Some Italian thoughts

[BlutUndEhre]

17 minutes ago, SLIM said:

I'm not talking about the M38.
The rifle in CM:FI is the M98/41.

I should have checked to see which Carcano we were discussing, but the point still stands.  With only six more inches of barrel we are still talking about relatively anemic muzzle velocities no higher than 2,600 fps, if that.  Actually I need to dig out my ballistics books because I believe I'm high balling these numbers and we might actually be talking about a 2,400 fps muzzle velocity for the M91/41 and even lower for the M38.  Anyway, those numbers are all just too low on velocity for a small caliber round in the 160 grain range to be able to hold a decent trajectory and have any sort of real hitting power when it does reach the target.  The failed 7.35x51mm round was designed to make up for the 6.5's perceived long range shortcomings during Italy's Ethiopian adventures and it was a long range lemon, as well.  I just don't agree that the Italians should receive any sort of performance boost at longer ranges via a very pedestrian round and an even more pedestrian rifle.

 

[General Jack Ripper]

13 hours ago, BlutUndEhre said:

Actually I need to dig out my ballistics books because I believe I'm high balling these numbers and we might actually be talking about a 2,400 fps muzzle velocity for the M91/41 and even lower for the M38.

http://candrsenal.com/rifle-italian-carcano-m1891/

"While it is true these low caliber rounds lacked “knock down power” they traded it for the advantages of requiring less production material, being easier to pack and carry, maintaining a flatter trajectory over distance, having superior penetration at range, lower recoil easing follow up shots, and less muzzle flash to give away the shooter."

My point is, such things are noticeable in CMFI, and there is a clear difference in performance between the M1903's .30-06 and Carcano's 6.5mm.
The M1 Garand is an obvious overmatch, given it's greater volume of fire, but I have noticed Italian riflemen tend to open fire at slightly longer ranges than those of other countries.
The battlesight range I was referring to is the range at which one can aim at the breastbone of the enemy, and without using the adjustable sights, strike him between the top of his head, and belt buckle.

With it's flatter trajectory at normal engagement ranges, the Carcano has a longer battlesight range.
I'm not talking about maximum range, I'm talking about the useful firefight range.

 

13 hours ago, BlutUndEhre said:

The failed 7.35x51mm round was designed to make up for the 6.5's perceived long range shortcomings during Italy's Ethiopian adventures and it was a long range lemon, as well.

Yes, the 7.35x51mm would have been an excellent round, if Italian industry could have produced it in sufficient numbers.
The reason the Italians switched from the M38 Carbine back to the M98 long rifle, was precisely because of the loss of accuracy at the long ranges fighting occurred in Africa.

[BlutUndEhre]

2 hours ago, SLIM said:

http://candrsenal.com/rifle-italian-carcano-m1891/

"While it is true these low caliber rounds lacked “knock down power” they traded it for the advantages of requiring less production material, being easier to pack and carry, maintaining a flatter trajectory over distance, having superior penetration at range, lower recoil easing follow up shots, and less muzzle flash to give away the shooter."

My point is, such things are noticeable in CMFI, and there is a clear difference in performance between the M1903's .30-06 and Carcano's 6.5mm.
The M1 Garand is an obvious overmatch, given it's greater volume of fire, but I have noticed Italian riflemen tend to open fire at slightly longer ranges than those of other countries.
The battlesight range I was referring to is the range at which one can aim at the breastbone of the enemy, and without using the adjustable sights, strike him between the top of his head, and belt buckle.

With it's flatter trajectory at normal engagement ranges, the Carcano has a longer battlesight range.
I'm not talking about maximum range, I'm talking about the useful firefight range.

Yes, the 7.35x51mm would have been an excellent round, if Italian industry could have produced it in sufficient numbers.
The reason the Italians switched from the M38 Carbine back to the M98 long rifle, was precisely because of the loss of accuracy at the long ranges fighting occurred in Africa.

