The Firearm thread: Engineering artistry of wood, polymer and steel.

[Red October1984]

Originally Posted by TorpX

When you have a new rifle/scope or such, it is advisable to fire for a close range zero, first. Otherwise, it is hard to know where the rounds might go.

Well we managed to get it to where at 100 yards I have to aim a foot high to hit the center.

Working on it though... Wish this had been done earlier in the year. I am going to need new rings or maybe a new scope because this won't adjust any further in the direction I need it to.

[Red October1984]

Originally Posted by Aktungbby

If the objective lens will not depress; shim the rear sight base up with foil strips slightly and hopefully have a 'breakaway' mount to revert to iron sights. What are you shooting and at what total range do you contemplate? Black powder is the opposite: 1 ft. under at 100 yards to compensate for the rainbow effect understood by every trooper of the 18-19 century before modern powder.

WOW! A post of yours I can read!

Anyway, there are no iron sights on my gun...sadly. A breakaway mount wouldn't do me any real good.

And I never knew that about black powder...

Learn something every day...

[Red October1984]

Originally Posted by Aktungbby

The moisture can mar the scope acuity and there should be a 2nd option on the primary weapon.

I've been out in pouring rain for hours with a .30-06 rifle. The scope kept the zero...the only thing I was worried about was the lens fogging up so I kept a glove over each end of the scope.

Low budget solution...but it worked.

As far as a second option on my Savage, I don't think you can get iron sight mounts for it. It didn't come with anything but two weaver mounts (had to replace one) on the top.

[TorpX]

Originally Posted by Aktungbby

Catch the movie 'Washing of the Spears'(Burt Lancaster) about the Zulu wars...

The movie was ZULU DAWN. I guess there was a book, 'Washing of the Spears' about the subject. Good movie, never read the book.

I saw a documentary about the battle, one of these PBS programs, I think. They did ballistics tests with the Martini-Henry, and had some interesting theories about what happened. I wish I had that on DVD.

[Stealhead]

Time to "reload"(pun intended) this thread.

I'd like to talk about a topic that many seem to have a great misunderstanding of......optics and what exactly they do and a bit about there development history.I not afraid to say that I am no expert on the topic but I know enough to spot a complete layman.

The other day I over heard a conversation in a gun store between two patrons they where discussing WWII era rifle scopes and what they said just made me cringe.They where discussing how basically useless WWII scopes where.

Oh how incorrect.Now granted a modern high quality rifle scope is going to be a much better bit of kit than a 70+ year design is but to say that they where useless is just baffling.I can not even comprehend where someone could come up with this assessment.Certainly not from reading the widely available information out there from various legitimate sources that can confirm that rifle optics of the era where in fact very useful tools and when combined with a good rifle and a good shooter where deadly accurate.

The Soviet PU scope for example was very innovative it was the first scope where windage and zero could be adjusted without hand tools very useful indeed in the field where a quick adjustment might mean the difference between seeing the next sun rise and becoming a tally mark for an enemy sniper.

So far as my amateur understanding allows by and large WWII era scopes where very effective in their intended role.The German and Soviet design scopes being the best.Granted they fogged up in certain conditions easily solved by a quick wipe down and you still have to deal with this issue with a modern scope.I also know that rifle optics have been is use in some form at least since the 18th century and a British general even was killed by an American using a rifled musket with a crude scope.

So far as I can tell the most notable leaps towards modern optics where made during the late 19th and early 20th century mainly due the advent of smokeless powder(which allowed for greater ranges) and the popularity of big game hunting (wealthy men able to afford expensive optics). In WWI they simply took scopes designed for the hunting market and mounted them on rifles.Some like the Germans and the Russians understood the value of a sniper well enough to develop during the inter war years optics designed specifically for the conditions and type of shooting that a sniper par takes in.


I think people get confused perhaps because they have seen or know someone who has a WWII ear rifle say a 91/30 and they purchased a PU either an original one or a reproduction.These usually are not very accurate but this does represent how a from the factory 91/30 with a PU scope would have performed.There are poorly smithed 91/30s out there that where cobbled together with PU scope which are utter crap and not comparable to an original sniper 91/30(which I bet goes for over $1,000 these days).

