Longest range recorded kill

You don´t need an match rifle to hit a target beyond 500m. With an normal military rifle that won´t shoot around the corner you´re able to do this. The most important fact is the shooter. Without good skills in shooting, range estimating, windage adjustment and an good SWAG you won´t hit a barn even you´re standing in it. The Soviet Russians used extra proofed rifles in the same way the Western allies or the German did it. And if you´re a shooter grap a milsurp rifle with an scope and try shooting it. First at 100 yards than 300 yards up to 600 yards and if possible 1000yards. I bet you will get mad trying to hit an target at 600 yards with wind from the side or shooting over an valley. And if you´re able to hit a target at 1000yards you will hit it with mostly all rifles from WW2.

 

Good one Ulrich, and an important factor. If the SWAG is based upon experience and putting a lot of rounds down range, scratch one bad guy.

 

Thank you!

 

You guys have completely misunderstood me,

Yes, you can definitely hit a guy at 500 meters with a WW2 rifle, and consistently as-well; heck this can even be done out past 800 meters if you're shooting the right ammunition and you know what you're doing. What I was trying to point out was that at 1,000 meters or more, a WW2 rifle loaded with mass produced, light, flat based spitzer ammunition isn't going to reliably hit a man, even if you aim perfectly each time. That's all, and really there's no point in argueing over this because you both know that to be the case as-well.


USMCPrice, sure snipers knew about crosswinds, but few took much note of the fact that at a distances of 1,000 meters or more you can have several interleaving crosswinds, and that quite simply because shots were very rarely taken at such a distance. Techniques for judging this and calculating the ballistics in such siatuation were taught not until much later. Furthermore a good sniper usually waited until the target came closer, esp. those who where out after the commanders. Again I think we can agree on this.

I hope I made myself clearer this time..

 

You seem to be thinking that I am trying to start an argument, I aint, we agree, there is no argument. I only mentioned it because I wanted to make the primary reasons clear, end of story.

 

Oh we agree, I can reliably hit 15 inch targets at 1,000 meters with some of my milsurp rifles, so no arguments there. It's about using the right ammunition however, or else reliably hitting your target at 1,000 meters is going to be a problem. For one it is very imporant to be sure that you've chosen a projectile that doesn't transition to subsonic velocities before the 1,000 meter mark. Reason being that at the point of transitioning a slight instability to the projectile is generated, causing a loss in accuracy. You seem to know this already judging from one of your earlier posts though.

 

Looks like you´re in the guess to! Thats good and makes more fun to debate this topic, good! Yes the pojectile, its weight, the twist rate, the speed, the ballistic coefficient, length of the bullet, how the powder develops speed and so on thats the internal ballistic. The external ballistic is important to, you´ll know it. The height over the sea level isn´t much important, more the humidity and the temperature, windage, rain and sometimes the speed of the target and to equal all those effects for every single round, thats the shooters work. It would be very interesting to set up a 1000yard range and shoot with the rifles that were used in WW2 at those distance. Mmmhh, i should do this in summer.

 

Price did not say 'sniper' he said 'marksman' and specifically referred to Marine Corps Marksman.
The other points to consider are the sights on the M-1903A1 that the marines used. The Battlefield sight was fixed at 550yards and adjustable for windage. The 'leaf sight' was indexed to 2,800 yards and also adjustable for windage.
The ammuniton was .30 caliber of 1906 or .30-06. When used in the M1917 Browning Machine gun the ammunition had an effective range of 1,500 yards. This is important when you take into consideration the lower chamber pressures associated with Automatic weapons when compared to that of bolt action rifles. The next thing to consider is the barrel length of the M1903 and the M1917 are both 24" long. So, the bullet it's self is capable of inflicting casualties in excess of 1,500 meters when fired through a machinegun producing lower chamber pressures and it would stand to reason that the same round fired from the same length barrel in a locked bolt system would produce higher chamber pressure increasing both range and accuracy exponentially.

AS far as Range Estimation and Wind Compensation every Rifleman is taught these two very key principles in Basic Marksmanship.