1.  That website has a curious definition of flat trajectory and superior penetration and, in fact, I want to see their ballistics tests used to support that statement.  A 162 grain bullet being pushed at a maximum velocity of 2,400 fps is not going to be a terribly flat shooter.  It does not have the mass to hold a flat trajectory over longer ranges and it does not have the muzzle velocity to be firing that heavy of a bullet very flat at closer ranges.  That bullet weight and low velocity is also not the recipe for "superior penetration".  When you can show me a military loading for the 6.5x52mm that is clocking in past 2,500 fps at the muzzle I will concede the point.  Until then, I will continue on emphatically stating that the 6.5x52mm is not a superlative cartridge by any measure.

2.  You keep going back to the flatter trajectory but I have yet to see any ballistic chart showing this and my common sense and ballistics knowledge tell me that those numbers make a very flat trajectory for the 6.5 Carcano impossible.  I don't care what a C&R company has to say on the issue, I want to see hard data showing this superior flat trajectory and penetration and I have a feeling that I won't.  A flat trajectory is incumbent on high velocity, a bullet with a high ballistic coefficient, and bullet weight to hold momentum over distance.  The 6.5x52mm Carcano fails in all of these categories.  Penetration is incumbent on high velocity and mass.  The 6.5x52mm in standard Italian military loading lacks both of these things meaning that it would have to defy the laws of physics to be the round you (or this C&R site) are claiming it to be.

3.  My argument has nothing to do with the M1's superior volume of fire, you can use the M1903 if you prefer.  I was referring to the M1's far superior muzzle velocity pushing a much more efficient bullet at a flatter trajectory.  In terms of ballistics the .30-06 is head and shoulders above the 6.5x52mm Carcano in whatever realm you care to compare them.  Go watch the service rifle matches at Camp Perry and, if you really want to find out for yourself the truth of this argument, bring a 6.5 Carcano to compete with the M1 and M1A shooters.  It won't go well for you.  The .30 M2 ball round is a 152 grain bullet with a ballistic coefficient of .393 being propelled at 2,805 fps through the M1.  From the numbers I have managed to drag up for the Carcano rifles we have the 6.5 with a 162 grain bullet with a ballistic coefficient of .275 being propelled at 2,400 fps and the 7.35 with a 128 grain bullet with a ballistic coefficient of .285 being propelled at 2,400 fps.  There simply is no comparison to be made here that will favor either of the Carcano's rounds.

4.  I'm well aware of what a battlesight zero is as I was in the service for a short time, thank you.  The Carcano, for most of its life since 1891, had its sights fixed at a minimum of 200m like just about every other service rifle in the world.  After the Abyssinian adventures, it was decided that setting the rear sight to 300m on the M38 would increase hits because infantry would not have to adjust as much for longer engagement ranges.  This is not a true 300m battlesight because it will not strike an enemy in the vitals reliably under 300m which is why the 91/41 has a 200m sight setting, as well, that is found by flipping the sight forward.  Again, this stuff had nothing to do with the 6.5 Carcano's supposed ballistic efficiency, it was just wonky Italian thinking that was proven wrong in combat conditions.  Also, lets consider the case of the M1 again because of my position that it has the finest iron sights of any battle rifle, ever.  I have all of mine (minus the M1C and D) set to fire 1 1/4" high at 25 yards.  Because of the .30-06's inherently superior ballistic qualities I am battlesighted to 400 yards.  With four clicks of the elevation knob from that position I will be putting rounds center of mass at 500 yards and with four clicks back to me I'm once again battlesighted to 400 yards.  I bang on steel with my M1s at these ranges regularly and would expect any competent rifleman to be able to do the same with a little familiarization with the rifle.  I would not be able to do this reliably with a Carcano, which is why I have never even tried, and it would take more than just a competent rifleman to be a good 500 yard shot with this rifle.

