Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire New Sniper Record: 173 Confirmed kills!

actually my bet is, if the fudged the numbers they just made them up or just included probables that every sniper has as confirmed....

Well I guess keeping score is a human need or to show some sort of worth- The Sun is just tabloid at best- the Brit most likely would like to just be left alone, no doubt they all made a lot of hits that were not seen, it don't matter much except to the arm chair commandos, World War II was a target rich environment since the combatants did something novel- they wore uniforms and they had flags and Standards The German- Grey, Americans -Olive Brown, Russians Brown and in winter white, Japanese well you could just tell by the slant eyes- yea its racist but the Pacific War was a racist one too! The Current War- the lines are blurred, then there are ROE's, the guys are much more restrained than their World War II grandfathers would have been- In the end its nice to recognize the difficult work these men do, how they do it with out going off the deep end is a testament to the mental toughness of the individual and the militaries selection process!

Didn't the Chicom's claim to have a sniper with 500 plus kills in Korea?

There's way to much info let out on these events IMO! So much so.....goes for the White House and other services of our government!! They need to keep their friggin mouths SHUT as well as our allies!!

Guess these dumbazzes are too young to recall that "Loose lips sink ships!"

Not only have I shot many WW II sniper rifles, but I’ve been present when a gent I know bench rested them using WW II ammunition. (and this man could SHOOT!! After it was all done, I watched him hit 6 out of 10 shots on a H type oxygen cylinder he had cut the bottom off of and made into kind of a "bell", and hung from a tree at 1200 yards…And he hit it 6 out of 10 shots with an open sight Finnish Mosin Nagant; freaking blew my mind)

Here’s what we learned. All were less accurate than you would think, and mostly that was because of the ammunition. All shot over 2 MOA. The Garand was the least accurate and it shot just over 4 MOA with WW II ammo, but nearly 1.5 MOA with modern Federal Match.

The Mosin Nagant using WW II ammunition out-shot the US Springfield, Garand, and German 98K sniper variants. But when fed modern match ammo, the 98k was the standout. (we didn’t have factory match ammo for the 98k, just the owners handloads, which sure seemed match to me given the performance).

The H&H built No4 mk1 T British sniper rifle out-shot everything (we didn’t have a Japanese rifle), with WW II ammo or modern match. It was just under 2 MOA with WW II ammo, and slightly under MOA with match ammo (again handloads - I do recall his bullet was a Hornady 174 grain FMJ)

Most don’t realize, but the No 4 is actually free floated all the way out to the end of the wood which on this rifle, the end of the wood forearm would occasionally touch the barrel. (shouldn’t be a surprise when you consider that Holland & Holland built more than half of them).

The No4 Mk1 T was the most user friendly, generally had the best trigger, had the best scope (we didn’t have a Marine Springfield with the Unertil), and was the most accurate. I’d rate it as the best sniper rifle of WW II easily. The M1D Garand was the next most user friendly. The big difference was the No4 Mk1 T and the Garand both took efforts to have a proper cheek weld.

And while the Mosin Nagant was the second most accurate, that accuracy wasn’t easy to achieve. The stock design is not only horrible, but it seems to focus recoil on your shoulder. There just plain wasn’t anything approaching a cheek weld, and there was barely a chin weld. The trigger is just plain HORRENDOUS!!! So while it may perform well from the bench with some work, it would take a good deal of practice to get that performance in the field. But then again, it’s not like WW II soldiers had much else to do with their time.

BTW – We also had an Enfield L42A1 that beat the crap out of everything that day…I fell in love, such a cool rifle. Dood had the wooden case and all the accessories, just too cool. I’ve drooled over an L42A1 ever since.

So not an exhaustive study, but it was really interesting and made for a REALLY fun day. Sniper rifles we didn’t have but would have liked to have:

Marine 1903 mk1 with Unertil 8x
German G43 Sniper (who can afford one?)
Tokarev Sniper
Japanese Arisaka Sniper (I’m told they were very accurate)
Swedish Mauser M41B – Got to handle one, never shot one. My bet is it would kick butt on everything.

While I would question anything the Soviets said back in those says, I can find SOME credibility in the numbers. I don't recall anything on the Russian numbers as being "confirmed kills" but just "kills". And the Eastern Front was war on a scale unlike anything seen before. Just the battle of Stalingrad had a MILLION casualties; that's freaking massive. Hitler lost an entire army. So it most certainly was a target rich environment on both sides.

In the battle of Stalingrad it would be rare for any truly long rang sniping. I'm betting most shots were well under 500m.

One account of Finn Simo Hayha I read said his 505 kills and another 250-300 probables were done with an open sighted Mosin Nagant and a PPsh 41 SMG. And the account I read said that he probably killed more with the PPsh than he did with the Nagant...who knows.

Even if the numbers are fudged by 50%, that's still a lot of killing.

Yeah, I don't even trust anything MY government releases, much less the Soviets. I only posted that portion of the webpage so the numbers could be out there.

Not taking anything away from the Royal Navy sniper in question, but perhaps calling the article author into question, as it was the journalist that claimed a "new record."

I would hope that if they call something a new record, then it ought to follow with some provenance, and not leave anything to question.

When the Brits were looking for a replacement for the L42A1, I had a friend who took part in some of the trials with the AI and a couple of other contenders.

He wasn't particularly impressed with the AI, and the Team found that when the L42AI was fitted with the same S&B PM2 scope, it shot/performed just as well as the AI under simulated field conditions..

The AI (in a modified form) was eventually adopted of course, but personally I don't think it really came of age until the M115 variant in .338 Lapua...

Thanks Pete. I find it perfectly creditable he would have one day totals far above his average day. Appreciate you sharing, and may he arrive with God's speed to his safe place.

I recall that many felt the Parker Hale M85 was the better rifle. I've never shot the AI, but I have shot the M85 and I thought it was a very well thought out, well made, first rate rifle.

As for the L42A1, the optics were the weak point; still used the WW II scope, they should have updated it. But how you gonna beat an Enfield for reliability?

Had they really sought to upgrade the Enfield action, there's SO much they could have done. The design lends itself to a lot of flexibility.

I've fondled an AI, never shot one. I thought it was an impressive piece of equipment, but HO-LEE-COW was it expensive.