Why Would Anyone Want to Shoot a Vintage Sniper Rifle?

[kraigWY]

A lot of Mosen's are used in the CMP Vintage Sniper matches, but they can't hang with the Springfield's. Don't feel bad, nothing else does either.

Now after saying that, the CMP came to Cody WY this last Sept and conducted at Vintage Sniper matches, guys shooting M1Cs won the match, but that was the exception to the rule. In this case I think it was the shooter(s) more then the gun.

 

[-Jake-]

A lot of Mosen's are used in the CMP Vintage Sniper matches, but they can't hang with the Springfield's. Don't feel bad, nothing else does either.

Now after saying that, the CMP came to Cody WY this last Sept and conducted at Vintage Sniper matches, guys shooting M1Cs won the match, but that was the exception to the rule. In this case I think it was the shooter(s) more then the gun.

I have both. At this moment I can shoot better with my Mosin Nagant than my 1903a4. I haven't had much time to do load development on the 03 so that could be half (or all) of it.

 

[CSTactical]

That Swede is a beauty Mike! This thread is just heaping full of amazing pieces of wood and steel and I'm enjoying looking at them all.

Glad you like it!

Mike @ CSTACTICAL

 

[sandwarrior]

With the 1903 variants vs. the Mosins, I would think the quality of obtainable ammo would have a lot to do with it as well?

 

[boingk]

My M98 1909 Argentine Mauser:

Its not cosmetically perfect but it is all there with matching numbers and good standard fit.

Still shoots fine and I get a lot of enjoyment from it.

Cheers - boingk

 

[kraigWY]

With the 1903 variants vs. the Mosins, I would think the quality of obtainable ammo would have a lot to do with it as well?

The CMP sells match ammo for both, Get a box of each and do a fair comparison between the Mosin & Springfield.

http://estore.thecmp.org/store/catalog/catalog.aspx?pg=catalogList&cat=AMC

 

[Greg Langelius *]

I am relatively deep into my Mosin-Nagant fugue, but not quite to the load development stage. The spamcan surplus renders about 2MOA or maybe slightly better; and being corrosive, it necessitates a timely cleaning after every outing. This past week, I finally got my first/prototype rifle of four shooting accurately and reliably with commercial ammo, Prvi-Partizan/PPU 150gr SP hunting loads. It was a pleasant surprise, bringing informal rested group size down to 1MOA, with maybe the potential for a bit better with somewhat more diligent marksmanship. The rifle might benefit from better optics, but that would negate the intended goal of making it shoot on a restrained budget. So handloading could render even better accuracy as well as a relaxed maintenance/cleaning approach.

Very limited experience with the Winchester 180gr loading would seem to suggest a rather imbalanced compromise between cost, recoil, and accuracy. The rifle shoots, but the ammo doesn't get it anywhere near its potential. Nice brass for reloading, though.

At very least I remain committed to developing a reduced recoil load for my 17 y/o Granddaughter, using maybe some 123gr FMJ's pulled from x39 commercial ammo, 125/135SMK, 110 V-Max, or maybe the SRA125gr Pro-Hunter. One thing that has demonstrated itself is a complete intolerance of the rifle/cartridge for sub-published-minimum powder charges.

I agree that the '03 is a good shooter, and that a variety of ammunition options offers some added potential. My own opinion is obfuscated by my recoil intolerance. My Smith-Corona '03A3/'03A1 barreled bastich convinced me the rifle was almost certainly too short of mass to make the .30-'06 cartridge such a joy to shoot on a sustained basis, and may have even constrained me to make one of the more serious marksmanship errors in my life; i.e. selling it.

After becoming a handloader, I can see now that a better approach might have been to develop a load for my rifle that is based on the newer 125/135SMK offerings. If wishes were fishes..., I remain a semi-motivated background lurker/buyer interested in a relatively generic/less expensive '03 shooter. Going overboard, a rebarrelling to .260 Rem remains somewhat of an unattainable dream.

Greg

 

[-Jake-]

Handloads do make a difference, however if you ever see the Sellier & Bellot 180 gr SP loads give those a try in your Mosin Nagant they shoot great out of my PU sniper.

 

[sandwarrior]

The CMP sells match ammo for both, Get a box of each and do a fair comparison between the Mosin & Springfield.

Civilian Marksmanship Program eStore

I think that settles it pretty fairly. If the Mosin can get match ammo then it should hold it's own against any of it's kind. Obviously not. I have always maintained the 1903 to be a superior weapon to the Mosin.

While the Mosin may be a very effective sniper rifle, I think it's loss of accuracy capability at longer ranges makes it less effective than other rifles that can reach the distance. Both Mausers and Springfields have kills (unofficial) at the 1500m range in WWII. Personally, I find my Springfield to be more accurate than my Mosin. But, that is an obtuse comparison because it's single examples of each and the Springfield has been modified, It has original sights though.

 

[Mike Radford]

I have both. At this moment I can shoot better with my Mosin Nagant than my 1903a4. I haven't had much time to do load development on the 03 so that could be half (or all) of it.

The Soviet "Extra Match" in the yellow box is outstanding ammo and better than US M72 and M118. It has won international competition, and that is what it was designed to do. It is rated at less than 9 cm groups at 300 meters for 20 round groups. Some is rated and tested at about 7 and I have a lot in the 7.1 to 7.7 range. Soviet "target" is rated at less than 12 cm and often close to 9cm. Typically a good PU will do MOA or a bit better with Extra. My first outting with it in quantitiy using a PU gave me 3 of 6 sub-MOA 5 shot groups and an average of 1.12. Many friends have done much better out to 600 yds plus. I rarely get to shoot over 100 yds but hopefully that will change soon.

