Longest range recorded kill

NO, do not step out. I did, I was wrong, I'm back. We sould be able to remain civil, discuss the issue and come to a concensus. We will.
I think formerjughead said it best, when he said:

I would think we can all agree that the PU was not the best scope produced in WWII. I think we could all agree it was rugged. Capable of being mass produced. The question is was it serviceable, and adequate for the task it was designed for. Let me know what we can agree on, then we can get down to debating the meat of the subject.

 

Agreed,as long as it can remain civil (I will). I believe the rifle's worked well in the second world war-from the accounts of Red Sniper's i have read, they all speak highly of these rifle's. looking at the kill records show's what a deadly weapon these rifle's can be in a trained sniper's hands

Russian Snipers of 1941 - 1945 years

Their story's are worth a read too (would have to use google translator) interesting read on how these rifle's were used and the ranges

 

Great link Vintovka!!

Translating (Via Bing translator) this guys story:
Russian Snipers of 1941 - 1945 years

He was able to routinely whack Germans at ranges up to 1000m.

 

Does anyone disagree that given a decent rifle, a trained marksman can make kills out to 800 yards with iron sights? I gave the example of WWI Marine Brigade using the Springfield 1903. Ulrich gave the following examples:

I found another example, Simo Häyhä, of what a marksman can do with iron sights, though we do not know what ranges he engaged at he still ran up an impressive string of victories, 505 confirmed, 542 if you count probable. Many of which were against snipers employing scoped rifles hunting him. He used a Finnish version of the Mosin Nagat. This is admitedly anecdotal evidence but I think it adds weight to the assertion that the most important element is the shooter and his skill.
From Wikipedia:
"all of Häyhä's kills were accomplished in fewer than 100 days with a very limited amount of daylight per day.
Häyhä used a Finnish militia variant, White Guard M/28 "Pystykorva" or "Spitz", of the Russian Mosin-Nagant rifle, because it suited his small frame (5 ft 3 in/1.60 m). He preferred to use iron sights rather than telescopic sights to present a smaller target (the sniper must raise his head higher when using a telescopic sight), to prevent visibility risks (a telescopic sight's glass can fog up easily), and aid concealment (sunlight glare in telescopic sight lenses can reveal a sniper's position). Another tactic used by Häyhä was to compact the snow in front of him so that the shot would not disturb the snow and reveal his position. He also kept snow in his mouth so that when breathing the vapor would not give him away."

 

That would be the definition of 'Hard Core'

Is Darren talking about the "Camp Perry" National Matches? I don't think the Service Rifle Class drops back past the 500M line. I know the Modified Match Rifle Class drop back a fair piece.

 

USMCPrice,

A well trained marksman can definitely hit a target at 800 meters, or more, even with iron sights. I never tried to dispute this and never will. But it will be VERY hard to do with any form of decent consistency as opposed to if you have a good scope to look through. I don't believe there is any disagreement on this.

Anyway here are the things I've been trying to address in this thread.

1. WW2 Russian scopes were not purged with any form of inert gas
2. WW2 Russian scopes did not feature AR coated lenses
3. WW2 Russian scope mounts could not be taken on & off without the loss of zero
4. WW2 Russian scopes generally featured under average optics, esp. noticable on multiple lens designs

That the PU scope in particular featured clarity just sufficient enough for its intended role is not being disputed. It was a simple design using the minimum amount of lenses possible, and therefore it largely avoided the major pitfalls of most other Russian made telescopic sights, caused mainly by a lack of high precision lens manufacturing equipment as-well as AR coatings. And so while the clarity of the PU's optics were acceptable for the intended purpose, it was/is a long way away from featuring as crisp & clear a set of optics as that of WW2 German scopes, not to mention modern scopes.

