# Scoped K98k and Mosin Nagant at the range



## Soren (Jun 12, 2008)

Karabiner 98k, first 18 inch steel target at 640 meters, 6 shots, 5 hits. Next 24 inch steel target, 420 meters, all hits.

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wblUTadS2wc_

Mosin Nagant 91/30 Sniper rifle, first 24 inch target at 420 meters, all hits. Next 18 inch steel target at 640 meters, 6 shots, 4 hits.

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDIypxgwzXs_

Pretty cool


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jun 14, 2008)

Nice videos, It would be interesting to watch also the same shooter with a head sized target, and I say "head" because I remeber a lot of wild stories about super accuracy of ww2 snipers.


----------



## marconi (Jun 19, 2008)

Video says yards, not metres.


----------



## Soren (Jun 19, 2008)

CharlesBronson said:


> Nice videos, It would be interesting to watch also the same shooter with a head sized target, and I say "head" because I remeber a lot of wild stories about super accuracy of ww2 snipers.



Only really the German sharpshooters were capable of extremely accurate long range fire, fielding far better scopes and far more accurate projectiles. On top of that Germany was one of the few countries to have actual sniping schools and a dedicated sniper arm. The basic training program of the Scharfschütze is still used today by the German, US, British Canadian sniper arm. 

The German Scharfschütze had available to him a an extremely accurate rifle and the most accurate efficient projectile out there, the 12.8 g (198 gr) FMJ-BT Schwere SpitzGeschoss, which featuring a ballistic coefficient (BC) of .584, was a good deal more efficient than both the military .308 cal M118 match .308win Sierra MatchKing projectiles, both of which have BCs ranging from .490 - .515. 

According to veteran German ScharfSchützen headshots could easily be made out to 600m without fail, and the chest was easily hit at 800m without fail, while a standing man was vulnerable even at 1200m if the German sniper knew what he was doing. (And this is with a 6x scope, 8x scopes were available as-well)

*Zielacht (8X) scope by Zeiss*














*8X scope by Dialytan*


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jun 20, 2008)

Yea, the "heavy pointed bullet" was accurate, but not particulary high velocity, that is why I have my doubts about the shot at distances of more than 400 meters.


----------



## Soren (Jun 20, 2008)

760 m/s is plenty fast Charles, and the effective range of the German round is a good deal longer than that of any Allied round (Watch tables below). The US marine sniper's std. sniping round is the 172gr M118 FMJ-BT (BC: .494) which has a MV of 730 m/s and is fired very accurately out to 900m. The 7.92mm 12.8 g sS projectile can be fired accurately at even longer ranges.

For excellent long range accuracy you need a heavy, stable and very low drag projectile (Streamlined), muzzle velocity is of less importance.

A WW2 German sniper was easily capable of taking down a standing man at 800+ m meters with one shot, and like the veterans specialists say chest hits were achieved out to beyond 800m without fail for experienced snipers. German snipers used to pick off Allied soldiers all the way out to 1,200m, just to show the Allies that they couldn't even feel safe at that range. However it was recommended not to shoot until the target was within atmost 800m, as target ID was then possible.







G7 = Drag function for FMJ-BT projectiles
G1 = Drag function for most projectiles incl. FMJ spitzers.

*7.92mm 12.8 g (198 gr) sS Geschoss (FMJ-BT), BC = .584, MV = 760 m/s:*
Max range




Ballistics / Trajectory





*7.62mm 9.7 g (150 gr) M2 Ball (FMJ Spitzer), BC = .420, MV = 853 m/s:*
Max range




Ballistics / Trajectory


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jun 20, 2008)

Interesting Tables, according to this the 8mm bullet is still supersonic after 2 kilometers... 

Is data of modern ammo ? or is also the same for ww2 SS?


----------



## Matt308 (Jun 20, 2008)

Note that in the videos the 98k had a modern high power scope (likely 10x or greater). The Mosin Nagant had an original or remanufactured WWII PU scope that I want to recall is 4x or 6x. Big difference. And the shooting showed it. Also, looked like the 98k had either a rough chamber or an improperly sized cartridge, as the extraction was REAL difficult.


----------



## Soren (Jun 20, 2008)

Matt,

The K98k is built to very tight tolerances, and therefore it IS hard to operate, cycling the bolt smoothly requires a LOT of practice as it only does so when pressure is applied at the right places at the right time. This is also one of the reasons the Germans experienced some minor problems with the rifle in the cold russian winter, the tight tolerances of the weapon causing jams. However some other lubricants were issued which lessened the problem. 

Now the thing about the scopes is not really of any importance at 640y Matt, the guy can ping that target every time with a K31 with iron sights, he's a crack shot. Remember the scope just magnifies the target it doesn't improve your aim if your eye sight is good. That guy most likely has eagle eyes.

I have a 12x scope on one of my rifles, but I prefer 6 to 8x magnification at long distances, the vibrations being less apparent.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jun 20, 2008)

I believe the Mosin scope was a 3,5x and the ones used in K-98 didnt exceed the 6 x.


----------



## pbfoot (Jun 20, 2008)

I note you stated the Germans were the best snipers and the doctrine was was integrated by Canada US and UK just curious do you know what course Francis Pegahmagabow was on


----------



## Soren (Jun 20, 2008)

CharlesBronson said:


> Interesting Tables, according to this the 8mm bullet is still supersonic after 2 kilometers...
> 
> Is data of modern ammo ? or is also the same for ww2 SS?



It is data for surplus WW2 military ammunition.

Sellier Bellot manufacture a similar but slightly lighter FMJ-BT projectile for the 8x57 JS Mauser, a 12.7 g (196 gr) FMJ-BT which features a BC of .557. The 12.7 g FMJ-BT round by S&S has a MV of 790 m/s, so it is great for trying to duplicate the performance of the German sS round. 

Mitchell's Mausers makes a genuine 12.8 g (198gr) FMJ-BT round though, which should be perfect for duplicating the sS round's performance.


----------



## Soren (Jun 20, 2008)

pbfoot said:


> I note you stated the Germans were the best snipers and the doctrine was was integrated by Canada US and UK just curious do you know what course Francis Pegahmagabow was on



What's your point pbfoot ?? There are Finnish sniper with more kills than that, and they didn't just have to pick off guys sticking their heads out of trenches, PLUS they did it with IRON SIGHTS.

And next time leave the rollingeyes at home.


----------



## Soren (Jun 20, 2008)

CharlesBronson said:


> I believe the Mosin scope was a 3,5x and the ones used in K-98 didnt exceed the 6 x.



During WW2 ?

The Russians had 6x scopes as-well, German manufactured. The Soviets bought a lot of scopes from the Germans before the break out of the war.


----------



## pbfoot (Jun 20, 2008)

Soren said:


> What's your point pbfoot ?? There are Finnish sniper with more kills than that, and they didn't just have to pick off guys sticking their heads out of trenches, PLUS they did it with IRON SIGHTS.
> 
> And next time leave the rollingeyes at home.


I'm aware about the Finnish sniper I was just curious how some guy from Germany was going to teach a trapper how to shoot seems to me he should be teaching the German dude


----------



## Soren (Jun 20, 2008)

pbfoot,

Being the best is not about how many kills you've achieved as that depends entirely on opportunity and situation. 

Germany was pretty much the only country in after WW1 to establish sniper schools, developing most of the techniques used today. The Allies failed to do this.

However the best snipers are have always usually been hunters, as they're experienced in stalking getting close to their prey, an essential quality needed by the sniper. This is one of the reasons Francis did so well, besides his targets being sitting ducks. 

If you want a good sniper, get the hunters, that's what Britain, Finland, Germany, America Russia did.


----------



## machine shop tom (Jun 20, 2008)

I have owned a M91 Mosin Nagant (Remington manufacture) and presently own a K98, slightly sporterized. I'd like to pick up a surplus MN and compare the 2 at the range someday.

tom


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jun 20, 2008)

Thanks for the info on ammo subject.



> During WW2 ?
> 
> The Russians had 6x scopes as-well, German manufactured. The Soviets bought a lot of scopes from the Germans before the break out of the war.



Roger that, but I think the big majority of soviet snipers used the 3,5 x Pu.


