The Accurate Reloading Forums THE ACCURATE RELOADING.COM FORUMS Guns, Politics, Gunsmithing & Reloading Military & Military Surplus hunting rifle, target rifle, fighting rifleGo | New | Find | Notify | Tools | Reply | |
| hunting rifle, target rifle, fighting rifle | Login/Join |
| One of Us |
I've read (I don't have the quote in front of me) that the Germans built a hunting rifle, the Americans a built a target rifle, and the British built a fighting rifle. Maybe the actual quote described what the respective countries brought to WWI. Is there something that makes each of these military rifles (Mauser, Springfield, Enfield) especially suited to the author's designated calling? H. C. | ||
|
| one of us |
The sights on American military rifles, since the M1903, have been superior to any militray rifle ever issued by any European nation. | |||
|
| one of us |
quote:The sights on American military rifles have FAR BETTER adjustability for windage and elevation that ANYTHYING any other armed force has ever fielded. That's what makes US rifles the closest to target rifles. And that was the entering argument. Don't think so? Bring any foreign military rifle to a HP match and compete against any M1903 or Garand. Accurize it to the extent allowed by the rules. You will still get your ass handed to you on a platter, especially at 300 and 600 yards. You need some reading comprehension help. | |||
|
| <Eric> |
Orion 1, Dude, you really are an ass. If you had ever spent any time in the military (have you?), you would know that in most engagements you don't have time to even think, let alone adjust your sights. Sights on a military rifle (for a rifle designed, meant, and used, to kill people) are adjusted to a battle sight zero (250 meters) and left there. With few exceptions are those sights adjusted in the field. Hollywood, sure, all the time. "Service Rifle Matches", sure, all the time. For real? When your life depends on it? Not too often. No, I haven't been "in the shit." I am however friends with several hundred people who were, and have played the game myself for 18 years. And you? You always bring up this match crap. What the heck has that to do with bullets whizzing by your ear? And on top of that, NO ONE shoots at anyone anymore at 600 yards, what do you think artillary, machine guns and all the other stuff is for? Matches are matches, no more, no less. They haven't got squat to do with modern warfare anymore. Cripes, there are bow and arrow matches. When was the last time soldiers got together to shoot at each other with a bow and arrow? Dude, you need to find a stool to get of that horse. It's too high for you. And learn to spell, I can read. With amazement, Eric [ 10-23-2003, 02:17: Message edited by: Eric ] | ||
|
| one of us |
Hey Eric, you fucking moron, here's what happenned. HenryC470 asked: quote:I answered: quote:Where the fuck do you get off ranting off about combat? No one ever asked about that. What's the matter, you like thumping your chest about the war here you think you are. Kindly fuck off. | |||
|
one of us |
quote:Not wanting to rattle the Orion cage or anything... ![[Smile]](images/icons/smile.gif){kind=icon} Trying to compare apples with apples here: The sights on the Brit SA80 system, as issued on each and every infantry soldier's rifle, has, since 1988 been the excellent SUSAT optical sight. What sights were issued on each and every infantry M16 in 1988 to date? I would like to see any set of irons "superior" to the SUSAT as a combat sighting system. Flameproof suit on... | |||
|
| one of us |
Orion, I love the sights on American rifles like the Garand, but the truth is that other nations had superb, fully-adjustable peep sights, too. In fact, from what I've seen so far, I'd pick the issue sights on the Canadian Ross 1910 as the finest adjustable peeps on any miltary rifle. In fact, those are really target sights in disguise. | |||
|
| one of us |
Orion1 - You are the one who said that the American sights are superior to anything anyone else has made. I ask you, for what? I agree with Eric; target sights make pretty poor combat sights. It's indicative to note that the best combat sights ever put on an American rifle are those on the M4, which currently is a flat-top, and therefore has *no* sights. Then, the military, (or the individual soldier) has the opportunity to put something besides the standard peep sights on the rifles. Frankly, I've never been able to get the *peep* sights to work very well, in fast acquisition mode. Holo- sights, "scout" sights, and even the "ghost-ring" sight works much better than your target sights, IN COMBAT. Which is in keeping with the original thread. My SMLE has some bodacious combat sights, on the other hand. | |||
|
| one of us |
The original term was: The Mauser is a hunting rifle, the Springfield is a target rifle ( with complicated sight, adjustable for God-know-what ) and / but the Enfield is a battle rifle. Regards, Hermann | |||
|
| <Eric> |