5.  The Carcano rifle itself is crap, so even if any of the above vague "facts" that you are quoting to me were verifiable it still wouldn't matter.  The sights on a Carcano are rudimentary notch and post sights and they are very clunky.  At 300m the front sight post will obscure the target pretty badly and it is just much too wide to afford really accurate shooting at that range and no sort of accuracy at any range past that.  If you manage to acquire a man-sized target at that range and keep him perfectly centered you had better hit him the first time because the bolt is as crappy as a Mosin 91/30 and you won't be bolting rounds all silky smooth like you would with a good military bolt like a Mauser or Enfield action.  Literally the only thing I like about the rifle is the Mannlicher clip loading system.  Mannlicher-style en blocs do load very quickly and smoothly which is always a plus.  That being said, that one nice feature does not make up for the facts that as far as WWII service rifles go, the only way I'd feel more underarmed and more combat ineffective would be if I were stuck with an 1886 Lebel.  I am no Mosin-Nagant 91/30 fan by any stretch of the imagination but I would feel much more comfortable if armed with the 91/30 over the Carcano in any of its variants.

6.  Find me some ballistics on 7.35x51mm Carcano to prove what you are saying.  Again, this is a case of numbers not lying and the numbers don't look good for this Italian dog, either.  The round is just a 6.5 necked up to 7.35 with an extremely lightweight 128 grain bullet pushing in the 2,400 fps range, again.  At close ranges, yes, this is no doubt going to be a flat shooting round but nothing that slow and light is going to hold hitting power or a decent trajectory over range.  This is simply physics.

I'm new to this forum and I don't want to antagonize anyone or make you think I'm being combative and argumentative, because I'm not.  I find that disagreements on the net seem to heat up rather rapidly because it is hard to discern tone through text but I don't want this to go that way, rather I'd prefer that we continue this in a civil manner until we come to an agreement on the facts and, at this point, you are going to need to bring ballistics charts out because all of the numbers I am seeing just don't reflect what you are saying.  My firsthand experience shooting these weapons does not reflect what you are saying.

[General Jack Ripper]

Well if you can find ballistics charts, by all means post them.
They don't seem to exist in any place I can find.
Most of my google searches turn up nothing more than the Wikipedia entry, aside from a book I'm not going to buy.
http://www.schifferbooks.com/the-model-1891-carcano-rifle-a-detailed-developmental-and-production-history-5898.html

C&Rsenal shoot every weapon they test on their own range, using period ammunition.
All opinions expressed about weapons are from their own experiences, shooting and comparing hundreds of weapons.
However, I do trust their opinion, and their work.

 

[General Jack Ripper]

3 hours ago, BlutUndEhre said:

1. A 162 grain bullet being pushed at a maximum velocity of 2,400 fps is not going to be a terribly flat shooter.  It does not have the mass to hold a flat trajectory over longer ranges and it does not have the muzzle velocity to be firing that heavy of a bullet very flat at closer ranges.

2.  You keep going back to the flatter trajectory but I have yet to see any ballistic chart showing this and my common sense and ballistics knowledge tell me that those numbers make a very flat trajectory for the 6.5 Carcano impossible.

3. Go watch the service rifle matches at Camp Perry and, if you really want to find out for yourself the truth of this argument, bring a 6.5 Carcano to compete with the M1 and M1A shooters.  It won't go well for you.

4.  I'm well aware of what a battlesight zero is as I was in the service for a short time, thank you.

5.  The Carcano rifle itself is crap, so even if any of the above vague "facts" that you are quoting to me were verifiable it still wouldn't matter.

6.  Find me some ballistics on 7.35x51mm Carcano to prove what you are saying.  Again, this is a case of numbers not lying and the numbers don't look good for this Italian dog, either.  The round is just a 6.5 necked up to 7.35 with an extremely lightweight 128 grain bullet pushing in the 2,400 fps range, again.  At close ranges, yes, this is no doubt going to be a flat shooting round but nothing that slow and light is going to hold hitting power or a decent trajectory over range.  This is simply physics.

My firsthand experience shooting these weapons does not reflect what you are saying.