Moving on some of us came to discuss the differences between German and Russian military rifle scopes + mounts. The advantages of each can be summarized as follows:

Advantages of German military rifle scope + mount setup:

- High powered (4-8x) optics with a wide FOV & adjustable focus
- Precision made AR coated lenses; providing unrivalled clarity & brilliance
- Nitrogen/Argon purged telecopic tube; preventing optics from fogging up
- Range calibrated for specific ammunition type; providing optimal long range accuracy
- Mount featuring precise windage adjustment meant for long range accuracy
- Mount enabling scope to be taken on & off for travel without the loss of zero

Advantages of Russian military rifle scope+mount setup:

- Windage provided on scope; providing for quicker re-zeroing of scope
- Simple, small & inexpensive design (PU); providing ability to make scopes in high numbers

 

I'd be very careful believing in those Soviet propoganda stories about their heros. Routinely hitting enemies at 1,000 meters without any special ammunition and, using a narrow 3.5x scope, sounds very unlikely to me.

The ammunition used alone rules it out for me infact; the std. 7.62mm 147 gr flat based spitzer used by the Russian military would transition from supersonic to subsonic speeds before the first 900 meters, causing the bullet to wobble slightly, decreasing accuracy. In addition to this it was mass produced ammunition with little care taken to make sure the exact same amount of the powder was provided for each round. This would make hitting a man sized target with the first shot at 1,000 meters extremely unlikely, and after that the chance should be almost none existant as the target would be aware and on the move.

In this respect I am more inclined to believe the German, Finnish & Swiss accounts on routinely hitting targets at such ranges, considering that they actually provided their snipers with special, carefully manufactured, ammunition for the purpose.

 

At the same time I take the Axis and Allied military Stories with a grain of salt,for instance Finland credits Simo Hayha with 702 kills yet this United States news article from 1940 claims it was 215 from their correspondants
Posters,Artwork,Documents - Simo Hayha

Vassili Zaitsev himself said his numbers were much lower than reported,for instance he said a reporter would go out with him - Zaitsev would take 5 shots but only kill 2 Germans,the reporter would count all 5 as kills..... It was reported Zaitsev killed somewhat of 400 Germans in Stalingrad when in fact he only killed 242...

Back on topic,I think its fair to say most German scope's were better in clarity than a Russian model,still the Russian models were more than servicable - a good condition model will offer good clarity,just not as bright as those German models with the coated lenses. A PU scope at 800/1,000 yards will offer an excellent field of view because of its low magnification. I will have to take photo's at a 1,000 range sometime once I get myself a better camera. I have found info today that states No Russian WWII scope had coated lenses,can be read up on at Gunboards.com. Still can not find info on Nitrogen in the Russian scopes but I do clearly remember reading that the PE was abandoned due to Nitrogen leakage.

Regarding the ammo,some years ago I did get to fire WWII Russian surplus ammo dated 1942,worked fine - no accuracy problems,In fact I liked it just as much as my favorite main choice "Bulgarian heavy ball". mass produced ammo-yes,produced incorrectly - no. Back in the USSR if a factory worker did his job wrong it meant trouble for them. never heard of Soviet sniper's complaining about the ammo they were issued.

About taking scope's off etc... Been taking mine off my m91/30's every time I go to the range so the scope will not get damaged - never lost zero for me,In fact during WWII the Soviet sniper was ordered to never remove his scope or mount as each setup was hand fitted to the rifle by an armorer for full accuracy. I dont see any reason a Soviet sniper would ever need to remove his scope/mount,Got Iron sights right underneath it for close combat

Vintovka

 

OK, let's take a look.

So far this is in dispute with one party say they are and one they haven't and little evidence as to who is correct. Then there's the question of just what difference this makes. My understanding is purging prevents internal fogging. If that's the case then if the Soviet scopes are well sealed this shouldn't be much of a problem for any produced in most of the USSR during the winter. Scopes made during the summer could be more problematic but purging with dry air should still be good enough in most cases.

No one has disputed this from what I've read. On the other hand the question is how important is it. So far it's been stated that it improves transmission of light. The implication is it would only be important in poor lighting.

I'm not sure if this has been disputed or not but on the other hand wouldn't a sniper tend to rezero his weapon frequently in any case?

Under average? Compared to what?

Actually I think it is. You have already stated that iron sights are "just sufficient" or almost sufficient for the task at hand and from what I've seen the Soviet scopes are a significant improvement over iron sights. The implication is that they are more than "just sufficient".

Again my impression is that this is still disputed. The Soviet optics may not be up to the German ones but it's not established by any means that they were "a long way away".

How do you calibrate a scope for specific ammunition? I would think this is something any sniper would do no matter what the nationality and something he wouldn't trust to a factory in any case.

