• 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/
  • Weve updated the Tripwire Privacy Notice under our Policies to be clearer about our use of customer information to come in line with the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) rules that come into force today (25th May 2018). The following are highlights of our changes:


    We've incorporated the relevant concepts from the GDPR including joining the EU and Swiss Privacy Shield framework. We've added explanations for why and how Tripwire processes customer data and the types of data that we process, as well as information about your data protection rights.



    For more information about our privacy practices, please review the new Privacy Policy found here: https://tripwireinteractive.com/#/privacy-notice

The Role of Snipers... In Stalingrad.

VariousNames

FNG / Fresh Meat
Aug 6, 2009
1,226
521
0
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.
If only you had made your case when you originally made the claim instead of running a drive by I might have seen it.

In the Kar98k video the shooter makes it clear at the end of the video that he added glass bedding and used a modern scope but that the rifle was 100% original outside of that.

Anyway, regarding the replacement of the M24 with the M110, I think it would be foolish to assume that the only reason they decided to swap out the M24 for the M110 was accuracy. I'm sure it was least of their concerns. Did you ever think that maybe they were interested in the fact that semis are ambidextrous, don't require manual bolting (which involves 4 separate motions), don't require you to regrip after each shot and reacquire your target, and provide higher rate of fire when compared to bolt-action rifles?

Those are pretty damn good reasons I would immediately concede as to why an individual would prefer a semi over a bolt action. Hell, I would immediately concede that a semi automatic, even an SKS, would be preferable in many situations to a bolt-action rifle, that doesn't mean it's a more accurate weapon.

Anyway, you may think that M110 is potentially more accurate than the Mosin Nagant, but that doesn't exactly help my understand why nor does it convince me that it is.

Granted, you have made a good case and I do think now that modern designs can be more accurate than oldschool designs, and obviously the fact that the shooter I linked that YT vid to adding a glass bed is testament to that.

But I'm still interested in the quality of the projectiles and cartridges used by soldiers on the eastern front in WWII....were they really that crappy? Maybe snipers handloaded or received special ammunition in order to maximize accuracy?

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".
And "The Remington 700 action is designed for mass production [5] and can be described as a simplified Mauser design."
M24=modifiedR700=modifiedMauser

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remington_700
 

Ermac

FNG / Fresh Meat
Jul 19, 2007
591
106
0
If only you had made your case when you originally made the claim instead of running a drive by I might have seen it.

In the Kar98k video the shooter makes it clear at the end of the video that he added glass bedding and used a modern scope but that the rifle was 100% original outside of that.

Anyway, regarding the replacement of the M24 with the M110, I think it would be foolish to assume that the only reason they decided to swap out the M24 for the M110 was accuracy. I'm sure it was least of their concerns. Did you ever think that maybe they were interested in the fact that semis are ambidextrous, don't require manual bolting (which involves 4 separate motions), don't require you to regrip after each shot and reacquire your target, and provide higher rate of fire when compared to bolt-action rifles?

Those are pretty damn good reasons I would immediately concede as to why an individual would prefer a semi over a bolt action. Hell, I would immediately concede that a semi automatic, even an SKS, would be preferable in many situations to a bolt-action rifle, that doesn't mean it's a more accurate weapon.

Anyway, you may think that M110 is potentially more accurate than the Mosin Nagant, but that doesn't exactly help my understand why nor does it convince me that it is.

Granted, you have made a good case and I do think now that modern designs can be more accurate than oldschool designs, and obviously the fact that the shooter I linked that YT vid to adding a glass bed is testament to that.

But I'm still interested in the quality of the projectiles and cartridges used by soldiers on the eastern front in WWII....were they really that crappy? Maybe snipers handloaded or received special ammunition in order to maximize accuracy?
I don't think having ambi controls and stuff is really essitional on a sniper rifle. I don't think the M110 has ambi controls anyways. I have no doubt that a M110 is more accurate then a Mosin Nagant. The barrel will be much thicker and made to a much higher standard then any Mosin Nagant barrel. I've never heard of snipers back then handloading their ammo or recieving special ammo. It seems unlikely. The only time I heard of special match grade 7.62x54R was for the SVD. Russian ammo was not of the best quality back then. A lot of it was corrosive and would destroy the barrels if they were not cleaned. What was worse was that the Mosin Nagants had no chrome lined barrels. I bought a surplus Yugo SKS with no chrome lined bore and the barrel was severley pitted from not being cleaned after using corrosive ammo.
 
