Bolt Actions for a Modern Army
- Thread starter Mauserguy
- Start date
- Status
dracphelan
Member
Well, if you can get a bolt action rifle down to the weight and size of the M16 and have it accept magazines. Also, if you can carry the same amount of ammo per pound as the M16. Anytime someone wants to add or change equipment for the infantryman, weight and bulk need to be high in the consideration list.
I have a friend who is over in Iraq right now. One of his biggest gripes is all of the armor he is required to wear. It slows him down and limits his movement withou that large of an increase in protection. If his commanders would allow it, he would store 4 pieces of it and never use them.
I have a friend who is over in Iraq right now. One of his biggest gripes is all of the armor he is required to wear. It slows him down and limits his movement withou that large of an increase in protection. If his commanders would allow it, he would store 4 pieces of it and never use them.
sterling180
Member
Yes, and now they are using the ones that they have left against US,UK and other European forces,who are stationed out there-what a bunch of ungrateful s.o.b.s.A Pakastani-born British Paratrooper was killed there recently and this angers me immensly,because they had bitten the asses of the very western-nations,that assisted them in kicking out the Soviets out of their country-during the 1980s.
There are many old Enfields out there in those terrorist hands,liberated from Pakistani and Indian Army arsenals.
In saying this,those people are very tough,ruthless and loyal to their cause and are extremely difficult adversaries to battle.
HankB
Member
There's another consideration in addition to those already mentioned - field a .30/06 bolt action with a steel buttplate, and I predict lawsuits and pontificating by PC congresscritters on behalf of the large percentage of female soldiers who would have difficulty qualifying.
Yeah, milliions of GIs did it in past generations, but how many G.I. Janes had to qualify with the Springfield in 1917? Or even the Garand in 1940?
No doubt some would do quite well . . . but IMHO most wouldn't.
Yeah, milliions of GIs did it in past generations, but how many G.I. Janes had to qualify with the Springfield in 1917? Or even the Garand in 1940?
No doubt some would do quite well . . . but IMHO most wouldn't.
1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
Qualify
So, give the ladies the M4/M-16 the way the Wehrmacht issued MP-38s and 40s to some of the troops, and let the big, strappin' lads field the main battle rifles.
Yeah...That probably wouldn't comply with NATO guidelines, logistically speaking...but that ain't really a bad thing...y'know?
Bring back the (original) M-14 and the 1911A1! (And let them that can't handle'em stay in the rear with the gear and the beer.)
So, give the ladies the M4/M-16 the way the Wehrmacht issued MP-38s and 40s to some of the troops, and let the big, strappin' lads field the main battle rifles.
Yeah...That probably wouldn't comply with NATO guidelines, logistically speaking...but that ain't really a bad thing...y'know?
Bring back the (original) M-14 and the 1911A1! (And let them that can't handle'em stay in the rear with the gear and the beer.)
Lonestar.45
Member
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2004
- Messages
- 1,077
Bolt actions, while nice, are a thing of the past for modern battle rifles. You'd have to reload 6 times or so for every mag change your foe w/ the AK would have to reload. A squad w/ bolt actions would be wiped out by a squad w/AK's. You can't put down much suppressing fire with bolt actions unless you have a huge numerical superiority on your side. Even modern day snipers carry M-4's and have spotters carrying M-4's.
In the civil war, cavalry with Spencers or Henrys would routinely decimate much larger forces armed only with 1863 Springfields because of the superior firepower. Same holds true day. Being able to put more rounds downrange is a good thing.
In the civil war, cavalry with Spencers or Henrys would routinely decimate much larger forces armed only with 1863 Springfields because of the superior firepower. Same holds true day. Being able to put more rounds downrange is a good thing.
1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
Bolted
Quote:
>Bolt actions...You'd have to reload 6 times or so for every mag change your foe w/ the AK would have to reload.<
Not if you hit your AK-armed foe. The purpose of shooting is hitting the target. Hit the target!
************
And:
>Being able to put more rounds downrange is a good thing.<
Not unless they actually hit somethin'. Misses don't count. If your foe is still alive, he can still kill you. Don't scare him. Shoot him!