----------



## machine shop tom (Jun 20, 2008)

The Mosin Nagant was very popular with the North Vietnamese during the Viet Nam war. It was very effective and was a weapon to be feared at ranges up to 500 yds., according to Douglas Mark de Haas, former instructor at the Marine scout-sniper school in Vietnam, circa 1967 or so.

tom


----------



## Soren (Jun 21, 2008)

CharlesBronson said:


> Roger that, but I think the big majority of soviet snipers used the 3,5 x Pu.



True, however a lot were equipped with German scopes, here's an example with a ZF42:


----------



## glennasher (Jun 28, 2008)

I think you're forgetting the US Marines, one of whom, Jimmy Clark, went on to become the famed Louisiana gunsmith. He was a sniper on Okinawa in '45,using a Springfield with a Unertl scope, and had many kills over a half mile during that battle. Clark was no exception, either.


----------



## parsifal (Jun 28, 2008)

This is a link for anyone wishing to look at the Soviets claims regarding snipers. It looks a bit suspect to me, but I really dont have much to go on

WW2 Snipers


----------



## Glider (Jun 28, 2008)

Soren said:


> pbfoot,
> 
> Being the best is not about how many kills you've achieved as that depends entirely on opportunity and situation.


Totally agree with this, if fact Snipers were often used as recce troops and in many cases this was at least as important a role.



> Germany was pretty much the only country in after WW1 to establish sniper schools, developing most of the techniques used today. The Allies failed to do this.


I don't know when Germany first set up their Sniper schools but I do know that the British set their first one up at Bisley in mid 1940, with two more in Wales and Scotland. They were trained by experienced hunters and the course was three weeks long. 



> However the best snipers are have always usually been hunters, as they're experienced in stalking getting close to their prey, an essential quality needed by the sniper. This is one of the reasons Francis did so well, besides his targets being sitting ducks.
> 
> If you want a good sniper, get the hunters, that's what Britain, Finland, Germany, America Russia did.


Again totally agree with this.

One aside. The two man sniper team consisted of a shooter and a spotter. I know that British spoters had a 20x mag telescope to assist with identifying targets at long range, but have never seen anything that showed other countries using telescopes. Does anyone have any information on this aspect?


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jul 19, 2008)

Some notes on the subject of ranges and ammunition , scanned from _"Osprey Elite 68, the Military Sniper since 1914"_


----------



## Soren (Jul 20, 2008)

I think Glider posted that last bit sometime before. 

The s.S. projectile was designed and produced to be the most accurate rifle projectile at long ranges, and was the std. ammunition type before the introduction of the S.m.E round which emphazised armour penetration power.

Now about the WW1 snipers, remember they were all firing flat based spitzers and were using scopes nowhere near as good as those employed by Germany in WW2.


----------



## Soren (Jul 20, 2008)

Glider said:


> One aside. The two man sniper team consisted of a shooter and a spotter. I know that British spoters had a 20x mag telescope to assist with identifying targets at long range, but have never seen anything that showed other countries using telescopes. Does anyone have any information on this aspect?



The German spotters were normally equipped with 10x binoculars, I've never heard of telescopes being used for the purpose in WW2 though.

Have you got pictures of the telescope ? 20x is pretty high.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jul 20, 2008)

> The s.S. projectile was designed and produced to be the most accurate rifle projectile at long ranges, and was the std. ammunition type before the introduction of the S.m.E round which emphazised armour penetration power



I think the "eisenkern" ammo was used more as a lead saving resource, the added armor piercing capabilities is a derelict of the use of iron core.

About the british telescope:


----------



## wilbur1 (Jul 20, 2008)

Does anybody know about the guy in vietnam that used a 308 win?


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jul 20, 2008)

You man is probably Chuck Mawhinney or Carlos Hatchcok. Do a search with those names ( You know that Soren doesnt like to mix up topics  )


----------



## wilbur1 (Jul 20, 2008)

Whoops sorry


----------



## Soren (Jul 23, 2008)

Charles, 

Thanks for the picture but I'm not sure that's from WW2 though.

And about the Eisenkern ammunition, I'll look into it but yes it was partly to save costs.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jul 23, 2008)

The picture date is 1950, I suppose there was no much difference.


----------



## machine shop tom (Jul 24, 2008)

wilbur1 said:


> Does anybody know about the guy in vietnam that used a 308 win?



There were a few that were famous. 

The Marines did use the Remington 700 with Parkerized metal parts, a stock with oil-type finish and a Redfield 3x96 variable scope. It was supplied in 7.62mm Nato (.308 Winchester).

tom


----------



## Matt308 (Jul 25, 2008)

Soren said:


> Charles,
> 
> Thanks for the picture but I'm not sure that's from WW2 though.



Yeah the 3.5x scope is correct.


----------



## Soren (Jul 25, 2008)

Matt308 said:


> Yeah the 3.5x scope is correct.



- and the rifle 

Never heard of the British spotters using 20x scopes during the war, that must have been after.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jul 25, 2008)

They use it, they use it.


----------



## Soren (Jul 25, 2008)

First time I've seen that.


----------



## Matt308 (Jul 25, 2008)

Me too, Soren. CB comes up with some good posts, I must say.


----------



## Soren (Jul 25, 2008)

Looks like a pirate's telescope


----------



## Matt308 (Jul 26, 2008)




----------



## Soren (Jul 26, 2008)

*Sniper:* *Do you see anything ??*
*Spotter:* *Aye matey! 8 degrees starboard, 300 fathoms, German lad!*

I'd consider shooting the spotter if he sounded like that !


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jul 27, 2008)

It does look like XIX century actually, compared with other devices like the " mule ear" binocular trench telescope, in my it was the best tool because it allowed full obserbation without the risk of you head been blown off.


----------



## drgondog (Jul 27, 2008)

Soren said:


> It is data for surplus WW2 military ammunition.
> 
> Sellier Bellot manufacture a similar but slightly lighter FMJ-BT projectile for the 8x57 JS Mauser, a 12.7 g (196 gr) FMJ-BT which features a BC of .557. The 12.7 g FMJ-BT round by S&S has a MV of 790 m/s, so it is great for trying to duplicate the performance of the German sS round.
> 
> Mitchell's Mausers makes a genuine 12.8 g (198gr) FMJ-BT round though, which should be perfect for duplicating the sS round's performance.



What barrel length? 29"?


----------



## drgondog (Jul 27, 2008)

wilbur1 said:


> Does anybody know about the guy in vietnam that used a 308 win?



Marine and army snipers in VietNam used 700 Remington BDL actions with McMillan Barrels made frequently by Bill Wiseman - ultimtely this rifle in 7.62x51 was the M-24. Carlos Hatcock used this, a match M-14 and .50 cal sighting round/scope on the 106MM recoilless to make some of his spectacular shots.

LRRP, SOG, Marine Snipers were pretty much equipped the same way for two man shooter/spotter teams.


----------



## B-17engineer (Jul 28, 2008)

I heard on a show about the Battle of Stalingrad that the German Scopes needed more matinence then the Mosin Nagant.


----------



## Soren (Jul 28, 2008)

drgondog said:


> What barrel length? 29"?



No 600mm (23.6").


----------



## Soren (Jul 28, 2008)

B-17engineer said:


> I heard on a show about the Battle of Stalingrad that the German Scopes needed more matinence then the Mosin Nagant.



That's total BS. Why ?
1.) There were no German snipers in Stalingrad.
2.) Maintenance of a scope just involves cleaning the exterior. 

So what'ever show you claimed you heard this in knew nothing of what it was talking about. 

So are you sure you heard this B17engineer ??


----------



## Matt308 (Jul 28, 2008)

Not sure what that means. Subject to losing zero? Or scope repeatability? Or scope failure?


----------



## Soren (Jul 28, 2008)

German scopes were the most precisely robustly made, and furthermore the Russian PU scopes were copies of earlier German scopes. And finally no German snipers were Stalingrad.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jul 28, 2008)

There was some guys with scopes in their rifles but no snipers in all the sence of the word.



> I heard on a show about the Battle of Stalingrad that the German Scopes needed more matinence then the Mosin Nagant.



