Nagant Sniper Iron Sights

[[CoFR]BooBoo]

I've carried scoped rifles all my life, basically. 30 years of hunting and target shooting. Everything from an M-1 Garand to various Winchester M70's and other modern bolts, to a scoped Match H-BAR Flattop. The only one I ever had to worry about was the Garand. None of the others ever lost zero. Of course, the Garand uses an offset mount that's a bit more exposed than the MN or the Kar, mounted to the left side of the receiver due to the way a Garand loads.

If you've never lost zero on the Mosin-Nagant, you're lucky. I've seen it happen from just tapping against a doorframe as someone walked in with it slung on their shoulder. Then again, I've seen it happen to Kar.98k snipers as well. Mostly it depends on when the scope was made. Early war are better than late war for the Germans, while it seems to be the other way around for the Russians.

As for your uncle, well, I could always blame it on having a Bushnell on top (Leupold ftw!). But it depends more on how well the sporterizing was done on his Lee-Enfield, and how well the scope mount was done. Having worked many, many years behind the counter of one of the largest gun stores in the US, I've had the opportunity to see some real variety in sporterized LE's. Some are utter hack jobs, some are pure art, and a whole world in between. One common complaint was that they seem to be harder to keep zeroed. Dunno personally, have never owned one.

[Tanis]

Well, my grandfather's Enfield is a Churchill sporterized job, meaning it was done in factory, so it doesn't really look too bad, and all other work done of it, (drilling and tapping, etc) was done by gunsmiths. Of course, the quality of work of gunsmiths can vary as well. Personally, I shudder at sporterized jobs, even if they are done well. All military, or nothin for me.

I dunno. All the new rifles/scopes I've ever seen or dealth with have the problem of losing their zero. My grandfathers Enfield, my uncles Parker-Hale, my friends' Winchester 70, another friends' Remington 700. All of them have new scopes of various kinds, and all of them have to treat their scopes like eggs, or else they're screwed til they can get up to the range and re-zero it.

On the other hand, everyone I know that uses military rifles/scopes have no problem.

Oh well, it could very well be just one of those fluke things. I dunno now. :P

[Zoring]

Actually an Enfield is a terrible weapon to sporterize, according to one of the vets at my shooting club the Enfields barrel relies heavily on the wooden bedding due to the flex and once you take away the forestock you start having problems with it.

Then again i don't really see the point in carrying around a 'sporterized' rifle, just carry the whole bloody thing stock and bayonet lugs and all, there not that heavy espescially if you get a small Mauser carbine like the swede.

[SingeDebile]

I agree with both sides i think,

not only should the iron site be an option (RO is constantly saying how realistic it is it would be hypocritical to start conveniently ignoring things)

There should maybe be more sway and an option to hold your breath (splinter cell used this to good effect), and if wind was modeled it would change everything! imagine random gusts of wind etc... would make sniping something that would take as long to master as driving a tank with as many technical intricacies

ps: i joined the forum to be able to respond to this hehe... so i strongly agree

[[CoFR]BooBoo]

I'm still waiting for the game that can model accurate ballistics, including wind drift. I acually own a shooting sim that models it well, but it's strictly a high-power match sim, not an action shooter. (NRA High-Power Rifle, made by ISE games, btw)

[Tanis]

Sniper Elite, with all realism settings turned on.

Everything from breathing, to heart rate, to random twitching, to wind speed, bullet speed, bullet trajectory...

About the most realistic sniping game I've ever played. Still not 100% granted, but there's a lot of things that simply can't be incorporated into a game.

Originally Posted by Zoring

Actually an Enfield is a terrible weapon to sporterize, according to one of the vets at my shooting club the Enfields barrel relies heavily on the wooden bedding due to the flex and once you take away the forestock you start having problems with it.

You're both correct, and incorrect in that. The Lee-Enfield was designed to incorporate the pressure points of the full military wood and barrel bands , to apply to the military sights. Remove the stock and yes, the point of aim on the sights will suddenly change, making them useless unless you compensate for the change in POA. However, the vast majority of people who sporterize military weapons (which is a crime in itself to me), do so for hunting purposes and have the guns drilled and tapped, and mount a scope. At that point, it's just a matter of changing the zero on the scope, to make the new zero that the barrel took with the stock was removed.


Though, yes, I fully agree that people should just use full wood regardless. It adds a few pounds, but it's a lot better than taking a historic piece, and turning it into a $50 special. That and, then you get to brag about how you took that deer, or whatever, with a 60 year old military warhorse with open sights.

[[CoFR]BooBoo]

Actually the problem is more complex than that. Accuracy on sporterized(butchered) Lee-Enfields is spotty at best. The No.5 "Jungle Carbine" suffered from poor accuracy because of the lack of support on the barrel. Lee-Enfield barrels depend on the pressure points from the wood to help stabilize the barrel by modulating the vibrations caused when a round is fired.

All rifle barrels vibrate when the rifle is fired. They literally flex and twist, which can be seen in ultra-high speed video. The reason different rifles have such varying accuracy with identical ammo is that each rifle vibrates slightly differently. What a handloader does is to attune his ammo to the specific barrel on his rifle. I had a Garand that was easily capable of shooting 1/2" groups at 100 yards (admittedly after doing a bit of accurizing work), but only after extensive handload development. When I first got it it would shoot 1-1/2" to 2" groups with PMC Ball M-2. My brother's Garand shot 2-1/2" to 3" groups with the same ammo.

