1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
P or F
Hmmmm...
Hmmmm...
Bolt Actions for a Modern Army
- Thread starter Mauserguy
- Start date
- Status
The last Bolt Action issue rifle
Shotgun News had a good article on the TKIV 85 not long ago. This is a bolt action military rifle still used by the Finn army that was developed in the early 80's. It uses a hex Russian Nagant receiver and Nagant bolt design and fires the 7.62x53r Finn round. They still haven't made a receiver better than the Russian ones. The barrel is a thick match grade and the barrel floats in a stock with a hexigonal bedding sleeve. It shoots a classified sniper formula cartridge with a lapa 200 grain boat tail projectile. It also has the safety cut off for better bolt handling characteristics. No safety at all. It's said to be effective out to 800 meters or so.
As for "regular" troops, the automatic rifle is the best choice in my mind, but as a special weapon in the hands of "special" troops. A rifle like the TKIV 85 could be a good weapon of choice.
http://www.mil.fi/maavoimat/kalustoesittely/popup.dsp?id=560
Shotgun News had a good article on the TKIV 85 not long ago. This is a bolt action military rifle still used by the Finn army that was developed in the early 80's. It uses a hex Russian Nagant receiver and Nagant bolt design and fires the 7.62x53r Finn round. They still haven't made a receiver better than the Russian ones. The barrel is a thick match grade and the barrel floats in a stock with a hexigonal bedding sleeve. It shoots a classified sniper formula cartridge with a lapa 200 grain boat tail projectile. It also has the safety cut off for better bolt handling characteristics. No safety at all. It's said to be effective out to 800 meters or so.
As for "regular" troops, the automatic rifle is the best choice in my mind, but as a special weapon in the hands of "special" troops. A rifle like the TKIV 85 could be a good weapon of choice.
http://www.mil.fi/maavoimat/kalustoesittely/popup.dsp?id=560
PAshooter
Member
I thought the D model had a bubble canopy - do my eyes deceive me or is that not a bubble canopy in that picture?
WARNING - POSSIBLE THREAD HIJACK!!! (sorry!)
WARNING - POSSIBLE THREAD HIJACK!!! (sorry!)
Someone mentioned the concept of a light bolt action .308 and some ammo. It will almost certainly end up weighing less than a comparable semi auto in the same caliber. You also don't need extra mags for it but you would be well advised to have a rifle that can use strippers. That would at least give you a little bit of a chance.
But I just did the math last week. I weighed a round of M-855 and a round of South African 7.62x51. The M-855 weighed 185 grains. The 7.62 weighed 372 grains. That worked out to about 19 rounds of 7.62 in a pound as opposed to about 38 rounds of 5.56mm. After rounding you get twice as much 5.56 per pound. It has been brought up before and it doesn't take long before you have to factor that in. I can't speak for others but I can say for myself that I don't want to wander out there where I might wind up in a fight with only a box of ammo.
You would be wise to factor in misses, needing more hits than you thought you would to stop, and suppressive fire. A few misses when you have 38 rounds is bad. A few misses when you have 18 rounds is worse.
Knowing I was going to a fight I would want my FAL and as many 20 rounders as I could get in my pockets.
If I had to go a long way knowing that I may have to respond with a lot of firepower but also knowing that I would have to carry it a long way, 7.62x51 wouldn't be my first choice. The rifle and ammo weigh too much if you plan to carry enough of it.
If you can have the option of working in a small group...
Why not have some of everything. It allows you to maximize the strengths of all your weapons and all your shooters.
And if you just love your Scout and feel that it would be a good choice in a NOLA type disaster, I can't argue with you.
How about I bring my FAL and some ammo, we get some AR'ers and some AK'ers to join us, and we all sit on your porch and make sure the real bad guys know how well armed we are?
And I still don't see what could possibly be gained by using bolt actions as a general issue rifle in place of an M-4 or M-16.