Quote:
>Bolt actions...You'd have to reload 6 times or so for every mag change your foe w/ the AK would have to reload.<
Not if you hit your AK-armed foe. The purpose of shooting is hitting the target. Hit the target!
************
And:
>Being able to put more rounds downrange is a good thing.<
Not unless they actually hit somethin'. Misses don't count. If your foe is still alive, he can still kill you. Don't scare him. Shoot him!
PAshooter
Member
As a couple of others have mentioned - putting (more) rounds downrange means nothing.
Putting rounds into your enemies means everything.
Quality - yes.
Quantity - no.
Or, put another way - don't scare 'em, kill 'em.
YMMV (but not drastically)
Putting rounds into your enemies means everything.
Quality - yes.
Quantity - no.
Or, put another way - don't scare 'em, kill 'em.
YMMV (but not drastically)
Lonestar.45
Member
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2004
- Messages
- 1,077
Yep, accuracy counts, but I'd still rather be in a platoon all armed with AKs' going against one armed with bolt actions and not the other way around any day.
I guess the question is, would anybody here WANT to be in a modern army armed only with bolt actions when the enemy has full autos with 30 rd mags, or heck, even semis?
As for the person a way back that said the Afghans did fine with their Enfield against the Soviets....I'd say they did fine in SPITE of their bolt actions, not because of them. Think of what they'd have done to the Soviets if they'd been equally armed.
I guess the question is, would anybody here WANT to be in a modern army armed only with bolt actions when the enemy has full autos with 30 rd mags, or heck, even semis?
As for the person a way back that said the Afghans did fine with their Enfield against the Soviets....I'd say they did fine in SPITE of their bolt actions, not because of them. Think of what they'd have done to the Soviets if they'd been equally armed.
Frohickey
Member
Bolt actions vs others
Seems that the arguments of bolt actions over semi-autos are running with the semi-autos or autos winning.
Yet another argument for repealing the NFA34.
Seems that the arguments of bolt actions over semi-autos are running with the semi-autos or autos winning.
Yet another argument for repealing the NFA34.
1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
re:
Quote:
>Yep, accuracy counts, but I'd still rather be in a platoon all armed with AKs' going against one armed with bolt actions and not the other way around any day.<
*********
Also depends. In a pitched battle, maneuvering to close with/destroy the opposition, the AKs have it..but the bolt-riflemen underststand that this puts them at a disadvantage, and don't even entertain the fantasy of standing head to head with the others....sorta like the militiamen knew that they couldn't hope to prevail against British Regulars in an open field. In other words...Don't play the other man's game. Exploit his weaknesses while taking advantage of your strengths. The bolt-action has greater range, power, and accuracy than the AK. Use it. When the enemy advances, retreat. When he stops, attack. When he retreats, give chase and harass.
If every soldier were to personally shoot one enemy soldier, the war would be over quickly. The man with the Mauser or '03 knows that he has to hold and squeeze...and that encourages him to do so. The man with the assault rifle is rather encouraged to rely on his 30 round magazine, and too often blows all his ammo away indiscriminately. The squad leader's axiom states that there's more air out there than there is meat applies.
As for me...If I have to face an adversary, I'd much rather it be a tactical AK ninja than "Bubba" armed with grandpa's thutty-thutty....'cause Bubba's gonna put that front sight on my chest and bust my chops at the first opportunity, and he ain't likely to storm the gates of hell with guns a-blazin'. He'll wait for a target, aim...and squeeze....Move to another position, and wait for another target. One shot/One kill. Five shots...Scratch, one fire team....and if he plays it out right, they'll never see him.
Quote:
>Yep, accuracy counts, but I'd still rather be in a platoon all armed with AKs' going against one armed with bolt actions and not the other way around any day.<
*********
Also depends. In a pitched battle, maneuvering to close with/destroy the opposition, the AKs have it..but the bolt-riflemen underststand that this puts them at a disadvantage, and don't even entertain the fantasy of standing head to head with the others....sorta like the militiamen knew that they couldn't hope to prevail against British Regulars in an open field. In other words...Don't play the other man's game. Exploit his weaknesses while taking advantage of your strengths. The bolt-action has greater range, power, and accuracy than the AK. Use it. When the enemy advances, retreat. When he stops, attack. When he retreats, give chase and harass.