Orion 1, I'm quite sure that all of my posts on this thread referred to the original question. Ergo the hunting, target, and fighting rifle thing. You mentioned however that "The sights on American military rifles, since the M1903, have been superior to any militray rifle ever issued by any European nation." And by the comments you have posted on this and other threads, I don't believe you know anything about foreign military rifles. Otherwise you wouldn't have made such an obviously incorrect statement. There are plenty of "other" rifles made by countries that have sights as adjustable as a US military rifle. As for the target rifle thing, I seem to recall that the Swiss hold yearly matches with their service rifles that equal most of our service rifle matches. With real service rifles, not tuned up pieces that people only use to punch holes in paper. As for the "ranting off about combat" that you so kindly mentioned, isn't that where the "battle/fighting rifle" thing comes into play? It seems to me that I was still addressing the original question posed by Henry. You must have missed the point as you were so emotional. I also don't recall ever, at any time, under any circumstances, saying anything about me being a "hero," or alluding to that appellation. I do recall mentioning what little experience I have, which seems to be a great deal more than you possess, in regards to both the military and firearms in general. As for me calling you "an ass," well, I guess your last reply to me speaks for itself. Regards, Eric ![[Big Grin]](images/icons/grin.gif){kind=icon} [ 10-23-2003, 23:43: Message edited by: Eric ] | ||
|
| one of us |
quote:Try flipping the rear sight leaf to the "0-2" aperture. The big hole is used for fast acquisition. Yeah, optical and electro optical sights on flatops are all the rage now. Until they break. | |||
|
| one of us |
quote:As I said before, optical sights are peachy, until you drop the rifle upside down. At least the iron sights on the M16 are protected by steel wings. Seems the SUSAT is the only redeeming quality of the otherwise unsat SA80. | |||
|
| one of us |
What is even funnier is that the original M1903 did not have a 'peep' sight, solely. I was always told that it had as much to do with the quality of the individual rifle, as well as, the design, and the sights. I really like the third lug of the M1903 over the Mausers, too. This is a close-up of the M1903 rear sights. When laid flat the 'V' notch battle sight is used. It is clearly visible in the picture. You will also notice the 'V' notch in the ladder. Where is the peep? On the WWII vintage M1903A3 on the right.  [ 10-24-2003, 03:46: Message edited by: Judy ] | |||
|
| one of us |
And when the optical sights "break" you revert to the VASTLY INFERIOR peep sights which you have as a backup. That is, until you can get yourself another optical sight. Which, oh by the way, you can do!!! Surprise. You can always get a replacement sight! We aren't the freaking WWII Japanese army where we whittle repair parts out of freaking bamboo! Too bad we gave up on the flint spear, too. Darned thing was WAAAAAAAAAAAAAY more reliable than the bow and arrow! | |||
|
one of us |
quote:LMAO watching Orion piss off another bunch of folks! Can't wait to see if he pulls some racist remarks into this thread. | |||
|
| one of us |
I think,the optical sights are only realy good for long range targets, with a bit of practice and my CAR-15, I can hit man sized targets in the open and under cover faster with the standard carry handle sights than any other style, up to red dots and other optical ones. at 100-150 m the red dot pulls ahead slightly, but inside 100, I like my irons but the flat top, is the great wonder, if the range gets long, spin two screws and lock a red dot on, in close, spin the screws and slap the handle on... | |||
|
| one of us |
The combination currently "all the rage" in combat in Iraq is a flat-top M4 with 1x clear optical mounted forward of the receiver, a la "Cooper Scout Rifle" combined with a flip-up ghost ring, combined with a night vision compatible laser sight. The forward mounted, 1 power long eye objective scope is just plain fast. If you think the stock 0-2 ring on the peep sight is fast, I don't think you've used a "scout scope." If that fails, you can pop it off, and flip the ghost ring up. (They leave the front sight mounted, it really doesn't interfere with your scope sight picture). Or, you can get a "pop-up" front sight from Armalite, also. The real winner, though, is the night vision laser sight. Invisible to the naked eye, at night and during low light conditions, you wear a PVS-14 over your shooting eye, and the laser shows up and makes hitting what you want to shoot out to about 300 meters as easy as hitting what you want to when you pee. AND the bad guy you just drilled didn't even have a clue you were there. The special ops guys are working with a fiber optic scope that doesn't even require you to expose yourself to shoot accurately. You just hold your rifle up, and you see what the rifle "sees". But of course, the peep sight is much better than that. Just ask Orion1. I mean, the possibility of any of these systems "going down" is not worth having the capabilities that they give you. | |||
|
| one of us |
quote:Yeah... well those clever guys who designed the SUSAT stuck an emergancy peep on the top of the housing in case the optics broke. You would have to try pretty damn hard to break the optics BTW. | |||