Probably you are talking about a episode of "Battlefield Detectives" in wich Martin Pegler ( british weapons expert) zeroed both the Mosin with PU, and the K-98K with ZF-42. It was not more "reliable" but simplier to manipulate because for the PU sight you dont need a screwdrider, just simply adjust the knurled drums for windage and elevation.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jul 28, 2008)

Here a example of "sharpshooter" and no actually a sniper.

Despite the german word "Scharfschütze" means exactly sharp-shooter, the real german sniper would use other cammo and other tactics, surely not pose for the camera with the safety on in its Mauser.


----------



## Juha (Jul 28, 2008)

Soren
where German snipers were? After all in and around Stalingrad there were 1½ German Armies (6th and part of 4th Pz) and not one German sniper?

Juha


----------



## Matt308 (Jul 28, 2008)

There are multiple "maintenance" areas that might need to be addressed for a particular scope arrangement. These "maintenace" areas might be easily addressable by the operator or require an armourer to perform.

1) *The scope mount might be susceptible to mechanical loss of zero*. This can be caused by insufficient structural integrity while on the battlefield. Specifically, bumps, bangs, hits, drops, and other blows to the rifle/scope combination can possibly result in loss of zero. This can be either permanent (bent scope base and inability to compensate with scope adjustments) or temporary (scope adjustments allowed are within structural change of zero).

2) *The scope adjustments are not repeatable*. Scopes with windage (L-R) and/or elevation (U-D) adjustment turrets can sometimes result in inability to repeat zero. It is common practice for snipers to zero their scope, then perform a box adjustment to scope extremes via known turret adjustments (1/2X up... X Right... X down... X left... 1/2X up). Crappy scopes will not be back to zero. This is not an easy test and more scopes fail this test in civil use than not.

3) *Scope failure*. During field use scopes may need maintenance for many reasons. Most common are reticle damage from recoil (more common than you think). Scope internal integrity comprimised (resulting in fogging/condensation) is another. Lenses scratched/cracked is yet another. However, these are likely considered catastrophic and would result in the need to replace the scope, as opposed to repair. This is usually not a field expedient repair item.


----------



## Soren (Jul 28, 2008)

Charles,

The above picture might very well be of a ScharfSchütze, they wore all sorts of camouflage, and some even used their own hunting rifles from home. 

Here's some pictures of actual Scharfschützen:





















As you can see their clothing seems very similar to that worn by the individual in the picture you posted - which was a staged photo btw (hence the safety being on), I have the other one taken at the same spot (Below).






And the picture you posted:






The Germans didn't employ any Scharfschützen in Stalingard however, which was a mistake and one of the reasons the Soviet snipers became such an irritation factor there. 

Note that the guy in the picture you posted is armed with a Gewehr 98b which features a longer barrel than the K98k, it was prefered by some because of its higher muzzle velocity.

Juha,

Read Peter Senich's book if in doubt. There were no Scharfschützen in Stalingrad, which is but one of the reasons that the encounter between "Hr. Major König" and Vasilli Zaitsev couldn't have happened, pure propoganda that's all.


----------



## Soren (Jul 28, 2008)

Matt308 said:


> There are multiple "maintenance" areas that might need to be addressed for a particular scope arrangement. These "maintenace" areas might be easily addressable by the operator or require an armourer to perform.
> 
> 1) *The scope mount might be susceptible to mechanical loss of zero*. This can be caused by insufficient structural integrity while on the battlefield. Specifically, bumps, bangs, hits, drops, and other blows to the rifle/scope combination can possibly result in loss of zero. This can be either permanent (bent scope base and inability to compensate with scope adjustments) or temporary (scope adjustments allowed are within structural change of zero).
> 
> ...



Maintenance in the field is cleaning the scope and zeroing it in if perhaps it gets hit loose by a fall or something, but this is the same for all scopes. German scopes were filled with gas to make them more reliable in varying climates and keeping them free from condensation.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jul 28, 2008)

I think the soldier use a Gew 98 , not "B" because it was a shorter variant, aniway the shooter in the pic is a Waffen SS soldier.

Is possible that he was a proper scharfschutzen as you said but in the Heer I had seen in training films and in the "Deustche Wochenschau" the use of a far more intrincated cammo.

German Sniper - Der Deutsche Scharfschtze 1944

Nice pictures by the way.


----------



## Soren (Jul 28, 2008)

Reread my post Charles, I added some pictures.

I've seen the German sniper training films, I was infact the one who presented them earlier on on this forum.

Remember that snipers adapt according to their surroundings, so there is no "standard" uniform, they sometimes wore just the same as the regular troops except they had that little sharpshooter batch on their left shoulder, or they wore different types of camoflage clothing. Sometimes they wore entire body suits designed so they were easy to attach branches and other types of vegetation to. They also used masks sometimes. Like I said it varies with the inviroment.

Furthermore it IS a Gewehr 98b on the picture, there's no doubt about it, the lenght and flat rear sight gives it away. 

Here are the different versions (As you can see it is a Gew 98b on the pic):





PS: The devices on the muzzle on some of them are just metal flaps to prevent dirt from getting inside the barrel in the field, I have them on my examples as-well.


----------



## Juha (Jul 28, 2008)

Soren
I'm not very interested in sniping but IIRC ordinary British infantry battalion had 5 snipers and they were handy in patrol, recon etc duties and also effective against enemy snipers and "snipers" (in latter I mean ordinary enemy die-hards which ordinary soldiers easily called snipers). It sounds strange that 1½ German armies didn't have a single sniper, even more when one thinks how Germans air-transported 5 Pioneer battalions to Stalingrad from Germany or at least from other army groups.

I care even less on "Hr. Major König" and have not seen the film Enemy at the Gates or whatever.

Still, where were German snipers? After all Stalingrad was the main show in autumn 42.

Juha


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jul 28, 2008)

> Reread my post Charles, I added some pictures.



I did and I modified a bit my post in relation with that, you are too fast to reply


----------



## Matt308 (Jul 28, 2008)

Soren said:


> Maintenance in the field is cleaning the scope and zeroing it in if perhaps it gets hit loose by a fall or something, but this is the same for all scopes. German scopes were filled with gas to make them more reliable in varying climates and keeping them free from condensation.



And thus reinforce my points.


----------



## Soren (Jul 28, 2008)

Juha said:


> Soren
> I'm not very interested in sniping but IIRC ordinary British infantry battalion had 5 snipers and they were handy in patrol, recon etc duties and also effective against enemy snipers and "snipers" (in latter I mean ordinary enemy die-hards which ordinary soldiers easily called snipers). It sounds strange that 1½ German armies didn't have a single sniper, even more when one thinks how Germans air-transported 5 Pioneer battalions to Stalingrad from Germany or at least from other army groups.
> 
> I care even less on "Hr. Major König" and have not seen the film Enemy at the Gates or whatever.
> ...



There were sharpshooters outside the city (Stalingrad) Juha, and also outside around Leningrad (and actually in Leningrad as-well). I'll have to dig into my books to see all the places where the Scharfschützen were deployed.


----------



## Soren (Jul 28, 2008)

CharlesBronson said:


> I did and I modified a bit my post in relation with that, you are too fast to reply



Do you see that it's a Gew 98b then ?


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jul 28, 2008)

It is, I get confused with the Kar 98B.


----------



## Juha (Jul 29, 2008)

Hello
I noticed that I left out the NCO from British Sniper Section and to make it right in second try tried to dig out exact info on the section but could not find WWII org of the HQ Unit of British Inf. Battalion, the best I found was 1953 org, the the Sniper Section consisted 1+6.

Juha


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jul 29, 2008)

This is a more proper scharfschutze emplacement and dress.







Interesting interview with the top guns of the german scharfschützen business.


Scharfschützen, snipers weapons and tactics. - WW2inColor Talk


----------



## Soren (Jul 30, 2008)

CharlesBronson said:


> It is, I get confused with the Kar 98B.



Well it's actually called both Karabiner 98b or Gewehr 98b, I believe the designation changed to Karabiner sometime in the late 20's or early 30's.