Lots of guys are reloading 54r with Hornady 311 or 312 HPBT Match or Sierra Match King HPBT Match. Many report that are getting about the same results with careful handloads or slightly better than Extra Match. Varget is popular powder for the guys I know who reload and shoot CMP, including a member here who beat the Springfields and won at the state level.

Hornady factory loaded match is inferior to the loads I mentioned in 54r. I know of no factory load outside what I mentioned and Lapua that will do as well. Hornady match bullets are extremely hard to get right now and Varget is difficult to find but getting better.

The Germans misunderestimated the Mosin snipers to their peril. Many continue to so. At least a few are being handed their hat.

With the current CMP VS rules there are silly and unfair standards for the Mosin Snipers insisting on original scope that have not been rebuilt, etc.. They list a PE scope but seem clueless that the PEM was also a WW2 sniper scope and is not even listed. Most PU scopes were refurbed like most A4's and their scopes were refurbished/rearsenalled yet the rules specify not rebuilt??. Yet a Weaver K2.5 is original on a A4. Bull. A Malcolm 8X is original, as is a non-USMC Unertl with proper tube size and less than 8.1x? I don't think so. A new Criterion barrel is original.?? Who else gets to rebarrel their rifle with a new barrel made by Criterion or like company? The CMP rules are biased for US weapons period and nobody can convince me otherwise. It may or may not be intentional, consciously done or whatever but it is what it is. That, plus the high numbers of US rifles, is the biggest reason they win more. Besides, with CMP selling Criterion barrels, Springfield receivers, M1Cs and M1Ds, etc. why would they not want to lean US. JMO and rant off.

 

[sandwarrior]

The Soviet "Extra Match" in the yellow box is outstanding ammo and better than US M72 and M118. It has won international competition, and that is what it was designed to do. It is rated at less than 9 cm groups at 300 meters for 20 round groups. Some is rated and tested at about 7 and I have a lot in the 7.1 to 7.7 range. Soviet "target" is rated at less than 12 cm and often close to 9cm. Typically a good PU will do MOA or a bit better with Extra. My first outting with it in quantitiy using a PU gave me 3 of 6 sub-MOA 5 shot groups and an average of 1.12. Many friends have done much better out to 600 yds plus. I rarely get to shoot over 100 yds but hopefully that will change soon.

Lots of guys are reloading 54r with Hornady 311 or 312 HPBT Match or Sierra Match King HPBT Match. Many report that are getting about the same results with careful handloads or slightly better than Extra Match. Varget is popular powder for the guys I know who reload and shoot CMP, including a member here who beat the Springfields and won at the state level.

Hornady factory loaded match is inferior to the loads I mentioned in 54r. I know of no factory load outside what I mentioned and Lapua that will do as well. Hornady match bullets are extremely hard to get right now and Varget is difficult to find but getting better.

The Germans misunderestimated the Mosin snipers to their peril. Many continue to so. At least a few are being handed their hat.

With the current CMP VS rules there are silly and unfair standards for the Mosin Snipers insisting on original scope that have not been rebuilt, etc.. They list a PE scope but seem clueless that the PEM was also a WW2 sniper scope and is not even listed. Most PU scopes were refurbed like most A4's and their scopes were refurbished/rearsenalled yet the rules specify not rebuilt??. Yet a Weaver K2.5 is original on a A4. Bull. A Malcolm 8X is original, as is a non-USMC Unertl with proper tube size and less than 8.1x? I don't think so. A new Criterion barrel is original.?? Who else gets to rebarrel their rifle with a new barrel made by Criterion or like company? The CMP rules are biased for US weapons period and nobody can convince me otherwise. It may or may not be intentional, consciously done or whatever but it is what it is. That, plus the high numbers of US rifles, is the biggest reason they win more. Besides, with CMP selling Criterion barrels, Springfield receivers, M1Cs and M1Ds, etc. why would they not want to lean US. JMO and rant off.

I would say then that this pretty fairly un-settles it. My question at this point is, is the "yellow box, Match" shot from Mosin's? Or, a custom/hand built rifle chambered in 7.62x54R?

 

[Mike Radford]

I would say then that this pretty fairly un-settles it. My question at this point is, is the "yellow box, Match" shot from Mosin's? Or, a custom/hand built rifle chambered in 7.62x54R?

I am not certain what they used in the test but have always assumed it was a factory test barrel for ammo. That is what is typically done. I have seen US test barrels at CMP. They are huge. A standard barrel gets significant wear affecting accuracy after a fairly low round count.

My smallest group with Extra was 0.4 inches, five shots at 100 yds with a restored 1942 Izhevsk PEM side mount. Not likely I will repeat that one. Lots of folks have posted sub-MOA groups with Extra using the recent Molot PUs. It is a fairly common experience. When I first started shooting PUs nearly 20 years a sub-MOA group with factory ammo was considered a fluke and not repeatable/luck. The main limitation was indeed the ammo and repeating the sub-MOA group was not common.