1. You are basing this assessment on what, exactly?

I am not arguing MAXIMUM RANGE, I am arguing BATTLE SIGHT range. The TAC Ai in the game does not care one bit about maximum range.
The Game Manual lists the effective range of the M1 Garand at 440 yards (402 meters) and it lists the effective range of the Carcano M1891/41 at 600 meters.
600 meters, is LONGER than 402 meters.
So... WHAT ARE WE TALKING ABOUT HERE?

2. You, yourself have no hard data, but your "gut feeling" seems to do just fine for you?

3. Shooting matches are not Combat Mission.

4. The words "battlesight zero" did not once leave my fingertips, until right now. Once again, you are confusing Battle Sight Range, with Adjust Sight Range.

5. Once again, your "gut feeling" seems to count for an awful lot here.

6. The bullet design itself is superior to the 6.5mm. That is readily apparent by simply looking at it, the replacement of the older "Alaska" bullet with a new "Spitzer" bullet is a no-brainer.

 

The first thing you need to know is, your firsthand experience shooting a rifle doesn't count for two bags of snot when playing a game. Italian riflemen DO open fire at longer ranges than their opponents. This firsthand observation of in-game behavior is not changed one bit by anything you have said here.

Now the fault is mine for trying to drag real world opinions into this discussion, and for that, I apologize. This should have been kept to a discussion about IN GAME observations only.
I do have a tendency to get sidetracked easily, which is why I avoid discussions such as these as much as possible. My simple attempt to add a small piece of useful knowledge to a thread went out of control very quickly, didn't it?

The second thing you need to know is, internet isn't real. If you get angry because of a discussion on an internet forum, you ought to re-examine your life.

[BlutUndEhre]

2 hours ago, SLIM said:

1. You are basing this assessment on what, exactly?

I am not arguing MAXIMUM RANGE, I am arguing BATTLE SIGHT range. The TAC Ai in the game does not care one bit about maximum range.
The Game Manual lists the effective range of the M1 Garand at 440 yards (402 meters) and it lists the effective range of the Carcano M1891/41 at 600 meters.
600 meters, is LONGER than 402 meters.
So... WHAT ARE WE TALKING ABOUT HERE?

2. You, yourself have no hard data, but your "gut feeling" seems to do just fine for you?

3. Shooting matches are not Combat Mission.

4. The words "battlesight zero" did not once leave my fingertips, until right now. Once again, you are confusing Battle Sight Range, with Adjust Sight Range.

5. Once again, your "gut feeling" seems to count for an awful lot here.

6. The bullet design itself is superior to the 6.5mm. That is readily apparent by simply looking at it, the replacement of the older "Alaska" bullet with a new "Spitzer" bullet is a no-brainer.

 

The first thing you need to know is, your firsthand experience shooting a rifle doesn't count for two bags of snot when playing a game. Italian riflemen DO open fire at longer ranges than their opponents. This firsthand observation of in-game behavior is not changed one bit by anything you have said here.

Now the fault is mine for trying to drag real world opinions into this discussion, and for that, I apologize. This should have been kept to a discussion about IN GAME observations only.
I do have a tendency to get sidetracked easily, which is why I avoid discussions such as these as much as possible. My simple attempt to add a small piece of useful knowledge to a thread went out of control very quickly, didn't it?

The second thing you need to know is, internet isn't real. If you get angry because of a discussion on an internet forum, you ought to re-examine your life.

1.  I am basing that on the necessary ingredients for a flat shooting round and the 6.5, as noted in my previous post, lacks all of them.  It is slow, heavy for its lack of velocity, and has a relatively poor ballistic coefficient.  The laws of physics dictate that it is not going to be a flat shooting round in comparison to most of its WWII counterparts.  In 1891?  Sure, it stacks up well against many of its contemporaries.  In 1941?  No, not at all.