But I just did the math last week. I weighed a round of M-855 and a round of South African 7.62x51. The M-855 weighed 185 grains. The 7.62 weighed 372 grains. That worked out to about 19 rounds of 7.62 in a pound as opposed to about 38 rounds of 5.56mm. After rounding you get twice as much 5.56 per pound. It has been brought up before and it doesn't take long before you have to factor that in. I can't speak for others but I can say for myself that I don't want to wander out there where I might wind up in a fight with only a box of ammo.
You would be wise to factor in misses, needing more hits than you thought you would to stop, and suppressive fire. A few misses when you have 38 rounds is bad. A few misses when you have 18 rounds is worse.
Knowing I was going to a fight I would want my FAL and as many 20 rounders as I could get in my pockets.
If I had to go a long way knowing that I may have to respond with a lot of firepower but also knowing that I would have to carry it a long way, 7.62x51 wouldn't be my first choice. The rifle and ammo weigh too much if you plan to carry enough of it.
If you can have the option of working in a small group...
Why not have some of everything. It allows you to maximize the strengths of all your weapons and all your shooters.
And if you just love your Scout and feel that it would be a good choice in a NOLA type disaster, I can't argue with you.
How about I bring my FAL and some ammo, we get some AR'ers and some AK'ers to join us, and we all sit on your porch and make sure the real bad guys know how well armed we are?
And I still don't see what could possibly be gained by using bolt actions as a general issue rifle in place of an M-4 or M-16.
R127
Member
The older rifles had more power even at much greater ranges, and all the accuracy you'd need. If anything, that is what is lacking in the modern assault rifles Vs. the old bolt actions. 6.8spc has an off chance of changing that, I hear the Chinese are going that way with their new 5.8.
Guns are just tools, you pick the right one for the job. That implies you have identified what the job you're trying to do is. As a general issue weapon that will find itself in unpredictable scenarios, semi autos and select fires win, though I'd like to see real intermediate cartridges instead of poodleshooters and fullhouse .30cals. An interesting development that will become more important as time rolls on is the presence of armored infantry on the battlefield who have a good chance of shrugging off hits from all previous and current general issue service rifles. We'll need to find rifles to shoot through the armor, or we'll need to find a way to aim for any weak points. Sooner or later somebody's going to come up with useable nearly full body coverage and the wearer will laugh at current fire and maneuver tactics as he idly walks right up to your position and beats you about the head with a smoked sausage. He might not laugh at a marksman with a bolt action .50bmg.
Guns are just tools, you pick the right one for the job. That implies you have identified what the job you're trying to do is. As a general issue weapon that will find itself in unpredictable scenarios, semi autos and select fires win, though I'd like to see real intermediate cartridges instead of poodleshooters and fullhouse .30cals. An interesting development that will become more important as time rolls on is the presence of armored infantry on the battlefield who have a good chance of shrugging off hits from all previous and current general issue service rifles. We'll need to find rifles to shoot through the armor, or we'll need to find a way to aim for any weak points. Sooner or later somebody's going to come up with useable nearly full body coverage and the wearer will laugh at current fire and maneuver tactics as he idly walks right up to your position and beats you about the head with a smoked sausage. He might not laugh at a marksman with a bolt action .50bmg.
I doubt that anyone will laugh at you when you are shooting at them with a .50 BMG.
I also think the 6.8 has some potential.
I don't know what I would do if accosted by a man bearing a smoked sausage, but I think I had better start carrying a spork just in case.
I also think the 6.8 has some potential.
I don't know what I would do if accosted by a man bearing a smoked sausage, but I think I had better start carrying a spork just in case.
Mauserguy
Member
Well, I am getting the impression that there would be very little loss of effectiveness if the army was to switch to bolt action rifles except where suppressive fire is needed.
As far as clearing a room with a bolt rifle, yeah, I would not want to do that, but then again, I wouldn't want to do it with an assault rifle either. I would probably opt for something like a Winchester Model 1897 pump action shotgun.
Mauserguy
As far as clearing a room with a bolt rifle, yeah, I would not want to do that, but then again, I wouldn't want to do it with an assault rifle either. I would probably opt for something like a Winchester Model 1897 pump action shotgun.
Mauserguy
Lonestar.45
Member
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2004
- Messages
- 1,077
There are so many scenarios to pick and choose....but give me a semi or an auto any day.