BTW, I took my Garand to the deer woods, not just the match range. I also had a 1911 Schmidt-Rubin and a SMLE No.1 Mk.III* (1943 Lithgow Arsenal make) that I used. All were full military stocks, as issued. The only way to go.

[JesseCuster]

One of the other major problems with sporterizing Lee-Enfields is that when the barrels get warm they start to, well, sag. Not only does removing that full wood covering help with the vibration, it keeps the barrel from drooping.

[Lionman]

Originally Posted by Zoring

Uh, except the Russian scope mount is located on the side leaving the Iron Sights free to use.

One picture is worth a thousand words! (An absolutely EXCELLENT picture by the way! Especially at full size. )

This is ALL we need to say about this.

As long as RO models the weapon correctly, both options are available.

[KrazyKraut]

I'm kind of against it. As stated sniping is already pretty easy:

1. There's no jitter at all. And having shot a G36 with 3.5times scope i tell you that standing you WILL get at least some jitter. Actually some soldiers i know are better with the G3 for exactly that reason: You don't notice the jitter without a scope and won't instinctively try to correct (it which just makes it worse)

2. We always have perfectly zeroed rifles and perfect ammo.

3. No wind or temperature.

[Tanis]

...

This topic had been dealt with, and died, a month ago...

Why bring it back up uselessly just to say that you like the idea, or to say something that's been said about a dozen times already?

[KrazyKraut]

Uhm... because now the game's actually out?

[Druidor]

I couldnt hit the wide side of a barn if I was standing 2ft in front of it using the sniper rifle, I have always been much more accurate with the standard bolt action rifles.

On occasion's taking out someone on the other side of the map who is just siloueted against the background or just visable from behind a

[necropimp]

this thread needs a picture of a true nagant sniper

[Hans_klempner]

I was fed up of those little rats on Arad as well.
I whined a lot, cried and i just wanted to bash those sneaky guys.

The problem is that the tanks are without infantry support, which makes tanks very vulnerable to infantry.
At Kursk if the Ferdinands lost the infantry cover they were doomed to death since it had no MGs

So i decided that on Arad i choose PAK soldat and stay with the tanks heading to the south field.
This came to be a very efficent tactic againts the BA devils. Also very realistic, and at least i didnt have to go mad on the tank penetration systems.
And when more inf came to cover the tanks we managed to fight off a lot of BA ratties who then simply gave up.

Great teamwork, fun, and joy of victory.

( BUT RO does need the SdKfz 222 and some 1943 maps {SDK toll i guess} )

[{YBBS}Sage]

Originally Posted by Mormegil

Nope, I beat both of you. Read my post


Back to topic. The Devs have stated they avoid dorking the wapons to balance gameplay. Different weapons have different strengths and weaknesses. Part of the fun of RO is adapting to your weapon, defficiencies and all, and adapting to your opponent.


Scopes aren't for wussies - they'll be necessary in a team environment to take out that pesky MG and counter-snipe. Just because a weapon has certain advantages in certain situations doesn't make it a "wussy" weapon. Otherwise, we ought to get rid of SMGs. Hell loose the rifles too, we should just throw rocks at each other.

Rocks? You rock-whoring wuss. Real men headbutt each other to death!

[User Name]

Maybe they could implement a damaged scope system. Like someone shoots the rifle out of your hands and breaks the scope. Then you would have to use the iron sights. It would suck if you were the sniper but it would add realism.

[Zell]

That would be amazing if a gun was shot out of your hands and you managed to beat back the enemy, pick up your old gun, and survive long enough to fight back.

No, I think that a weapon should be simply unusable after it's been shot out of your hands.

[User Name]

Heck, it doesn't matter anyway. For some reason, the scope goes black sometimes while I'm playing anyway. Atleast on my laptop. It doesn't do it on my desktop.

[Zbojnik]

Originally Posted by Tanis

Okay, well, I looked through both the Mod forums and these ones, and couldn't find anything about this, so if it already exists, it's buried in a completely unrelated topic.

Anyways, I took my Mosin Nagant sniper up to the range yesterday, and was having a bit of a time with the scope (meaning I was having an off day and couldn't hit **** all), so I decided to switch to my iron sights as I was only shooting at 300 metres (did this to confirm I was having an off day and couldn't hit **** all), when it kinda dawned on me.

Having the option to switch between scope and iron sights in RO would be a very nice addition. Personally, I find that if I get in a bad situation and an enemy is within 50-100 metres of me, the scope view is just a tad too awkward for me, especially if said enemy is shooting at me.

Now I know the PU scope mounts were designed to allow the sniper to use the iron sights as well, and most sources state that they were capable of raising iron sights to the 600 metre incriment (though I just tested it on mine, and was able to raise the rear sight to 1,000 metres without interference from the scope), though I'm not sure of the mounts for the SVT-40.

As far as how the Devs would implement this, I dunno. The first thing that came up in my mind is to have a secondary iron sight button, or say, when a sniper has brought up the sights, use the scroll button to switch back and forth between scope and IS, but that would probably interfere with switching between weapons as well.

Anyways, just an idea.

I like it a lot.