quote:

Originally posted by HP Shooter:
You know, we can all trot out anecdotal evidence after anecdotal evidence, but the only results that matter are those obtained in competition.

Every year the Civilian Marksmanship Program holds its annual John C. Garand Match (for M1 rifles), its Springfield Match (for M1903s), and the Vintage Military Rifle Match (for foregin bolt actions).

The Garand Match is fired the day after the Springfield and VMR matches, which are held concurrently. So its reasonable to expect scores to be comparable. All are fired at 200 yards on the NRA SR target using the following course of fire: 5 shots for sighters and 10 shots for record from the prone position in 15 minutes, 10 shots for record in 70 seconds (80 seconds for Springfield/VMR) standing to prone, and 10 shots for record from the standing position in 10 minutes.

Last years winning scores were as follows:

Wintage Military Rifle Match: 278-4X
Springfield Match: 286-6X
John C. Garand Match: 292-5X

Now, before someone starts up with match modifications, etc., the level of match preparation allowed for these rifles is miniscule, and it's equal across all three matches. The rifles used are about as close as you can get to GI, and the winners are heavily scrutinized.

As you can see, the M1 trumps all comers. And it does so year after year in the arena where it matters: formal competition.

And based on the above logic, may I conclude you consider whatever wins the NASCAR manufacturers' championship each year to be the fastest car in the world?

quote:

Originally posted by HP Shooter:
Now, before someone starts up with match modifications, etc., the level of match preparation allowed for these rifles is miniscule, and it's equal across all three matches. The rifles used are about as close as you can get to GI, and the winners are heavily scrutinized.

Alberta Canuck, you too, need to read my post a little bit better.

Have you ever been to the match I'm talking about? Have you ever seen the rifles used?

Your implication (based on your NASCAR analogy) is that the rifles used in the match that I am discussing bear only a passing, exterior, similarity to what a soldier is issued. Such an implication tells me you really have no idea of what I am talking about.

Think whatever you like. If any keyboard marksmen want to show how accurate their pet milsurp is, show up at Camp Perry and prove it.

quote:

Originally posted by HP Shooter:
You know, we can all trot out anecdotal evidence after anecdotal evidence, but the only results that matter are those obtained in competition.

Every year the Civilian Marksmanship Program holds its annual John C. Garand Match (for M1 rifles), its Springfield Match (for M1903s), and the Vintage Military Rifle Match (for foregin bolt actions).

The Garand Match is fired the day after the Springfield and VMR matches, which are held concurrently. So its reasonable to expect scores to be comparable. All are fired at 200 yards on the NRA SR target using the following course of fire: 5 shots for sighters and 10 shots for record from the prone position in 15 minutes, 10 shots for record in 70 seconds (80 seconds for Springfield/VMR) standing to prone, and 10 shots for record from the standing position in 10 minutes.

Last years winning scores were as follows:

Wintage Military Rifle Match: 278-4X
Springfield Match: 286-6X
John C. Garand Match: 292-5X

Now, before someone starts up with match modifications, etc., the level of match preparation allowed for these rifles is miniscule, and it's equal across all three matches. The rifles used are about as close as you can get to GI, and the winners are heavily scrutinized.

As you can see, the M1 trumps all comers. And it does so year after year in the arena where it matters: formal competition.

The 6-point difference between the score made by the guy shooting the Springfield and the one using the M1 could be due to the difference in the competitors' abilities rather than the accuracy difference between the rifles used.....

HP Shooter is already sitting in a deep hole, and digging deeper and deeper... instead of stopping and climbing out of it with grace.
:-)

C.

quote:

Originally posted by carcano91:
HP Shooter is already sitting in a deep hole, and digging deeper and deeper... instead of stopping and climbing out of it with grace.
:-)

C.

I haven't been here very long, but one thing I quickly learned is that you are an obnoxious, arrogant, and disrespectful person, so I have come to disregard your opinion on any subject.

quote:

Originally posted by El Deguello:

quote:

Originally posted by HP Shooter:
You know, we can all trot out anecdotal evidence after anecdotal evidence, but the only results that matter are those obtained in competition.

Every year the Civilian Marksmanship Program holds its annual John C. Garand Match (for M1 rifles), its Springfield Match (for M1903s), and the Vintage Military Rifle Match (for foregin bolt actions).

