Author Topic: best milsurp bolt action? (Read 2303 times)

rio grande · « **on:** January 30, 2007, 06:49:27 AM »

Recent post re: Swede Mauser M96, Swiss K31, M98 Mauser got me to wondering what everybodys favorites are, and why.
I had a primo Swede carbine but prefer my old Yugo M98. I just feel more confident of its strength when shooting it with hot ammo. Is it that third locking lug, or just the overall feel? Rugged! You get the feeling the thing is indestructable. But I find myself missing that great rear sight on the #4 and #5 Brit Enfields. And that #5 - man, that may be the best of all. Except for the kick.
And hey, what's all this about the Mosin-Nagant? Might as well join the Society for Creative Anachronism. If I was betting my life on it,I'd trade 10 of those for a good ol' 98 Mauser. I've shot a lot of Mosins, too. The m38 is handy, and they are rugged, but come on... that safety is impractical - extraction problems...
Whats your favorite and why? What don't you like, and why? No holds barred here. Don't worry about hurting my feelings. We can all learn something here.

Castaway · « **Reply #1 on:** January 30, 2007, 07:15:54 AM »

It would be a toss up between a SMLE for ease and speed of bolt operation and an 03 for its accuracy potential. To paraphrase something I read years ago. The best military bolt rifle was the SMLE, the best target rifle was the 03 and the best hunting platform was the Mauser.

S.S. · « **Reply #2 on:** January 30, 2007, 08:10:14 AM »

P-14 Enfield. Accurate in the extreme, excellent sights, smooth action,
Stock desigh tames recoil pretty well and it is Nice to look at.
it is kind of heavy though.

rio grande · « **Reply #3 on:** January 30, 2007, 08:29:21 AM »

03-A3 - how could I not mention that one. Excellent, pricey nowadays though. I'd have one, but can't afford $500 or $600 right now. Great sights. Maybe the best milsurp bolt action. U.S. Enfield, 30-06, right up there. It is heavy, the beauty is in the eye of the beholder though. Kind of blocky to me. The sights are protected better than on the Springfield, aren't they?

TribReady · « **Reply #4 on:** January 30, 2007, 03:58:15 PM »

I love the Mauser action. Simple, smooth, yet rugged enough for everyday use

Something just didn't feel right to me with the SMLE's and cock on opening. Smooth though.
Give me a Mauser, or the '03, anyday

RaySendero · « **Reply #5 on:** January 30, 2007, 04:24:57 PM »

7.5x55 Swiss K-31

R.W.Dale · « **Reply #6 on:** January 30, 2007, 04:43:36 PM »

French MAS36 LOL no joke my bubbified MAS out shoots my k-31 my Finnish moisin and the 2 Swedes. By a large margin....go figure.

1marty · « **Reply #7 on:** January 30, 2007, 05:28:46 PM »

as far as accuracy the SMLE hands down. Whether it's premium ammo or milsurp junk ammo I've never been disappointed.

Double 30 · « **Reply #8 on:** January 31, 2007, 07:24:19 AM »

I've had Swedes,Mosins,Krags Springfields,Mausers, Pattern14 and US Model 1917's, Carcanos, Arisakas,Ross' (1905's), Schmidt-Rubens and K-31's. But my pick for all time best is my No4Mk2 Enfield. She outshoots every milsurp I've had( except 1 insane Finnish reworked M-91 M-N).Other than great sights , a great cartridge,excellent accuracy and a smooth action, her shining attribute is an unbelieveably consistent point of impact.Zeroed her 5 years ago and she hasn't moved an inch.Killed everything I've ever pointed her at too. Great rifle...

glshop20 · « **Reply #9 on:** January 31, 2007, 12:32:45 PM »

Swede m-96 0r Swiss K-31 or 1903 or 30-40 Krag or.... Lots of good shooters out there. I guess it depends on the quality standards at time of manufacture and the up-keep over the years. If it shoots good, keep-it, shoot it, enjoy it, don't hang it on a wall so someone else enjoys it later. (kinda like car seat covers)

billy_56081 · « **Reply #10 on:** January 31, 2007, 01:35:12 PM »