Let's say you were manning a checkpoint in Iraq and a car comes in fast and does not halt. Who here would rather have a bolt action?
For every one or two scenarios where a bolt might be equal or slightly better, there's probably ten just like the above where it would be a big detriment (jungle fighting, room clearing, assault on fixed positions, any battle where you're outnumbered and endangered of being overrun, ambushes (whether on the receiving or giving end). Having to reload every 5 or 6 shots in a battle would just not be a good thing in my opinion. In short, equipping an army with bolt actions instead of autos would do nothing more than up your casualty count.
Let's say you were manning a checkpoint in Iraq and a car comes in fast and does not halt. Who here would rather have a bolt action?
For every one or two scenarios where a bolt might be equal or slightly better, there's probably ten just like the above where it would be a big detriment (jungle fighting, room clearing, assault on fixed positions, any battle where you're outnumbered and endangered of being overrun, ambushes (whether on the receiving or giving end). Having to reload every 5 or 6 shots in a battle would just not be a good thing in my opinion. In short, equipping an army with bolt actions instead of autos would do nothing more than up your casualty count.
Enfields have 10 and 12 rd magazines. Who said you have to reload every 5 shots? Have you ever worked the action on an Enfield? I can work it faster than a lever. Those Indian Enfields in .308 are mean guns. We're not talking about using bolt action sniper rifles like a Remington 700, we're talking about bolt action battle rifles.
Lonestar.45
Member
- Joined
- Sep 3, 2004
- Messages
- 1,077
True, didn't think of those Enfields. I was thinking more along the lines of my Mosins and Mausers. Still, I think I'd rather have a Garand or better yet an M-14 in battle than an Enfield these days. I think even an all SKS equipped army would tear a new one against an enemy armed only with bolt actions, given equal combat training and experience.
Terrierman
Member
Anybody who says only hits count has never been shot at and missed because he was lucky enough the first time and smart enough to take cover after that. And anybody who seriously proposes bolt action rifles for the modern battlefield can't really be serious can he?
I will grant you that an Enfield with stripper clips is pretty fast.
I don't think that it beats a FAL for anything though.
As for the clearing rooms, think of it like this:
I agree that a pump action 12 gauge is about as good of a choice I know of (although I don't get to play with stuff like MP-5K's).
A FAL is better for shooting at slightly harder or farther away targets.
A handgun is better to have on you all the time.
An M-4 will clear a room, it will do a lot of what a FAL will do, and it is light and compact enough to not be a huge ball and chain to drag around.
It does a lot of jobs fairly well.
I would still take one over a bolt action.
And to those who say that the weapon of the infantryman doesn't really matter, I disagree. To that infantryman who is getting shot at, that weapon makes a whole lot of difference.
I don't think that it beats a FAL for anything though.
As for the clearing rooms, think of it like this:
I agree that a pump action 12 gauge is about as good of a choice I know of (although I don't get to play with stuff like MP-5K's).
A FAL is better for shooting at slightly harder or farther away targets.
A handgun is better to have on you all the time.
An M-4 will clear a room, it will do a lot of what a FAL will do, and it is light and compact enough to not be a huge ball and chain to drag around.
It does a lot of jobs fairly well.
I would still take one over a bolt action.
And to those who say that the weapon of the infantryman doesn't really matter, I disagree. To that infantryman who is getting shot at, that weapon makes a whole lot of difference.
I don't think anyone suggested dropping the M16 in lieu of the 03-A3 (although I must admit the thought gives me the warm fuzzies). The semiauto certianly has an established placed on the battlefield, however as Tuner pointed out, effectiveness in combat has less to do with the latest tupperware/laser creation one may be holding than the person who is holding it.
There are certian individuals that I have come across that would be far more deadly with a flintlock than the local gun shop junkie would be with the latest auto rifle.
The bolt action might not be a viable solution for current military tactics, but the right person with the right mindset will be able to cause some serious damage, both physical and psychological, to whomever he happens to be harrassing.
There are certian individuals that I have come across that would be far more deadly with a flintlock than the local gun shop junkie would be with the latest auto rifle.