If every soldier were to personally shoot one enemy soldier, the war would be over quickly. The man with the Mauser or '03 knows that he has to hold and squeeze...and that encourages him to do so. The man with the assault rifle is rather encouraged to rely on his 30 round magazine, and too often blows all his ammo away indiscriminately. The squad leader's axiom states that there's more air out there than there is meat applies.
As for me...If I have to face an adversary, I'd much rather it be a tactical AK ninja than "Bubba" armed with grandpa's thutty-thutty....'cause Bubba's gonna put that front sight on my chest and bust my chops at the first opportunity, and he ain't likely to storm the gates of hell with guns a-blazin'. He'll wait for a target, aim...and squeeze....Move to another position, and wait for another target. One shot/One kill. Five shots...Scratch, one fire team....and if he plays it out right, they'll never see him.
I guess the question is what would we gain by using a bolt action rifle as opposed to a semi- or select fire weapon?
I think a squad of Gunsite graduates (or any other equivalent training) with Steyr Scouts would acquit themselves well in most any combat circumstances, but since one doesn't have to sacrifice reliability, power, accuracy, or sturdiness when choosing a semiautomatic or select fire weapon, there is probably no reason to choose a bolt action rifle.
I think a squad of Gunsite graduates (or any other equivalent training) with Steyr Scouts would acquit themselves well in most any combat circumstances, but since one doesn't have to sacrifice reliability, power, accuracy, or sturdiness when choosing a semiautomatic or select fire weapon, there is probably no reason to choose a bolt action rifle.
The Drew
Member
I cannot think of any reason where the bolt action rifle like the 03 would be superior to the Garand or the M14(semi) in a combat situation...
I am also not convinced that fully automatic weapons should be issued to every soldier.
I am also not convinced that fully automatic weapons should be issued to every soldier.
OldSchooler
Member
I guess the question is what would we gain by using a bolt action rifle as opposed to a semi- or select fire weapon?
Good point. Enough good banter has been flung about to support a well placed bullet, regardless of the source. Marksmanship has NO substitute.
And firing from cover is always the best course to ensure valor, regardless of your weapon, whether venerable Enfield or pulsed laser zapper.
But it really is a rhetorical question. Yes, you brings what you got, or in the case of the poor Canucks, what you've been given. But given a choice, I bet the majority would choose to upgrade...
Good point. Enough good banter has been flung about to support a well placed bullet, regardless of the source. Marksmanship has NO substitute.
And firing from cover is always the best course to ensure valor, regardless of your weapon, whether venerable Enfield or pulsed laser zapper.
But it really is a rhetorical question. Yes, you brings what you got, or in the case of the poor Canucks, what you've been given. But given a choice, I bet the majority would choose to upgrade...
1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
Gain
Quote:
>I guess the question is what would we gain by using a bolt action rifle as opposed to a semi- or select fire weapon?<
***************
With a 9-pound main battle rifle? Accuracy and range. With a carbine the length and heft of say... a Ruger M-77 ultralight or RSI International? In addition to the above...weight and bulk and the added advantage of handiness in cover. Sound like I'm a fan of the Scout concept? I am.
A rifleman operating from cover and concealment from even 200 yards is a hard man to deal with if he's good with his rifle. Five or six such men can hold a company at bay for days on end.
Quote:
>I guess the question is what would we gain by using a bolt action rifle as opposed to a semi- or select fire weapon?<
***************
With a 9-pound main battle rifle? Accuracy and range. With a carbine the length and heft of say... a Ruger M-77 ultralight or RSI International? In addition to the above...weight and bulk and the added advantage of handiness in cover. Sound like I'm a fan of the Scout concept? I am.