Are we talking about best to own or best for battle? If its the best to own for a good quality shooter I'd go with An 03 springfeild. If I were a soldier fighting in a battle the SMLE would have no competition in my mind.

rio grande · « **Reply #11 on:** January 31, 2007, 04:15:16 PM »

All good comments. I can see it does depend on what you want to do with the rifle. And the individual rifle. And the individual shooter.
But the British rifle seems to have the edge, overall.
What makes it better? Firepower, that is - more rounds in magazine, speed of operation. Combined with good sights it's hard to beat. Accurate enough to hunt with. Best compromise, all-purpose choice.
Swedish rifles prettier, more elegant, more accurate possibly.. Springfields potentially more accurate, stronger action.
Tough to choose, really.
I'm surprised more Mosin owners not speaking up. I know the Finns can be accurate.

jeff · « **Reply #12 on:** January 31, 2007, 05:30:08 PM »

Why not one of each.

That way you have the 'best' regardless of the method for measurement.

You also have a very nice collection representing the best.

Now, please explain why the Krag wasn't mentioned? I happen to think that it was the slickest of all the actions.

.

Casull · « **Reply #13 on:** January 31, 2007, 05:52:05 PM »

Krochus, those are nice looking groups, but if that thing is really .30 caliber you need to remeasure your groups. The groups are from "center to center", not from the nearest edges of the holes.

R.W.Dale · « **Reply #14 on:** February 01, 2007, 05:16:59 AM »

Quote from: Casull on January 31, 2007, 05:52:05 PM

Krochus, those are nice looking groups, but if that thing is really .30 caliber you need to remeasure your groups. The groups are from "center to center", not from the nearest edges of the holes.

You do understand that the pictuers DO NOT display actual size. You're not the first person to ask this. I guess people are sticking rulers up against thier monitors

ALL groups are measured outside to outside to the edge of the scorching on the paper MINUS one bullet diameter

Thus giving a TRUE center to center measurement

rio grande · « **Reply #15 on:** February 01, 2007, 07:47:58 AM »

One of each would be great, but I'm thinking of folks who could just buy one, or just carry one.
i'm leaning to the Springfield 03-A3 if I can afford it. Good sights, accurate, good investment, brass easy to get. Parts easy to find. Maybe trade in something...

Casull · « **Reply #16 on:** February 01, 2007, 08:12:59 AM »

Quote

You do understand that the pictuers DO NOT display actual size. You're not the first person to ask this. I guess people are sticking rulers up against thier monitors

No offense intended Krochus. It's just that these groups appear to be larger than posted. In the first pic, there appears to be almost 2 1/2 bullet diameters of space between the holes, which at .30 caliber would be about 7/10" from inside edge to inside edge, or about a 1" inch group, and not .594" (even at 2 diameters between the holes, that would be .6" or about .9" center to center). The other pictures appear to also be mismeasured.

R.W.Dale · « **Reply #17 on:** February 01, 2007, 09:41:20 AM »

Quote from: Casull on February 01, 2007, 08:12:59 AM

Quote
You do understand that the pictuers DO NOT display actual size. You're not the first person to ask this. I guess people are sticking rulers up against thier monitors

No offense intended Krochus. It's just that these groups appear to be larger than posted. In the first pic, there appears to be almost 2 1/2 bullet diameters of space between the holes, which at .30 caliber would be about 7/10" from inside edge to inside edge, or about a 1" inch group, and not .594" (even at 2 diameters between the holes, that would be .6" or about .9" center to center). The other pictures appear to also be mismeasured.

