Old Military Rifle Accuracy?

[mark-hunter]

For those of you that have experience with old military bolt actions (as mine is limited), so I would like to compare the notes:

For ww2 military rifles that you have tried, what is their true, actual accuracy potential?
Springfield 1903, Mauser 98, Mauser K98, Short magazine lee enfield ( mk I, 3, 4, etc), Mosin nagant, maybe arisaka?

What can be realistically expected, without accurising interevention, so in original condition?
(my guess is 2 moa at best, and possibly wider grouping, but... I might be wrong)

 

[Sika98k]

Out on the rifle range a few years ago a guy I knew was popping tomatoes at 100,200 and 300 yds with his Soderin sighted Swedish Mauser in 6.5x55.

 

[TheGrayRider]

M1 Garand, CMP .30-06 rifle, whitetail doe, 175 yards, factory ammunition, November 2020. Accurate enough for my needs and shooting. Best regards, TheGrayRider.

 

[mark-hunter]

@TheGrayRider

I dont doubt 1 MOD accuracy (1 minute of doe).
Great shot, btw, to exact spot! Congrats.

But I was more reffering to target shooting accuracy on paper for various battle rifle matches, and what these rifle can achieve.

Some have been sporterised and accurised.
But I am more interested to get idea on basic issue version of them.

 

[Tommy_Fontaine]

I've owned near perfect specimens of the Swedish 95 (6.5mm), Chilean 95 (7mm) and the straight pull Swiss K31 (7.5mm). They all shot better than I could with iron sights, I would never "modify" one to fit a scope to see it's true accuracy. But on a good day when I was younger (say 30 years ago) it wasn't uncommon to put 5 shots into an inch.

 

[Mark A Ouellette]

What can be realistically expected, without accurising interevention, so in original condition?
(my guess is 2 moa at best

With each model rifle's issue military issue ammunition for the WWII era, 2 MOA on average is probably a good guess. Some would certainly shoot 1 MOA but on average for a batch of the same rifles with the same era military ammo, 2 MOA is a good guess.

The M1903A3 Springfield in 30 US Government (30-06) had a reputation for being a target rifle among pre-WWII military rifles. I think that most French and Italian issue WWII era rifles might not shoot as good as a Springfield or Mauser.

The older bolt action service rifles had wood protecting and attached to the forward section of their barrels. This is not conducive to rifle accuracy. The triggers were anything but a crisp 4 pound break. Their iron sights were battle tough and designed for target acquisition and quick sight alignment within 100 meters.

Some military rifles with modern hunting ammo, good handloading, or just lucky combinations would shoot 1 MOA. Others might only shoot 4 MOA on a good day. These figures are based on "average" of batches of issue rifles.

Considering that most firefights were and are within 100 meters. During military rifle matches, I occasionally inquired of "experienced" infantry officers how far away they would engage an enemy unit? Their response was always about 100 meters. Anything further they would "call for fire" (artillery or air support) if possible. Something like "Why risk your men when an arty or close air support would eliminate the threat?" was their response to my POG questions.

Considering those factors, and that weapon reliability in a firefight is pretty darn important, along with cost to procure and maintain weapons, 2 MOA is good military rifle accuracy.

The above stated, the modern M-16/M-4 rifles are more accurate than that, especially with standard issue optic sights. Their accuracy is inherent in their design and greatly benefits from CNC machining. Just put together a bunch of AR-15 parts and it will probably shoot 1 MOA or just a little bigger group at 100 meters. At least mine do.

 

[mark-hunter]

Thanks @Mark A Ouellette

i have another related question, for those who might know.

In the time when those rifles were made tender for by governments - was there any (standard) army requirement of minimum accuracy for those rifles? (any rifle, for any army?)

 

[Mark A Ouellette]

In the time when those rifles were made tender for by governments - was there any (standard) army requirement of minimum accuracy for those rifles? (any rifle, for any army?)

I don't know about foreign military procurements, but the USA has now and had back then "trials" in which sellers provide weapons for trials by selected teams of soldiers and/or engineers. I imagine the Germans were even more ridged in their barriers to entry.

Somewhere beyond a simple Google search is a set of Functional Requirements and Military Specifications for the Springfield. Those may have had a different name in 1903 but there were some written performance requirements for testing potential service weapons.

A set of rifles would have been provided to the the US Army Ordnance Board for evaluation. I never read of those trials but did for the 1911 service pistol. Any deficiencies discovered during the trials would be added to the build specifications for the weapons. The US Army made John Browning add the grip safety to the 1911. Interesting that .45 ACP Lugers were submitted for evaluation. The few surviving examples of those are worth big bucks!