As for those maximum effective ranges?  Those are utterly absurd and if the game engine is taking those numbers into consideration then something needs to change and that should be what we are talking about.  Any rifleman with a decent weapon and proper training should be able to hit a man-sized target at 500m under range conditions.  Every Marine who passed through recruit training during WWII did just that with a 1903 or from 1942 onwards with an M1.  My dad did it with an M14.  I did it with an M16A2 though I do it now with an M1 or M1A for fun.  So much for that 440 yard maximum effective range, eh?  Now, I would say that 500m is the extreme range for effective iron sight shooting at a point target no matter what rifle we are discussing simply because good military rifles will accurately shoot further than what our eyes are capable of discerning without aid, but the game is apparently making some sort of distinction with the Carcano and that is beyond ridiculous.  I'm of a mind to make a video shooting these rifles at 600m and we'll see just how effective a range that truly is for a Carcano.  I assure you it will be terrible.  I would not be confident getting consistent hits at 300m with a Carcano firing at a man-sized target simply because the sights are no good.  At 600 I would not guarantee even one hit out of fifty fired because I won't be able to see the target.

2. It is not a gut feeling, it is simply ballistics knowledge garnered from shooting rifles since I was literally old enough to walk.  I know what makes a round fire flat, as stated above, and this round lacks the prerequisites.

3. Shooting competitions show what rifles and rounds work well and which do not.  If this was an inherently flat shooting, accurate rifle and round we would see Carcanos achieve success in service rifle competitions.  They do not.

4.  I do not understand the confusion over this term.  A battlesight is exactly what you said, the range in which you can strike a man in the vitals without adjusting the sights or your point of aim.  The Carcano is not battlesighted for 300m.  The rear sight's lowest setting is indeed for 300m but it will not strike a man in the vitals reliably under that range without shifting your point of aim or flipping forward the sight to reveal the 200m notch because it is not battlesighted for that range.  On the contrary, the M1 with its elevation knob cranked all the way down should hit center of mass at 100 yards and be battlesighted for 300.  If you sight M1s like I do, with the 1 1/4" over at 25 yards you get a battlesight of 400 yards.  Despite the fact that I have used the adjustable sights to do this it doesn't change the fact that the weapon is now battlesighted for this range and I will not have to touch the sights or adjust my point of aim to hit solidly at any distance between 0 and 400 yards.

"The early model M91 version rifles with the fixed battle sight being at 300 meters was probably not the greatest decision but reflected the trend of that time. With this sight setting the rifles would have a maximum height of trajectory of approximately 15” – 17” at a range of 175 to 200 yards, depending on barrel length."  From Dave Emary, "Shooting the 6.5 x 52mm, 7.35 x 51mm Cartridges and the Carcano Rifles".  Despite the author using the term "fixed battle sight" it is clear that he is not using it in the same sense that you and I are seeing as how he is telling us that you will fire over a foot high at the given ranges and it is equally apparent that the Carcano is not, in fact, battlesighted for 300m.

5.  Again, not a gut feeling at all, it is simply knowing what makes rounds efficient or inefficient.  The 7.35x51 lacks the necessary ingredients for long range flat shooting.  I gave it credit by saying that at close ranges it probably is a flat shooter, but there is no way that a bullet that light, going that slow, and with such a low ballistic coefficient is going to maintain any decent trajectory at mid-to-long range.

6.  Yes, it is better, .275 for the 6.5 to a whopping .285 ballistic coefficient for the 7.35.  These are not outstanding numbers, at all.

I was never arguing whether my shooting experience has anything to do with CM results.  What I am arguing is that if the Carcano having a longer maximum range or enhanced effects at range is coded into the game it is dead wrong, plain and simple.  I had not noticed the tendency of Italian infantry to fire at longer ranges but if that indeed is the case, it needs to change because of all of this that I wrote above.  These are not opinions, these are facts.  The Carcano is not going to match up well with the M1 in any realm, be that combat shooting, 500m shooting, 1000m shooting, or any other test of marksmanship you can devise.  The 91 Carcano is a clunker from the bottom to the top and if necessary I will make you a video running these weapons head to head in whatever situations you desire and we will then see that if CM is giving the Carcano a boost at extended ranges that it needs to be changed.