----------



## Soren (Jul 30, 2008)

CharlesBronson said:


> This is a more proper scharfschutze emplacement and dress.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Like I said Charles the clothing varied with the inviroment and circumstances under which the Scharfschützen had to operate. The guy in the picture seems to be wearing a raincoat. The picture is from the book _"The K98k Rifle"_ which I have. Here is the same picture without that annoying label in the bottom:






And a picture of the books cover:






I have loads of pictures if anyone is interested.


----------



## Matt308 (Jul 30, 2008)

I loved the hour long Luftwaffe training film. Excellent. Only about halfway through though.


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jul 30, 2008)

> I loved the hour long Luftwaffe training film. Excellent. Only about halfway through though.



Hour and a half actually.



> Like I said Charles the clothing varied with the inviroment and circumstances under which the Scharfschützen had to operate. The guy in the picture seems to be wearing a raincoat



Yes, but note also the added cammo in the trench in the manner of bushes 



> I have loads of pictures if anyone is interested.



of course we are interested man, bring it on. 8)


----------



## Matt308 (Jul 30, 2008)

CharlesBronson said:


> Hour and a half actually.



I have 1 hour 8 min 21 sec. What am I missing CB?


----------



## CharlesBronson (Jul 30, 2008)

Check youtube I think this video there is longer.


----------



## Matt308 (Jul 30, 2008)

Oh okay.


----------



## Soren (Jul 31, 2008)

I linked it a long time ago in a thread specifically about it:
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/ww2-general/unseen-weapon-8477.html


----------



## Soren (Jul 31, 2008)

Some more pictures:


----------



## CharlesBronson (Aug 1, 2008)

Neat pictures, if you can post jpegs, my computer get stuck a little with this bitmaps.


----------



## Soren (Oct 12, 2008)

K98k at 900 yards:

_View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8B4Me5HXNo_


----------



## drgondog (Oct 20, 2008)

Soren said:


> 760 m/s is plenty fast Charles, and the effective range of the German round is a good deal longer than that of any Allied round (Watch tables below). The US marine sniper's std. sniping round is the 172gr M118 FMJ-BT (BC: .494) which has a MV of 730 m/s and is fired very accurately out to 900m. The 7.92mm 12.8 g sS projectile can be fired accurately at even longer ranges.
> 
> For excellent long range accuracy you need a heavy, stable and very low drag projectile (Streamlined), muzzle velocity is of less importance.
> 
> ...



Curious what this 7.92 mm bullet looked like. 

The Barnes X 180 has BC of .382 and 200gr XFB has a BC of .426 and the 220gr XFB is .462 (about as good as a modern 7.92mm gets)

and the Nosler 200 gr is .429. The Hornady 220gr BC is .464 (the best BC of any 7.92mm I have found so far)

How does one get a BC of 25% greater than a 220 gr - with a 198gr bullet?


----------



## Soren (Oct 20, 2008)

LoL, Barnes X is far from the best out there Bill! Even Sierra's Matchking bullet (HPBT) is much better than that! (BC = .520)

Try out Sellier Bellot's 196 gr FMJ-BT round, it has an average BC of .557, slightly less than that of the 198 gr sS projectile.

Here's what they look like (Note some are S.m.K.'s (AP), the two furthest to the right are sS):




And here are some lab test result with different brands:









> How does one get a BC of 25% greater than a 220 gr - with a 198gr bullet?



Bill how can you even ask such a question ?  The answer is: Form factor, form factor form factor! Weight is far from everything, the light 150 gr Spitzers introduced in 1904 easily outperformed the 220gr roundnosed bullets of earlier.

PS: This is an area where I am infact an expert.


----------



## Soren (Oct 22, 2008)

This great shows many different bullet types on the market for the 8x57mm Mauser, including a few FMJ-BT ones. The s.S. projectile is the 2nd from the left:


----------



## Soren (Oct 22, 2008)

Close up of normal 154gr SpitzGeschoss FMJ flat base and the 198gr Schweres Spitzgeschoss FMJ boat tailed:


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 22, 2008)

Soren, I hope you don't mind me jumping in here, but I just had to mention that the Mauser's iron sights are definately a shooter's friend.

I have a 1912 vintage Mauser that's been in the family for many years, it's caliber is 7x57 m/m. It's mechanical parts are spotless, and the action is stiff, as mention earlier in the thread, but it's deadly accurate at all ranges and is my hunting weapon of choice. I have always been able to draw a solid bead on my target, and get good clean hits every time.

I'll include a photo of it, and you can see that it bears the scars of being through two world wars, the foreward portion of the stock is darkened from being soaked in blood (by the bayonette lug). It also bears odd divots in the wood that was later explained to me as being from swinging it as a club, the divots being the inpressions left by the edges of helmets. There is also blood staining at the receiver and also on the other side of the stock, near the cheek-rest.

It may not be the 8 m/m caliber of the later K98 Mausers, but it's still a top performer!

I'll also toss in a photo of a recent aquisition, a straight-pull Steyer, all numbers matching (it looks as though it was never disassembled) and has the Imperial Austrian crest on it with no reference of Nazi ownership. I ran across some original ammunition for it, some pre-occupation Austrian cartridges bearing the Hapsburg crest and occupation cartridges bearing the Reichs Eagle. It too, is incredibly accurate at moderate distances but I haven't had the chance to try it at any long ranges yet.

I had to mention this as I have been following the conversation regarding the Mauser's iron sights and it's accuracy


----------



## Soren (Oct 23, 2008)

Those are some very nice examples right there GG, the M98 is a Turk isn't it ?

And about the iron sights, I completely agree, the V sights ar the most accurate providing you have good eyesight, if not the peep sight is better.


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 23, 2008)

Soren said:


> Those are some very nice examples right there GG, the M98 is a Turk isn't it ?
> 
> And about the iron sights, I completely agree, the V sights ar the most accurate providing you have good eyesight, if not the peep sight is better.



Thank You, Soren!

The Mauser has, beleive it or not, Prussian ordinance markings on it, and at the receiver, the Imperial eagle and the date of 1912 directly below it.

The Mauser's bayonette has Imperial German markings and is not the original issued with the rifle. But no surprise there, as things were pretty chaotic so things bound to get mixed up back then. I do have the "frog" that goes with the bayonette's sheath, too.

The Steyr has the Hapsburg Eagle and Austrian ordinance markings on it.


----------



## Soren (Oct 24, 2008)

GrauGeist said:


> Thank You, Soren!
> 
> The Mauser has, beleive it or not, Prussian ordinance markings on it, and at the receiver, the Imperial eagle and the date of 1912 directly below it.
> 
> The Mauser's bayonette has Imperial German markings and is not the original issued with the rifle. But no surprise there, as things were pretty chaotic so things bound to get mixed up back then. I do have the "frog" that goes with the bayonette's sheath, too.



Aaah I see, then it is probably a rebuilt Kar98b, explaining the stock.

Have you noted wether all the parts have matching numbers ?


----------



## GrauGeist (Oct 24, 2008)

Soren said:


> Aaah I see, then it is probably a rebuilt Kar98b, explaining the stock.
> 
> Have you noted wether all the parts have matching numbers ?



All numbers on the weapon are matching


----------



## Soren (Oct 24, 2008)

GrauGeist said:


> All numbers on the weapon are matching



Excellent. Then I'm sure it's a rebuilt Kar98a, a very rare rifle.

I made a mistake regarding it being a Kar98"b", it's not, the Kar98b (Actually its official name was Gew98b) is modernized version of the Gew98 from WW1 and longer than the Karabiner versions of the rifle like the K98a Kar98K. However your rifle is like I said above a rebuilt Kar98a, very rare


----------



## Vossy (Oct 24, 2008)

Cant lie tho. War of the Rats is a pretty damn well written book even if it is all BS


----------



## Glider (Oct 25, 2008)

Soren said:


> And about the iron sights, I completely agree, the V sights ar the most accurate providing you have good eyesight, if not the peep sight is better.



I don't understand this. Peep sights are always used on target rifles and have proven to be more accurate. In open competition I and most others preferred peep sights to telescopic sights, let alone V sights.


----------



## drgondog (Oct 30, 2008)

I find peep sights to be far better (for me) on moving targets - I keep both eyes open and swing through just like a shotgun. I am barely aware of the sight.