The bolt action might not be a viable solution for current military tactics, but the right person with the right mindset will be able to cause some serious damage, both physical and psychological, to whomever he happens to be harrassing.
Limeyfellow
Member
Ain't that the truth. Women have shot bolt actions without a problem before. For example the Russian snipers of ww2. Heck even Queen Elizabeth handled firearms from time to time in her military service and she couldn't have complained as much as my 120ib grandfather would about the recoil of the Lee Enfield.
leadcounsel
member
As far as the "antis" are concerned, those C&R guns are harmless. Keep 'em coming...
If the choice is between a bolt and an M-16 variant, I'd take the bolt, especially with AP/API rounds. Better to get into that engine block and passenger compartment.
Of course, a Mk19 grenade launcher would probably be my first choice.
I wouldn't argue that a bolt should replace autoloaders, and were I ever to be in a position to enter combat, I'd rather have the auto; rather, it would not be especially inaccurate to say the bolt can still be a formidable adversary. The bolt-armed hill tribesman is probably someone to be more wary of than some young punk with a Kalashnikov.
a few things.
First, I don't think semiauto vs bolt in WW2 vs germans would have made much of a difference if our tank equation had been backwards. As it stands while our shermans weren't as good as the german tanks, we could make 3 in the time and for the same cost as they could make 1. And being that 2 of ours were a match for 1 of theirs...
Second, I don;'t think it is the 'bolt action' of a rifle that makes it what it is. All these great shooting incidents that occured during armed conflicts, it wasn't the mechanism of removing the empty and replacing it with a live round that made one whit of difference, it was using a full power rifle round vs an intermediate or pistol round, it was having a gun with enough barrel and good enough sights to take advantage of that.
Really, every benifit you can ascribe to a springfield 1903 rifle, you can ascribe to a Knight Industries SR-25, or a bunch of other AR-10 type rifles, but as the AR-10 type also has the ability to fire much faster when it is called for, and you could even have ones that fire full auto when that is needed, the modern autorifle well outperforms the boltgun.
Then it simply becomes a statiscal anaysis question. How often would each type of firing technique (slow fire, over long range, faster intermeidate range fire, or room to room spray and pray) is utilized. For or current tactics, it is all intermediate to room-to-room. At which point our logistics guys will correctly point out our effectivness would be most improved by doubling the amound of rounds a guy can carry for intermediate to short range, as well as easier quicker training in that area, even at the loss of long range capability.
and that's why the world's military have moved to intermediate rifle rounds fired from selfloaders
First, I don't think semiauto vs bolt in WW2 vs germans would have made much of a difference if our tank equation had been backwards. As it stands while our shermans weren't as good as the german tanks, we could make 3 in the time and for the same cost as they could make 1. And being that 2 of ours were a match for 1 of theirs...
Second, I don;'t think it is the 'bolt action' of a rifle that makes it what it is. All these great shooting incidents that occured during armed conflicts, it wasn't the mechanism of removing the empty and replacing it with a live round that made one whit of difference, it was using a full power rifle round vs an intermediate or pistol round, it was having a gun with enough barrel and good enough sights to take advantage of that.
Really, every benifit you can ascribe to a springfield 1903 rifle, you can ascribe to a Knight Industries SR-25, or a bunch of other AR-10 type rifles, but as the AR-10 type also has the ability to fire much faster when it is called for, and you could even have ones that fire full auto when that is needed, the modern autorifle well outperforms the boltgun.
Then it simply becomes a statiscal anaysis question. How often would each type of firing technique (slow fire, over long range, faster intermeidate range fire, or room to room spray and pray) is utilized. For or current tactics, it is all intermediate to room-to-room. At which point our logistics guys will correctly point out our effectivness would be most improved by doubling the amound of rounds a guy can carry for intermediate to short range, as well as easier quicker training in that area, even at the loss of long range capability.
and that's why the world's military have moved to intermediate rifle rounds fired from selfloaders
carebear
Member
Technically, the .30's ARE "intermediate" calibers.
.22's are small bores. Always have been, always will be.
"Large caliber rifles" would be the old .45-70's or .50 Springfield.