A rifleman operating from cover and concealment from even 200 yards is a hard man to deal with if he's good with his rifle. Five or six such men can hold a company at bay for days on end.
tikka_fan
Member
Sure a sniper gets a kill for every 1.3 rounds expended. But does he gain and hold ground? The sniper is part of the combined arms philosophy. He enhances a maneuver unit but is nearly tactically worthless by himself.
The idea that a hybrid rifle/machine gun which is what the 'assault rifle' is, is somehow inferior to massed aimed rifle fire is ridiculous. For one thing most modern combat occurs within 100 meters. At this range the benefit of having a small light rapid fire weapon is innumerable. Machine guns and bolt rifles are great for static fighting positions but modern urban warfare has little of this. That's what armored vehicles are for, mobile fighting positions. Violent combat requires violent firepower.
Obviously ragheads with AK-47's versus Marine snipers make bolt guns look godly but imagine the sniper trying to assault an objective controlled by said ragheads. Very foolish proposition.
The idea that a hybrid rifle/machine gun which is what the 'assault rifle' is, is somehow inferior to massed aimed rifle fire is ridiculous. For one thing most modern combat occurs within 100 meters. At this range the benefit of having a small light rapid fire weapon is innumerable. Machine guns and bolt rifles are great for static fighting positions but modern urban warfare has little of this. That's what armored vehicles are for, mobile fighting positions. Violent combat requires violent firepower.
Obviously ragheads with AK-47's versus Marine snipers make bolt guns look godly but imagine the sniper trying to assault an objective controlled by said ragheads. Very foolish proposition.
I think in this debate one needs to be clear about what type of warfare we are referring to. If you are fighting an insurgency, then a bolt action rifle might be sufficient. If you are in urban combat or a pitched battle, then a bolt action rifle might not be the best weapon. The tactics that insurgents use are going to be different than the tactics that a modern army uses, thus their weapon requirements are going to be different.
Cosmoline
Member
Ha! In my experience it's the MEN who have a hard time with steel buttplates. Just do a cruise in the rifle forum here at all the little guys who moan about how much a Mosin hurts
The women I've introduced to shooting my surplus iron (no double entendre intended) have without exception NEVER COMPLAINED about the steel. They have more padding there, and unlike the men they don't try to jam the steel against their shoulder bone.An excellent point. And it can be expanded upon. The modern squad is part of (or SUPPOSED to be part of) a much larger integrated force. They will often use their SAW's and A2's to pin down the insurgents while artillery or air strikes are called in. It's more difficult to pin a force down with bolt actions, and easier for the enemy to make a successful dash to the next building. A bolt action can and does have a place with the designated marksman, but in replacing all the automatic firearms with old bolts you'd be losing a lot of capability.
Sorry, Tuner, but your argument is flawed in a whole bunch of ways.
First off, where do you get this idea that only boltguns are accurate? Even the AK, the least accurate of the military rifles is plenty accurate enough to kill people. Even the DMR, which usually goes to the best shot in a squad, is going to be an auto.
And where do you get this idea that the boltgun is somehow going to be a superior combatant, and that the auto shooters are just going to blaze away and stand there and not maneuver? The whole, pick your terrain, shoot and scoot is bunk. When you are at war, you often don't get to pick much of anything, and you deal with what you are dealt.
Remove mindset. Remove psychology. Because they are a moot point. A warrior is a warrior either way, and will make the best of their equipment.
So just on pure mechanics, auto vs. bolt.
Speed. Auto.
Accuracy. Wash.
Durability. Wash. (sorry auto bashers, we've been using auto rifles for 60 years now, and we've kind of got the kinks worked out. Even if you have a tiny bit of extra reliability with a Mauser, I see your Mauser and raise you a Kalashnikov. So there).
Capacity. Auto. (the whole, only hits count is wrong. Tell that to the guy with the SAW. Volume is a tactic. And once again, why do you assume that auto shooters can't hit? I've got a several thousand people with Distinguished Marksman badges earned with rack grade M-16s who might disagree with you. And also, the argument about hitting the AK guy first, so what. He brought twenty friends. Think fast).