Perhaps you need to brush up on your group measuring technique. (AS DISPLAYED ON MY SCREEN) the holes measure .288" NOW the space between is .424 (hardly 2 and a half diameters)

the spread measures .947 yeilding a .659" group. ALL FROM A VERY BLuRRY PHOTOGRAPH that's been resized a couple of diffrent ways. and hardly an unbelievable variation from what the group measured on a nice crisp piece of paper VS a PICTURE of a group

look poke some holes in paper with a bullet if you don't believe me. In the case of the smaller groups the extreme outside to outside spread is smaller than the 1" target dot on the target. So why is this so hard to believe?

Why is it nobody tries to disproove targets that k-31 shooters post?

?

kombi1976 · « **Reply #18 on:** February 01, 2007, 12:52:02 PM »

Tough choice.
I love my 1914 Short Lee Enfield (same as SMLE No1 MkIII) for it's smooth fast feel and I like my k98 bubba because it just takes a pounding but I'm going to reserve judgement until I get my '41 Carcano carbine back from getting the extractor fixed by the 'smith.
I scored a couple of clips for it and we'll see how the feed and accuracy works.

Casull · « **Reply #19 on:** February 01, 2007, 05:45:40 PM »

Krochus, like I said no offense intended. However, if the bullet holes are subcaliber, and you are measuring outside edge to outside edge and then subtracting a full caliber's worth, then the measurement is incorrect. If you don't believe me, then measure from inside edge to inside edge and

Quote

add

a full caliber's worth. You will end up with a different (and larger) figure. The correct method is to measure from center to center (thus avoiding any problems with subcaliber holes). In any event (and as I said before) those are some nice groups.

Casull · « **Reply #20 on:** February 01, 2007, 05:48:04 PM »

Krochus, like I said no offense intended. However, if the bullet holes are subcaliber, and you are measuring outside edge to outside edge and then subtracting a full caliber's worth, then the measurement is incorrect. If you don't believe me, then measure from inside edge to inside edge and add a full caliber's worth. You will end up with a different (and larger) figure. The correct method is to measure from center to center (thus avoiding any problems with subcaliber holes). In any event (and as I said before) those are some nice groups. Sorry about the weird post, used the quote instead of underline.

R.W.Dale · « **Reply #21 on:** February 02, 2007, 12:23:54 PM »

Quote from: Casull on February 01, 2007, 05:48:04 PM

Krochus, like I said no offense intended. However, if the bullet holes are subcaliber, and you are measuring outside edge to outside edge and then subtracting a full caliber's worth, then the measurement is incorrect. If you don't believe me, then measure from inside edge to inside edge and add a full caliber's worth. You will end up with a different (and larger) figure. The correct method is to measure from center to center (thus avoiding any problems with subcaliber holes). In any event (and as I said before) those are some nice groups. Sorry about the weird post, used the quote instead of underline.

Quote

This applet simulates an aspect of Benchrest known as "Group Shooting," and the object is to fire five shots at a target and have all five bullets go through the same bullet hole. This doesn't happen too often, so BR shooters generally strive to get the smallest cluster of bullet holes that is possible. This cluster often looks like a single bullet hole to the uninitiated, so scores are determined by carefully measuring the largest dimension of the hole with calipers, and subtracting one bullet diameter from this measurement. The result is a center-to-center measurement, that cancels out the effect of different caliber rifles that shooters may choose.

Quote

Once the shooter settles into position and the "commence fire" command is given, the shooter is allowed up to seven minutes to fire a five-round group, or 12 minutes for a 10-round string. Groups are measured in thousandths of an inch at their largest outside diameter. From this measurement, the actual caliber of the bullet used (in thousandths of an inch) is subtracted from the measurement to produce the actual group size.

http://nbrsa.benchrest.com/rules/rules.pdf

I don't care if you're measuring holes for a sole plate on the abutment end of a bridge girder or measuring groups at the range you NEVER EVER estimate where the center line of a hole is.

billy_56081 · « **Reply #22 on:** February 02, 2007, 12:30:38 PM »

I thought this was about military bolt actions not about bench rest shooting. Anybody who would try to measure a group onscreen and want to dispute it must not have enough to do, or just likes to argue. I expected some arguments for people favorite rifles but not this.

