Go Back   CMP Forums > CMP Sales > CMP Bolt Action Rifles
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old 07-25-2017, 09:39 AM
cplnorton cplnorton is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Van Wert, Ohio
Posts: 2,164
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by S99VG View Post
Its interesting to hear that the accuracy of the M70 Winchester is comparable to the 03s when considering that the latter have a thinner contour barrels and a far more complicated stocking methods.
The Marines did modify the stocks of the 1903's Unertls though, basically they were freefloated and only touched at the nose. But you are right. I would be curious to see how the rifles compared if you tried them at a longer distance. I am only shooting at a 100 yards so if I back up some, you might see a real difference.

But to be honest the Marines in Scout Sniper School in WWII, did train up to a 1000 yards with the 1903's. And the Marines did say in WWII and Korea that they were an effective sniper up to a 1000 yards. And there are recorded kills at even further ranges from both wars with the 1903A1 Unertl.

What has always amazed me honestly is they just didn't sporterize the Unertl stocks. The 1903's in the sniper trials in 1941, most had sporterized stocks, or were m2 stocks used on the 1903 action. Other than a A5 Winchester they tested, I don't think any of the other 1903's were fully stocked.

So I have always wonderered why take the time to cut the handguard and such in the conversion. Why not just sporterize the stock and just been done with it. Unless they maybe needed that forward pressure on the nose of the stock to help stabalize the thinner barrel for longer distance. I honestly don't know.

One thing I have learned in seeing the actual Marine records is the Marines were the king of "Bubba." I have been truly amazed at some of the pics of 1903's I've seen in the Marine docs. Some they look like total bannerman frankenstine type rifles. In fact I don't look any bannerman, sporterized rifle the same anymore. They butchered those things. lol

But yeah you bring up a valid point.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 07-25-2017, 10:33 AM
pmclaine pmclaine is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 1,810
Default

Always a pleasure to read your posts.

That is one beautiful range you have there.

Thank you for your time doing this for us.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 07-25-2017, 11:15 AM
RedSpecial RedSpecial is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: South FL
Posts: 2,490
Default

You know, I was going to post my new find, but I think I'll hold off for a while now...
__________________
- Neil

My Feedback thread

Looking for SA M1 2417731 - its out there, the CMP sold it in 2012!
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 07-25-2017, 11:17 AM
cplnorton cplnorton is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Van Wert, Ohio
Posts: 2,164
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RedSpecial View Post
You know, I was going to post my new find, but I think I'll hold off for a while now...
Dude post it. In fact shoot it, and see how it compares to the other two. It would be neat to have a range report of 3. lol

Also at the same time shoot your regular NM. See if the Marine NM was anymore accurate than a factory NM. I don't have a non USMC NM to compare.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 07-25-2017, 11:22 AM
Roadkingtrax Roadkingtrax is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Arizona
Posts: 8,620
Default

I did not notice a difference in accuracy between a Marine match rifle and a 1903 NM, they both shot well for what the 1903 can do.

Bedding is crucial, and I think rifles that are established as match rifles have a better chance of being in good condition and thereby retain their accuracy.

Service rifles did not enjoy the same easy life of a match gun.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 07-25-2017, 11:52 AM
cplnorton cplnorton is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Van Wert, Ohio
Posts: 2,164
Default

Oh yeah Tim I forgot you have had both. The Marines for sure tweaked them.

I sort of wish I had a regular NM just to shoot to compare.

Neil above just picked up the 4th S stock Sniper I know of. The rifle is from the 1937 shipment but is wearing a 1940 SA stock with the Marine team mods. So the last time the Marines fired the 1903 in competition was the 1940 season. So you have to wonder.

And there are Marine team pics of the NM rifles with S stocks. So S stocks were not only used on Special Targets. There is photograph evidence back then of straight stocked NM USMC team rifles. I'm guessing since some of those Marine team shooters had been around for 20 years or more, it might have been shooter preference to use a S stock in competition.

Here are some pics of the S stocked snipers on Okinawa. First this is one of the most famous Sniper pics of the war. The rifle on the left is clearly a GG stock. But if you look closely the 2nd one is as well as you can see the start of the 2nd GG. So here are two that are side by side in this pic. Also I supsect these Marines are 1st Div Marines, and their rifles shipped to the Pacific prior to the May 43 memo to use C stocks.

