What is currently the most accurate, long range rifle and telescopic sight combination that is reliable and practical enough to used as a sniper’s field weapon in a wartime scenario? I would imagine (possibly incorrectly) this eliminates the trophy competition and olympic guns due to lack of portability and ruggedness.
Oh… and what would it cost approximately?
Well, this could turn into a Great Debate, but many shooters would name the Winchester Model 70.
http://www.winchester-guns.com/prodinfo/catalog/md70/m70_stealth.htm
A lot depends on what you mean by “long range.” The range has a direct effect on the caliber – the longer the range, the heavier the bullet must be, and the larger the caliber too, generally speaking. Assuming that you want to consider other factors, such as weight (portability), you’re probably looking at something in the .30-caliber area.
This could easily fit into GD, were it not for the probable lack of posters. The possible combinations of high-quality rifles and scopes that would appear superior is almost endless!
Something often overlooked in discussions of this type is the load used in the rifle. Years ago, I bought a Remington Model 788 rifle from a fellow in southern Ohio. Those who know guns will tell you that the 788 was Remington’s “poor man’s rifle.” Bolt action, sloppy as could be. Five-shot detachable magazine. Birch stock, ugly metal, not a gun to write home about. Mine was in .222 Rem caliber. With a 12X Simmons scope attached and shooting from a sandbag rest, every factory load I could find shot 5-shot groups in excess of 1 1/4" at 100 yards. After weeks of handloading experimentation, I was able to reduce that to between 1/2" and 5/8". I used once-fired military .223 brass resized and trimmed by me to .222, CCI small rifle primers, 19.5 grains of DuPont IMR 4198 smokeless powder (hand-weighed charges), and Hornady 52-grain hollow-point boattail match-grade bullets. The result from that “poor man’s rifle” was literally a single ragged hole in the paper that I could cover with the tip of my index finger. Dozens of groundhogs met quick, clean, one-shot ends at the business end of that rifle, at ranges up to 330 yards.
My point is that there are many things to consider other than the “best gun” or the “best scope.”
I won’t argue with Shiva’s opinion of the fine Winchester model 70 but the rifle the US military has used as a sniper weapon for several decades is not much more than a finely tuned version of the Remington model 700, one of the more common hunting rifles in the country. I hate to disappoint you but though the current vertion of the M40 looks pretty tricked out and in some opinion too heavy to be an effective field weapon, there is nothing terribly exotic about it. It’s a simple heavy barrel, bolt action rifle in a common caliber, .308 Winchester/7.62mm NATO. They use Fedral match ammunition, common target ammunition available over the counter just about anywhere. The scope it very hight quality, a Unertil, but fixed 10 power magnification.
Cost is hard to estimate because the miltary has their own armory to do the customizing. They go far beyond what a typica civilain custom riflesmith would do. For example they weld the magazine box to the reciever to make everything more rigid.
So what do you want this “sniper” rifle for? 
FWIW the only rifles shot in olypic competition are .22 long rifle rimfire.
This came up in another thread a long time ago. I knew a marine sniper who used a 50 cal. military sniper rifle, and claimed to be able to kill a person at a range in excess of one mile. Those in the know backed his claim, saying “No Problem”. Apparently, hitting a man-sized target at a mile, center mass, wouldn’t be that much of a challenge for a skilled rifleman equipped with such a gun.
Several posters were familiar with the type of rifle I described.
Experts?
Peace,
mangeorge
mangeorge: That’d be a Barret model 82, IIRC.
.50 sniper rifle at a mile’s nothing, though, in comparison to a shot made by the legendary Carlos Hathcock:
When in camp, the snipers would have the machinists build mounts to put their sniper scopes on the Browning M2HB .50 machine guns, for long-range plinking. The guns had a slow enough cyclic rate that you could squeeze off single shots. Hathcock hit a person at about two miles with a single shot from this setup.
During the war for southern independence they could hit targets at 1500 yards with a bolt! I see things haven’t got much better.
Much thanks to all for info.
I don’t know if there’ll ever be a single answer to your inquiry, but I do know that a mile is 5280 feet, or 1760 yards. The most commonly used military sniper rifle cartridge is the .308 Winchester (also called 7.62 NATO). Federal Gold Medal Match Target Ammo is listed in the Federal Cartridge Company website as having a trajectory drop of something like 40-50" at 1000 yards (I can’t find it right now). At 1000 yards, I’m told that a 1 mph wind will cause 10" of bullet drift. That means that there’s no such thing as an EASY shot at those ranges. Anybody who can hit a man-size target ANYWHERE on the “man”. is truly an extraordinary shooter.
However- the pursuit of such perfection is great sport, and occupies the time and energy of a great many very brilliant and talented men and ladies. Try it.
Don’t start with me, rebel. 
I don’t think getting hit ANYWHERE with a .50 MG round would do you much good. That would be some stopping power, even after a mile or two.
Which raises the question: how much of its original velocity does a bullet retain after traveling that far? On the one hand, a fellow got killed at a 4th of July fireworks around here a few years ago. Cops traced the round back to another guy who was (inaccurately) plinking cans with his Nine a mile or so away. On the other hand, I knew a former Cuban revolutionary who claimed he took one in the butt from an M1 carbine, but it did little damage because it had come from pretty far away. On yet another hand, a guy who should know better than me says that weapon wouldn’t do much damage regardless the distance.
IIRC they sent bullets downrange, not bolts. I’m also not aware of any bolt action rifles used during the U.S. civil war as cartidges were still in their infancy. I’m not aware of any metallic cartidges other than the Henry flat and Spencer, both were short rimfires used in short range repeating rifles.