Reload down time. Auto.
Manipulation time. Auto.
Range. Wash in the larger caliber guns. Don't belive me? What is the new US Army sniper rifle system? (SASS) Holy moly. It's an .308 auto. (SR-25).
Strangely enough, the guys that actually go to bad places and kill bad people for a living, all want auto rifles. I'm going to assume that they maybe know a little bit more about combat then most of us. I'll leave the pontificating to the folks on the internet.
And the Afghans beat the Russians for a lot more reasons than their rifles. How come a couple battalions of US Army SF was able to pacify more of the country in 9 months than the entire Russian army did in 9 years? With far fewer casualities, with more high profile targets taken down? Rifles mean about jack squat in the grand scheme of things.
First off, where do you get this idea that only boltguns are accurate? Even the AK, the least accurate of the military rifles is plenty accurate enough to kill people. Even the DMR, which usually goes to the best shot in a squad, is going to be an auto.
And where do you get this idea that the boltgun is somehow going to be a superior combatant, and that the auto shooters are just going to blaze away and stand there and not maneuver? The whole, pick your terrain, shoot and scoot is bunk. When you are at war, you often don't get to pick much of anything, and you deal with what you are dealt.
Remove mindset. Remove psychology. Because they are a moot point. A warrior is a warrior either way, and will make the best of their equipment.
So just on pure mechanics, auto vs. bolt.
Speed. Auto.
Accuracy. Wash.
Durability. Wash. (sorry auto bashers, we've been using auto rifles for 60 years now, and we've kind of got the kinks worked out. Even if you have a tiny bit of extra reliability with a Mauser, I see your Mauser and raise you a Kalashnikov. So there).
Capacity. Auto. (the whole, only hits count is wrong. Tell that to the guy with the SAW. Volume is a tactic. And once again, why do you assume that auto shooters can't hit? I've got a several thousand people with Distinguished Marksman badges earned with rack grade M-16s who might disagree with you. And also, the argument about hitting the AK guy first, so what. He brought twenty friends. Think fast).
Reload down time. Auto.
Manipulation time. Auto.
Range. Wash in the larger caliber guns. Don't belive me? What is the new US Army sniper rifle system? (SASS) Holy moly. It's an .308 auto. (SR-25).
Strangely enough, the guys that actually go to bad places and kill bad people for a living, all want auto rifles. I'm going to assume that they maybe know a little bit more about combat then most of us. I'll leave the pontificating to the folks on the internet.
And the Afghans beat the Russians for a lot more reasons than their rifles. How come a couple battalions of US Army SF was able to pacify more of the country in 9 months than the entire Russian army did in 9 years? With far fewer casualities, with more high profile targets taken down? Rifles mean about jack squat in the grand scheme of things.
What would be the up side?
You would wind up with a rifle that recoils more (since you would probably go with a more powerful cartridge), weighs more, and holds less ammo, and is much slower to get another shot off with. You gain range and power but for what?
How often is your average soldier going to take a shot at a target 700 meters away? Even if you had to, you still have a guy in your squad with a 240B who can reach that far and put more lead out there way faster than a bolt action could.
I am sure that we would all like to imagine that we can place round after round center mass while 123 grain 7.62mm bullets sail past us but the truth is that being shot at would probably rattle the hell out of me and I am sure I would miss once or twice. Even if I didn't, what if I had to shoot the other guy two or three times. I am sure he would be up to his keister in adrenaline too (I imagine shooting at other people would cause that to happen).
All things being equal, from my uneducated point of view, I would prefer to stick with and AK, M-4/M-16, FAL, or even an SKS. Enfields and Mosins have my respect but if they were still the best tool we would still be using them.
You would wind up with a rifle that recoils more (since you would probably go with a more powerful cartridge), weighs more, and holds less ammo, and is much slower to get another shot off with. You gain range and power but for what?
How often is your average soldier going to take a shot at a target 700 meters away? Even if you had to, you still have a guy in your squad with a 240B who can reach that far and put more lead out there way faster than a bolt action could.