I have not put a scope on any of my 'non bolt action' rifles. I can no longer score well at 500 with any open sights as my eyes are too close to 20/25+ but still shoot moving targets well


----------



## Soren (Nov 1, 2008)

Well every man has his preference, but the eagle eyes at my shooting club prefer the V-sights when shooting over open sights. The others, which is the majority, prefer the peep sights.


----------



## GrauGeist (Nov 1, 2008)

Soren said:


> Well every man has his preference, but the eagle eyes at my shooting club prefer the V-sights when shooting over open sights. The others, which is the majority, prefer the peep sights.




I have to say that I score better with a V-sight than with a peep-sight.

And that may be due to using the V-sight more often. And I too use both eyes, whether I'm lead-shooting or lining up on a static target, the V is just gives me better control.


----------



## drgondog (Nov 2, 2008)

Doe sanyone know what pressures the Sellier Bellot 196 gr is designed for?

Or the s.S 198?

What barrel length for the velocities published?


----------



## Soren (Nov 2, 2008)

The thing that is designed to withstand certain pressures is the 8x57mm cartridge, which is the same as the 30.06 = 60,000 + psi.

Std. European 8x57mm loads are ~48,000 psi IIRC, same as the German military sS round, but they can reach 60,000 psi (LW ammo). The American loads are usually grossly underpowered and none meet the European std., the reason being a fear of full power 8x57mm ammo being fired through the old M1888 rifle which wont handle the pressures.

The M98 action will handle 70,000+ psi so nothing to worry about there. (Just remember that the Mauser 1888 won't handle the loads, so be sure it's a M98) 

At 48,000 psi the sS round's MV out of a 600mm barrell is 760 m/s (Some list 775 m/s). I chronographed a 1938 batch of 198 gr sS ammo to an average of just over 780 m/s through my K98k, the higher velocity probably stemming from the storage of this old ammo crystalizing the powder particles.

As for Sellier Bellot's ammo, the pressures are around 47,000 to 48,000 psi, firing the 196 gr bullet at 790 m/s through a 600mm barrel.


----------



## drgondog (Nov 2, 2008)

Soren said:


> The thing that is designed to withstand certain pressures is the 8x57mm cartridge, which is the same as the 30.06 = 60,000 + psi.
> 
> *I am curious about the S&B powder primer combos. I load my 30-06 (24" shilen, M700 action and 23" barrel w/M70 pre-64) both with 58.0 gr RL22, F210 primers and winchester brass- and they shoot very well with 200gr Accubonds ~ 2690-2730 fps. From various references the pressure appears to be in the 56,000-58,000 psi range and shows zero signs of pressure. I check head diameter and measure case expansion as well as the usual suspects.
> 
> ...



I wonder if they are using RL 15 or Viht N150?


----------



## Soren (Nov 3, 2008)

> I am curious about the S&B powder primer combos. I load my 30-06 (24" shilen, M700 action and 23" barrel w/M70 pre-64) both with 58.0 gr RL22, F210 primers and winchester brass- and they shoot very well with 200gr Accubonds ~ 2690-2730 fps. From various references the pressure appears to be in the 56,000-58,000 psi range and shows zero signs of pressure. I check head diameter and measure case expansion as well as the usual suspects.
> 
> I noticed that all the US 8x57 loads are much tamer in the Nosler and Hogdon manuals but the 8mm-06 has slightly only slightly lower ballistics with 200gr Accubond and 55gr IMR4350~2630fps than the 30-06 load above. RL 22 is a slower burning powder which should help explain similar pressures.



You can load the 8x57mm up to 58,000 psi with no pressure signs in the K98k at all (Only thing you notice is the unusually beastie kick), the cartridge completely intact and the bolt cycling smoothly, that I've tried many times and know. However I haven't tried at pressures beyond that. But LW 7.92mm ammunition, the so called V-patronen, were loaded to pressures in the 60,000 + psi range and according to Peter Senich snipers often used this to gain an extra 150m effective range, and the K98k handled these loads easily.

PS: I wouldn't use 60,000+ psi loads in my old Mauser, I want it to last and I'm not taking any risks with it, and I'd advice anyone of the same as-well. 

Also if a cartridge should burst for some reason then there's nothing to fear safety wise with a M98 as it has overpressure vents. Strongest and safest action out there, no doubt. 



> I wonder if they are using RL 15 or Viht N150?



Beats me really. Haven't got any of it in stock, but maybe you should contact them ?


----------



## TempestMKV (May 5, 2009)

Soren said:


> 760 m/s is plenty fast Charles, and the effective range of the German round is a good deal longer than that of any Allied round (Watch tables below). The US marine sniper's std. sniping round is the 172gr M118 FMJ-BT (BC: .494) which has a MV of 730 m/s and is fired very accurately out to 900m. The 7.92mm 12.8 g sS projectile can be fired accurately at even longer ranges.
> 
> For excellent long range accuracy you need a heavy, stable and very low drag projectile (Streamlined), muzzle velocity is of less importance.
> A WW2 German sniper was easily capable of taking down a standing man at 800+ m meters with one shot, and like the veterans specialists say chest hits were achieved out to beyond 800m without fail for experienced snipers. German snipers used to pick off Allied soldiers all the way out to 1,200m, just to show the Allies that they couldn't even feel safe at that range. However it was recommended not to shoot until the target was within atmost 800m, as target ID was then possible.
> ...





Soren, could u explain to me why k98k projectile outpeformed Browning 0.5?

0.5BMG, 12.7mm weight=48.6g, BC=1.0 MV=867m/s
K98k , 7.92mm. weight=12.8g, BC=0.584 MV= 760m/s

At 1000m,.50 is 479m/s, 7.92mm is around 520m/s. So，a lower MV, lighter, lower BC ,7.92mm projectile outperforms a heavier, higer MV, higher BC 12.7mm???


----------



## Soren (May 5, 2009)

Tempest I believe the guy who made that chart might have used the wrong drag function, which would explain the difference. Ur supposed to G7 for FMJ-BT projectiles and G1 for flat based spitzers.


----------



## renrich (May 13, 2009)

According to a recent article by Major John Plaster(Ret) USAR, a Timothy Murphy, sharpshooter in the Continental Army, at the Battle of Saratoga, 1777, took down a British general, Simon Fraser, with a single shot at about 330 yards. He was using a muzzle loading rifle with iron sights. There were numerous examples of snipers in the War Between the States using rifles such as the British Whitworth with an optical sight making shots at 500-600 yards and even further.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (May 13, 2009)

Hey Guys,
I'm in kind of late in the game, but here is something worth considering: The Ballistic Coefficient of most rifle caliber projectiles is not a constant. It varies according to the velocity. This might be a rehash for some of you out there, but the Ballistic Coefficient is an adjustment factor in comparison with a known standard bullet. Back around 1900, a standard 1 inch diameter bullet (Krupp Standard) was fired at various ranges and the velocity loss was recorded. This became the G1 standard (BC=1.00). Other flat base bullets fly worse (mostly because they are much smaller) which is why the BC is typically under 1.00. A good approximation for shape for the Krupp bullet would be a 500 grain Lyman bullet for the .45-70. The G7 is shaped more like we expect of rifle bullets today: Boat Tail Spitzer.

In any case, with most bullets, the BC is only an approximation. It typically is only accurate for a certain velocity range and will change a bit if the velocity is outside that range. It typically gets worse as the bullet goes slower. Also, the BC is calculated for a nice pristine bullet. A real bullet will fly worse because it may have upset a little in firing and has these nasty draggy rifling grooves in it.

BTW, I watched the You-Tube video that was quoted earlier of a Mauser Kar.98k at 900 yards. That was pretty good shooting by the fellow involved, but IMHO has nearly no relation to a WW2 era German sniper rifle. The rifle was glass bedded, the scope is a Bushnell 5-15x 40 mm, the ammunition is handloads with hollow point boat tail match bullets.