 

[-Jake-]

The Soviet "Extra Match" in the yellow box is outstanding ammo and better than US M72 and M118. It has won international competition, and that is what it was designed to do. It is rated at less than 9 cm groups at 300 meters for 20 round groups. Some is rated and tested at about 7 and I have a lot in the 7.1 to 7.7 range. Soviet "target" is rated at less than 12 cm and often close to 9cm. Typically a good PU will do MOA or a bit better with Extra. My first outting with it in quantitiy using a PU gave me 3 of 6 sub-MOA 5 shot groups and an average of 1.12. Many friends have done much better out to 600 yds plus. I rarely get to shoot over 100 yds but hopefully that will change soon.

Lots of guys are reloading 54r with Hornady 311 or 312 HPBT Match or Sierra Match King HPBT Match. Many report that are getting about the same results with careful handloads or slightly better than Extra Match. Varget is popular powder for the guys I know who reload and shoot CMP, including a member here who beat the Springfields and won at the state level.

Hornady factory loaded match is inferior to the loads I mentioned in 54r. I know of no factory load outside what I mentioned and Lapua that will do as well. Hornady match bullets are extremely hard to get right now and Varget is difficult to find but getting better.

The Germans misunderestimated the Mosin snipers to their peril. Many continue to so. At least a few are being handed their hat.

With the current CMP VS rules there are silly and unfair standards for the Mosin Snipers insisting on original scope that have not been rebuilt, etc.. They list a PE scope but seem clueless that the PEM was also a WW2 sniper scope and is not even listed. Most PU scopes were refurbed like most A4's and their scopes were refurbished/rearsenalled yet the rules specify not rebuilt??. Yet a Weaver K2.5 is original on a A4. Bull. A Malcolm 8X is original, as is a non-USMC Unertl with proper tube size and less than 8.1x? I don't think so. A new Criterion barrel is original.?? Who else gets to rebarrel their rifle with a new barrel made by Criterion or like company? The CMP rules are biased for US weapons period and nobody can convince me otherwise. It may or may not be intentional, consciously done or whatever but it is what it is. That, plus the high numbers of US rifles, is the biggest reason they win more. Besides, with CMP selling Criterion barrels, Springfield receivers, M1Cs and M1Ds, etc. why would they not want to lean US. JMO and rant off.

I agree with you on all points. Luckily I found a screaming deal on Lapua x54r brass about a year ago and snatched up 700 pieces of it. My family also lives close to the Sierra Bullet factory in Missouri so I can buy up "blemished" bullets at 2/3rds the cost and I have 8 lbs of varget and about 10000 primers. I can reload for a while .

 

[Steve Garbe]

Gentlemen,

In my limited experience with Vintage Sniper matches (one to date) it's my opinion that the advantage that the Springfield enjoys is from the 8X Unertl scope. At the Cody match I shot a a Springfield and definitely appreciated the Unertl scope when is came to sorting out conditions and refining hold. A long argument could be engaged in concerning the merits of the Springfield versus the Swede versus the Mosin versus the K98 ect., ect.

I have acquired a proper Swede with the allowed 4X Weaver scope. I have high hopes for this combination and have just recently been indoctrinated into the High Church of the Mystic 6.5 Swede.

Just my observations. Hope springs eternal...

Steve

 

[kraigWY]

Steve, the 8X Unertl may or may not be an advantage. I shot a 'A4 with the Weaver K2.5 (with post sight) and didn't find it a disadvantage. But then again I'm a iron sight user in HP so I basically ended up with a 2.5 X front sight.

As to the Springfield's verses other vintage rifles accuracy wise, one should look at the rifle per se, and not the scope. As you know, in the CMP Vintage Rifle Games, the CMP awards Achievement Awards base on the scores one fires, Gold, Silver & Bronze.

Since not all rifles are created equal, the cut off scores for the Achievement Awards are different. For example the Gold Cut Off Score Garand Match is 281, to make if fair to those who shoot Other Military Rifles (Sweds, Mausers, Mosin's, Krag's etc etc, their cut off score for the same Gold Metal is 277 points.

Where does that put the Springfield compared to other surplus military rifles??? The Gold Metal Score Cut off for the Springfield's is 282, a bit higher then even that of the Garand.

Those cut off scores should tell us something about the Springfield Vs Other Military Surplus rifle. If that isn't enough, then we can just go to the CMP Website and check the over all score averages Springfield vs. Other Military and Garand Matches.

Yes there are exceptions, but over all the Springfield rings King of the Surplus rifles OVERALL, in the accuracy department.

I don't believe its just the availability of match grade ammo as others have mentioned since both Federal and Hornady make match ammo for most of these rifles. It's not just the power, as you remember from Cody, the winners were using the 2.2X M-84s on Garand's.

What surprised me about the Cody matches was that the Garand Team won over the Springfield's, and again I believe that was the shooters more then the rifles. Again as mentioned there are exceptions to every rule.

 

[Steve Garbe]

Kraig,

Good points, well taken. You are probably right about the Springfield...and I have contemplated building a Springfield from the ground up as I do think it represents the most advantages from the standpoint of sights, loads, ect.

I would point out that the shoot at Cody would not have been won by a Garands if a certain newbie (shooting a Springfield) at the match hadn't thrown away a 10 on the wrong target.

The thing that I liked best about the 8X Unertl was being able to watch the mirage and judge conditions for myself without relying on a spotter. Maybe I need to use it to check the numbers on the backers as well!

