American sniper rifle vs German sniper rifle

The M-21/25 is still used by the Army too, M-110 notwithstanding. US light and medium mechanized infantry squads are not rarely seen without at least one trooper humping some form of the old scoped M-14.

Mr. Marlowe,

How many officers and NCOs in airborne habitually fought with submachine guns? And how about regular infantry units, if you have seen them?

 

Concerning the patent problem with Mauser, I remember reading several years ago that Springfield had to pay Mauser a dollar per receiver. After reading this thread I did a quick google on the subject and found this.

Springfield

It seems the similarities were enough for 2 problems with the magazine and five on the rifle. I haven't had the time to read the entire entry. I hope this helps.

 

theres not really that big of a difference between the two. They are both bolt-action rifles. so they do reload and chamber eject the same way. But the Kar98k had a slight bit more power. But not enough to show what is better. The Kar98k and the 1903 Springfield are both very fine and accurate weapons and would do good in any soldiers hands.
-MarineRaider

 

I heard a story about world war 1 marines were killing germans at 2700 yards out with an m1903 springfield

 

Gentelmen:

How I got my scoped M1 with a non military sight is story of out and out bribary. While at Ft. Bragg I was able to get a civilian gunsmith to install the scope on the M1. It was removed before we went overseas in 1943. When I got England and got a new M 1 I paid and Eight Airforce Ordenance Seargeaht two Quarts of Single Malt Scotch and 4 carts og Camel Ciggerettes to install My scope on the rifle. A parachut regiment was checked as much as line regiment were. Many of use carried a personal pistol as well as Colt Model 1911. I elected to carry my custom made knife. I do believe that I never fired my pistol in combat.

As Ever,

Walter L. Marlowe
( Airborne all the Way)

 

I ran across this interesting thread. I hope nobody minds if I toss out my two cents worth. I will throw out some assumptions, based upon what I have read and as I understand things; if some of these assumptions are obviously flawed, please feel free to set me straight!

Neither the K98 Mauser nor the M1903 Springfield possessed a significant edge over the other in inherent accuracy nor reliability. I personally don't think that the fact that one rifle significantly influenced the development of the other makes it a superior sniper rifle.

Neither round fired by these rifles was inherently superior to the other. Both were accurate, flat trajectory, hard-hitting rounds. From what I understand about ballistics, the 30-06 round (flat based 152 grain bullet @ 2800 fps) would have a slightly flatter trajectory at shorter ranges (within 250 yards). At ranges much longer than this, the 7.92 round (198 grain boattail bullet @ 2470 fps) would retain more of its velocity due to the superior ballistic coefficient of its bullet. A hit to the vitals with either bullet would quickly kill a man; the corpse would not be able to tell the difference. Wounding potential is not significantly different.

The Germans may have had an edge in optics. The Weaver and Lyman scopes typically employed with the M1903 were 3/4 and 7/8 inch diameter tubes. The Zeiss, Kollmorgen, and Kahles scopes used with the K98 were 1 inch diameter tubes. These were quality scopes that offered field of view and critical eye relief advantages.

I would think it would be easier to employ snipers in defensive situations than while attacking. (Take up a concealed position and wait for targets to present themselves vs. locating a suitable target and then bringing up a sniper to deal with it.) As the Germans were on the defensive much more frequently I would think this would give German snipers more quality target opportunities.

The area that seems to have the most room for discussion is in the quality / quantity of sniper training offered by the American and German armies. Obviously both had their share of natural shooting talents and shooting enthusiasts that would gravitate to sniping. Elite units on both sides probably had a greater number of trained individuals for this role.

I am unsure how much emphasis was place on sniping in the regular line units of both armies.

 

Having owned an 03 Springfield with a Unrtl scope for a number of years, well, an enemy would not want to be in my view.

 

I have an '03 with the flip up site. It was my great Grandfather's. It is an exceptionally accurate rifle.
I spoke to a gentleman from the "Big Red 1" who was in Africa - France. When he landed in France he was given an '03 but it didn't have a scope. He had a bunch of tracer rounds and was expected to identify machinegun nests and "illuminate" them with the tracers. The first time he tried this he said he found the Germans didn't like being "illuminated, and since they could see where the shots were coming from things got very hot very fast. He said the first guy he found that had been hit, switched rifles, '03 for M1, and that was the last time he touched the '03 in theater.
I have heard an old saying from WW1 that went something like this:
The Germans had the best hunting rifle. (Mauser)
The Americans had the best target rifle. ('03 Springfield)
The British had the best battle rifle. (Enfield)
I wasn't there, so I can't argue the point.