.22's are small bores. Always have been, always will be.
"Large caliber rifles" would be the old .45-70's or .50 Springfield.
topgunpilot20
Member
But isn't this whole thread about fielding the army with a bolt action as a main rifle?
The original question was:
The arguement the bolt action advocates are promoting in this thread is mostly about tactics, not rifle choices. Sure, a bolt action may work fine for insurgents using "sniper" style tactics, but how many guerilla warfare tactics are the US military using? Besides, these same tactics could be employed with a semi-auto; what difference does the rifle's action make?
GW
Member
I'm always fascinated by these statistics I realize the causes of these numbers
WW I MG and bolt guns
WWII Garands (Semi-auto) SMG's and Carbines as well as more MG's
Korea has me stumped because they used the same weapon systems as WWII
Viet Nam --Everyone has an automatic weapon, lots of MG's and even Gatling guns.
So...since its unlikely that each dead VC had 200 to 400,000 holes in him; How did they determine the number of rounds used?
Was it the amount shipped to VN minus whatever was shipped home divided by the number of VC/NVA killed?
GW you are right to ask how they arrived at those numbers. Without knowing how the data was accumulated not a whole lot can be determined from those numbers. Pointing to the weapons used and claiming that the introduction of such weapons has caused the increase of rounds used is a specious claim. Unless those publishing those numbers control for all of the other variables, one cannot claim that the introduction of automatic weapons has caused the increase in the number of rounds expended. There are many other variable that could have caused or contributed to the increase in the rounds used.
1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
re:
While I agree that the bolt rifle would be at a disadvantage in many scenarios, it may not be as much as one might suppose, until the action turned to close, fast, and furious. During a major campaign...a "Blitzkrieg" if you will, the gap wouldn't be as wide as one might suppose.
Germany's Wehrmacht didn't do too badly with infantry supporting armor in the initial stages, and machinegun and other crew-served emplacements when things got dirty.
Airstrike, followed by advancing artillery emplacments, followed by armor with rifle-armed infantry support, followed by mop-up troops armed with short-range firepower pretty well overwhelmed the opposition. If Hitler had listened to his top generals, and hadn't tried to wage two wars at once...we might well be sluppin' lager and eatin' weinerschnitzel for lunch this very day.
The assault rifle...Sturmgewer...was intended to replace the main battle rifle and the submachinegun...and did a pretty fair job of that...but...it also did a good job of negating the need for marksmanship and fire discipline. Only hits count. 100 misses aren't firepower. There was a saying in Vietnam. "An M-16 on full-auto is a ticket across the street"...and that was about all it was.
For a main battle rifle, a semi-auto .30 caliber is probably a better choice...but that's just an opinion. At least the US Military has seen the error of its ways, and is making a step backward in the right direction with the "New and Improved" round...and it only took'em 40 years to see it.
While I agree that the bolt rifle would be at a disadvantage in many scenarios, it may not be as much as one might suppose, until the action turned to close, fast, and furious. During a major campaign...a "Blitzkrieg" if you will, the gap wouldn't be as wide as one might suppose.
Germany's Wehrmacht didn't do too badly with infantry supporting armor in the initial stages, and machinegun and other crew-served emplacements when things got dirty.
Airstrike, followed by advancing artillery emplacments, followed by armor with rifle-armed infantry support, followed by mop-up troops armed with short-range firepower pretty well overwhelmed the opposition. If Hitler had listened to his top generals, and hadn't tried to wage two wars at once...we might well be sluppin' lager and eatin' weinerschnitzel for lunch this very day.
The assault rifle...Sturmgewer...was intended to replace the main battle rifle and the submachinegun...and did a pretty fair job of that...but...it also did a good job of negating the need for marksmanship and fire discipline. Only hits count. 100 misses aren't firepower. There was a saying in Vietnam. "An M-16 on full-auto is a ticket across the street"...and that was about all it was.
For a main battle rifle, a semi-auto .30 caliber is probably a better choice...but that's just an opinion. At least the US Military has seen the error of its ways, and is making a step backward in the right direction with the "New and Improved" round...and it only took'em 40 years to see it.
- Status