 

Why bother? You are trying to convince someone who will never believe you. Spend your money on other things and forget about the lone dissenter.

 

Actually if you take the time to read the some of the stories you'll find that the ammunition was specifically sorted through and inspected, I do not know what the criteria was; but, I would assume it was mostly visual and maybe weighed. Once sorted the 'better' ammunition was given to the Sharpshooters/ Snipers. As far as Soviet bloviation: if only half of what they say is true then it is still one heck of an accomplishment.

 

I think this tech argumentation is totally futile. I started Ranger training in 1996, I've done marksmanship training but I am no sniper. I have commanded sniper pairs whilst doing force protection and trained with them on some occations.

No matter what weapon you have it is useless if the squishy bit behind it is poor.

Fieldcraft and marksmanship is more important than the cost of your kit. Simo is the prime example. The young lad adapted to the battlefield and the opponents behavioral patterns. A fine bit of soldiering I'd say. He has no claim of extreme ranges, but a three digit bodycount and that counts in my book.

Banging on about USSR equipment beeing poor compared to the Germans is ok, but consider this. Did it work? Read a few memoirs or reports from the East Front (Stalingrad in particular) and you'll find that the Red Army coped without the assistance of Zeiss optics.

The only rifle fitted with USSR optics I have tried is the SVD. I found it to be a brilliant weapon for its purpose. It fits nicely to the Soviet doctrine of having a lot marksmen. The SVD might not compete with the precision rifles in the west, but I did not walk around with three stripes thinking "don't worry the Russians only have Dragunovs..."

The same story with binos. How to observe (and this is an artform that you never fully master) is more important than what make the binos are.

That is why I have developed a foundness for the USMC. They have a clear ambition on producing riflemen, something that most other services have degraded since I joined up in the 90ies. The Shiny Object Syndrome seems to have taken less of a hold in the USMC, and that credits the corps.

Oh and I am not biased towards the Russians. My prime hunting rifle is a Remington with a S&B x6 scope.

 

Vintovka claimed they had it, no'one else did, but he couldn't prove it through references so he pointed me towards Vic Thomas; Vic however doesn't mention anywhere that the Russians purged their scopes. If the Russians indeed did it, then it should be easy to prove. Problem is every source I have says they didn't, and every Russian scope I have seen certainly wasn't purged. During WW2 only the Germans purged their telescopic sights with either nitrogen or argon.

As for how important it is; A scope which isn't sealed and purged with a inert gas like Nitrogen or Argon, and instead holds just air, can't be taken from a warm to a cold invironment, or vice versa, as this will cause condensation to form inside the scope, which in turn will cause it to fog up. For this reason Russian snipers would for example leave their scopes outside during the winter time.

It improved light transmission by over 80%, that's quite a significant amount if you ask me. With the refinements having been made to the patented Zeiss process over the last 7 decades, this has been increased to over 91% today. So you're nearly achieving double the image quality by applying these coatings.

No, he will do this long before any expected engagement. And being able to then take off the scope for travel, and then put it back on without the loss of zero is a very big advantage. For this reason the ability has made its' way onto modern military scope mounts as-well.

Iron sights are sufficient for shooting up to maybe 400 meters with good consistency, above that range it is hard to carry out a number of important tasks that a sniper sometimes has to carry out; such as hitting well concealed targets where only small bits are sticking out. So for longer range shooting you want a good scope to ensure you can clearly define your target and hit it with consistency.

Anyone who either owns several examples of good condition scopes from both sides or has just seen a lot of them, will disagree with you. This for quite obvious reasons already explained. Any WW2 German scope in good condition which has all its lense coatings intact and hasn't leaked its gas filling will handily outperform any WW2 Russian made scope, no contest. Scott Powers experienced the same in his simple tests with a 1945 made ZF4, the least well made German scope of the war.