Steve

 

[ScharfshutzeK98]

"With the current CMP VS rules there are silly and unfair standards for the Mosin Snipers insisting on original scope that have not been rebuilt, etc.. They list a PE scope but seem clueless that the PEM was also a WW2 sniper scope and is not even listed. Most PU scopes were refurbed like most A4's and their scopes were refurbished/rearsenalled yet the rules specify not rebuilt??. Yet a Weaver K2.5 is original on a A4. Bull. A Malcolm 8X is original, as is a non-USMC Unertl with proper tube size and less than 8.1x? I don't think so. A new Criterion barrel is original.?? Who else gets to rebarrel their rifle with a new barrel made by Criterion or like company? The CMP rules are biased for US weapons period and nobody can convince me otherwise. It may or may not be intentional, consciously done or whatever but it is what it is. That, plus the high numbers of US rifles, is the biggest reason they win more. Besides, with CMP selling Criterion barrels, Springfield receivers, M1Cs and M1Ds, etc. why would they not want to lean US. JMO and rant off."

+1

I think some of us like being the "underdog".

 

[kraigWY]

" They list a PE scope but seem clueless that the PEM was also a WW2 sniper scope and is not even listed. Most PU scopes were refurbed like most A4's and their scopes were refurbished/rearsenalled yet the rules specify not rebuilt??.. Bull. A Malcolm 8X is original, as is a non-USMC Unertl with proper tube size and less than 8.1x? I don't think so. . It may or may not be intentional, consciously done or whatever but it is what it is. That, plus the high numbers of US rifles, is the biggest reason they win more. Besides, with CMP selling Criterion barrels, Springfield receivers, M1Cs and M1Ds, etc. why would they not want to lean US.

If you have documentation that the PEN scope has been issued submit it to the CMP rules committee and they will add it to the list. There have been several additions since the Vintage Sniper Program was started.

Yet a Weaver K2.5 is original on a A4

When Weaver was given the orders for scopes for the 'A4s they couldn't produce them in the numbers the Army required (I believe 24K was the total number). Weaver was a small company and called back commercial versions of their scopes from warehouses to supplement the reqired scopes. The Weaver K 2.5 WAS one of those Weavers. When this was brought to the attention of the rules committee, they were added to the list. But if you met to say PE instead of PEN then the PE is authorized for the M1891/30 Mosin which it was issued.

Most PU scopes were refurbed like most A4's and their scopes were refurbished/rearsenalled yet the rules specify not rebuilt??..

I just went through the rules, this years and last years, I cannot find the rule that says Refurbished/rearsenalled are not authorized. Maybe I missed it and you can point it out.

A new Criterion barrel is original.?? Who else gets to rebarrel their rifle with a new barrel made by Criterion or like company? The CMP rules are biased for US weapons period and nobody can convince me otherwise

Rule 6.4.3 states "Rebarreling with a barrel of as-issued dimensons is permitted. A replacement barrel must have the same exact contours and cuts as the original as-issued barrel"

That rule isn't limited to US Rifles Only. It incudes any surplus rifle that fits the as-issued guidelines.

 

[Mike Radford]

Thanks for everyone's imput.

Kraig, on the Weaver, I have no problem with CMP allowing their use but they do not allow them to be used on anything else. They allow the Weaver K4 on a K98 sniper and that was never issued on a K98. IIRC they were also once listed for the Enfield T rifles but it is not on the rules I recently reviewed. There are some things allowed which make no sense and others that are specifically excluded that make no sense. A leveling of the playing field would make things more interesting and competitive. I was not aware that the k2.5 was available in WW2. I was under the impression the k2.5 was close to the 330 and that is why it was allowed. The 330S or C was the commercial version of the M73b1 and is very similiar to your scope but a little inferior.

I recently reviewed the rules about PU scope having to be original not rebuilt after someone else noted it. I went to the CMP website for the official rulebook. The way it was worded it would exclude PU replicas also, which I thought had been allowed all along. If there is a need to certify a PEM side mount sniper, there is a major need for CMP to get an education. They were made 1937-1940 and 1942. It should be listed no questions asked. It was the primary rifle used by Vasilley Zeitsev for the majority of his confirmed kills.

Rebarreling most any rifle besides a US rifle is gonna be pretty difficult and expensive and no other foreign rifle can get a really good barrel cheap via CMP. There are no commercial barrel sources that I am aware of for Mosin, K98s, T97s, T99s etc., except and expensive custom build. I am not sure on Enfields. This also stacks the odds in the US rifles favor, very significantly IMO.

I certainly like the US rifles and have the majority of them, 2A4s and a replica plus had one more of each, M1CX4, 1903A1 USMC X2, 1952 USMC, 1913, M1A with Art 1, M40. I have not fired the M40 or the 1913 WS but will likely fire the M40 with a commercial accurange in the future. Not gonna risk the Green US scope. I have fired the other thirteen rifles and they are capable rifles. I do not think they will dominate the other rifles if a more equal number of rifles from each country compete and if all rifles had the same degree of flexibility in the rules regarding scopes and availability of cheap good barrels.

I will check the CMP official rulebook again. I am betting there have been some rules updates that exist somewhere else. Otherwise the rules I read recently are totally unreasonable IMO.


Update 10/30 5PM.

I just went through the most recent rules I can find on the CMP VS Match. They are dated March 2013.

So far I can not find the information I read recently, which could have been an old outdated rules or internet misinformation. I will keep looking for it and update here as needed. If anyone else can recall the location of the rules stating a PU scope must be original and not rebuilt, please help out.