During the mid-1980's I knew a couple of the USMC Pistol Team members that were assigned to the service pistol evaluations at Aberdeen Proving Grounds for the 1911 replacement. Off the record they thought the SIG (220 I believe) was the best service pistol. The Beretta won because of other factors such as social-economic or something... Had the US selected the SIG it would have probably not of had to have been replaced by another SIG...

If you are really interested in this subject, Internet searches will provide a lot of information. There are forums devoted to AR-15, AR-10, 1911, and I imagine most military rifles. Those guys and a few gals will provide you as much information and opinions as if you ask about the need for a controlled round feed on this forum! Please let us know what you find?

 

[mark-hunter]

Thanks for input,

Actually I am working on something else, doing an article of historical development of match rifles, where military rifles till mid of past century had the influence.

So, at this point, I am interested to find some resources of bolt action standard mil spec accuracy of the era.

 

[Wyatt Smith]

My K31 Swiss, and 1935 Chilean carbine (M98 7x57) both shoot as well as I can with the open sights. About 2 or 3 inches at 100 yards.
I will say the K31 has the best trigger I’ve ever tried on military rifle.

 

[Tokoloshe Safaris]

Have you made inquirys to the NRA?

 

[Wyatt Smith]

Maybe I should add that with my FN-FAL I normally get 3” groups. I suspect this has some to do with the sights. I find them less than optimal for precision shooting.

 

[Nyati]

@mark-hunter , it´s been many years since I have shot a WWII military rifle, but I can tell you that more than the rifle model, accuracy is given by the individual rifle itself.

I will try to explain, all of them were mass produced rifles, what the different armies did, was to test them for accuracy, those that reached certain accuracy standards were given to sharpshooters/selected riflemen, and the very best to snipers.

So yes, some could be extremely accurate.

Besides that, you shound also take into account when that rifle was made, as we could assume that a rifle made before the war would be made better than one in the middle of the war, where producing more units was more important than producing better quality.

 

[Shootist43]

Mark-Hunter. Do a little research on the 1896 Swedish Mauser. I think you will find that it was the most accurate of all the Bolt Action Military Rifles. Another source of information might be the Vintage Sniper Rifle Match results.

 

[sestoppelman]

When such rifles were made, accuracy requirements were not very stringent for a battle rifle, on the order of 3 MOA.
Most will do much better providing a good barrel and sights that dont walk around, like early 1903 Springfield sights sometimes do. The later 03A3 rifles had a much superior sight setup.
WIth good loads and good barrels I expect at least 1.5 MOA from my rifles.

 

[mark-hunter]

@Tokoloshe Safaris

Lon,
I never gotten to idea to ask NRA, I am not a member. (I would be if I am US citizen, which I am not)
Do you think they would reply?

(its great idea, btw)

 

[Shootist43]

Mark-Hunter, from way back in my memory the Springfield 03(s) were assembled from parts that had matching serial numbers. Once assembled they were test fired. The rifles that shot 1 MOA stayed together and were issued. The ones that did not were disassembled and used for parts. Once these old guns became available to the Civilian market ($14.95 + $5.00 shipping and handling) we always looked for rifles with matching numbers.

 

[mark-hunter]

@Shootist43
1 MOA is good.
But matching serial numbers was standard for European military rifles.
(of course when purchasing mil surp rifle, we too always look for matching numbers, as mixed numbers cant get any good).
But accuracy I dont remeber seeing better then 2, often up to 4 moa.

while finding mauser with matching numbers is still not too difficult, some of newer ones are really difficult to find. For example semi auto m76 (newer issue yugo DMR) in 8x57 is practically impossible to find with matching numbers on scope and mounts with rifle receiver numbers.

 

[Shootist43]

Mark-Hunter, understood. My post did not address European Military rifles. Attached is a link to an article by Chuck Hawks (a well-respected firearms writer,) please pay particular attention to the last paragraph. https://www.chuckhawks.com/swedish_mauser.htm

 

[Rick Cox]

My 1903 Springfield doesn't meet your criteria as the original barrel has been shortened to 22", the stock is custom carved piece of walnut and the trigger is a Timney. I can tell you this though: accuracy is very good for 'traditional' bullets I.E. lead and copper like Partitions or similar. I'm disappointed if groups are more than an inch. I have not been able to find a bullet or load in solid copper that works well in this rifle.