In fact the 1st Marine Div has the most snipers of any other Divisions. I have a count for all the Divisions and I think they had 87. Which is more than the other Divisions. But it is possible that some of the 87, maybe up to 20 were Winchester A5 snipers. As the 1st Marine Div received 20 A5's to train with at the beginning of the war.

Also Okinawa was the island that it seems the Unertl sniper came into it's own. It was really the first battle other than Saipan where the terraign allowed for a 1000 yard plus capable rifle. And I believe the rifles were used a lot on that island as I have a after action report that around 40 Unertl scopes were repaired. I think the number might of been 47. But I'm too lazy to go back and look.

But here are the pics of these two. There is actually a series of photographs of these two snipers. I know of about 4 or 5 pics of them at different times in the day. But you can tell it's the same guys as the terraign and even the camo pattern on the helmets is distinct.





Pic of the guy on the right that shows his rifle better.




Straight stocked Sniper overlooking the city of Naha on Okinawa.



Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 07-25-2017, 12:52 PM
S99VG S99VG is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Northern California
Posts: 2,264
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cplnorton View Post
The Marines did modify the stocks of the 1903's Unertls though, basically they were freefloated and only touched at the nose. But you are right. I would be curious to see how the rifles compared if you tried them at a longer distance. I am only shooting at a 100 yards so if I back up some, you might see a real difference.

But to be honest the Marines in Scout Sniper School in WWII, did train up to a 1000 yards with the 1903's. And the Marines did say in WWII and Korea that they were an effective sniper up to a 1000 yards. And there are recorded kills at even further ranges from both wars with the 1903A1 Unertl.

What has always amazed me honestly is they just didn't sporterize the Unertl stocks. The 1903's in the sniper trials in 1941, most had sporterized stocks, or were m2 stocks used on the 1903 action. Other than a A5 Winchester they tested, I don't think any of the other 1903's were fully stocked.

So I have always wonderered why take the time to cut the handguard and such in the conversion. Why not just sporterize the stock and just been done with it. Unless they maybe needed that forward pressure on the nose of the stock to help stabalize the thinner barrel for longer distance. I honestly don't know.

One thing I have learned in seeing the actual Marine records is the Marines were the king of "Bubba." I have been truly amazed at some of the pics of 1903's I've seen in the Marine docs. Some they look like total bannerman frankenstine type rifles. In fact I don't look any bannerman, sporterized rifle the same anymore. They butchered those things. lol

But yeah you bring up a valid point.
Reading this makes me wonder why they didn't field the NRA Sporter. It had a better stock for scopes and a bit fatter barrel. On another note, I've always thought that the Model 70s reputation for accuracy came from the barrel. Pre-64s have barrels that could double as truck axels. They are beefy!
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 07-25-2017, 01:50 PM
cplnorton cplnorton is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Van Wert, Ohio
Posts: 2,164
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by S99VG View Post
Reading this makes me wonder why they didn't field the NRA Sporter. It had a better stock for scopes and a bit fatter barrel. On another note, I've always thought that the Model 70s reputation for accuracy came from the barrel. Pre-64s have barrels that could double as truck axels. They are beefy!
Well and I'm suprised honestly they didn't. Some of the rifles tested were what the Marines called the Model 1917 Special model which they describe as basically the 1903 sporter that was sold commercially.

I know a couple of the test sniper rifles had m2 stocks and at least one had some type of commercial stock as its described as a sporter stock with adjustable type cheek risers.

They even had heavy barrel M1903's in the test sample. They called those rifles Free High Pressure rifles, usually nicknamed Free rifles, and they sported heavy barrels from WRA and Remington.

Honestly other than taking the Van Orden and Lloyd suggestion of the 8X Unertl scope, they really crapped on the rest of his recommendations. Even though it was a very thoughtful and well wrote out report.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 07-25-2017, 02:44 PM
S99VG S99VG is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Northern California
Posts: 2,264
Default

As you point out there were plenty of "target model" 03s that were developed before WWII that would have made fine sniper platforms. Those riles, coupled with the simple fact that the basic issue 03 was kept as close as possible to a target rifle as a battle rifle could be, does make it a ironic that something better was never produced. The only conclusion I can come to is that sniping simply was not considered important to the military during that period of time.

Pardon me if I missed it, but how well does the Numerich .22 conversion shoot?
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 07-25-2017, 02:56 PM
Kaliman Kaliman is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 470
Default

I wonder if they preferred to have the iron sights in case of an issue with the glass ?
__________________
3rd Battalion, 5th Marines '10-'13
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:02 AM.