Longest range recorded kill

What Zaitsev? Sure he was used as propaganda because he was an excellent soldier - They didnt just grab some guy and say were making you a hero. Because of their excellent duties they were used to inspire the other soldiers. Did Zaitsev kill a chief sniper instructor from Berlin? Yeah he probably did,the Nazi high command in the style of Goebbles deceiving and lying wiped Konings name off the map indeed. Some German historians have since found documents on Koning that were captured by the Americans in Normandy - can be found in the National Archives today. Koning was a WW1 vet and trained sharpshooters right outside Berlin. But that's another topic I would rather not get into - It will end up into another week long discussion

 

And i can only hope that Koning was not so cheaply killed like in the movie "Enemy at the Gates"! That was an mistake that normally only greenhorns will make.

 

Only thing he showed in that video snippet was how to zero in each rifle, that's it. He convienently forgot to mention how the German scope+mount setup better held its' zero, and that it can be taken on and off without the loss of zero, completely unlike the Russian setup.

Ofcourse he also left out that the German scopes were higher powered, focusable, nitrogen purged, coated and featured a much wider FOV, whilst in general the optics were also much better. (Although the example in the video looks to be in rather poor condition)

Yes I am aware of how you remove the scope, and you lose zero by doing so, unlike with the German scopes.

Btw, you will need to note that the German scope mounts are the ones which were copied after the war and inspired most modern scope mounts.

You are obviously very unaware of how WW2 snipers actually did their job, cause that would be a VERY bad idea with a WW2 area scope! The scopes were zeroed in BEFORE you went to the engagement area, not AT the engagement area (for some rather obvious reasons) No, with a WW2 scope, if there is any noticable crosswind and you only have ONE shot (no windage measuring or ranging shot), then you compensate for this by aiming slightly to the side of the target in the manner as practiced on the target range.

Only with modern scopes which feature ultra precise windage adjustment do you make adjustments for windage on the scope to compensate for crosswinds. Each sniper is assisted by a spotter who carries with him a wind measuring device and ballistics computer, using this he can tell the sniper what adjustments to make on the scope.

You gotta remember that in combat a sniper has just ONE shot, he doesn't have the luxury of a ranging shot to determine windage & range, he has to make the first round count; and with a WW2 scope of which none featured ultra precise windage adjustment calibrated in MOA clicks, you simply didn't touch the scope, you compensate for crosswinds by simply aiming to either side at the amount practiced on the range for that range under similar conditions.

I have shot scoped Mosin & Mausers many times myself Vintovka, and not just my own examples (I actually own a couple of Mausers and a Mosin, not with original scopes though) and I know a great many serious collectors of both types. From this I can tell you that I have not been impressed with the PU scope at all the times I have used it; It is inconvenient to use because of the problems of obtaining correct eye relief, and the FOV is way too narrow. Add to this that the optics aren't anywhere near as good as on the German scopes, and that it is too low powered for my taste, I was less than impressed to say the least.

 

Don't tell me you actually believe that fairytale story??

There was no sniper instructor named König in stalingrad Vintovka, it's pure fabrication, he never existed; If he did, then he would be easy to track down, esp. if he was an instructor at any of the German sniper schools!

 

Well here is what I know - my Russian scopes have excellent clarity,Do not lose zero,can be taken off without losing zero,easier to adjust than a German scope (Hard to be using kentucky windage as a sniper) when you could simply have a easy to use Russian scope that fixes that problem. Sniper's in WWII would not zero for one range and go out and shoot(see Zaitsevs memoirs) What happens when they see another enemy a few hundred yards further than the one their zeroed for? Your looking at rezeroing. I have hunted deer quite a few times with my WWII sniper rifles -I go out with the scope set on 100 meters - When I see a deer then I adjust for that distance - range and windage,Took a deer at 500 yards last year with my M91/30 PU - worked as good as my model 70 Winchester. 3.5X works for me - I never liked high powered scope's which is why all my modern hunting rifle's have nothing more than a 4X. You have provided a few scope views of your friends. May we see photo's of your rifle's now please?

Yes indeed I believe Zaitsev,he was known for his modesty - he said on camera he killed the guy,I believe him......