These rules do specify commercial(the word commercial is another can of worms, is a replica A4 built by myself not OK) rifles replicas are OK so a PU replica should still be OK, page 28.

The optics allowed are listed in table 2 beginning on page 28 and through page 30. It is a bit different than the one I recently reviewed so I suspect the one I had been referred to was old, but again, I am not sure and will keep looking.

Interesting that on the A4 and on the 1903 rifles, "Non-issued" and OK are the Weaver K2.5 and Lyman Alaskan, the Stith Kollmorgan USMC M1952, Lyman 6X or 8X with 1.5 objective, Leatherwood 3X or 6X are all OK, among others. That is a lot of non-issued and never actually used scopes. No other country's rifles gets this kind of latitude.

On the M1C the Stit Kollmorgan 4X is listed, I assume the commercial Bear Cub, inaddition to the USMC scope.

Germany, non issue Weaver K4.

On the Brit/GB rifles, non issue the Weaver K2.5 and the K3 are OK.

Japan--Original Scopes Only!! (another one of my gripes).

USSR, PU and PE. No PEM listed and it is simple as can be to add PEM, and China is making a replica PEM scope plus a very small number of replicas were made in Russia via Dmitry. To have to go through showing a PEM scope and a side mount are within the rules is silly. The authors are not very knowing on Soviet snipers, obviously, since the list an SVT scope as a PU, and a PU scope will not fit in an SVT mount.

The Yugo and CZ rifles can use the Weaver K4.

They do not list the Finns, which should be corrected. Most Finns will be PE, PEMs or PUs but the top mount built in 1943 based on the M39 with a PEM scope is another obvious qualified rifle and replicas should be allowed.

Just reading the rules shows a lot of redheaded step children by my read.


Update 10/30 6PM.

I found some info and the original thread on the PU and the scope requirement saying no refurbed scope. It referred to the CMP forum as citing this requirement and I read the cited information there on CMP or somewhere else after reading the post mid month. I can not find the post that was cited so far. I did scan the CMP forum and boy, I ain't the only one that is bewildered and POed by the rules. It seems that the Bear cub being allowed is a bone of contension as well. The most important thing I learned there is that the rule book is no where near complete and that it is very dynamic at this point.

I found the Hornady site list of CMP VS rifles and scopes very interesting. According to them, the K4 is OK on Enfields, the PE and PU are OK on the Finn M39 and the Weaver K2.5, K3 and K4 are OK on an M1C, as is apparently the Bear Cub(which may not be OK on a Springfield unless USMC/MC1 scope).

I also found a good history of Weaver scopes in Am. Rifleman, 7/2010 by Towsley who says that the Weaver K2.5 was first introduced in 1947 as I was pretty sure it was a post war scope not originally possible on an A4. Its one inch tube is quite an improvement of the 330 series 0.75 inch tube.

 

[Steve Garbe]

Gentlemen,

The rule that I find the most inconsistent with history is the requirement that a rifle have a scope. There are numerous documented examples of snipers using iron-sighted rifles and besides being accurate to what was actually used, it would allow new shooters to participate in this match who might not be able to procure a scope.

The NRA has made similar mistakes in their BPCR Silhouette program, namely that of not being consistent with recorded history and requiring scopes in a "Scope" class rather than saying "Any Sight".

In any kind of a "vintage" match, specifying a date and adhering to equipment available prior to that cut-off is the best way to avoid having a 90-page rule book. The other added benefit is that people actually research the period in history rather than simply reading a rule book.

If I'm wrong on the "scope-required" rule for Vintage Sniper I will gladly stand corrected.

Steve

 

[JoeMartin]

The rifle that started it all had no scope. The iron sight flintlock rifle, but it was high tech in its day.

 

[MJ1]

I shot a vintage match once called the McQueens. Simple rule, nothing newer than 1945 and two classes scoped and non scoped. Target was a replica of a WW1 German trench and sandbag berm. Ten or so loops 10"X10" at 200 yards with a #14 helmeted face shown every eight seconds for three seconds randomly for ten shots. you did this three times for a total score. Lots of fun.

 

[Mike Radford]

I shot a vintage match once called the McQueens. Simple rule, nothing newer than 1945 and two classes scoped and non scoped. Target was a replica of a WW1 German trench and sandbag berm. Ten or so loops 10"X10" at 200 yards with a #14 helmeted face shown every eight seconds for three seconds randomly for ten shots. you did this three times for a total score. Lots of fun.

Hi MJ, Hope you are well. That sounds much more objective and fair. At this point the CMP rules are about as clear as the ACA.

I am thinking that the only way a fair comparison of WW2 vintage snipers is require that they be original unaltered rifles or military refurbs. An additional class for replicas, like the current rules, could remain.

I predicted when this began that we would end up with custom built match/bench rest rifles that looked like VS rifles. I think that has pretty what has happened.

 

[Steve Garbe]

Mike,

I think you are right about the benchrest rifles that look like Vintage Sniper rifles. An unintended consequence of promoting the match.

That's why it is important to be consistent with history by choosing a cutoff date on technology. Two classes, Original and Open where Original means exactly that and Open is for repro's would solve many of the problems. We have a Vintage Class in the WSU Schuetzen matches and it is for strictly vintage rifles and sights...no modern rebarrels, re-stocks or repro sights. It makes it more difficult to come up with a legal rifle but it keeps the class on a correct playing field.