Anyway here is a fairly interesting read about Soviet WWII era scopes Also talks a little about a Czech version of the PU
http://www.mosinnagant.net/sniper%20...nipertext1.asp

A while back I read a very extensive article on the web about WWII era German scopes wish I jotted down the address I searched a bit and can't seem to find the same page.

[Aktungbby]

Pretty good!: The Russians are the one to check in with on sniping as they took it up to the highest level in terms of productivity. Approximately 12000 confirmed kills during WWII of which the top 20 snipers accounted for 7500!, as with air or Uboat aces, the top aces do most of the tallying! The top sniper of the war was Finnish Lt. Simo Häyhä with 542 confirmed kills in the Winter War, likely with a captured Soviet weapon. Additionally in the same winter battle of Koläa, the Finn, nicknamed 'White Death', used a Suomi kP/31 sub-machine gun and accounted for another 200 kills bringing his total to 742 in 100 day period; He died in 2002 at the ripe age of 97! Vasily Zaytsef of Enemy at the Gate fame was well down the list with a commendable 242. One of several proficient and highly decorated women snipers, Ludmilla Paulichenko, accounted for 309 confirmed kills with 36 of those being enemy snipers! The 1891/30 upgraded WWI Mosin was the weapon of choice with a extended bolt to avoid the simple rock solid sight mount for either the 3.5x power PU and later PE/Pem 4.0x power scope, both modeled on the superior Zeiss German scope and utilizing the German three bar reticule optic. This weapon remained in use until replaced by the Druganov in 1963, was used in Viet Nam and is still used/seen in the African conflicts today 100+ years later!!.

[Aktungbby]

Originally Posted by Stealhead

a British general even was killed by an American using a rifled musket with a crude scope.

The only Two British generals of note killed in American wars by known shooters were Simon Fraser at he Battle of Saratoga by Known sharpshooter Timothy Murphy and General Ross in the War of 1812 at North Point in the campaign around Baltimore by two teenaged boys Wells and McComas; both militiamen of Baltimore. In the case of Fraser who was brilliantly leading his troops, he was spotted by no less than Benedict Arnold who noted that Fraser 'was worth a regiment" to Gen Dan Morgan in command of a regiment of skilled marksmen able to hit a seven inch target at 250 yards with a rifled (Kentucky) longrifle. Gen Morgan turned to the Marksman, Timothy Murphy and said "It is necessary that man should Die." Murphy fired three shots using his and another preloaded weapon which missed; hit Fraser's horse; and hit the general who later died in the night of the abdominal wound. Murphy's immediate fouth shot also killed the overall British commander, General Burgoyne's aide, rushing up with new orders. No scope is mentioned or depicted on a monument to Timthy Murphy. In the second instance, the death of equally capable General Ross at Baltimore, two leather trade militiamen, who knew the general on sight from a previous American defeat at Bledensburg, fired simultaneously " I have a mark" at Gen Ross who was struck once and died. Both Wells and McComas were instantly killed by a return volley by British regulars firing at the tell-tale smoke of the youths' firing position. Again no scopes, nor were these 18-19 yr. old boys snipers. A third general might have been General Packenham, Ross's replacement and the British commander at the Battle of New Orleans; he was knocked off his horse by a cannon ball and then shot twice in the neck and body fatally by musketry in the disastrous frontal assault on Andrew Jacksons lines. Again no scoped muskets are noted and the smoke and fog would have nullified any optic advantage anyway.

[Red October1984]

Originally Posted by Stealhead

They where discussing how basically useless WWII scopes where.

That's when you say "Here buddy, let me tell you why you're wrong"

[Stealhead]