 

You guys might consider pausing to catch your breath before posting. Citing your sources might not be a bad idea either, don't just disagree and be 'snotty' for the sake of getting the next word in.

 

Some did a zeroing but that depends on the place where they have been. For urban terrain a zeroing at 100m was very usable and at free terrain the normal zeroing was at 300m. Today the 100m for urban terrain is equal but the normal zeroing for others is at 700m.
Zaitsev seems to be a honorable guy and from that i would believe the story. But the Soviet Russian propaganda did often the same like any others did and made an mythos around an good men to make the enemy afraid of him. From that reason and the point that i never found any reports on Koning or König, i think thats an tale. But who knows it really?

 

Yep,In fact i am done here honestly - I have cited my opinion from owning these rifles which i have spent thousands of dollars on. Simply we can not agree. I still hold firm on my opinion of Russian WWII optics and their great clarity and the rifles themselves and their excellent accuracy - my own experiance has proved it to me along with renowned WWII sniper rifle historians I know such as Vic Thomas and Karl Heinz Wrobal. You guy's ever want a nice accurate historical WWII sniper rifle get an m91/30 PU I promise you will not be disapointed

take care

Vintovka

 

The full text shows you are hallucinating:

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

As an interesting aside, the Germans were so impressed with the PU that they based their ill-fated Gw ZF4 telescopic sight on it. The idea of a mass-produced sniper scope must have been overwhelming to the hard-pressed German military. They had to rely on what essentially amounted to high quality sporting scopes, which where both expensive and hard to come by. The lure of a small and easily produced telescopic sight soon had them creating a copy of the PU with the intent of massive distribution.

I would have to rate the PU quite acceptable for its purpose. While simple, it provided a mass-produced means of arming the Soviets and her satellites with an efficient and reliable telescopic sight. By no means a precision instrument by today's standards, it was sufficient to net kills in excess of 800 yards in capable hands.

That is patently untrue.
Photos posted here overwhemingly show that they were the exact opposite.

 

Not the badest idea! Please discuss this with an friendly behaviour and don´t give the Mod´s an reason to close this thread, Thank you!

 

That's precisely the reason I'm reading the thread now and not participating. BTW, good advice Brad and Ulrich.

 

It is the usual problem A mountain of facts and figures showing the Soviet scopes were more than capable of providing a clear view out to 1000 mtrs.
Counter claiims that Soviet equipment (in general) is always inferior to anything 'made in Germany' and any evidence that shows it might be just as good is suspect.
That is it really.

Consult the myraid of photos and references on the Soviet kit and compare that to the word of 'our expert in Russian optics and Mosin Nagants at the club' and make up your own mind.

 

In 1987 a motorist was severly damaged by an accidental discharge in Norway by an AG-3 (.308) at 1700m range. The bullet went through the window of the driver's door first, if it had hit him in the head he would have been dead.

 

This is laughable. You're the one hallucinating and being completely incapable of understanding what is being written m kenny, not me. You don't even recognize the most basic indicators of a poor set of lenses!

Also I will repeat myself and once again make it clear that the test by Scott Powers in no way is scientific as you claimed m kenny, only someone completely ignorant on subject of optics would ever claim such a thing.

Scientific studies on scopes incorperate the use of various measuring devices to precisely examine areas such as the light gathering capability of the scope amongst many other things, not to mention a large sample.

The small test by Scott Powers is nothing more than an afternoon at the shooting range with a single scope (single sample = not thurough = in no way scientific) to see how it performs in some very simple an basic tests.

Furthermore Scott is obviously not an expert on these scopes or their history, so I don't know why you even bother using his small internet article as reference. He even said it himself:

"I have very little historical information on the 3.5 power PU telescopic sight"

In short the guy is an amateur, one who apparently has heard stories of claims from his shooting buddies that the Germans were impressed with the PU scope, without any evidence to support that theory at all. It is very clear that in general the guy knows very little about these scopes, and as mentioned he also admits it at the beginning of his small article.

For some more accurate insight on the ZF4 scope;
First of all it wasn't designed or developed as a response to the PU, the claim that it was is blatantly false. The Germans were in no way impressed with the PU scope as an instrument for long range shooting, quite the opposite, regarding it as vastly inferior to their own scopes. The true story is that the ZF4 was ordered & developed for use with automatic & semi automatic weapons because these tend to drift their zero more frequently over time, and thus require a scope with easy & quick rezero'ing at short ranges. It was never meant for use with the K98k.