An Open class in Vintage sniper would welcome rebuilds and repro's, built up according to a cutoff date. Both could compete in the same course of fire but the class separation would make the allowances for vintage equipment that was historically correct. Sounds like a pain, but it does encourage people to research what was actually used and builds on the collective knowledge.

The match seems to be too popular walk away from, I just think that a hard look at the current rules needs to be done and brought more into line with history.

Just my thoughts and nothing more...

Steve

 

[Mike Radford]

Mike,

I think you are right about the benchrest rifles that look like Vintage Sniper rifles. An unintended consequence of promoting the match.

That's why it is important to be consistent with history by choosing a cutoff date on technology. Two classes, Original and Open where Original means exactly that and Open is for repro's would solve many of the problems. We have a Vintage Class in the WSU Schuetzen matches and it is for strictly vintage rifles and sights...no modern rebarrels, re-stocks or repro sights. It makes it more difficult to come up with a legal rifle but it keeps the class on a correct playing field.

An Open class in Vintage sniper would welcome rebuilds and repro's, built up according to a cutoff date. Both could compete in the same course of fire but the class separation would make the allowances for vintage equipment that was historically correct. Sounds like a pain, but it does encourage people to research what was actually used and builds on the collective knowledge.

The match seems to be too popular walk away from, I just think that a hard look at the current rules needs to be done and brought more into line with history.

Just my thoughts and nothing more...

Steve

I agree Steve. I know they wanted to open up the class to folks who could not afford a real WW2 and up to 1953 sniper. Noble concept but once you allow so many non-original scopes, barrels, stocks, etc. you get a custom built rifle that uses currently known technology and careful fitting. The result does not measure the ability of the period sniper but does measure who makes the best barrel, stock, repro scope, best builder and stock fitter, best reloads, etc and the shooter is a smaller factor since so many good shooters exist.

Since so many good options exist for the Springfield, and it is American and we all have our pride, it will naturally predominate.

 

[Greg Langelius *]

Once, longtime back, I ran or helped run competitions, including ones that were unique to the venue. So I appreciate that it can be perplexing. I always knew that with the rules come the complaints. It's a basic attribute of the human condition. My response was, "We need rules, and this what we have. If you think you can come up with better, you are gratefully welcome to take over my job."

There were never any takers. If there were. I would have suggested that whatever they do, they should always understand that all rifles differ, and that making rules is not about fairness, but about creating a manageable event.

I am totally willing to run with the current rules of any match until such time as my interest wanes.

All I would ask is that somewhere in all that verbiage, there is some place where I can compete with my original 91/30 that has a modern (albeit crude) Scout scope arrangement. With respect it's about a $250 rifle including the mods.

When the mods were conceived they were prejudiced in favor of providing a means to cobble up an affordable system showcasing the original rifle's true accuracy potential. Buying one's way into the X-Ring was always the farthest thing from my intentions, even though the process ended up being fairly expensive due to its evolving nature. Some may choose not to believe this and they are entitled to their opinions, whatever they may be.

What's actually on the rifle is simply a set of air rifle rings and a crude scope. With commercial hunting ammo, it manages about 1 1/3MOA; not stellar, but still rather satisfying.

Greg

 

[MJ1]

How can they write rules to allow replica 03A4s and not let Mauser 98K scope copies compete or even 91/30 PU rifles if a scope has been repaired in state facilities. Sounds like a few people keeping the unwashed public to play. Making it a private club shoot for a click to compete using public range time. If you don't welcome new blood in your insuring the event will eventually die from lack of public support. Sounds a little greedy to me.

Oh well.

 

[kraigWY]

I don't know where you guys are getting these rules:

Rule 6.4.3 clearly states;

.....original rifle issued for sniping in 1953 or earlier or a commercial replica of the same type...

Nothing in the rules I have found preclude commercial replicas of Mauser's, Mosin's, Springfields, etc etc. The Rules also prohibit accurizing is authorized.

The rifle must have issued or non-issued scopes if the rifle during the time period used the non-issued scopes.

Anyone who can provide legit documentation that other rifles or scopes were used, you can provide that information to the CMP Rules Committee and they will be added.

 

[Steve Garbe]

Kraig,

Not trying to stir the pot, but could I ask the question of why the Model 70 with a Unertl isn't listed as an acceptable rifle? I'm aware of the "never was officially issued" argument, but it seems like it saw too much use to not be included.

Again, not trying to pull any chains, just curious. I'm sure that there's a good reason that has been considered by the CMP.

Steve

 

[kraigWY]

Everything I've found regarding the Mode 70 during WWII were personal weapons officers took or had sent over seas to be used for sniping. It wasn't until the military rifle teams started using Model 70s in High Power and Long Ranges that they started showing up in Vietnam. They were tried by the Army and Marines but never adapted officially.

When I was at the MI course I tried to BS them into allowing the Model 70 but didn't get to far for the above reasons.

I have an AMU Model 70 I got from the CMP Auction, I'd love to use it, but in reality it wouldn't be a challenging as using my 'A4.

 

[wvfarrier]

Holding a vintage rifle is like holding a colt single action revolver. Some things just feel right

 

[Mike Radford]

With over 101,000 PEM side mount snipers made from 1937-1942 why would anyone need to prove a well known historical fact. They should be there in the rules and nobody should have to prove the obvious. That is a lot of rifles to simply not be noticed.

