Modern combat with bolt action?

[Matt-J2]

Well, the Mosin is archaic. But they are durable, they generally work, they're usually somewhat accurate, and they beat a sharp stick.

If its an M44, it is a sharp stick! If it's a 91/30, it's a pike.

 

[Geno]

Here is how I see life. In my area of the USA, Mosins are running $169.00, and WASR-10s are running $299.00, so in financial terms there isn't a whole lot of difference. If you are limited financially to the point that you cannot afford the WASR-10 over the Mosin, you likely can't afford the ammunition. Any firearm, without ammuniation is a stick. Any firearm with ammunition, but without practice is a boom stick that won't hit any target. My impression is that the money might better be invested in ammunition for the shotgun you have and practice with it.

 

[Drgong]

if your in a army, normally they give you a weapon to use.

However a more militia setting or a SHTF setup, a bolt action rifle is a lot better then stones. and if you work as a partisan type, a bolt action can get you a better weapon.

for most people, a Autoloading carbine is actually one of the best things to have, as it can pump out some lead, but does not use up all your ammo in 3 seconds.

Indoors a shotgun is most likely a better option.

For the price of many militarily surplus bolt action (that is not mosin), you can get a SKS. I know of a NC company that is selling SKS for $200.

 

[jws527]

I find myself compelled to wonder why so many who answer these types of questions are so limited in their answers. Give me any firearm, no matter how poor or unsuitable for "modern" combat, and I will use it to get a better firearm.

Granted I would rather start any conflict with the best tools available to me and a proper logistical train, but that isn't possible most of the time. In those instances, use what you have and take your supplies from what's available.

How useful is a bolt action in modern combat? If you can kill the enemy and take his gun and his bullets, very useful indeed.

Well, specific questions demand specific answers and they do depend upon the interpretation of the respondent. To me, "combat" generally has much more immediate implications than "a conflict," as most who have actually served in a war will tell you that a great deal of their time is not spent in actual combat. Human beings simply cannot withstand the physical and emotional strains of combat for extended periods of time.

Now, for a general battle type scenario, a bolt-action rifle is plenty useful - either as a sniper weapon, or a means to accessing more firepower, or both.

 

[NOOk]

I forget where I heard the phrase " Beware the man with one gun". to me that means if he only has one, he's an expert with it, and in my mind if someone had to choose ONE gun, it would be a bolt action.

 

[funfaler]

A point to ponder.

There are many very fine, acceptable, even preferred rifles out there for whatever scenario you envision, already in the gun safes of Americans.

Many folks have "extras" for a rainy day.

If one has a skill, such as the ability to shoot his bolt action rifle accurately out to 500 yards, why would not someone that has an extra M1A or FAL not hand it to you? It would be a win-win.

You can learn great skills with that rifle, for "liberator" purposes, and to enable you to upgrade when able.

The other aspect, you want the right tool for the job, however, if the tool is set, you have to find the job that best fits the tool.

Example, you don't what to be on an close assault with a bolt gun, but being 500 yards out, now you have out reached most of the carbines used for close assaults, the list goes on.

 

[Matt-J2]

I'm willing to bet said 'liberating' is going to be tricky at best, and not happen nearly as often as some would like to think.


Odds get much better if you're not alone.

 

[jws527]

I'm willing to bet said 'liberating' is going to be tricky at best, and not happen nearly as often as some would like to think.

A very good point. You'd have to ambush a sentry, most likely, or another loner - and a sentry generally indicates a much larger force is nearby.

 

[Vaarok]

The Yugos did just fine with using M48s even when there were also SKSes and AKs floating around too, and that was only what, ten years ago?

And damnit, Matt-J2 beat me to teh funneh.

 

[Phil DeGraves]

If you are far enough away and they don't have artillery, the bolt gun would be fine.

 

[AmishFury]

a bolt action in a "we've been invaded" scenario is more useful than some might think... a few good shots from some people with bolt action rifles can take out a small group of enemies... the weapons of your enemy are now yours

remember the single shot smooth bore liberator pistol

of course a "we've been invaded" scenario is completely unlikely sure china has a huge army but how would they get them here? all conceivable methods of moving a large army from china to the US are guaranteed to fail same with any other country that's separated by an ocean

civil war is a higher probability... even zombies have a higher probability of causing a proper SHTF situation in the US

 

[Cosmoline]

a sniper-grade weapon with a decent optic is a different story

O RL? The world's greatest sniper used one to kill over 500 men, WHILE fighting an enemy with better artillery, better air support, more crew served weapons, and a tremendous advantage in manpower.

It's all about tactics. The particular firearm matters a lot less. Indeed a modern assault rifle with tons of firepower is used to pin the enemy down so heavy weapons and artillery can destroy them. If you have neither heavy weapons nor artillery, there's not a lot of point in trying to keep them pinned down. For one person or a small group acting against a much more potent enemy, the bolt action used for sniping is better than the assault rifle. There's less of a temptation to stay in the same place after taking a shot.

 

[Ivy Mike]

A full power rifle cartridge and a rifle to fire it have long been feared on the battlefield and for good reason. Even with a $70 Mosin M44 or 91/30 from AIM SUrplus could a determined shooter cause lots of problems. A proficient shooter in a good hide can hold up large groups of enemies for hours.