Also, IMHO, the accuracy of a bullet has nearly nothing to do with its form factor. The form factor only determines how well it retains its velocity. The accuracy is determined by the consistency of construction for the most part. Absolute accuracy records today (Benchrest shooting) are typically held by little bitty flat base bullets. A .45-70 for example uses a bullet that doesn't look very streamlined, but it retains it velocity much better than most .30 caliber bullets and doesn't have the transonic problems that the modern .30 cal match bullets seem to have. As for precision, When I cast .458 diameter bullets that are in the 460 grain range, I cull ones that are outside a 1.5 grain range.

- Ivan.


----------



## vikingBerserker (May 13, 2009)

Soren said:


> That's total BS. Why ?
> 1.) There were no German snipers in Stalingrad.



Are you sure about that? "199 Days The Battle for Stalingrad" By Edwin Palmer Hoyt talks about German Snipers in Stalingrad.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (May 14, 2009)

Hello Renrich,
Lookup Billy Dixon at Adobe Walls. Now THAT was a long range shot. I know this is getting a bit off topic, but there are some that believe that a Schuetzen type muzzle loader with a false muzzle using Black Powder is potentially one of the most accurate kinds of rifle though entirely impractical for anything other than target shooting. The reason I believe some of these are minorly relevant to the discussion is that bullets of this type that aren't pointy and sleek and don't have a wonderful ballistic coefficient are still capable of quite excellent long range accuracy. The midrange trajectory will take them over a multi story house, but they still tend to come down in fairly tight clusters with most of the velocity they were launched at.

Regarding rifle actions and extreme accuracy, The Mosin Nagant is most certainly obsolete, The Mauser 98 is also though perhaps not as bad. Even the ubiquitous Remington 700 is not competitive. Multi lug actions such as the Stolle "Bears" and the AR-15/AR-10 type are the current state of the art.

Pardon me if I have offended anyone. It really was not my intent.
- Ivan.


----------



## renrich (May 14, 2009)

Ivan, your posts are enjoyable, informative and show a lot of practical experience. Many thanks. Being a native Texan I am quite aware of Dixon's famous shot but could not remember tha alleged distance so did not quote it. In the movie, "Lonesome Dove" Gus and the girl camped at Adobe Walls and the scene where Gus dueled with his Henry against the bad guy's Sharps was quite graphic. Gus had to really point that Henry up into the air to make the shot.


----------



## Soren (May 14, 2009)

Ivan,

While flat based Spitzers might do best in benchrest shooutouts, it must be noted that these often occur at ranges no longer than 200 m. At long range a flat based spitzer is at a distinct disadvantage in stability and energy retention compared to boat tailed spitzers.

As for the video, the reason he is able to hit so consistantly is because he carefully made sure that the same amount of powder was used in each cartridge and that the seating of the projectile was identical and finally that he used a FMJ-BT projectile with a high BC. Had he handloaded old German surplus projectiles he would've achieved the same or maybe even better accuracy, the design of the s.S. bullet being more stable at supersonic subsonic speeds than most projectiles avalable today, and with a BC of .584 at supersonic velocities and .557 at subsonic velocities it retains energy better than most similar caliber bullets as-well.

As for the Glass Bedding, well it is very limited how much that helped, I'm pretty sure the action was quite securely fitted on the originals. The reason he glass bedded his rifle is because it's generally a good idea on very old rifle because of the wear and tear of time.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (May 14, 2009)

Hi Soren,
The reason that benchrest competitions are held at relatively short ranges is that at longer ranges, wind has such a great effect that the mechanical accuracy of the gun/ammunition combinations is pretty much masked. A fair benchrest rifle should shoot about 0.2 MOA or 0.20 inch groups (typically 5 shots) at 100 yards. At 300 yards, you might figure 0.6 inch groups center to center, but a slight gust of wind can blow your bullet off by several feet. In real life, even angular dispersion tends to increase with distance but not to the extent that wind affects things.

I agree with you that Boat Tail Spitzers will retain their velocity better, but they are NOT more stable with all other factors being equal. A bullet with greater rotational inertia is more stable than one with less. A boat tail spitzer has more of its mass close to the centerline of the bullet than a flat base bullet and thus less rotational inertia than the same weight and diameter bullet with a flat base. Note that the .357 Magnum can fire a 158 grain bullet with a typical rifling twist of about 1 turn in 18 inches. A .30-06 fires a 150 grain bullet with a typical rifling twist of 1 turn in 10 inches. For folks who might be interested, check out the Greenhill formula for estimating the necessary rifling twist with various bullets and velocities. It is a little conservative but still useful.

Regarding Glass-Bedding: The reason for glass bedding is not to reinforce a deteriorated stock with questionable integrity. The idea is to get a PERFECT fit between the barrel and receiver of your rifle and the wooden stock. This can not be achieved even by the best gunsmith inletting a stock by hand. If this is done properly, the stock and receiver can only fit together one way. It won't bounce around between shots. Also, the "Glass-Bedding" material (I typically use Brownell's Acraglas Steel) is much more stable and stronger than wood. It is also not compressible. There are some that believe an aluminum bedding block such as on a H&S Precision stock is as good, but the bottom line is that epoxy and metal particles or just plain metal beats the heck out of wood for stability.

Regarding reloaded ammunition: The bullets today are more consistently made and accurate than any in history IMHO. Perhaps the German sS bullets are a bit more aerodynamic, but that doesn't mean they are more accurate. Retained velocity and angular dispersion are two different and pretty much unrelated things. If you really want retained velocity, check out the modern VLD (very low drag) or sintered Tungsten bullets.

Here are some practices I follow in reloading target ammunition:
1. Resize for consistent headspace as checked with a RCBS Precision Mic
2. Trim case neck and deburr
3. Uniform primer pockets with tungsten carbide tool
4. Deburr the flash hole
4.5. Cull any cases with inconsistent weight - Sometimes I do it. Sometimes I don't.
5. Seat primers to consistent depth (not by feel)
6. Measure powder charges to 0.1 grain.
7. Seat bullets to consistent depth as measured off the ogive (not by overall length)

The exact powder charge is determined by experimentation, but I have found that loading to the same velocity as a known good load (or a good factory load) seems to work pretty well.... sometimes.
The exact seating depth is also determined by experimentation, but 0.015 to 0.025 inch off the rifling is a pretty good starting point.

Another aspect of the quoted ballistics tables I noticed was that the diameters of the bullets may be incorrect. I usta reload for 7.92 x 57mm. The bullets are actually .0323 inch diameter which works out to 8.20 mm. Likewise, a .50 cal bullet is really 0.510 inch and a 7.62 x 54R Russian round uses a .310 inch diameter bullet.

My apologies in advance for such a long-winded post.
- Ivan.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (May 14, 2009)

renrich said:


> Ivan, your posts are enjoyable, informative and show a lot of practical experience. Many thanks. Being a native Texan I am quite aware of Dixon's famous shot but could not remember tha alleged distance so did not quote it. In the movie, "Lonesome Dove" Gus and the girl camped at Adobe Walls and the scene where Gus dueled with his Henry against the bad guy's Sharps was quite graphic. Gus had to really point that Henry up into the air to make the shot.



Thanks Renrich,
Given a choice between a Henry and a Sharps, I prefer the Sharps, especially a 1874. I just think the 1874 Sharps is a beautiful rifle. The Henry basically shoots a big pistol cartridge.

When reloading for a .45-70, I typically use a Lee 450 grain flat base bullet. Everything is cast from just plain wheel weights and tend to run a bit heavy. The Lee bullets run about 460 grain. I also use the Lyman Schmitzer500 grain bullet which does look very much like a mini Krupp standard bullet. I have also tried a 535 grain Postell bullet but haven't had much luck yet with that monster cruise missile. I use a Lyman heated lubrisizer and Alox bullet lube. Powder is typically IMR 3031 and chronograph velocities at about 7 feet from the muzzle are 1450-1480 fps with the Lee 460 grain bullets. I don't think I have ever shot under 1 MOA with these loads, but 1.5 inch 5 shot groups at 100 yards are quite common and IMHO that isn't too bad with iron sights.

With this kind of gun, I tend to have more fun than with my more serious target guns because the ammunition is about half the price and because I don't feel the need to try for a 1/2 MOA group.

- Ivan.


