• Please make sure you are familiar with the forum rules. You can find them here: https://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/index.php?threads/forum-rules.2334636/

The Role of Snipers... In Stalingrad.

Back then they were probably consider marksman. The rifles they used back then were far more limited in range and accuracy compared to the rifles they use today.

What the hell are you talking about?

Modern rifles use smaller calibers than the guns they used in World War 2.

The only sniper rifles you're going to find on the Eastern Front (all of which can be found in RO Ost Front) are the Kar98k, the G43 (both of which use 7.92x54mm which achieves a high velocity of over 2700 FPS), the Mosin Nagant and the SVT-40 (both of which use 7.62x54mmR cartridges and achieve a velocity of 2600-2800 FPS). These cartridges travel quickly and achieve stable trajectories due to their high velocities and their high projectile weight means they aren't subject to much variation due to wind compared to lighter projectiles.

Two of those sniper rifles, the Mosin Nagant, and the Kar98k, are highly accurized bolt action rifles. No modern semi-automatic rifle achieves the same level of accuracy of a Mauser or Lee-Enfield style bolt action rifle. They have too many moving parts, granted, we've done a very good job of making them closer to the performance of a bolt action, but even the best semis fall short. The moving parts shift the weight of the rifle as the projectile is leaving the barrel, affecting accuracy.

Now, modern semi-automatics have MUCH better accuracy than the SVT-40 and the G43 would have, this much is absolutely true, but modern bolt action rifles are only marginal improvements on old-school bolt action rifles. In fact, modern sniper rifles used in the US military like the R700 are only modifications of the original Mauser design of 1898 used in World War 1 in the Gewehr 98.

To drive the point home, here's some asshole hitting a target with a Mosin Nagant at 1000 ****ing yards:

YouTube - 1,000 yards 1942 91/30 Russian Mosin-Nagant (P/U) sniper rifle

And here's the same guy with a Kar98k at 900 yards:

YouTube - WWII German 98K rifle at 900 yards

A M4 Carbine would be lucky to score a hit at a third of that distance, even with quality optics. An M-16 would be able to regularly function at 300 yards but with a shadow of the accuracy.

Even an R700 would only match the performance of these bolt action sniper rifles which are only really variations of their original turn of the century design.
 
Upvote 0
What the hell are you talking about?

Modern rifles use smaller calibers than the guns they used in World War 2.

The only sniper rifles you're going to find on the Eastern Front (all of which can be found in RO Ost Front) are the Kar98k, the G43 (both of which use 7.92x54mm which achieves a high velocity of over 2700 FPS), the Mosin Nagant and the SVT-40 (both of which use 7.62x54mmR cartridges and achieve a velocity of 2600-2800 FPS). These cartridges travel quickly and achieve stable trajectories due to their high velocities and their high projectile weight means they aren't subject to much variation due to wind compared to lighter projectiles.

Two of those sniper rifles, the Mosin Nagant, and the Kar98k, are highly accurized bolt action rifles. No modern semi-automatic rifle achieves the same level of accuracy of a Mauser or Lee-Enfield style bolt action rifle. They have too many moving parts, granted, we've done a very good job of making them closer to the performance of a bolt action, but even the best semis fall short. The moving parts shift the weight of the rifle as the projectile is leaving the barrel, affecting accuracy.

Now, modern semi-automatics have MUCH better accuracy than the SVT-40 and the G43 would have, this much is absolutely true, but modern bolt action rifles are only marginal improvements on old-school bolt action rifles. In fact, modern sniper rifles used in the US military like the R700 are only modifications of the original Mauser design of 1898 used in World War 1 in the Gewehr 98.

To drive the point home, here's some asshole hitting a target with a Mosin Nagant at 1000 ****ing yards:

YouTube - 1,000 yards 1942 91/30 Russian Mosin-Nagant (P/U) sniper rifle

And here's the same guy with a Kar98k at 900 yards:

YouTube - WWII German 98K rifle at 900 yards

A M4 Carbine would be lucky to score a hit at a third of that distance, even with quality optics. An M-16 would be able to regularly function at 300 yards but with a shadow of the accuracy.