Now, as for your closing statement about getting angry, I have not gotten angry at all and I have no idea where you got that from seeing as how I stated specifically that I would like to have a mature discussion and disagree in a manner befitting adults rather than in the infantile way that most internet arguments go.  So far, unless you were snarkily insulting me with that last bit (and I'm not certain you weren't), I think we have done just that.  Also, I see nothing wrong with any of the subject matter we are discussing because historical facts are relevant to what we see in-game and when in-game results are not congruent with reality we should see that they are changed.

[Kuderian]

Interesting discussions on the Italian Rifle.

So @BlutUndEhre are you arguing from your first hand experience and scientific data that BFC has got has it wrong about the 200m more effective range of the Carcano compared to the M1 Garand?

If you can prove your assertion is correct to BFC, they would probably patch the correction in.

 

 

[BlutUndEhre]

4 hours ago, Kuderian said:

Interesting discussions on the Italian Rifle.

So @BlutUndEhre are you arguing from your first hand experience and scientific data that BFC has got has it wrong about the 200m more effective range of the Carcano compared to the M1 Garand?

If you can prove your assertion is correct to BFC, they would probably patch the correction in.

 

 

Yes, I am arguing that there is absolutely nothing about that rifle that should give it any more effective range than the M1.  The Carcano has horrible sights, a creepy trigger pull, and the round it fires is not a good long range round by any measure.  By contrast the M1 is inherently very accurate, it has the best iron sights of any battle rifle in history, and it is firing one of the best long range rifle rounds ever designed. 

In terms of ballistics, there really is no comparison between the 6.5x52mm and the .30-06 (7.62x63mm).  Firing the 6.5 out of the 91/41's 27" barrel the 163 grain round develops muzzle velocities between 2,100 and 2,400 fps (I have seen various figures between these two numbers and I have seen some of the discrepancy attributed to poor quality aftermarket ammunition though Italian military ammo was also inconsistent).  The ballistic coefficient (essentially how streamlined a bullet is, the higher the number the better the performance) of the bullet is .275.  By contrast the M1 with its 24" barrel spits the 152 grain .30 M2 ball out at 2,800 fps and the bullet has a ballistic coefficient of .393.  These are very, very different numbers and if you know what they entail then you know from that alone that the Carcano is not the superior long range rifle.  What makes a cartridge flat shooting?  Easy.  High velocity+high ballistic coefficient=flat trajectory.  What makes a cartridge shoot flat over distance?  High velocity+high ballistic coefficient+heavy bullet.  Both of these bullets are heavy enough for 1000m shooting but the Carcano is not aided by having 10 more grains of weight since it doesn't have the velocity to carry the bullet out there quickly in the first place.  Here's something else to chew on.  The king of long range rifle rounds, the .50 BMG is essentially a scaled up .30-06.  .50 M33 ball has a ballistic coefficient of .63, a bullet weight of 661 grains, and fired out of a Barrett M82 has a muzzle velocity of 2,800 fps.  Everyone knows that the .50 rules long range shooting and here you have the numbers to see why.  There is no voodoo or black magic concerning what makes a round a good shooter or a dog, it is in these numbers.

Now, on to the rifles.  The flat shooting nature of the .30-06 combined with the simply outstanding iron sights of the M1 and its inherent accuracy makes for a rifle that is just tough to beat in that era.  As I detailed earlier, the standard battlesight zero of the M1 during WWII was 300 yards meaning that because of the round's flat trajectory if you aimed at the center of mass between 0 and 300 yards you are going to hit the target.  I also explained my battlesight zero which is to get the rifle shooting 1 1/4" high at 25 yards which will give you consistent hits on man-sized targets out to 400 yards.  By comparison the 91/41's adjustable rear sight starts at 300m and anything that is 250m or under is likely to hear the rounds whistling overhead because this is not, as I have stated repeatedly in this thread, a battlesight zero.  If you want to hit at 250m and under with a Carcano you are going to need to know hold unders for various ranges or you'll need to remember to flip the sight forward and expose the 200m sight which, lo and behold, actually is a battle sight that will give you consistent hits to about 250 yards, maybe a bit less (we'll clear that up when I set up my range day).