 

Actually the repro PU scopes are made with the highest quality,These repro PU scopes have multi coated lenses and are nitrogen filled,reticle always stayed centered on these,They are made at the same plant that make's optics for the Russian Army today. Still same clarity as my original PU scopes,no edge distortion nor cloudiness. Im telling it like it is,Im not even a big Russian collector - I collect M1 Garands and Springfields. I have just looked over my Russian scope collection,I found 2 PU scopes that have a slight edge distorion at the top,Would not effect shooting in any way - Heck you can barely notice it.

I have a friend who is a sniper in the Russian Spetsnaz - their most elite force,He has fought in Chechnya. He has told me they still use the WWII M91/30 PU for many feel its better for sniping than the semi auto Dragunov SVD. I asked him his opinion on the clarity of the PU optics - He said their fine and clear and do their job just as they were made for,Here's his picture so you guys know im not fooling you
http://img51.imageshack.us/img51/1446/sergeit.jpg

Russian VDV Airborne sniper in Chechnya - 45th ORP (Separate Reconnaissance Regiment) M91/30 PU is their main sniper's rifle - VSS Vintorez is also issued for close combat


Russian Spetsnaz sniper in Chechnya


Russian Military Police in Chechnya 2004 (video still)


Russian Army sniper in Chechnya (video still)


Russian Army sniper in Chechnya


Russian Army snipers in Chechnya


Spetsnaz sniper with an M91/30 PEM (video still)


I think that say's something that that same WWII sniper rifle in its original configuration (no modern optics) is still used by a main Military force today

 

I hope that you are mindful of the advice from an 'expert in Russian optics and Mosin Nagants'
who warns you:

"If your PU is sealed with anything other than Beeswax and/or purged with any form of inert gas, then you have yourself a fake."

And:

"I have never heard of, or seen any PU scope purged with any form of inert gas other than air"


Have you had any sights that show the poor build/quality being claimed earlier?

 

I have heard otherwise, but nevermind. I can tell you though that if you find any PU scope purged with nitrogen or argon, then it's not a WW2 scope. The Russians didn't start purging their scopes with nitrogen until well after war, and it took them even longer before they started using coated lenses.

You might be the lucky owner of a PU scope using lenses made with Zeiss manufacturing equipment though.

Regarding the pictures you posted, I have seen them all on the net before, have you posted them earlier some place? Perhaps you created an online photo album somehwere long ago.

Hehe, to me all it says is that they are running their military on a low budget, and I actually also know that to be the case as-well Compared to modern scopes the PU is hopelessly outdated (even if its a modern made one which is purged & coated), being unable to adjust both focus and/or parallax, on top of this the FOV is extremely narrow and the correct eye relief is hard to obtain because of that narrow first lense. So that some Russian units are still using this scope design says more about the nation's economic state rather than the effectiveness of the equipment.

That having been said I have never been a big fan of the Dragunov either though, it leaves a lot to be desired accuracy wise. If you ask me the only decent semi automatic sniper rifle made to date is the PSG-1. But a bolt action has always been more accurate than a semi automatic, so I don't blame any sniper for choosing the latter.

 

I think he said that in the post above yours.

and what is more this is based on owning and using several of them.

How many do you own?
Do you have photos of them or views through the lens showing the 'cloudy' view

 

Incorrect m kenny, had you been paying any actual attention to what was being discussed in this thread you would've noticed that earlier on it was claimed that the WW2 PU & PEM scopes were purged; no WW2 Russian scope was however.

But ofcourse you haven't noticed this as your only reason for participating in this thread is as already stated to question every post I make and twist every word I write in an effort to start an argument and get yet another thread locked. Your latest post is just yet another excellent example of this.

And no I don't own any PU scope (I collect binocs, remember?), I closely know people who do own several PU & PEM scopes however and, I've looked through both theirs and a great many more of these scopes having been to a lot of collector's expos myself. So I actually know what I'm talking about here m kenny, in stark contrast to you!