----------



## renrich (May 15, 2009)

A question I have never had satisfactorily answered is the following; Modern smokeless powder has progressive burning characteristics which means that up to a point, longer barrels give higher velocities. It is my understanding that black powder used in the 18th and 19th century burnt all at once so it would seem that longer barrels would not help give higher velocity. If that is true, why did rifle makers use such long barrels instead of handier carbine length barrels. The same question on cannon barrel lengths, such as the 24 pounders on the gun deck of the USS Constitution. Dueling at ranges of much over 100 yards with a Henry which I think was a 44 Rimfire against a Sharps Rifle was a sure way to get punctured. I thought what showed the realism in the "Lonesome Dove" example was that Gus had to really elevate the barrel of his Henry using a ladder sight, I think, and the bullet took a long time to get there and when it did just barely penetrated the opponents stomach. Good research for Hollywood for a change. An aside. It has been 20 years since "Lonesome Dove" was released and there is a celebration scheduled in San Antonio in June, I think.


----------



## Soren (May 15, 2009)

Ivan,

You obviously have great knowledge on the issue of guns, ammunition and ballistics. So when talking about the stability of a bullet you must also note that it is not just determined by its' gyroscopic stability, but also how much wind affects it. And a heavier and much better streamlined bullet, which the s.S. projectile is compared to any allied rifle bullet of the war, will be less affected by the wind. That is why very long range shots are made with heavy boattailed bullets, because of their inherent advantage in stability and energy retention at range. 

And while what you explained about the required twist rate for light vs heavy bullets is true, you will also need to note that this was a very well understood science back then, and the K98k was designed specifically to fire heavy bullets of 12 grams or heavier.

And regarding glass bedding, there is again nothing wrong with your explanation, but you must also understand that this has a questionable effect on a rifle where the action is as well fitted with the stock as on some of these old rifles. Free floating the barrel will yield much more noticable results.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (May 15, 2009)

Hello Renrich,
Pardon me if I am describing what you already know, but here goes: Black powder tends to burn at very nearly the same rate regardless of whether it is enclosed or out in the open. Pressure may increase its burning rate a little, but not much. Smokeless powder burns fairly slowly out in the open, but when enclosed, its burn rate increases TREMENDOUSLY. As pressure increases, the burn rate increases. 

Black powder properly made is pretty much uniform. The burning rate is controlled by its granulation. For black powder rifles, FFg (also called "2 F") is often used. For Pistols, a finer granulation FFFg ("3 F") is often used. FFFFg is typically used as priming for a Flintlock. I tend to use a lot of FFFg in both Rifles and Pistols. In Rifles, the fact that I use FFFg rather than FFg means that I can't run full loads because the pressure would be too high. I typically use about 65 to 75 grains volume measured (as opposed to weight measured) behind a 400-something grain Minie ball or cantilever bullet. With FFg, I have gone up to about 120 grains behind the same bullet.

Smokeless powder today is either single base or double base meaning Nitrocellulose with or without Nitroglycerine. The "powder" is basically a very flammable plastic whose burning rate is controlled by the shape of the grains or the addition of a burning deterrent to coat the grains. Smokeless powder doesn't really explode, it burns very quickly. Solid items as they burn will get smaller and with less surface area, the burning rate slows down until the grain breaks apart. The decreasing surface area combined with the fact that the volume is increasing as the bullet moves down the barrel means that the peak chamber pressure happens fairly close to when the bullet starts moving. One solution to this is to shape or coat the powder so that its burning rate actually increases slightly from the initial rate. One way to do this is to extrude a grain of powder so that it isn't just a simple cylinder but rather a cylinder with a bunch of little holes in it. Think of short cut licorice candy. Each grain burns from both the inside and outside and the surface area and burning rate increase as it burns. This is what is called "Progressive Burning Powder".

Black powder guns' peak pressure isn't very high, about 15,000 LUP or PSI IIRC, and the burning rate is fairly slow, so the guns need long barrels to generate reasonable velocities. A typical smokeless rifle has a much higher peak pressure 55,000 CUP or PSI is fairly reasonable, but the pressure also drops quickly. The pressure at the gas port on a M14 should be around 8,000 - 16,000 PSI. The pressure at the gas port on a M1 Garand near the muzzle should be around 4,000 - 8,000 PSI. You can see where the gas ports are, so you can figure out how fast the pressure drops.

FWIW, my opinion on Henry versus Sharps is that the Henry has an advantage out to about 150-200 yards or so. 150 yards is "point blank" range (no elevation needed) for either gun, and I would imagine the Henry is much handier.

Longwinded yet again.
- Ivan.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (May 15, 2009)

Hi Soren,
Thanks for the compliment.
I would not be overly concerned with resistance to wind deflection when comparing rifle cartridges. ANY rifle caliber bullet will get blown all over the place with any significant wind. Folks in gun magazines like to make academic discussions about those differences, but the bottom line is that having a bullet blown 3 feet instead of 3.5 feet isn't all that different. IMHO, the difference between being blown 3 inches instead of 4 inches is important only when shooting rifle matches. Look at some wind tables that folks use for target shooting and you will see what I mean. Basically, if the wind is blowing, you call it and compensate for it or you don't shoot. Wind bucking ability and sheer target accuracy is pretty much irrelevant as I see it.

Besides a long streamlined (High BC) bullet, another way to reduce wind deflection is to increase the velocity. In that area, the 7.92 is rather limited with the heavier bullets.

I believe the Kar 98 had a rifling twist of around 1 turn in 9 inches which isn't that much faster than the standard 1 in 10 inch twist on a .30-06. Some folks say that an overly fast twist will limit accuracy, but I believe that is only important if you are concerned with 1/10 MOA or less to win a benchrest match. I did have one case where rifling twist was obviously too high. I goosed up the velocity with one load slightly and found that I had only 3 rounds out of 20 hit the target at 100 yards. I was using thin jacket varmint bullets and I believe the others just disintegrated before reaching the target.

Regarding Glass bedding, there are a lot of folks out there who spend a lot of money to glass bed guns. I am sure that folks back in WW2 would have done it also if the materials existed at the time. Look at the John Garand matches with M1 rifles: These guns are hand inletted with the best known methods and aren't shot against fully match prepared and glass bedded guns.

Regarding free floated barrels, I believe it works pretty well with fairly heavy barrels but doesn't work nearly as well with lightweight stuff. A pressure point usually works better. Also, it is pretty darn difficult to free float a barrel with all the wood you find on a full stocked military rifle. Putting in a known pressure point is more reliable method here as well and doesn't get screwed up as badly when the stock warps a little.

BTW, I also realise that sometimes these guns shoot a whole lot better than any analysis would predict. The Swedish Mauser seems to do VERY well. I personally have shot a 5 shot 1.02 inch group at 100 yards with an iron sighted Mauser derivative while getting up and moving around between shots.

- Ivan.


----------



## Soren (May 16, 2009)

Ivan,

I can't say I agree with everything you say but we're not far from agreeing. But you're absolutely correct when you say that sometimes guns perform much better than any simple analysis would have predicted. 

As for the twist rate, small differences make a big difference in this department and with the chosen rifling depth the 1 in 9.45 inch twist rate was found to be by far the best configuration for the K98k when firing the s.S. round.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (May 17, 2009)

Hello Soren,

Glad we are mostly in agreement. The Mauser derivative that shot the 1.02 inch group actually has a barrel that was shot with corrosive ammunition and the bore looks like a sewer pipe. It is fully stocked and the quality of the piece except for the bore is museum quality. Looking at the bore, one would never figure this to be an accurate rifle, but it is. I have thrown away barrels with better looking bores than this one. In fact, one of those discarded barrels has been sitting for the last several years in a flower pot in front of my house awaiting its turn as a tomato stake for the next time I grow tomatos.

I personally don't believe that small differences in rifling twist really make much of a difference, but here we are talking about not only a slightly faster twist but a MUCH fatter bullet as well, so the two together may have a greater effect. FWIW, the 1-10" twist in a .30-06 is capable of stabilising a 220 grain bullet which is what the .30-03 round used.

In the US we use a .323 inch bullet for reloading 7.92 Mauser to match groove diameter, but I understand that Europeans tend to use a bullet between bore and groove diameter. Do you happen to know what the German standard diameter bullet was?