The Garand Match is fired the day after the Springfield and VMR matches, which are held concurrently. So its reasonable to expect scores to be comparable. All are fired at 200 yards on the NRA SR target using the following course of fire: 5 shots for sighters and 10 shots for record from the prone position in 15 minutes, 10 shots for record in 70 seconds (80 seconds for Springfield/VMR) standing to prone, and 10 shots for record from the standing position in 10 minutes.

Last years winning scores were as follows:

Wintage Military Rifle Match: 278-4X
Springfield Match: 286-6X
John C. Garand Match: 292-5X

Now, before someone starts up with match modifications, etc., the level of match preparation allowed for these rifles is miniscule, and it's equal across all three matches. The rifles used are about as close as you can get to GI, and the winners are heavily scrutinized.

As you can see, the M1 trumps all comers. And it does so year after year in the arena where it matters: formal competition.

The 6-point difference between the score made by the guy shooting the Springfield and the one using the M1 could be due to the difference in the competitors' abilities rather than the accuracy difference between the rifles used.....

That is possible, but I can't recall the last time that a Springfield shooter outscored a Garand shooter.

quote:

Originally posted by HP Shooter:

quote:

Originally posted by carcano91:
HP Shooter is already sitting in a deep hole, and digging deeper and deeper... instead of stopping and climbing out of it with grace.
:-)

...disrespectful person...

Quite possibly the latter *chuckle*.
But one must concede that you have been trying very hard to lose respect in this thread, and successfully so.

As to frsh-from-the-production line accuracy, the normal run-of-the-mill M1 is inferior to many military bolt action rifles; certainly to Swedish m/96, Swiss K 31, Finnish MN 28/30, M 39 etc. Denying the obvious will just keep you locked in your hole.

However, it is also obvious and undeniable (just not the topic of this little thread, regardless how fast you spin and cavort) that *some* M 1 can be extremely accurate. Mostly those which have been tuned with great expense, but now and then even a "normal" one. But it is not the rule.

Carcano

The Garand would likely win such matches consistently on the basis of its' excellent sights , not because it has any more raw accuracy potential than Springfields or some other bolt gun.

However , read the title of this thread........"most accurate WW1-WW2 BOLT rifle " ? The Garand doesn't qualify .

quote:

Originally posted by HP Shooter:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by HP Shooter:
Alberta Canuck, you too, need to read my post a little bit better.

Have you ever been to the match I'm talking about? Have you ever seen the rifles used?

Your implication (based on your NASCAR analogy) is that the rifles used in the match that I am discussing bear only a passing, exterior, similarity to what a soldier is issued. Such an implication tells me you really have no idea of what I am talking about.

Think whatever you like. If any keyboard marksmen want to show how accurate their pet milsurp is, show up at Camp Perry and prove it.

I read your postings perfectly clearly. They are based on your strong opinion (not necessarily the same thing as facts), and show almost no understanding of how valid scientific tests for accuracy, whether battle accuracy or any other kind, may be reliably done. You also assume something in my post which was not there at all. What I was trying to point out is that the races in NASCAR don't test speed, they test many other factors such as driver ability, pit crew competence, team financial depth, parts availability, etc. The same kind of thing is true for rifle matches generally, though perhaps (and that's a weak "perhaps") less so for BR matches

Camp Perry is not a test of rifle accuracy.

You can't win there with a thoroughly inaccurate rifle, but you do NOT need (or necessarily win with) the most accurate rifle on the firing line.

At Perry, as you should know, conditions change sometimes from minute-to-minute, certainly from relay-to-relay. Even the match organizers recognize that by doing the squadding to get the finals of big matches (not the side matches like the John C.Garand, etc.) fired shoulder-to-shoulder amongst the top shooters. So, if the matches you listed weren't fired shoulder to shoulder simultaneously and inter-mixed with each other, they don't mean squat.

Perry is also more a test of the shooters than of the rifles. I dare say David Tubb could fire your rifle and you could fire his, and he would walk away the victor. Ditto Nancy Gallagher, Mitch Maxberry, etc., etc.

Third, the Garand and other military matches there are designed to exploit and show off the strengths of the U.S. service rifles, originally as part of teaching US servicemen to best use them (and indoctrinate them to have confidence in their rifles when they were going into battle). Hence the various rapid fire stages for instance. Rapid fire stages are definitely NOT a test of inherent rifle accuracy, but at least partially of how fast the rifle can be fired with some acceptable degree of control.

