FNG / Fresh Meat
- Aug 6, 2009
If only you had made your case when you originally made the claim instead of running a drive by I might have seen it.If you bothered to read my previous post...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.
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?
And "The Remington 700 action is designed for mass production  and can be described as a simplified Mauser design."Once again, the M-24 is not it's own design, but a modified Remington 700 hunting rifle:
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".