R.W.Dale · « **Reply #23 on:** February 02, 2007, 01:02:07 PM »

Quote from: billy_56081 on February 02, 2007, 12:30:38 PM

I thought this was about military bolt actions not about bench rest shooting. Anybody who would try to measure a group onscreen and want to dispute it must not have enough to do, or just likes to argue. I expected some arguments for people favorite rifles but not this.

Really, Although I'm just as guilty It boils down to people just simply being unable to believe that a milsurp rifle other than the 3 S'es Springfield , Swedish , Swiss can be every bit as accurate if the work is put into doing so.

like I said NOBODY tries to disproove K-31 or M96 Swede targets. But post some groups from a Type99 or an MAS 36 and it's just a fluke.

Casull · « **Reply #24 on:** February 02, 2007, 04:05:02 PM »

Quote

I don't care if you're measuring holes for a sole plate on the abutment end of a bridge girder or measuring groups at the range you NEVER EVER estimate where the center line of a hole is.

And you never subtract full caliber from a measurement when your bullets are making sub-caliber holes. As I said, if you don't believe me measure the distance from the inside edges and add a full caliber's worth. You will get a different and larger measurement. And, for the record, I admitted they were nice groups and never disputed the accurancy of "anything other than the 3 S's". I certainly wasn't trying to start any fights, just making an observation.

R.W.Dale · « **Reply #25 on:** February 02, 2007, 05:30:49 PM »

Quote

And you never subtract full caliber from a measurement when your bullets are making sub-caliber holes.

OH YES YOU DO! That way you don't have to take into account how the paper tears on that particular day that and diffrent shaped bullets will cut through the paper diffrently. You subtract ONE caliber so that guns of any caliber or bullet type compete on a level playing field. you also subtract one caliber so you can measure a group smaller than the bore size. I wish I was that good

If you measure bullet holes to the edge of the scortching they will be very close to the actual bore size.

Quote

And you never subtract full caliber from a measurement when your bullets are making sub-caliber holes.

YOU might not but everybody else does. Unless you're shooting wadcutters you'll just about never see a bore sized PUNCTURE on a target.

I've posted 3 sources prooving you wrong. One forom the Natonal Benchrest Shooters Assn rule book. and yet you still percist. I give you credit for sticking to your opinions. but that's all it is YOUR OPINION. The below paragraph is pretty darn cut and dried

Quote

Groups are measured in thousandths of an inch at their largest outside diameter. From this measurement, the actual caliber of the bullet used (in thousandths of an inch) is subtracted from the measurement to produce the actual group size.

I apoligise for some of the Statements and accusations I made eariler. But I do stand firm on my group measuring technique being the correct one.

Back on topic........TO STAYI promise

Casull · « **Reply #26 on:** February 02, 2007, 07:09:54 PM »

Krochus, I'll concede that if that is the benchrest rule, then it is correct by the rules, but not by simple mathematics. You note in an earlier post that your bullet holes were .288. Therefore, if you shot a perfect one hole group, then your group size would be a negative number (.288 - .308 = -.020). Obviously, I was viewing it from a math perspective (not being a benchrest shooter, I did not know that their rules did not take into account subcaliber holes). Again, as I said before, that is some nice shooting. And, I will say no more.

R.W.Dale · « **Reply #27 on:** February 03, 2007, 04:14:02 AM »

Quote

You note in an earlier post that your bullet holes were .288. Therefore, if you shot a perfect one hole group, then your group size would be a negative number (.288 - .308 = -.020).

Again though I was citing a very blurry PICTURE of a group and not the actual group itself.

Fazak · « **Reply #28 on:** February 05, 2007, 03:51:06 PM »

1909 Argentine Mauser,... by a fairly wide margin. A Swedish Mauser is second.

rio grande · « **Reply #29 on:** February 06, 2007, 09:11:43 AM »

Well, I'm keeping my Yugo M48 Mauser - 8mm ammo is cheap and available - the action is solid, function is perfect. BUT I am getting a peep sight installed.