot over a thousand yards at a man shooting out of a trench with iron sights. My uncle and dad both could take one of those guns out there and put it almost threw the same hole everytime. And as for most of your "hunting rifles" of lower price range they are not going to stay accurate after to many shots cause they are built for cold bore shots at animals. Also your sniper rifle is going to be as good as your scope. Cheep scope means less accuracy at longer range.
Those rifles were made to "volley fire" at large groups of people at 1000 yards. Shooting almost through 1 hole at 1,000 yards would be under 1/10 MOA. That completely outside the realm of possibility for either a mil surp or an entry level hunting rifle. Even at 100 yards that would be under 1 MOA, which would be highly rare for a mil-surp but very possible with a modern entry-level hunting rifle, many of which are sub-MOA out of the box. As for "staying accurate after to many shots," I'm not quite sure what you're talking about. If you are talking about your zero changing as the barrel heats up, that has to do with barrel quality and barrel weight more than anything. Just about any modern hunting rifle has a higher quality barrel built to closer tolerances than any 75 year old gov't-arsenal rifle. As for barrel weight, most mil surps have a light-profile barrel... as do most hunting rifles. There is no significant difference there. If you're talking about long-term barrel life, it comes down to the quality of the barrel again. Neither mil surps or hunting rifles typically came chrome-lined.
Last edited:
I think that some of you are forgeting that those rifles were ment to be shot over a thousand yards at a man shooting out of a trench with iron sights. My uncle and dad both could take one of those guns out there and put it almost threw the same hole everytime. And as for most of your "hunting rifles" of lower price range they are not going to stay accurate after to many shots cause they are built for cold bore shots at animals. Also your sniper rifle is going to be as good as your scope. Cheep scope means less accuracy at longer range.
Henschman's response brought my attention to your comments. Re: the bolded part, if you're talking of the WW1 military rifles with ladder-type iron rear sights, you need to remember the purpose for that long of a range: massed fire. The idea behind the 1000-yard sights was that infantry units would be directed to fire their rifles at 1000 yards or more en masse, in the hopes that the concentrated fire would at least suppress the enemy to the point that allied units could advance over open ground and close with those enemy units before the latter could respond. When such tactics were discovered to be ineffective, the ladder-type rear sight on, for example, the Springfield Model 1903 was replaced with a peep rear sight calibrated for a considerably shorter distance. I don't have my references in front of me, but IIRC, these sights on the 1903A3 were calibrated for up to 800 yards - someone correct me if I'm wrong.
You do need to recheck your facts.
ETA: Dern it, Henschman beat me to it with the volley fire tactics.
My uncle took one out to zink ranch and shoot it a thousand yards untill he could hit it almost everytime center. Most of the time its the shooter. The gun can accuratly reach those ranges with the proper shooter and equipment. your average infraty men is not going to be able to shoot like that because hes a drafted man.The US during the wars had some of the best shooting infarymen because lots of them shot there whole lifes while on a farm. The rounds that those guns can shoot all can reach those ranges without a problem. Most people dont try alot to shoot those ranges. First you have to add in elevation for the distance, and then the wind which can change mutiple times at that range. When it comes down to its just the shooter that realy makes the difference. And you know that pep sights are made for more accurate shooting any way.
Generally not too much. However your average drafted could be anything from a salesman to a mechanic and usually don’t want to get involved Ex Vietnam. Those that volunteer usually have more motivation and will to fight. Look at the US after Pearl. My point was that they don’t have as much shooting experience because they live in large cities and don’t have the same fascination as more rural people do for shooting. But this is more of generalization.
Similar threads
