1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
P or F
Hmmmm...
Hmmmm...
I've got a several thousand people with Distinguished Marksman badges earned with rack grade M-16s who might disagree with you.
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.
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?
But isn't this whole thread about fielding the army with a bolt action as a main rifle?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 . . .
I was wondering, though, how would a bolt action rifle fare in the modern military as a general issue arm?
Let’s say that the US Army of today was to take away all of the M16s and issue M1903 Springfields, how much of a disadvantage would that be? I’m guessing that it would not be much of a hindrance, since the military relies so heavily on machine guns, rockets and artillery. Rifles are of secondary importance these days. Could the military use bolt action arms today?
Mauserguy
In WWI American soldiers expended 7,000 rounds for each enemy casualty. In WWII that figure rose to 25,000 rounds (enter the semi-automatic Garand). In Korea the number was 50,000 rounds. By the time of Vietnam estimates are that number was between 200,000 and 400,000 rounds.