No, I'd place it in the medicore accuracy class as the inaccurate role is entirely made up of Carcano's
Upvote
0
The Role of Snipers... In Stalingrad.
- Thread starter Kolya Belenky
- Start date
No, I'd place it in the medicore accuracy class as the inaccurate role is entirely made up of Carcano's
Nobody ever said that.
It was just brought out, that the myth of Mosins being inaccurate is indeed a myth.
The biggest problem with average Mosin (exluding m24, m28, m28/30) is the usually pretty crappy trigger, the pull is long and there
Upvote
0
No, I'd place it in the medicore accuracy class as the inaccurate role is entirely made up of Carcano's
Maybe so. I've heard bad things about that thing. Even at $80, no one seems to want one. Does it really suck that much?
Upvote
0
Maybe so. I've heard bad things about that thing. Even at $80, no one seems to want one. Does it really suck that much?
Well Carcano's are simply crap.
Some of the worst rifles i have ever seen, some of the late war productions even have some crude looking pistol type sights instead of normal rifle sights.
The rifles themselfes are rather accurate thought (you can hit things at up to 400m+ with open sights)
Upvote
0
You seem to confuse a crappy pull with a Mosin trigger
The Mosin Nagant series dont have a two stage trigger, that means the trigger has its full pull weight all the way from the foward position up to the release position. A Kar98k on the other hand has a two stage trigger. (like any modern firearm)
The trigger "problem" the Mosin has isnt exactly a problem, at last not for an experienced shooter.
And in terms of accuracy most Mosins were at last on par with any other WW2 infantry rifle, sometimes even more accurate. Don't confuse crappy handling with bad accuracy.
The Mosin Nagant series dont have a two stage trigger, that means the trigger has its full pull weight all the way from the foward position up to the release position. A Kar98k on the other hand has a two stage trigger. (like any modern firearm)
The trigger "problem" the Mosin has isnt exactly a problem, at last not for an experienced shooter.
And in terms of accuracy most Mosins were at last on par with any other WW2 infantry rifle, sometimes even more accurate. Don't confuse crappy handling with bad accuracy.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
A lot of the Mosins in the USA are trashy rebuilds. So a lot of them are not as accurate as some of the others.
Aside from the bore, mine was pretty beat up. I am sure there are even worse ones here.
Aside from the bore, mine was pretty beat up. I am sure there are even worse ones here.
Upvote
0
I was talking to Flogger, and only about the 91/30.
Yeah, I was pretty sure that your post was directed to flogger. I just wanted to be sure to know what you meant.
Last edited:
Upvote
0
the sniper should only be able to survive if he hides and shoots from long distance.
Upvote
0
Semi automatic rifles are not superior to bolt-action rifles. That's ridiculous.
Semi automatic rifles only allow higher rate of fire, that's it. That's the extent of the advantage. And along with that is a painful list of drawbacks. Granted, there is an obvious disadvantage to having to remove your hand from the trigger, grab a bolt, and cycle four distinct motions, but there is nothing affecting single shot accuracy or the firing action to make it innately superior to bolt-action.
In fact, bolt-action versus semi-automatic only refers to the mechanisms that allow the ejection of spent cases and the cycling of a new cartridge. It is purely incidental that some of the methods of "automatic" cycling of cartridges affect the actual operation of the firing mechanism, and none of them aid in delivery or accuracy.
But at any rate, grant me for a moment that bolt-action allows for higher accuracy. Ta-da, you now have a reason to prefer bolt-action rifles over semi-automatic rifles in sniper roles, and so it has been in militaries across the globe since the introduction of semi-automatic rifles and well after they became main battle rifles.
And as far as higher rate of fire, you can still use a straight bolt action or a lever or pump action to reduce the number of distinct actions from 4 to two or even one. When you get to the rate of fire of a lever action rifle a semi-automatic operation's advantages in rate of fire become far more negligible...
Upvote
0
Semi automatic rifles, for the role of the typical infantry rifleman, ARE superior to bolt actions. Higher rates of fire, detachable magazines, ability to keep your sights on target without having to cycle the bolt, etc. These are all general improvments for the rifleman role. That's what Oldih was talking about. Obviously most of the world's armed forces agree, as I can't think of any country outside of the bottom of the barrel that arms their troops with bolt actions anymore.
Upvote
0
The best rifles were pulled of the production line and put into snipers hands. Some were more accurate than others and tested before fit with a sniper scope. So snipers had the best pick of the lot before being sent out into the battlefield.
Upvote
0
Bolt action is always more accurate, but semi autos have become so close in terms of accuracy.
An example is the M110/SR-25 (M16 in 7.62x51). It is replacing the bolt action M24 and M40 for the Army and USMC.
Even our .50BMG sniper rifles are semi auto, and those are made to hit targets past 1,200 meters.
It seems that most professional militaries prefer the higher rate of fire to the 1/4 or so of an inch accuracy difference between semis and bolt actions.
Even the British military is buying an M16 variant in 7.62x51 to replace their bolt action (made by LMT).
An example is the M110/SR-25 (M16 in 7.62x51). It is replacing the bolt action M24 and M40 for the Army and USMC.
Even our .50BMG sniper rifles are semi auto, and those are made to hit targets past 1,200 meters.
It seems that most professional militaries prefer the higher rate of fire to the 1/4 or so of an inch accuracy difference between semis and bolt actions.
Even the British military is buying an M16 variant in 7.62x51 to replace their bolt action (made by LMT).
Upvote
0
i think guns reached a point where the bullet itself matters more than if its bolt action or not.
Upvote
0
Righto.
Hey, bro, what's this?