Last edited:

LemoN

FNG / Fresh Meat
Feb 26, 2006
6,295
2,346
0
31
Prussotroll's Bridge
But I'm still interested in the quality of the projectiles and cartridges used by soldiers on the eastern front in WWII....were they really that crappy? Maybe snipers handloaded or received special ammunition in order to maximize accuracy?
well im not entirely sure how it was in WW2, but i know how it was 1950's onwards

whenever they rezeroed their loading devices the first few thousand rounds were considered "sniper" ammo(and marked, hence the 7.62x54R silver or yellow tips), because this is where they would get the most accurate loadings for the cartridges (still the case today afaik)
 

Maschinengewehrschutze

FNG / Fresh Meat
Nov 21, 2009
51
0
0
Some of you need to read up on these subjects. Both side WW2 snipers pushed their weapons to the limit on alot of occasions.

The Vietcong used the scoped Mosin Nagant to great effect in Vietnam.
The Vietnam generation snipers didnt have mil dots, just 30/30 reticles or the old German/Soviet style reticle. So the sniper from the WW1-Vietnam era had to have had prior experience holding over or doing kentucky windage. The ammo did fine. It wasnt primitive stuff. Hell, if WW1 snipers got good ammo for long range shooting...
 
Last edited:

Kolya Belenky

FNG / Fresh Meat
Nov 14, 2009
38
0
0
Washington, USA
"The Remington 700 action is designed for mass production [5] and can be described as a simplified Mauser design."
M24=modifiedR700=modifiedMauser

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remington_700[/URL]
You can't trust wikipedia. It can be edited by anyone.

Anyways, I temporarily lost interest in this game (in fact, I'm bored while typing this). I have looked over the posts here, and noticed some things about the name of the class and where the snipers/marksmen/heckenschuetzen/uberschnitzelwarriors should spawn. That's not what I'm looking for. I'm asking how the rifles should perform and how the sniper rifles should be used. Please stick to this topic. Thanks ;)
 

The Masta

FNG / Fresh Meat
Nov 23, 2005
4,141
908
0
30
Elitist Prick Flight School
You can't trust wikipedia. It can be edited by anyone.
Can you trust world.guns.ru?
Development and introduction into service of this rifle was accompanied with constant complaints of some "theorists", which stated that this rifle would be no good neither for infantry, nor for cavalry, so RSAF was set do design another rifle, patterned after the German Mauser, which also should be more suitable for mass production, than the SMLE. This rifle finally appeared in 1914 as an ".303 caliber Enfield Pattern 1914 rifle", or simply a P-14.
This rifle traces its ancestry back to the British P14/US model 1917 Enfield. Starting with model 700BDL action, Remington adds a stainless-steel barrel and a carbon-fiber stock, then tunes the rifle for one-minute-of-angle accuracy using match grade ammo.
 

RedGuardist

FNG / Fresh Meat
Jun 14, 2006
1,697
349
0
38
I'm asking how the rifles should perform and how the sniper rifles should be used.

Sniper rifle should perform like a scoped rifle does.

Sniper rifle should be used to kill enemy.

Are you satisfied?

(And since there probably are no "snipers" in the upcoming game, sniper rifles should be used as a squad weapon, offering accurate long range fire support to pin point targets.)
 
Last edited:

Flogger23m

FNG / Fresh Meat
May 5, 2009
3,441
538
0
No. They get laughed at, because they are going to bubba an old military rifle, which was not equipted with scope originally.

Not really. The responses are typically like the following:

1) What, so you can hit the broad side of a barn, from the inside?

2) Why bubba a rifle if it is so inaccurate in the first place?


Sure, it is accurate enough to hit man sized targets, but it doesn't come close to any of the more modern bolt action sniper rifles.
 

RedGuardist

FNG / Fresh Meat
Jun 14, 2006
1,697
349
0
38
Not really. The responses are typically like the following:

1) What, so you can hit the broad side of a barn, from the inside?

2) Why bubba a rifle if it is so inaccurate in the first place?


Sure, it is accurate enough to hit man sized targets, but it doesn't come close to any of the more modern bolt action sniper rifles.
It
 

Oldih

Glorious IS-2 Comrade
Nov 22, 2005
3,418
412
0
Finland
Sure, it is accurate enough to hit man sized targets, but it doesn't come close to any of the more modern bolt action sniper rifles.
I thought it should be obvious that modern technology is often superior to the old one when it comes to some stuff? I am quite sure Harrier is far efficient and beter fighter than Pzl 11 or I-16, and I am pretty sure modern handgun is far beter than flintlock pistol from 1700s.