Then, of course,there is the whole matter of the ranges over which the matches are fired. There, the cartridge becomes important, not just the rifle.

If all the matches were fired slow fire at approximately 900 yards, you would probably find the most accurate rifle to be a properly set up Lee-Enfield, because of "compensation" accidentally built into the Smellies (a serendipitous effect of the flex in the not too rigid action and the multi-piece stock). The SMLE quite commonly shoots vertical groups at approximately 930 yards which are about half the size of more rigid actions/stocks, whether Mauser, Springfield, or Garand. That is proved fact, not fantasy. When it was discovered, the Brit armoury at Enfield Lock did a series of tests to either confirm or disprove its existance. It was soundly proved to be true, and the "why" was found so it could be duplicated. To expand your knowledge in that area, I suggest the books by Major E.G.B.Reynolds. Also, take a look at the Bisley TR match results some time and see what rifles have won there.

Then, of course, just how far a distance can you adjust the "service-issue" sights on a Garand to shoot at, accurately? If your matches never exceed 1,000 yards, which US matches don't, then a Garand is probably okay. It is a good rifle, after all. But, some countries have traditionally held matches clear out to 2,000 yards (and a few beyond that). How do you think a completly stock Garand would do at that range with its issue sights? Some other military rifles have tangent sights which more or less allow for correct aiming at longer distances than the Garand. Which do you think would do best under competition conditions at those distances?

Anyway, the point that everyone has been trying to make to you is not that the Garand is not a good rifle. It IS a good rifle. BUT, you cannot validly take one aspect of its use, such as at Perry, and proclaim it to be the most accurate service rifle in the world. It ain't necessarily so, as the old song goes.

It was NEVER the first choice of snipers of any major industrialized nation except the U.S., even though the U.S. gave it to dozens of countries. That doesn't mean no other countries used it, just that other weapons were often preferred.

I know you believe strongly in the Garand. That is okay with me. However, it does not transmutate your opinion into solid fact to be acknowledged and automatically accepted by every one else in the world.

As to where I have shot and how well I've done, I've been a Palma Team member, been a Life Master in hi-power, won several US national benchrest titles as recently as '97 & '98, among many other things. How about you? Armchair shooter indeed!!! Harumphh.

Olavi Elo of Finland set a world record of 530 points in the 1937 International Army Matches. He shot a Finn Mosin-Nagant M28/30. Does this fact make it the most accurate rifle of the era? Maybe. Obviously Elo was the most skilled (or luckiest) marksman. Question is, how would he have scored had he used a rifle other than the M28/30?

AC, you can post all the long winded discourse that you like. Until you present objective evidence of a particular rifle's superior accuracy (using whatever yardstick you like) my point still stands.

In the only organized, sanctioned competition in the US where esentially issue-grade military arms compete head to head, the US Rifle, Caliber .30, M1 ALWAYS comes out on top. ALWAYS.

HP:

I don't know your qualifications....

I look at this argument going on here as superfluous but one thing is for sure... AB Canuck has a lot of experience in life on these sort of subjects....

I have never found fault in anything he has posted....It comes from experience, not a lot of reading and reguritating statistics....

With all due respects to 'all' on this argument...this is getting like watching the special olympics.....

I am sure we both have two highly expereinced guys and neither one is going to disprove the others guys thoughts to him.....

As Rodney King said " Can't we all just get along?"

cheers
seafire

seafire, my qualifications are not germane to this and neither are his.

Anyone who wants to verify what I have said merely needs to go to the Civilian Marksmanship Program's page and look up the Camp Perry match results.

But I agree, this is tiresome and I will now keep quiet and let whomever wants the last word have it.

A friend has a Venezualan 7mm 98 that would consistantly shoot 3/4" groups at 200yds. I have a Springfield that will consistanly shoot 1" groups for me. I never saw a German 98 that did much less than 3" .
All that being said ,not long ago I read a long term test where the individual "lived " with the rifles for 8 mos or so. In the end he liked the Nagant best of all. I know-It surprised me too.
He found it more accurate, handier and more reliable than the 98 or SMLE. Just one man's opinon.
Personally I prefer the Springfield 03A3 by Smith-Corona