Pity we can't find .310 diameter for the 7.62 x 54R over here. (AK bullets don't count!)

- Ivan.


----------



## Soren (May 17, 2009)

Ivan,

Haha the flowerpot theory I believe very much explains your results 

Regarding the diameter of the European 7.92x57mm ammunition, it's 8.23mm, so 0.03mm wider than the US commercial stuff.

Here's a great little schematic on the 7.92mm 12.8 gram s.S. projectile from my archive:


----------



## Ivan1GFP (May 18, 2009)

Hi Soren,

If you ever read the benchrest publications, the typical comment about a barrel that won't shoot well is to use it for a tomato stake. I am planning to do just that.

Regarding your drawing, the aft end of major diameter portion of the bullet is larger than the metric conversion of 0.323 inch (8.2042 mm), but the forward end of this section is only 8.15 mm which is well under the diameter of the US standard for this round.

- Ivan.


----------



## renrich (May 18, 2009)

Thanks Ivan, so I gather that the long barrel of a "Kentucky" rifle was needed for maximum velocity just like a 26 inch barrel on a #1 Ruger will give higher velocity than a 22 inch barrel on a Model 77 Ruger but for different technical reasons. A Henry with its big magazine capacity and fast lever action would indeed be an advantage at fairly short ranges over a Sharps, although the Sharps packed a lot more energy. The difference in performance between the smoothbore musket used by most infantry in the 1700s and early to mid 1800s and that of the rifled musket with minie ball used later and the impact it had on infantry and artillery tactics and how long it took generals to recognise the new tactics is fascinating.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (May 18, 2009)

Hi Renrich,
I believe that a couple extra inches on a BP gun will give it a larger percentage of increase than a couple inches extra barrel on a modern rifle. A pretty good estimate is that an inch of barrel on a modern rifle should give it around 25 fps extra velocity which is well under 1 percent.

The ideal propellant would be one that would hit a plateau in velocity and gain very little extra pressure or velocity with a slight increase in powder charge. Very few powder charges are truly identical. We tend to put faith in mass and try to weigh each charge down to 0.1 grain with smokeless powder. Perhaps volume also contributes to variations in the burn rate. I have heard theories along those lines. Consider that Black Powder is measured by volume only. BP pressures are closer to a linear increase with powder charges than smokeless which is why I believe there may be more accuracy potential there.

Regarding Henry versus Sharps, you CAN have both with a 1886 Winchester! I would love to get an example of a Siamese Mauser rebarreled to .45-70 to see what this cartridge can do with a fairly modern action. I've seen them, but not at a price I felt good about.

- Ivan.


----------



## Soren (May 18, 2009)

Ivan1GFP said:


> Hi Soren,
> 
> If you ever read the benchrest publications, the typical comment about a barrel that won't shoot well is to use it for a tomato stake. I am planning to do just that.



Get a good gunsmith to make you a new barrel Ivan. It might be expensive as heck, but the result is a great looking rifle that shoots sub moa groups (Providing the gunsmith knows what he's doing ofcourse  ) 



> Regarding your drawing, the aft end of major diameter portion of the bullet is larger than the metric conversion of 0.323 inch (8.2042 mm), but the forward end of this section is only 8.15 mm which is well under the diameter of the US standard for this round.
> 
> - Ivan.



Yes that's right, that's how it usually is. The widest part on 8mm european projectiles is 8.23mm, so 0.0258 mm wider than the US commercial stuff.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (May 19, 2009)

Hello Soren,

The barrel that is sitting in the flower pot was replaced years ago. This is a full stocked military gun with a really light weight barrel and receiver so I don't think it is worth turning down a match grade barrel for it. The barrel it currently wears is actually the best I have ever seen on this type of rifle and the headspace is very tight. With iron sights, I am hitting in the 1.5 MOA range for 5 shot groups which is much better than one typically expects for this kind of gun. As for good looks, this is a Frankenstein rifle with parts from many veterans. I think it looks good, but the gun has no real value except to me.

I have actually done a fair amount of rebarreling work and finished chambered a few guns with quite good results in the past. 

I don't know if the same practice applies to smokeless projectiles, but with BP projectiles, I have seen bullets cast with a narrower front end and wider rear used when the bore diameter of the guns is somewhat indeterminate. Perhaps the manufacturing standard over 50 years of M98 Mausers had a lot of variation?

- Ivan.


----------



## Soren (May 20, 2009)

The manufacturing standard was identical for the rifle made through the 30's 40's, and the tolerances were very tight, so that wasn't the reason behind the design. But most rifle bullets are wider to the rear, and that includes for example the Sierra MatchKing projectile which is world renowned for its accuracy.


----------



## dirtbag (May 25, 2009)

Soren said:


> Only really the German sharpshooters were capable of extremely accurate long range fire, fielding far better scopes and far more accurate projectiles. On top of that Germany was one of the few countries to have actual sniping schools and a dedicated sniper arm. The basic training program of the Scharfschütze is still used today by the German, US, British Canadian sniper arm.
> 
> The German Scharfschütze had available to him a an extremely accurate rifle and the most accurate efficient projectile out there, the 12.8 g (198 gr) FMJ-BT Schwere SpitzGeschoss, which featuring a ballistic coefficient (BC) of .584, was a good deal more efficient than both the military .308 cal M118 match .308win Sierra MatchKing projectiles, both of which have BCs ranging from .490 - .515.
> 
> ...




Hye Soren, sorry to drag this up I liked your videos, and upon looking at your comments I have noticed that you are the bloke to talk to.

I noticed your post on the german scopes particulary the Zielacht 8x power and the pictures. I have the same scope Zielacht 8x power which was made in 1922 (1 out of 101) My question is that you mentioned that these were available to the german sniper, do you have any pictures or any refernce to this, as I am going to put it on my K98 but dont want folk to say o they never usd 8 power blah blah blah, there is a blakc and white picture as well, is this an image of an 8 power ?

cheers DB


----------



## Glider (May 26, 2009)

Just a small question on the sights that have been posted. Can I ask how the sights are adjusted for horizontal adjustment as I can only see one dial.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (May 27, 2009)

I believe the scope mounts were adjustable for windage. Consider that at the time, The Unertl scopes used by the US relied on the mounts for adjustments.

Keep in mind also that there were many lower powered scopes in use on both sides (Typically in the 2.5x range).

- Ivan.


----------



## Ivan1GFP (May 29, 2009)

Soren said:


> The manufacturing standard was identical for the rifle made through the 30's 40's, and the tolerances were very tight, so that wasn't the reason behind the design. But most rifle bullets are wider to the rear, and that includes for example the Sierra MatchKing projectile which is world renowned for its accuracy.



Hello Soren,

Your claim regarding the Sierra MatchKing projectiles is simply incorrect. The sides are intended to be parallel. In .308 caliber, the diameters are held to the range .3080 - .3082 inch. My source in this case is Sierra Bullets at 1800 223 8799. I figure they would know.

- Ivan.


----------



## Soren (Jun 7, 2009)

Ivan1GFP said:


> I believe the scope mounts were adjustable for windage. Consider that at the time, The Unertl scopes used by the US relied on the mounts for adjustments.
> 
> Keep in mind also that there were many lower powered scopes in use on both sides (Typically in the 2.5x range).
> 
> - Ivan.



That is true.


----------



## Soren (Jun 7, 2009)

Ivan1GFP said:


> Hello Soren,
> 
> Your claim regarding the Sierra MatchKing projectiles is simply incorrect. The sides are intended to be parallel. In .308 caliber, the diameters are held to the range .3080 - .3082 inch. My source in this case is Sierra Bullets at 1800 223 8799. I figure they would know.
> 
> - Ivan.



I measured the .323 caliber Sierra MK projectile is it is about 0.02 mm wider at the bottom, that is the reason for my statement. Oddly enough I measured the sS projectile as-well and unlike the document states it is parallel, it's the same 8.23mm where the base tapering starts. Tried with a SmK projectile as-well and this was also parallel. Both were from 1942. 

I do not think any of this has any effect on accuracy however.


----------