Originally Posted by Aktungbby

The only Two British generals of note killed in American wars by known shooters were Simon Fraser at he Battle of Saratoga by Known sharpshooter Timothy Murphy and General Ross in the War of 1812 at North Point in the campaign around Baltimore by two teenaged boys Wells and McComas; both militiamen of Baltimore. In the case of Fraser who was brilliantly leading his troops, he was spotted by no less than Benedict Arnold who noted that Fraser 'was worth a regiment" to Gen Dan Morgan in command of a regiment of skilled marksmen able to hit a seven inch target at 250 yards with a rifled (Kentucky) longrifle. Gen Morgan turned to the Marksman, Timothy Murphy and said "It is necessary that man should Die." Murphy fired three shots using his and another preloaded weapon which missed; hit Fraser's horse; and hit the general who later died in the night of the abdominal wound. Murphy's immediate fouth shot also killed the overall British commander, General Burgoyne's aide, rushing up with new orders. No scope is mentioned or depicted on a monument to Timthy Murphy. In the second instance, the death of equally capable General Ross at Baltimore, two leather trade militiamen, who knew the general on sight from a previous American defeat at Bledensburg, fired simultaneously " I have a mark" at Gen Ross who was struck once and died. Both Wells and McComas were instantly killed by a return volley by British regulars firing at the tell-tale smoke of the youths' firing position. Again no scopes, nor were these 18-19 yr. old boys snipers. A third general might have been General Packenham, Ross's replacement and the British commander at the Battle of New Orleans; he was knocked off his horse by a cannon ball and then shot twice in the neck and body fatally by musketry in the disastrous frontal assault on Andrew Jacksons lines. Again no scoped muskets are noted and the smoke and fog would have nullified any optic advantage anyway.

Right I'll give you that like I said I am no expert especially on early American warfare.I do know that crude optics did exist at the time period not that they where all that useful I merely stated that they where around I admit a I mistook the story about the marksmen kills.I am not sure if a 335 word paragraph was needed to explain my error when the greater point was that extremely crude optics(like jerry rigged) did exist at the time and that there nearly 200 year development prior to WWII made WWII ear scopes a far greater leap in technology than the guys at the gun store where making claim to.

According to what I found the first purpose built optics where made by some man named Morgan James and another man named William Malcolm made a mass produced scope starting in 1855.Even fro that date that is still nearly 100 years of development time between then and WWII.

All I know is if I was around in WWII I would not want an enemy sniper or marksman aiming his "useless" optics at my big fat noggin as I am confident barring some extremely good luck that said shooter would have no problem blowing my brains out or my heart or lungs if his(or her) aim was off a scootabit.

I cant imagine what those WWII era snipers could do with a modern sniper like say an M24 with .338 Lapua bet the ratios would be at least 30% higher.

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by Stealhead

Right I'll give you that like I said I am no expert especially on early American warfare.I do know that crude optics did exist at the time period not that they where all that useful I merely stated that they where around I admit a I mistook the story about the marksmen kills.I am not sure if a 335 word paragraph was needed to explain my error when the greater point was that extremely crude optics(like jerry rigged) did exist at the time and that there nearly 200 year development prior to WWII made WWII ear scopes a far greater leap in technology than the guys at the gun store where making claim to.

According to what I found the first purpose built optics where made by some man named Morgan James and another man named William Malcolm made a mass produced scope starting in 1855.Even fro that date that is still nearly 100 years of development time between then and WWII.

Oh come on now...at least you were spared the insertion of a Hamms plug

I'll get my coat

[Stealhead]

Originally Posted by Jimbuna

Oh come on now...at least you were spared the insertion of a Hamms plug

I'll get my coat

I'll shoot that Hamms bottle with my 1812 marksman in those days you drank whisky crude scope or not.

"That Hamms bottle should die lads make is so he needs a better drink it will do him some good."


I like everyone honestly if we all acted the same life would be pretty boring.

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by Stealhead

I like everyone honestly if we all acted the same life would be pretty boring.

True that...and I'd be out of a job

[Buddahaid]

Originally Posted by Stealhead

I'll shoot that Hamms bottle with my 1812 marksman in those days you drank whisky crude scope or not.

"That Hamms bottle should die lads make is so he needs a better drink it will do him some good."


I like everyone honestly if we all acted the same life would be pretty boring.

Hamm's comes in bottles? Class.

[Stealhead]

In cans too if this photo of Aktungbby was not Photoshopped.Being a refined man I doubt that Aktungbby would ever stoop to the low of drinking beer from a can.

I kid



Aktungbby circa 1973?

[Aktungbby]

Originally Posted by Stealhead

a 335 word paragraph was needed to explain my error.

No error implied; you just piqued my curiosity since I study that history and shoot everything black-powder and up to WWII; But if you counted the words in my post!!!?