 

Quite incorrect,Russian military has thousands of SVD's available - it is a factory produced weapon that was/is made in the thousands,Russia in bad economy? lol sorry but I find that very funny - indeed not the case,Do you not see the multi thousand dollar (U.S. collectors worth) state of the art silenced VSS Vintorez on the 1st snipers back? Russian Federation even has a new sniper rifle for long range - Izmash SV-98,comparible to the U.S. M40 or UK Accuracy International. The squad sharpshooter get's their choice of either the SVD or M91/30 PU - whatever they like. See the last photo with the 2 SVD shooters and the lone Mosin shooter - That was simply his rifle of choice. PU scope indeed is not outdated,I will tell you I would not want to be on the receiving end of an M91/30 PU at 600 yards. Nothing wrong with the eye relief - not the best but its good enought for me,fixed power does not bother me either,These are sharpshooter rifles not an M40A5, As a Russian military commander said in 04 regarding the use of the m91/30 PU "Its old but new" sum's the rifle up well,old but has its place on the modern battlefield for causing pure destruction as it did on the Eastern Front of WWII. Some of the best sniper's in history used the m91/30 PU like Ivan Sidorenko (500 kills) Vassili Zaitsev (300 + kills) Viktor Medvedev (362 kills) What is really outdated by todays standard is the German scope's from WWII in my opinion - with Russian WWII scopes you simply change the dials for adjusting,with the German scope setups like the LSR you have to use a tool to adjust the mount for windage,something I am not too fond of honestly.
Yes indeed I have posted a few of those photo's on this site actually,we have had this same conversation months ago here.
Obviously I can not change your opinion on the clarity of these excellent scopes,maybe someday you will get to look through a nice example instead of your friends heavily battle used models.

I have made my point too many times,stated my opinion's with the evidence that I could show..... (BTW Proeliator lets keep this conversation civil please - we almost got in trouble last time)

As a last note I would suggest for you all to watch this video that show's where the German sniper rifles lacked compared to the Russian rifles,Note at 3:13 the excellent clarity of the PU scope with its needle sharp reticle - yet at 3:55 you see the German scope (Incorrectly stated as the Soviet scope in the video - you can see the German mount underneath) is quite cloudy with a dull (hump) middle post reticle - Martin Peglar featured in the video for 20 years has been the Senior Curator of Weapons at the Royal Armouries Museum in London specializing on the function and history of firearms,Peglar is now recognized as a world authority on the history and development of military sniping and has several books published on the subject


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LErUTHj0rw&feature=watch_response

vintovka

 

Historic Sniper Scopes - A comparative Study


The glass in the PU is fairly clear but appears to be uncoated. Tested against the Zeiss Test Pattern, I found an interesting anomaly that I am unsure how to classify. The scope was capable of resolving down to the number 4 block. At times I felt I could resolve to the number 5 block, but not with any consistency. The odd anomaly I spoke of still has me stumped. When viewing the center of the field of view, the Zeiss pattern appears sufficiently crisp, but it actually sharpens as I move toward the edge of the image area! This is exactly opposite of what you would expect. The closer I looked toward the edge, the better the resolution. This held up right up to the edge, where the image darkened slightly and lost a little focus. I have never experienced this before. Typically the sharpest image is at the center of the scope and one usually loses that clarity out near the edge of the glass. This anomaly could be the result of not being able to focus the sight to the individual's eye. In the field, I could not notice any difference in the image, but under close examination with the Test Pattern, it was easily discerned. On the plus side, I could discern no noticeable distortion. Straight lines remained straight right to the edge.

claims that there is a fair bit of clouding and distortion around the edges are not borne out by scientific testing!

 

Hahaha, scientific testing ? I have done similar "tests" hundreds of times! Nothing "scientific" about it.

Also you seem to be ignoring the fact that he's actually describing a poorly made lense in that review, noting that the image gets more and more unclear the closer you move towards the center = NOT GOOD!

But he is right that it's an anomaly, cause usually Russian scopes feature cloudy edges and distortion, as can clearly be seen in the pictures posted here.

 

Vintovka,

I have seen that documentary with Martin Peglar before, and it's nothing short of a joke. First of all there were no German snipers in Stalingrad, secondly Peglar acts in certain areas like a complete novice on the subject of sniping, leaving out a lot of very important things, things such as the clear advantages of the German mounting system and scope design. Add to this that the youtube video only shows snippets from the doc is another problem.