Even an R700 would only match the performance of these bolt action sniper rifles which are only really variations of their original turn of the century design.
If you bothered to read my previous post...
As for the Kar98, it looks like it might be sporterized and using modern optics. He could also being using very good hanloads. The Mosin Nagant might be using handloads also. You can't really compare a M16 to a .30 caliber bolt action. An AR10 chambered in 7.62x51 would be more fair. The army is replacing their bolt action for a semi automatic M110 which is basicly a heavily accurized AR10. Even though the M110 is semi auto, I could easily see it outshooting a Mosin Nagant. They are always producing more and more accurate rifles so it's foolish to think a WW2 bolt action can shoot just as good.
Oh no. The sniper rifles today have heavy barrels which are glass bedded and free floating. The optics they use today are much more advanced then what was used back then. They also didn't have match grade ammo for their rifles back then like they do today. A M24 will out shoot a Mosin Nagant by far. So yes, snipers/marksman were more limited in range and accuracy compared to today.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Take a fraction of those ranges and it's still impressive for such old rifles.

Yeah the guy tinkered with them to make them shoot farther, but honestly, most of the performance comes from the platform itself, which is for the most part unmodified.

This whole squabble started when someone said these weapons were junk compared to modern bolt rifles, which is just not true. What are modern bolt rifles but derivatives of the old designs with modern modifications (floated barrels, match ammo, etc)?
 
Upvote 0
well as far as "sporterizing" the stock goes, this is a incredibly crutial part of increasing the accuracy when a original stock is mounted

not because the stock itself was crap when it was fabricated, but the 60+ years of possibly wrong treatment will show its effect on the wood

take a straight piece of wood and store it 60 years in varrying conditions
i can almost guarantee you that it wont be so straight later ^^
 
Upvote 0
Take a fraction of those ranges and it's still impressive for such old rifles.

Yeah the guy tinkered with them to make them shoot farther, but honestly, most of the performance comes from the platform itself, which is for the most part unmodified.

This whole squabble started when someone said these weapons were junk compared to modern bolt rifles, which is just not true. What are modern bolt rifles but derivatives of the old designs with modern modifications (floated barrels, match ammo, etc)?
Not all of them. The M24 is not of a mauser,mosin nagant, or enfield action, but its own design. The seemingly small changes one makes to a rifle can make all the difference in the world. I'm not saying the old bolt actions are bad rifles, (I happen to own many of them) I'm just saying they have produced much more accurate rifles since WW2.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This whole squabble started when someone said these weapons were junk compared to modern bolt rifles, which is just not true. What are modern bolt rifles but derivatives of the old designs with modern modifications (floated barrels, match ammo, etc)?

Yeah, and even floated barrels are not a new innovation. They had floating barrels in WWII already.


The Finnish ones are good shooters I hear, but not the Russians.

For whatever reason, people seem to get laughed at when they want to mount a scope on a Mosin due to the lack of accuracy. Especially the carbines.

I honestly wouldn't know, but I'll take their word for it.

My Mosin 91/30 was beat to hell though, and the trigger had around 1 inch of "wiggle". :p Obviously that is because it has been stored for years though.

No. They get laughed at, because they are going to bubba an old military rifle, which was not equipted with scope originally. They get laughed at because they are dumb.

And there are plenty of good shooters in all Russian/Soviet rifles. Ofcourse carbines are not that accurate than full lenght rifles. But a good m91/30 has no problem to be an accurate rifle. But like allways, it
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
Not all of them. The M24 is not of a mauser,mosin nagant, or enfield action, but its own design. The seemingly small changes one makes to a rifle can make all the difference in the world. I'm not saying the old bolt actions are bad rifles, (I happen to own many of them) I'm just saying they have produced much more accurate rifles since WW2.

Once again, the M-24 is not it's own design, but a modified Remington 700 hunting rifle:
[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M24_Sniper_Weapon_System[/URL]

And once again, nobody is saying that modern rifles are not more accuracte. We are saying they are not FAR more accurate as some have said, the difference is marginal. Being marginally better still matters in battle though, but not so far as to say that WWII snipers were just "probably marksmen".
 
Upvote 0
Once again, the M-24 is not it's own design, but a modified Remington 700 hunting rifle:
[URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M24_Sniper_Weapon_System"][URL]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M24_Sniper_Weapon_System[/URL][/URL]

And once again, nobody is saying that modern rifles are not more accuracte. We are saying they are not FAR more accurate as some have said, the difference is marginal. Being marginally better still matters in battle though, but not so far as to say that WWII snipers were just "probably marksmen".
I don't think "FAR more accurate" would be a stretch. If we take in account training and not just equipment. Snipers/marksmen did not go through the same amount of training that modern snipers go through today.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
I don't think "FAR more accurate" would be a stretch. If we take in account training and not just equipment. Snipers/marksmen did not go through the same amount of training that modern snipers go through today.

i wouldnt say so, ever watched the old sniper training videos?

of course the tactics used there are primarily for frontline service, something modern snipers dont even have "in scope" ;)
 
Upvote 0