QUESTION: Ignoring the time and effort to actually produce a

With proper tooling and knowhow, sure.
But metallurgy hadn't really gotten there yet do you'd need a whole lot of tooling.

>>33496698
Guns aren't super complicated. If you have the proper tools and know how, you could do it easily.

>>33496698
You'd need an appropriate barrel, bullet, powder, rifling, scope. So, yes, if some smith in the 1700s took a big ol snort of some fairy dust then yeah.

>>33496765
>>33496772
>>33496789
Okay thank you, just wanted to get some external opinions before i break my dungeons and dragons campaign.

>>33496698
Absolutely not.

>>33496765
>But metallurgy hadn't really gotten there

obviously, you'd be sourcing ore and smelting the steel yourself too. making crucible steel wouldn't be that hard. the limiting factor as always would be money. OP specified "a modern high end sniper rifle" as in one rifle. making a mandrel, then beating a barrel on it would be possible and would yield a great product because great engravers wo were able to work by eye only at great precision still existed.

>>33496698
>time and effort to actually produce a modern high end sniper rifle,
its really not that much more than any remshit.
you need precision machinery and tooling to make them, and no way in hell are you going to find that in the 1700s

>>33496698
>QUESTION: Ignoring the time and effort to actually produce a modern high end sniper rifle, would it be possible to reproduce one in the musket era if you knew exactly what you were doing?


yes but not the optics.

There were guns that could shoot 800 yards easily in the early 19th century/late 18th century but optics like todays could not be made then. Even WW1 scopes were far behind what is available today.

>>33496855
cant smelt the steel yourself without a proper crucible with nitrogen/oxygen torches, and instruments + electricity to keep the right temperatures for alloying and hardening.
the tooling wouldnt cut the metal, if you actually managed it. since you would need carbide or coated tools

>>33496856
>>33496856
>you need precision machinery and tooling to make them, and no way in hell are you going to find that in the 1700s

Not as a one of and early rifling was achieved by twisting the barrel in the middle east.

Shooting at this range would not be a problem. Seeing what you are shooting at would be.

>>33496862
800? The Whitworth goes out to 1400 meters. And that's ignoring the large, wall or carriage mounted "anti materiel" rifles in use across Eurasia.

>>33496698

>building anything in the age of muskets

Bruh, you'd be better off building a rifle in the modern era with lathes, drills, cutters, standardized measurement tools etc than firing up a forge, fucking around with steel trying to make a tube, whittling wood and then trying to find the resources to make gun powder.

>>33497098
Please read >>33496831

the limiting factor would be the cartridges
the other parts could theoretically be made by hand, two rifles wouldn't have interchangeable parts

cartridges require mass production of high precision
the only remotely viable way to do it without complex brass drawing equipment would be the rolled brass foil method used in early .50-70/.45-70 and .577/.450 Martini ammo

even then, making the foil would be extraordinarily difficult
hell, making the correct alloy brass would be difficult
back then, the alloying process for brass wasn't well understood and whether or not a batch was any good was basically trial and error

basically, each cartridge would have to have much thicker walls so that they could be made without using unobtainable foil-making or brass drawing tech
each cartridge would have to be made by hand and hand fitted to the individual rifle

>>33496698

I don't think it would be practically possible to forge a modern barrel. And then there's the issue of optics.