Finding commercial replicas of most Vintage snipers is not gonna happen. They are simply not being made. The word commercial should be removed since most replicas are gonna be one offs or a few done by an individual. Many of the parts can be had but most of the rifles are simply not being commercially produced. I have never seen a commercial replica of a Japanese sniper, nor an SVT, nor K43 etc..

It does look like the people wishing to shoot many of the options need to begin the additional burden of getting other options approved and make sure the local or state officials are aware of all the rule updates. Apparently the rules are many times more extensive than the printed manuel. It also appears the PU scope not being OK if rebuilt may have been a low level misinterpretation of the rules.

One of the most simple things that could be done would be to allow the Weaver K4 on just about anything. It is allowed on a large percentage so that would go a long ways to simplification and toward leveling the playing field.

It would also be nice if CMP worked with Criterion to make equal quality new barrels for all the potential period rifles, get a quantity discount, and sale them like they do the barrels for the 03.

Things are so much more cheap and readily available, including commercially produced A4 and Unertl replicas, their stocks, barrels, tons of non-issue scope options, replica mounts, replica scopes, good match ammo, etc. if things are not stacked in favor of US rifles my analytical skills have evaporated. In the 2 major professions I have practiced, analysis is critical.

 

[Steve Garbe]

Kraig,

After doing a little research last night I can see what the story is...as much as I'd like to use a M70, I can see their point. The 1953 cutoff is what does it. One could argue a lot harder if the cutoff was the Vietnam War.

The 6.5 Swede seems like the runner up to the Springfield, especially with the allowance of the K4 Weaver. The Unertl scope is expensive and I have not been impressed with the clones (especially their mounts) when compared to the real thing. Fortunately, I have good Unertls, but for the newcomer they are expensive. Setting up a Springfield, or buying one of the re-manufactured sniper versions will take a big chunk out of $2000.00. A Swede with the proper scope mount and a K4 will be nearly a grand. The Mosin "snipers" are even going up in price, given the demand and recent politics.

Again I'll make the point that allowing iron-sighted rifles in the Vintage Sniper matches would allow more shooters to sample the match without a big layout in money. It would be a simple rule change, would promote the match and be consistent with history...a win-win it would seem. Maybe having an Iron Sight class would be the thing to do, however, presenting the shooting "problem" (match) and letting the marksman solve it with an historically correct rifle ( I didn't say "vintage") would seem to be preferable. A good 03A3 (iron sights) with match ammo would be in the running, especially if the rifleman understood the proper use of irons and it wouldn't break the bank. A sorted-out Mosin with good ammo would be even less.

One scope being made that doesn't get much press here is the Montana Vintage Arms copy of the Winchester A5. I have a couple on Schuetzen rifles and they are an excellent scope. 6X, excellent clarity and a variety of reticule styles plus being made in America. I'm contemplating fitting a Springfield out with one. I'm assuming that this would be legal under the CMP rules, but I don't have them ready to hand to check.

Just my thoughts,

Steve

 

[kraigWY]

I agree with your point about using iron sight rifles. I asked the CMP about that. They originally were allowed. The reason they aren't now is range capacity. As the VS matches got more popular, they eliminated the iron sight rifles because they do have other venues (in the CMP Games) where they are used.

Most people I know, putting on CMP Matches will allow people using iron sights to compete if there are spots available.

I use to run sniper schools for the National Guard using M1C/D's, personally I found no advantage to the M-82/4 scopes, I've always shot better with the irons on the Garand.

 

[Mike Radford]

Kraig,

After doing a little research last night I can see what the story is...as much as I'd like to use a M70, I can see their point. The 1953 cutoff is what does it. One could argue a lot harder if the cutoff was the Vietnam War.

The 6.5 Swede seems like the runner up to the Springfield, especially with the allowance of the K4 Weaver. The Unertl scope is expensive and I have not been impressed with the clones (especially their mounts) when compared to the real thing. Fortunately, I have good Unertls, but for the newcomer they are expensive. Setting up a Springfield, or buying one of the re-manufactured sniper versions will take a big chunk out of $2000.00. A Swede with the proper scope mount and a K4 will be nearly a grand. The Mosin "snipers" are even going up in price, given the demand and recent politics.

Again I'll make the point that allowing iron-sighted rifles in the Vintage Sniper matches would allow more shooters to sample the match without a big layout in money. It would be a simple rule change, would promote the match and be consistent with history...a win-win it would seem. Maybe having an Iron Sight class would be the thing to do, however, presenting the shooting "problem" (match) and letting the marksman solve it with an historically correct rifle ( I didn't say "vintage") would seem to be preferable. A good 03A3 (iron sights) with match ammo would be in the running, especially if the rifleman understood the proper use of irons and it wouldn't break the bank. A sorted-out Mosin with good ammo would be even less.

One scope being made that doesn't get much press here is the Montana Vintage Arms copy of the Winchester A5. I have a couple on Schuetzen rifles and they are an excellent scope. 6X, excellent clarity and a variety of reticule styles plus being made in America. I'm contemplating fitting a Springfield out with one. I'm assuming that this would be legal under the CMP rules, but I don't have them ready to hand to check.

Just my thoughts,

Steve

Steve, the A5 is specifically listed so a replica A5 should be OK if the reticule is per the rules.