Well what the **** do you know, a detachable box magazine on a bolt-action rifle.
"Higher rates of fire, ability to keep your sights on target without having to cycle the bolt"
Decent trade-offs for immaculate reliability and accuracy (which was significantly more pronounced in World War II as you well know). Or these reasons:
"The integral strength of the design means very powerful magnum cartridges can be chambered without significantly increasing the size or weight of the weapon. For example, some of the most powerful elephant rifles are in the same weight range (7-10 lbs.) as a typical [semi automatic] [...] By contrast, [...] the operating mechanism of a semi-automatic weapon must increase in mass and weight as the cartridge it fires increases in power. This means that semi-automatic rifles firing magnum cartridges, while they do exist, tend to be relatively heavy."
(Wiki)
I.E. superior "power"-to-weight ratio.
It's also worth noting, I think, that the tighter the tolerances of a semi-automatic or automatic firearm, the greater the unreliability of the operation generally. An AK-47, for example, can maintain pristine firing operation under virtually any conditions, whereas the M-16 cries when you don't clean it frequently and keep it out of harm's way. But then again, the M-16 can sustain a far smaller grouping of shots at a far longer range than the AK-47 can. High tolerance, low tolerance.
Excuse me, that's not going to cut it. Name one other reason and I'll give you a PRIZE.
But at any rate you say effectively that because the semi automatic has a higher fire rate than the bolt-action rifle that suddenly it's superior despite the drawbacks I mentioned. So I submit to you that the superior weapon has been around for long prior to the semi-automatic rifle. I submit to you:
The macheeeeeengun:
Ooooh, wow. This machinegun has a whopping firerate of 400 rounds per minute which by your sole criterion should make it more than capable of *****slapping any semi-automatic rifle. Sure, it can only be fired from a stationary position, but it fires really fast!
Or perhaps the machinepistol:
This has a fire rate of over 500 RPM and due to the small cartridge is capable of sustained controllability despite the high fire rate, far more controllable than any rifle. Sure, it carries a pistol cartridge leading to short range, low velocities, penetration, and accuracy, but it fires really quickly.
At any rate I hope I've demonstrated to some extent that a weapon's utility is generally based on its ability to fulfill a given role. As a matter of fact, modern armies largely do not use semi-automatic rifles. They use assault rifles or in many cases battle rifles. As a matter of fact lots of insurgents and terrorist groups have for many years used assault rifles along with backstock of bolt-action rifles. One reason both modern armies and resistance groups use these weapons is that they are incredibly utilitarian weapons with great versatility....in the general combat role they provide the option for fully automatic fire for close quarters combat, sustained suppressive fire for medium-range targets, and accurate, precision fire at intermediate ranges. Granted, most of them are totally useless past 300 meters with open sights, that's why most militaries of the world use highly accurized marksman-class semi-automatic rifles for engaging targets at long distances or bolt-action rifles or anti-materiel rifles for engaging targets past 600 meters.
Weapons are not one-size-fits-all. Semi-automatic rifles are very efficient means of engaging medium to long-range targets insofar as they can chamber high-caliber rounds with more than adequate accuracy, but when total precision is required modern armies still fall back on the reliable bolt-action rifle.
To your concern about bolt-actions being inadequate for the rifleman position....I merely point to the title of the thread, which refers specifically to the sniper role.
And I also suggest you read the caption to the semi-automatic rifleman position in Red Orchestra Ost Front, which suggests that the SVT-40 was issued in limited numbers to Strelok in World War 2 as a result of its complicated operation and difficult maintenance. Or perhaps you could read up on the Gewehr 41, the initial failed attempt by the German arms designers to supplant the K98 with a semi-automatic rifle. Or perhaps you could simply play Ost Front's sniper role equipped with an SVT-40 or a G-43 and notice the gargantuan spread of both rifles, particularly when compared to old reliable, the MN91/30 and Kar98k.
Are bolt-action rifles outdated? In a manner of speaking....they are certainly inadequate in many roles, in particular close-quarters and trench cleaning, or supplying significant volume of suppressive fire, but they are utterly fantastic weapons when all you need is to hit the target and watch him fall over dead in the first shot.
I can't tell you how many times I rushed out into battle with my spiffy STG-44 in Ost Front only to find myself wishing I had a Kar98k to engage targets perched in a sniper nest or reach out and touch enemies over vast distances. Make no mistake, if you don't miss and you have enough time or enough cover to bolt your rifle, the bolt-action doesn't make any mistakes.
Upvote
0
and irl they found out that volume of fire is more important in by far most of the cases
Upvote
0
VariousNames, he was talking about standard issue rifles. Not sure why he would need to explain that though.
As for semi auto sniper rifles:
And of course, the XM109 in 25x59mm:
M110:
Sure, a bolt action sniper rifle is not that bad, but as I said above, I'd rather have semi auto and group 1/4 of an inch wider.
As for preferring a bolt action rifle to an assault rifle, that might be the case in RO, but you'd have to be a fool to do so in real life. In a real combat situation, you will likely not even see your target past 450 or so meters which is well within the effective range of assault rifles.
Not sure why he would need to explain that though. As for semi auto sniper rifles:
And of course, the XM109 in 25x59mm:
M110:
Sure, a bolt action sniper rifle is not that bad, but as I said above, I'd rather have semi auto and group 1/4 of an inch wider.
As for preferring a bolt action rifle to an assault rifle, that might be the case in RO, but you'd have to be a fool to do so in real life. In a real combat situation, you will likely not even see your target past 450 or so meters which is well within the effective range of assault rifles.
Last edited:
Upvote
0