|
| one of us |
quote:For COIN Ops SA80/SUSAT and it's sling/harness is superb but an M16 with SUSAT and the same sling/harness would be the dogs! | |||
|
| <Eric> |
quote:Uh, that's a good thing, right? Eric | ||
|
| <Eric> |
YO! Gunny! Orion isn't pissing me off, he's giving me entertainment! Kind of like watching a drunk man try to find his keys and get into his car, ya know? Regards, Eric | ||
|
| one of us |
M{O}r{i}on 1 {read between the lines, Dude}, Think Ya better slack off, Dude, there are a lot of people in this forum, unlike yourself, that know quite a bit a bout firearms {civvie or military}, and you aren't the only one that knows all there is, SPEC OPS, OUT!!!! | |||
|
| One of Us |
Yes, I meant the WW1 vintage Mauser, Springfield, and Enfield. I got lots of hits on the subject using: "hunting rifle" "battle rifle" "target rifle" as the search term in a yahoo! search. Several variations on the quote also. With so many versions floating around, I guess I am unsure about the autheticity of the quote or claim I read. I guess the 10-round detachable box magazine on the Enfield was a step up from the 5-round internal magazines the Germans and Americans used. Seeing as how the categorization was in the context of describing the Enfield, I guess the rear locking lugs on the bolt had something to do with the "battle" designation. Between the Mauser and the Springfield, I don't see great big differences in the "hunting"/"target" distinction, except that not a lot of Highpower matches get won with Mausers, and... well, there is a sense of symmetry that gets lost if you can't say something bad about the Springfield's suitability as a hunting rifle. I'm just at a loss. Is there a compelling reason that a Springfield rifle is not as good a choice for a hunter as is a similarly chambered Mauser? H. C. | |||
|
| <eldeguello> |
As nthis question is directed toward the rifles used by us, the Brits, and the Germans in WWI, the answers should have been limited to WWI weapons. The Springfield had sights primarily designed to have minute adjust,ments, which suited them for formal target competition much better than either the Mauser or SMLE. The M98 Mauser, particularly in its' "carbine" or short-barrelled version, was almost already "sporterized", with crudely adjustable sights and lending itself to fast handling. Of all three, the SMLE appeared to be engineered more to the demands of combat use in that it had double the magazine capacity of the other two, was well-balanced, had adequate sighting for close combat and long-range use (in WWI on the Western Front, sights were routinely adjusted during trench warfare battles, as many engagements were at extreme range, then focus quickly shifted to close combat, requiring sights tyo be rapidly changed or the soldier to switch to use of the fixed battle sight. But the feature that set the SMLE apart most markedly was its' easy=opertating, shoirt-throw bolt actionm which permitted it to sustain accurate fire at a higher rate than could either of the other two. The other rifle used by the U.S. in WWI, the M1917 Enfield, had a superior combat sight to the Springfield. The rear sight was easier to use, and more accurate. The front sight was protected by massive ears. But the 1917 was heavy, poorly balanced and clumsy. It had a very long bolt throw and cocked on the closing motion, making it more difficult to use for rapid sustained fire than the Springfield. In WWI, more 1917's were used in actual combat than '03's, but the 1917 was quickly put in mothballs after the war, and both the Army and Marine Corps continued to build and issue the preferred 1903 target rifles! | ||
|
one of us |
I saw you guys were arguing about whether optics or peeps are better and I have a solution.Trijicon ACOGs(Advanced Combat Optical Gunsight)let you put the sight on top of the M16/M4 carry handle and so you can use the scope when you wont to but there is a little gap in the mount thingy so if your scope gets messed up or something you just look a little lower and you can look through the normal sight.Also many people have dropped ACOGs from up to 5.5 feet and the Acogs worked flawlessly afterwards.The military M4 SOPMOD kits have a ACOG as they are standard issue on SF M4A1 rifles.Of course the kit also includes a reflex sight(trijicon),a carry handle and many other things.Hope this helps. Thanks,Tyler Gorski | |||
|
| new member |
I really don't want to get into this but just a comment. I shoot at a local range most weekends and can say I have smoked m1's,03 and 03A3 with a k-31 swiss and a finnish M 28/30 sako.so mr. "O" if you make it down to texas carry A platter for your a$$. pete us army ret. | |||
|
| Powered by Social Strata |
 | Please Wait. Your request is being processed... |
|
The Accurate Reloading Forums THE ACCURATE RELOADING.COM FORUMS Guns, Politics, Gunsmithing & Reloading Military & Military Surplus hunting rifle, target rifle, fighting rifle
Visit our on-line store for AR Memorabilia
| View $GS_USERNAME's Public Profile |
| Add $GS_USERNAME to my Buddies |
| Add $GS_USERNAME to my Ignore List |
| Invite $GS_USERNAME to a Private Topic |
| View Recent Posts by $GS_USERNAME |
| Notify me of New Posts by $GS_USERNAME |