For this reason the ZF4 was never mounted on the K98k by trained Scharfschützen, it was reserved only for the G43, FG42 & StG44. Only a very few mounts for the ZF4 to be mated with the K98k ever being churned out near the end of the war; primarily to equip the untrained and undesignated marksmen within the German military who were equipped with what'ever was available. The bigger military sniping scopes made by Zeiss, Hensoldt & Dialytan were reserved for the trained snipers.

The having been said, the ZF4, bar none, generally featured the worst optics of any std. military scope employed by the Germans during the war; this primarily because it was a design meant for mass production and use on weapons featuring less than super accuracy. (This is evidenced by the reticle designs chosen for the ZF4 as-well) And while the ZF4 did feature better optics than the PU, and was purged & coated as-well, it didn't feature anywhere near the build quality or as good a set optics as that of the military sniping scopes made by Zeiss, Hensoldt, Dialytan, Kahles etc etc., all companies concentrating exclusively on making high quality scopes and mounts for long range precision shooting by trained snipers.

Now you're lying m kenny, because in this thread there has been presented just ONE picture with a view through a PU scope that doesn't show cloudiness, distortion & discolouration (esp. around the edges), that's it. The rest showcase the typical issues found with Russian scopes. So don't go making stuff up now m kenny.

 

It would be nice to see a comparative view through your Leopold scope though Vintovka (with your own 60 dollar camera). The reason I'm asking for this is because I know your camera isn't the reason for the cloudiness, distortion & discolouration visible through the PU scopes you posted pictures of; that's just the way they look, and I know this cause I've seen so many of them before.

Also I'd like to see some proof that Russian scopes were ever purged during the war. Again because I know this not to be true through extensive experience and reliable references.

You're more than welcome to invite Vic Thomas to come here and explain if he wishes, I know a good number of serious enthusiasts and collectors who would like to have a word with him on tis subject for sure.

I suggest you visit the SniperCentral forum, there are a good couple of experts, collectors & enthusiasts on WW2 optics over there. If you know of any WW2 made PU or PEM scope purged with nitrogen or argon, they'd like to know about it.

 

Yeah, you'd like people to believe that wouldn't you

 

From what I can see the data / reference posted to date amount to the following:
From side A: some photos, personal experiances, and a couple of references.
From side B: personal experiances (with less details but more claimed breadth) and some verbage attributed to unnamed experts that are part of an unnamed club/organization.

Looks to me like side A has an edge in this regard but there's got to be more data out there.

 

I would be more interested in what a WW2 Russian sniper says about them than the opinion of 'a good number of serious enthusiasts and collectors'. The quality of the scope only makes the shooter work less for the shot. IF these scopes truly are the junk you say they are and there are documented 'shots' being taken at ranges up to and in excess of 1000 m then I'd have to give a little to the sniper.

I remember when I first came accross Russian scopes in the late '80's while attending STA school. The scopes certainly weren't the quality as the Unertle; but, they weren't horrible either, they just required a little more work to use.

 

Proeliator, got to agree with the guys asking you for links to data/hard facts.

 

The PU scopes are not junk, I never said that, far from it. The PU does suffer from not featuring coated lenses and a purged tube however. This doesn't mean that the PU scope isn't clear enough to be used for sniping, not at all, it just means that it doesn't provide nearly as crisp & clear an image as does the bigger WW2 German scopes (ZF4 somewhat excluded), and esp. modern scopes. The small PU scope simply doesn't use enough lenses for the image through the scope to deteriorate enough to the point where sighting out to 1,000 meters becomes much of a problem because of an absence of AR coatings.

What m kenny is trying to prove however is that Soviet tank sight weren't as poor as people who've actually used them say they are, and he thinks he can use this debate to do this. He can't however, as tank telescopic sights can't be compared to rifle scopes, the tank sights featuring a much higher number of lenses, mirrors etc etc, and here AR coatings are especially important in order to maintain image clarity.

Same experience here.

Curiously, what type of Unertl scope did you guys use?