Long range accuracy with later weapons like the trapdoor springfield is remarkable even by today’s standards but hitting a target and hitting a man size target at 1500 yards are two different things. Look at a standing human a mile away and you’ll see how difficult that shot would be with open sights. Getting 1MOA accuracy with a 10X scope is a challenge. I’ve read report of the Springfield Armory conducing long range tests but the targets were the size of billboards.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by dropzone *
**
I’m going on memory here, but at 2500 yards, which was the maximum range Hathcock ever sniped a person (one time, by the way), the .50 loses more than two thirds its velocity and retains about 10 percent of it’s energy. Still more than enough to put a hurt on you (around 1500 ft/lbs), since the .50 has such a huge amount of energy (about 17,500 ft/lbs) to begin with.
As far as the ease in shooting a human target at that range with a .50, with a stationary target, and no crosswind, the bullet drop at that distance, with a 1000 yard zero, is over 1400 inches. So with no wind at all, no thermal gradients, you have more than 100 feet of bullet drop to compensate for. Throw in a 10mph crosswind and you are talking about upwards of 30 feet of drift. The .50 is one of the most stable small caliber projectiles at that distance too.
The main reason that Hathcock was able to score his target at that range is because, as he said himself, the target was standing on the exact spot that he had the M2 zeroed. Had the target been 10 feet fore or aft of that spot, it would have been a chance shot. Basically, anything over 1500 yards is a very tough shot, with very few skilled snipers who can consistenly make a shot at distances like that. Generally, if a target is more than 1000 yards out, a sniper will not take a shot due to the low odds.
I wouldn’t doubt it–the M1 Carbine was a notoriously crappy round: rifle caliber (small, light bullet), pistol-sized powder charge (low power). My grandfather, in WWII, once picked up an M1 Carbine off a dead officer because it was half the weight of the M1 Garand (.30-06 cal.) he’d been issued. After one short firefight, hethrew away the carbine and scrounged up another big, heavy Garand. According to him, when you hit a guy with an M1 carbine, he kept on coming; when you hit a guy with the .30-06 Garand, it flipped him over backwards.
Padeye…A bolt was a six sided bullet…
The Whitworth rifle shown
here was of British
manufacture and was used
primarily by the Confederate
army. It was a muzzle-loading
weapon with a 33 inch barrel (49 inches overall) and a .451 inch bore. What made this rifle so
popular in the South was it’s remarkable accuracy. It’s long range precision was the best of all
weapons used in the war. When the telescopic sight was used, the rifle had an effective range of
about 1,800 yards. This rifle, as with the cannon which the English company also made, had a
hexagonal bore which required a hexagonal bullet. Both sides called this bullet a “bolt”. In fact, it
was a six-sided bolt from a Rebel sharpshooter that killed Union General “Uncle John” Sedgwick
during the fighting at Spotsylvania Court House just after he had remarked to a frightened soldier
that Confederate sharpshooters could not hit an elephant.
http://myhome.shinbiro.com/~PMOADE/wpns.htm
Reading this thread, I became curious… what’s the bullet velocity for these rifles?
I used to have a pellet gun made by Ruko, when I was a teen… in the books, it was posted as having a velocity of about 500fps (IIRC)
I’m just wondering, for comparison’s sake…
Glenoled
Glenoled,
average muzzle velocities, depending on bullet type are around 2800 fps for a 7.62 NATO and about 3100 fps for a .50 BMG. Some calibers/rifles can go a little over 4000 fps.
Thanks for the correction I hadn’t heard that term for the polygonal bullet used in the Whitworth.
I still contend that spectacular shots like the one that felled Sedgewick are more a matter of luck than something that can reliably repeated in the field.
I’ll second the .50 caliber, as ultimately being the most accurate long-range weapon.
Weight constraints make it a difficult field weapon though. Properly scoped and bipoded it would be quite a load.
It does have the handy advantage of being able to shoot people who are hiding behind trucks or concrete walls.
My father, an ex-recon Marine Sniper, uses a Tikka .22 hornet with peep sights when he wants to show off.
He taught me how to shoot, and I used to use a .22-250 or a .25-06 for shooting groundhogs at long range.
Both lose any advantage they might have in range and flat trjectory due to the easy deflection of the bullet, IMHO.
I went to .223 bullbarrel with an 18x scope, and bipod, and even that’s too much and too heavy.
I’m looking to trade it for a nice hornet or .222, which would be fine up to 250 or maybe 300 yards if I get comfortable with it.
The bottom line and the final factor is that it’s very difficult to shoot at the extremes of your rifles performance. Human error and unfamiliarity will drag down your ability.
Your best bet is to find a rifle and caliber you’re comfortable with, and really know that rifle and round.
Once you really know it, you’ll be surprised at what you can do, and the shots you can make with a nice light rifle/scope combo.
IANAFirearmsExpert and obviously I’m mis-understanding some basic principle of ballistics. How could a hexagonal bullet maintain accuracy over an extended distance? I thought a bullet had to be spinning out a rifled barrel to maintain stability over distances. Wouldn’t a (assumedly)non-spinning 6 sided bullet be more subject to tumbling.
The hexagonal bullet isn’t like a nut, which you may be thinking of. It was, for all practical purposes a long, tapered bullet, similar to current types, except it had flats machined on the sides to match the flats of the barrel. The concept is still used today in many weapons where instead of using rifling, they use a polygonal bore, where the bore compresses flats onto the bullet and imparting spin that way. It is believed by many to be a more accurate method than standard “land and groove” rifling, but more costly to manufacture.