I think an argument can successfully be made for the M70 since they were purchased and field tested in WW2. If enough documentation is dug up and presented it could happen. If that is what you want to use, I bet you can get there. The WW2 era M70s came up within the last year and with some good information, including numbers and testing and by who. Find that and you at least have a starting point. I think it was Jim Gaynor with the data.

I can not recall where I read it but it has been said that you can use iron sights but the rifle must have a scope on it when you do so. Most period snipers allow for iron sights for back up even when the scope is mounted.

 

[MJ1]

A little off subject but I have been following a post about Mosin rifles were they are getting some crazy accuracy at long range with turned down Guranov med MG barrels and heavy customs. These guys are almost a cult Mosin club.



Off subject but interesting.

Cheers

 

[Greg Langelius *]

Maybe, just maybe, the 1953 arbitrary/fixed vintage cutoff year is getting a bit long o' tooth. I'd prefer a year that is based on the contemporary date, ala more than 40 Y/O.

...and MJ1, get thee behind me, Tempter... ('K, OK, who does those barrel replacements, anyway?)

Greg

 

[hrfunk]

I would like to see a "Modern Sniper Rifle Match." Allowing post 1953 to present. I think that would be a popular event.

HRF

 

[kraigWY]

I would like to see a "Modern Sniper Rifle Match." Allowing post 1953 to present. I think that would be a popular event.

Take your modern sniper to a NRA 1000 yard match.

 

[hrfunk]

That's what I'm planning to do next season. I've been working with my 300 WM 700P for just that purpose.

HRF

 

[MJ1]

I would like to see a "Modern Sniper Rifle Match." Allowing post 1953 to present. I think that would be a popular event.

HRF

What? These are the norm and C&R the far between this time of year. Seems to me there has been a 1000Y match every other weekend for arms of the period you mentioned.

Greg I can look into that question for you. They seem to be doing some fantastic and respectful work. No hackers or chop shop stuff. Lots of well thought out work. They do tend to be uppity but maybe it's a form of pride. Some of the bolt work and timing are well done as well as the barrel conversions.

Not my cup of tea but interesting how they have chosen the 91 actions for their challenge.

Cheers




..........MJ.............

 

[hrfunk]

Don't misunderstand, I love the vintage sniper rifle matches!

HRF

 

[Greg Langelius *]

MJ1, got your PM and it led me on a very pleasant excursion; I am bookmarking it for a more detailed examination.

 

[MJ1]

Build and help section has info and suppliers. Some interesting posts on trigger replacement and stock work. They also cover their mistakes and failures. Scope mounting with solid mono-block bases was interesting also. If you see anything interesting point it out. Looks like Lother Walther barrels are another pick. Two interesting photo posts on receiver truing and barrel indexing and changing with the tools and bolt head fitting.

Cheers

 

[MJ1]

 

[Mike Radford]

Very nice MJ. Great rifles and photo.

 

[187th Airborne]

Back in the '70's I and several other police officers ordered M1 garands from the old CMP. When they arrived at the police station every one who ordered took one. No registering or record keeping. I learned my Springfield receiver was from December 1940. Still have the garand as well as an M1D.....

 

[joker1]

"Why would anyone want to shoot a vintage sniper rifle???" CAUSE IT'S FREAKIN AWESOME! (Point is moot and question is crazy. lol) BTW,NEW GUY here on Sniper's Hide

Here is what I have been working on for a while now. Started this several years back,with not much rounds throught the barrel yet.
My goal was to make my Garand as accurate as I could do so. The first shots out of it at 200 YDS have been AMAZING!

I feel special now that I own THE MOST,THE BEST garand on the PLANET!!! "This is MY rifle.There are NOT many like it,and THIS one is mine!!!"



Garand MC-1 serial # 1,xxx,xxx 30 06 NM barrel and OP rod Glas bedded,trigger job, NM 2 hooded sights,MANY,MANY other mods, ETC,ETC,ETC................ It shoots great and am soon to get back at it and see what ALL it can do,but being a Semi auto it is limited. (Bolt rifle Rem 700 project coming up soon in my future )

But yes,Like all have stated above already,it is something special to handle either one of my Garands and just wonder where they may have been at one time and wonder what the guys who carried them went throughduring the wars they were in???? ( MC-1 is WW2 vintage and I also have a service grade 1953 Korean war era.)My grand pa used one in WW2,but carried a Carbine in Guadal Canal. My Dad went through basic with a Garand,so did my step dad,plus he carried a BAR.

It is fun to shoot them around the older fellows who carried them in the service and just to hear the stories they tell about their experiences. WOW,I have heard some good ones. The older fellow at the ElKS club I met on night was an OLD Airborne and a BAR man. He told me stories of jumping out of an airplane with that rig. He kept me glued to my seat for hours that night !!!!!!

 

[lonegunman762x51]

A piece of history is far more entertaining when you can enjoy it. Using just about any vintage rifle occasionally will not ruin the value. When you click on a military history show or crack open a book, you can better understand the story when you have used the equipment of the day and know what they are talking about. It is also a great way to introduce a history buff to gun collecting and shooting.

Very few historic artifacts can be enjoyed in the field.

 

[JMGlasgow]

It has already been said, but it sums up why we shoot vintage rifles in general. Soul. Every time I take out my Garand from the safe, the smell of the old wood, steel, and sweat makes me think of the warriors who depended on those rifles to save their lives.
Shouldering that old war horse just feels natural to me.