I am sure that we would all like to imagine that we can place round after round center mass while 123 grain 7.62mm bullets sail past us but the truth is that being shot at would probably rattle the hell out of me and I am sure I would miss once or twice. Even if I didn't, what if I had to shoot the other guy two or three times. I am sure he would be up to his keister in adrenaline too (I imagine shooting at other people would cause that to happen).
All things being equal, from my uneducated point of view, I would prefer to stick with and AK, M-4/M-16, FAL, or even an SKS. Enfields and Mosins have my respect but if they were still the best tool we would still be using them.
1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
Flawed
Maybe for a standing army or a rifle company...but I'm not talkin' about snipers or assaults or house clearing or any other such. I'm talkin' about a
lone rifleman or a small group engaging in irregular combat or just tryin' to stay alive in a worst-case scenario...which probably addresses 90% of the posters on the thread. A rifle that'll be pressed into multiple situations and called on to serve in more ways than one. A general-purpose rifle.
Not what I, or anyone else would choose as a member of a military or paramilitary fire team or platoon-sized contingent...and surely not what I would choose for house clearing or urban combat...but a handy and useful instrument for the loner.
In lone-wolf situations, a self shucker may do every bit as well, but the capacity and rate of fire may very become a moot point. How much ammo can one man carry...one who doesn't have logistical support or a fire team to back him up? Better to strike out carrying a light carbine and 50 rounds that offers something in .308-class power and range and forego the burden of carrying 500 rounds to feed the auto rifle so that other necessary provisions can be toted over the long haul. Stash another 50 or so rounds and you can likely make it for a long time...provided that you steer clear of assaulting fortified positions and urban combat. That's a good way to get shot...and if you get shot, you neither win, nor survive the storm.
Again...I never meant to imply that such armament would be a good idea for
regulars who plan on engaging in search and destroy ops...but for a lone or small group of irregulars who are just lookin' to get by and maybe harass a hostile force when the opportunity presents itself.
Maybe for a standing army or a rifle company...but I'm not talkin' about snipers or assaults or house clearing or any other such. I'm talkin' about a
lone rifleman or a small group engaging in irregular combat or just tryin' to stay alive in a worst-case scenario...which probably addresses 90% of the posters on the thread. A rifle that'll be pressed into multiple situations and called on to serve in more ways than one. A general-purpose rifle.
Not what I, or anyone else would choose as a member of a military or paramilitary fire team or platoon-sized contingent...and surely not what I would choose for house clearing or urban combat...but a handy and useful instrument for the loner.
In lone-wolf situations, a self shucker may do every bit as well, but the capacity and rate of fire may very become a moot point. How much ammo can one man carry...one who doesn't have logistical support or a fire team to back him up? Better to strike out carrying a light carbine and 50 rounds that offers something in .308-class power and range and forego the burden of carrying 500 rounds to feed the auto rifle so that other necessary provisions can be toted over the long haul. Stash another 50 or so rounds and you can likely make it for a long time...provided that you steer clear of assaulting fortified positions and urban combat. That's a good way to get shot...and if you get shot, you neither win, nor survive the storm.
Again...I never meant to imply that such armament would be a good idea for
regulars who plan on engaging in search and destroy ops...but for a lone or small group of irregulars who are just lookin' to get by and maybe harass a hostile force when the opportunity presents itself.
R.W.Dale
Member
I hear that.....
I wonder if the USAF will consider putting some squadrons of F-51's into service. Illegadly Mig-29's have toouble flying slow enough to shoot them down, Besides great marksmanship and six .50's beat guided air to air missiles every time.
I wonder if the USAF will consider putting some squadrons of F-51's into service. Illegadly Mig-29's have toouble flying slow enough to shoot them down, Besides great marksmanship and six .50's beat guided air to air missiles every time.
1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
F51s
Since there ain't more than a couple dozen left, I kinda doubt it...and that's a P51D.
Since there ain't more than a couple dozen left, I kinda doubt it...and that's a P51D.
R.W.Dale
Member
P-51d F-51 it just depends on when
- Status