That still doesn't stop them being functional as they were back then, probably even with good results overall.
 
Last edited:

Kolya Belenky

FNG / Fresh Meat
Nov 14, 2009
38
0
0
Washington, USA
Sniper rifle should perform like a scoped rifle does.

Sniper rifle should be used to kill enemy.

Are you satisfied?

(And since there probably are no "snipers" in the upcoming game, sniper rifles should be used as a squad weapon, offering accurate long range fire support to pin point targets.)
I was thinking more specific but hats a start;)
 

LemoN

FNG / Fresh Meat
Feb 26, 2006
6,295
2,346
0
31
Prussotroll's Bridge
Say what you want, but from asking people who own a whole lot of bolt guns, they'd disagree. The M1903 and K98K among other rifles of the time period were more accurate, according to pretty much anyone I've asked or any resource I have found.
See, thats just where the problem is.

Many ppl here (including myself) own or owned most of the rifles we discussed about here.
 

Oldih

Glorious IS-2 Comrade
Nov 22, 2005
3,418
412
0
Finland
Put some though into your post if you bother to reply to me ever again.
So what was wrong with the bolded part in the first place? Just because something is crap by modern standards means it was crap already back then?

Flintlock rifles were more or less notable improvement over what they had before 1600s, while lever action\bolt-action rifles were notably superior to flintlock rifles, and semi-automatic rifles were superior compared to bolt-action rifles, and the list goes on. Basically something is superior relative to something.

Modern eguipment is superior to anything made in the past, and quite obviously average M1891 was not probably as good as average Mauser or Springfield rifle in terms of accuracy, but do you expect that average rifleman in the 1930s or 1940s can be as good shot as modern marksmen with superior weaponry? It's basically like giving a modern person a sword and expecting him to beat a master swordsman who is in medieval re-enactment group.

Even if we make average statement of X vs Y in terms of accuracy, there's alot more variables than just the common belief or accepted generalization.
 

Xendance

FNG / Fresh Meat
Nov 21, 2005
4,484
572
0
30
Elitist Prick Club RS Branch
You can't trust wikipedia. It can be edited by anyone.

Anyways, I temporarily lost interest in this game (in fact, I'm bored while typing this). I have looked over the posts here, and noticed some things about the name of the class and where the snipers/marksmen/heckenschuetzen/uberschnitzelwarriors should spawn. That's not what I'm looking for. I'm asking how the rifles should perform and how the sniper rifles should be used. Please stick to this topic. Thanks ;)
That's why there is the sources list -_-

Bottom line: you can trust wikipedia.
 

Flogger23m

FNG / Fresh Meat
May 5, 2009
3,441
538
0
So what was wrong with the bolded part in the first place? Just because something is crap by modern standards means it was crap already back then?

The point is you didn't, and still won't bother to read. Why are you arguing with me about a point I never brought up or mentioned? :confused:

Keep arguing with yourself, as that is all you are doing.
 

Oldih

Glorious IS-2 Comrade
Nov 22, 2005
3,418
412
0
Finland
The point is you didn't, and still won't bother to read. Why are you arguing with me about a point I never brought up or mentioned? :confused:
Merely wondering why you brought up such unfair comparasion (old rifle vs modern rifle) when it is pretty obvious which one is probably beter. There was some discussion about Mosin's accuracy among with some statements that it is not as inaccurate as people make it sound like, and then this one pops up:

Sure, it is accurate enough to hit man sized targets, but it doesn't come close to any of the more modern bolt action sniper rifles.
Nothing offensive there, but that is rather unfair comparasion. If I misunderstood part of your post, then I apologize for that but I'd like to ask you a question: what did you mean by that then? Comparing quite old rifle to state of the art, modern one or what?
 

Flogger23m

FNG / Fresh Meat
May 5, 2009
3,441
538
0
what did you mean by that then? Comparing quite old rifle to state of the art, modern one or what?
People were mentioning how accurate the Mosin was, and made it out to be the most accurate rifle ever. Which, it was not. As mentioned above, the K98K and M1903 as well as more modern bolt guns are more accurate.

So no, the Mosin is on the inaccurate scale for a bolt gun.

But, as I said, it can easily hit man sized targets at 400-500 meters (in combat situations). Probably further to.