The factory tracks the precise trajectory of a specific ammunition type in either 25 or 50 meter intervals and then applies this information to the scope's bullet drop compensation knob. That or the reticle itself features visible range scales provided in steps, as-well as a simple range determining height illustration of a std. sized human being standing at various ranges (see SVD scope for example) This is normally only done on military scopes however, as civilians aren't expected to use just one ammunition type tailored for one specific job, and in the latter case they certainly aren't expected to be shooting at other humans

The Germans used both methods during the war. Here is the view through a ZF4 with a reticle featuring range scales and measuring features (scopes with this type reticle have the letters "BU" ingraved on the side):

 

Remember as I have stated these scoped M91/30 rifles were not and never sniping rifles - they were sharpshooter/marksman rifles used to reach out a little further than your standard rifleman could. Personally I would put any of my M91/30 sniper rifle's up against a scoped k98 any day of the week - in fact I have and the outcome is quite even.Besides having brighter optics how do the German scope's out perform the Russian models? Russian scopes have good optics,easy adjustments - They worked and good,my own personal experience from shooting these Russian rifles for quite a few years has shown me their lethality and deadly accuracy - have hunted/fired in both winter/summer weather over a 7 year period with my 1944 m91/30 PU I posted earlier - never had any fogging problems on the scope,Rifle did its job just as it was made for. Purged or not these scope's will function forever as long its not dropped in a river for a week,and they will be quite accurate - my own personal experience has shown me this as well as others I know who have been shooting these rifles decades longer than I. The 1943 model I posted earlier - right out of the box after zeroed I actually shot a coin at 70 yards with it,and was hitting head sized targets at 250 yards consistently. from experiences like that is why I will uphold my statement firm that these rifles are a deadly setup,Having read Red Army sniper V.Zaitsevs memoirs and J.Pilushins memoirs and many recent veteran interviews never once do they complain about their rifle scope's going bad or being bad or having to leave them outside during winter,They speak highly on them. like Zaitsevs line "I had a passion looking through these excellent optics".......

nothing much more I can say,anyone here who would like to see for themselves just has to go and spend a few hours firing an original m91/30 sniper rifle,another member here has and said himself the optics were clear and it was accurate. And they are which is why I spend $800 + on them and will continue too over the years. Trust me I would not be spending that kind of money on a rifle that has bad optics that fogged and lost zero....

 

Vintovka, no'one is argueing with the fact that the PU (or PEM) + Mosin Nagant setup was deadly, pretty much every sniper setup used by every nation during the war was deadly. But there were setups which were better than others out there, just as there is today, and that is all that is being said.

As for your question, it is not just in the brightness that the German scopes out perform the Russian ones, it is also in sharpness, brilliance, wider FOV, higher power & adjustable focus that the German scopes outperform the Russian ones. This is just the scope however, the German mounts provided for more precise windage adjustment, albeit requiring a tool, and the retention of zero when the scope was taken off for travel.

Now does this mean that the Russian setup was poor or unfit for the role of sniping? Not at all! Just that it wasn't as good as the typical German setup in certain key areas.

In short, I'd say that the Russian setup was better suited for short to medium range urban sniping, whilst the German setup was better suited for long range shooting in open areas.

 

I think that's fair enough,That is what I have always thought - Germans had a rifle better for long range actual sniping,Soviets had a rifle that worked better for marksman in short engagements in urban area's. If I had to make 1 shot count and 1 shot only on an important target way out there my rifle of choice would be a scoped K98,If I had to fight in a place like Stalingrad I would choose a scoped m91/30..... my personal favorite though will always be the U.S. 1903A4 with its little 2.5X scope (would be interesting to have a thread on those rifles with historical photo's and to discuss how effective they were - im yet to find out) It's the rifle my Grandfather went into Normandy with .
Best regards

 

Start the ball rolling.
List any sources that specificaly states the Soviets did not purge.
Book title and page number.

I would think such a source would settle the issue so why hold it back?

 

I think we both know that there's a very big difference between sorting through mass produced ammunition on the field by the snipers themselves, and then actually recieving purpose made ammunition manufactured with special care and precision straight from the factory.

Infact the issue of not recieving purpose made ammunition became a major area of complaint amongst US snipers during the war, one which was finally resolved shortly before the Korean war, when M72 match ammunition finally was made available to US military snipers.

 

Agreed.

Is that your grandfather on your avatar?

 

Right; but, the US in 1949 was not Stalingrad and 'match grade' ammunition was not a priority. The point is that individual marksman recognized the need for better ammunition and they did what they could to meet that need.