Regarding the WW2 German scopes and their mounts; each scope was provided with a special tool used for adjusting windage, and the precision of the fine adjustments was unrivalled. In addition to this the scopes were precisely calibrated for the trajectory of the s.S. Patronen out to 800-1200 meters, which meant that if range was known then it was a simple deal of dialing in the range on the top of the scope and you'd be ready to take the shot. The key advantage of the German setup however was that the scope could be taken off for travel and put back on without any loss of zero, something no WW2 Russian scope+mount combination was capable of. The Germans rated this capability much more important than it being a little bit easier zero'ing in the scope on the practice range, as the act of zero'ing in the scope always was done way before any expected engagement anyway. And by being able to carry the scope safely inside a container, the German snipers were also sure that their scope stayed zeroed on the way to the field of battle, not being subject to any hard knocks or bumps.

In short, the fact that the German scopes would hold their zero better than the Russian scopes completely negated any small advantage the Russian scope might have had in the time needed to zero it in. The addition of elevation adjustments calibrated precisely to a specific ammunition type was an added advantage to the German system as-well.

The Germans did manufacture a scope with a simple adjustment system similar to that found on the PU series though, the ZF4. This scope was meant for weapons such as the G43 and FG42; both weapons known for drifting their zero over time, lacking the precision of the K98k, and therefore requiring more frequent zeroing in. The Mosin needed a simply adjusted scope for the same reason, the inferior ammunition, loose tolerances, insensitve trigger and long thin barrel causing zero to drift all the time.(All areas that the Finns went a long way to correct in their M38 design)

It really doesn't matter how you try to twist or deny it, the PU scope is hopelessly outdated compared to modern scopes, as-well as in many key areas compared to WW2 German scopes. The PU scopes lacks focus adjustment, parallax adjustment, AR coatings, nitrogen purging & FOV, plus the fact that optical clarity in general is under average, even by WW2 stds. The PU was low powered scope meant for low to medium range urban combat and not long range shooting, there being put more emphasis on quick an easy zeroing in rather than maintaining zero.

And as for the Russian financial situation, I am sorry, but yet again the facts cannot be denied, it has been in a fast & steady decline since the 1980's, and the Spetznatz are very poorly equipped compared to their western special ops counterparts. There is absolutely no denying this, I am sorry.

 

no German snipers in Stalingrad? I hope that's a joke? There were many German sniper's in Stalingrad - Just read Vassili Zaitsevs memoirs and you will see how lethal they were in the ruined city,Heck in the Moscow Armed forces museum you even got the scope from a Germans sniper rifle that Zaitsev captured in Stalingrad.
2 photos of German snipers in Stalingrad
Bundesarchiv - Picture database: Simple search[view]=detail&search[focus]=7

Note the Russian PEM scope on his k98 sniper rifle,I wonder why he would have switched the scopes..... Surely if these German scopes were so robust I doubt his previous scope was damaged (no battle damage to the rifle any where)
Bundesarchiv - Picture database: Simple search[view]=detail&search[focus]=6

Peglar has researched the subject/rifle's like you wouldnt believe - he is an expert and runs a firearms museum - cold hard facts what he showed in that video.
Are you not aware the PU scope can be simply removed by simply turning the main screw on the mount? When I go to the firing range to shoot I always remove the scope before packing it,Guess what? Dont loose zero one bit. It is not that simple - You have to adjust for windage when taking a shot,That means if wind changes or you need to rezero for a different range,with the Russian scope you simply turn the dial - German scope you need to get a tool out and by that time your other target has moved or killed you. M91/30 sniper rifles had special triggers - these rifles were manufactured with care unlike your standard M91/30. Those German scope setups were obsolete then when compared to what the Russians were using and their obsolete now. No modern scope requires a tool to adjust your windage - heck that was outdated in WW1,Every modern scope like the Russian WWII models simply require the use of your fingers. Sure there is better scopes today that a WWII PU - However I would not be mad 1 bit if I was a sniper and issued an M91/30 PU. Instead of looking through your friends scopes,you need to actually go fire these rifle's like I have to see my point. I think you would be pretty surprised by the outcome,I know I was

 

Russian propoganda Vintovka, fact is that there were no trained German snipers in Stalingrad, only a few individual squad crackshots armed with a scoped rifle.

As for Vassilli's memoirs, they are hardly worth believing, him claiming to have shot a "German master sniper" who never existed. It's laughable really.

 

I believe you. I really do.
It is just odd that you have no data, no photos and no details of your conclusions.

I agree. Nothing scientific at all about your experience. After all you have used hundreds (if not thousands) of Russian sights and you failed to take any notes!