I have four M1s total, a 1943 SA, 1945 SA, 1945 M1C, and a 1952 M1D.  The 1943 SA is essentially factory new, all numbers match and the barrel is as pristine as a 74 year old military rifle is going to possess and it shoots accordingly.  I have fired 2 MOA groups with this rifle at 400 yards and for those of you who don't know what that means I am basically saying that at that range I am grouping the rounds in an 8" circle.  For a mass produced semi-automatic service rifle this is excellent accuracy.  The 1945 SA is still a fine shooter but it is not the shooter the '43 is and it groups about 3.5 MOA at 400 yards.  The M1C has seen some use but has an outstandingly good barrel and is another 2 MOA shooter.  The M1D is another closet queen with all matching numbers and an almost pristine barrel and it is the star shooter of the group putting 1.5 MOA groups in at 400 yards.  Bear in mind too that this is all with surplus .30 M2 ball, if we wanted to see just how accurate these rifles could be then handloading for each particular rifle would definitely shrink these groups but I'm just not interested in that.  As an amateur historian I'm more interested in seeing how the weapons of WWII functioned in their original state.  From all the M1s I have shot and been around being shot I would say that an example in good condition is probably going to shoot from 1-5 MOA with most falling in the middle of that spread.  2-3 MOA was probably more representative of the average rifle issued during the war and that is simply superb for a semi-automatic service rifle from the '40s.

I honestly do not believe that you can better the iron sights on the M1.  They are simple to understand, easy to manipulate, a rear aperture sight is always going to be the best for quick sighting and accurate shooting in my opinion, and you can adjust both elevation and windage 1 MOA per click which is fine enough tuning for a military rifle (1/2 MOA per click with NM sights).  For accuracy purposes, I am also a fan of the M1903's ladder sight but the M1's sights are not only accurate for the range, they are robust for the battlefield unlike the 1903's.

Now, on the Carcano I only have one example, a 1940 M91/38 in 6.5x52mm and my experience shooting it is very limited.  Ammunition is hard to come by and expensive and, frankly, I just don't enjoy shooting the rifle enough to pay for it.  Now, obviously in game we are dealing with the 91/41 which has seven more inches of barrel but the caliber and action are the same and the sights similar so many of these observations will hold true.  It fires high at 100 yards, definitely not as high as 91/41s are reported to do, but high all the same.  It has archaic iron sights of the notch and post variety and they are very chunky making for a poor sight picture in my estimation.  My 91/38's rear sight is fixed for 200m but the 91/41, despite starting at the bizarre 300m setting, does have a graduated elevation adjustment, albeit nowhere near the quality of the M1's system.  The only way to adjust windage on any of these rifles is to drift the front sight post, something you aren't going to do on the fly.  The trigger pull is sloppy and the bolt is only slightly smoother than a Mosin-Nagant's which, to me, is like the gold standard of unpleasant bolts to pull.  The loading of the en bloc clip is the only thing about this rifle that I would regard as "smooth" with everything else about it being crude, rough, and bumpy.  The one time I fired this rifle with the intention of grouping to find accuracy I managed 2 MOA at 100 yards which, as stated above, is great for an old service rifle.  I would imagine that, like most mass produced service rifles, you'll see them fire groups from 1-5 MOA depending on wear, tear, and just individual quirks of different rifles.  So accuracy, like most bolt guns with a strong action, is good but the accuracy the design is capable of is severely limited by the junk sights, in the case of the 91/38 via having no elevation adjustment and horrible sight picture and in the case of the 91/41 by having a bizarre first setting that leaves you firing extremely high at most normal engagement ranges and horrible sight picture at anything past 100m.

So, there you have it.  That's my reasoning on why the Carcano should have no performance advantage at any engagement range.