That full power cartridge will easily take 99% of game in North America. It has no trouble dispatching humans as the Russians proved millions of times over. The 7.62x54R will also penetrate body armor and modern helmets.
As long as you can shoot it well, a full power rifle cartridge and its launcher are a most effective weapon. I wouldn't want to lead a bayonet charge against a squad of invading marines, but thats not what they're used for anyway.

I would also have no qualms about using my M44 for home defense if I had nothing better suited for the task.

 

[Library Guy]

An Army of One!

Unfortunately, Hollywood has sold many on the concept of an Army of One. (Even the Army?)

On one hand you have the bare-chested steroid junky with full auto weapons refighting the Viet Nam war for us…

The flip side of that is the guy in the ghillie suit crawling around making one mile kills with his laser-sighted .50.

Or maybe the guy in the ghillie suit has a really big knife…

One against many is bad tactics no matter the weapons involved.

My nephew (USMC) tells a cute story from Iraq. His convoy was ambushed by one guy firing from a hole with an RPG. The first shot from the RPG blew up a lot of sand and nothing more. Convoy stopped and dismounted. My nephew on the mortar team was setting up to drop one in the hole when Mr RPG pops up again for shot number 2.

At that point 20 or 30 Marines open up. My nephew never got to fire his mortar.

 

[Phil DeGraves]

of course a "we've been invaded" scenario is completely unlikely

Ever hear of the United Nations?

 

[KiltedClaymore]

One against many is bad tactics no matter the weapons involved.

My nephew (USMC) tells a cute story from Iraq. His convoy was ambushed by one guy firing from a hole with an RPG. The first shot from the RPG blew up a lot of sand and nothing more. Convoy stopped and dismounted. My nephew on the mortar team was setting up to drop one in the hole when Mr RPG pops up again for shot number 2.

At that point 20 or 30 Marines open up. My nephew never got to fire his mortar.

because mr. RPG....MISSED!!!!!!!! if he had scored a hit, there would have been alot of dead marines. second shot would have killed more (maybe).

 

[Matt-J2]

Yeah, and there's a massive difference between a bolt rifle and an RPG.
Same as there's a massive difference between the worlds greatest sniper and the average shooter.

Neither are really valid comparisons.

 

[HoosierQ]

The bolt action has really been out of its element since the Spanish American war!

In WWI, artillery and the belt-fed machine gun did all the work...I'll bet there weren't 1% of the casualties inflicted by what were, and are, very fine bolt action weapons.

In WW2, obviously the US had the Garand. The Germans, realizing the limits of the bolt action, reversed their whole docterine and made a portable belt-fed MG (MG36 and MG42) the key to their fire power and used bolt armed troops to carry MG ammo and protect the gunners' flanks.

The bolt action is pretty much good only for very long range work or perhaps hold off companies in densely wooded cover where the enemy can't determine who they are up against. However, this tactic, very popular with the enemy in Viet Nam, was generally deployed by someone with an AK. Once it was apparent that a bolt gun was being employed (by rate of fire), counter measures would be employed and that would be that.

 

[Cosmoline]

Same as there's a massive difference between the worlds greatest sniper and the average shooter.

Hayha was a farmer before the war started. And he's just the leading example. There are many others from many wars. Knowing how to hit your target, being willing to kill, and knowing how to use local knowledge to your advantage matter more than a particular weapon platform. The bolt action is far from outdated.

In WWI, artillery and the belt-fed machine gun did all the work...I'll bet there weren't 1% of the casualties inflicted by what were, and are, very fine bolt action weapons.

Where did you pull that from? The Maxims were used to anchor the line and sweep the field when there were large scale attacks, but they were backed by hundreds of long rifles. They had a limited arc, were incredibly heavy, and even the good ones had down time and stoppages. There is no evidence to suggest all of the killing was done with the machine guns or that the rifles were impotent--though that would have made taking the trenches a whole lot easier. A Maxim without rifle support can be outflanked very easily. You get it shooting in one direction and come up from another. It cannot fire in two directions at once. As far as the rifles, I've seen how accurate the bolt actions of that period still are at 100, 200, 300, 400 meters and beyond. They were made to kill with great precision. Your life expectancy charging a line of those would be nil--EVEN WITHOUT Maxims backing them up. Conversely, a heavy MG without supporting rifles would not have lasted long at all.

The Germans, realizing the limits of the bolt action, reversed their whole docterine and made a portable belt-fed MG (MG36 and MG42) the key to their fire power and used bolt armed troops to carry MG ammo and protect the gunners' flanks.

Again, you're wrong about this. The Germans used the same small unit tactics they had developed in WWI. They had a central machine gun and a squad of riflemen armed with Mausers. The Mausers were shorter and the MG's lighter, but the tactics were the same. The rifles supported the MG and visa versa, each making up for the weaknesses of the other and both doing a LOT of killing.

The bolt actions were not rendered moot by the Garand. The switch to SMG's and finally assault rifles was brought on by the change in tactics as the war developed, esp. on the Ostfront. We have this image of Germans running in terror because our guys could cap off eight in a string, which is of course absurd. The increased firepower of the SMG's was needed not to fight Garands but to deal with Frontoviks who learned how to fight in Stalingrad. Esp. as the battle moved from the open fields to the urban centers.

Even today, when the fighting is in wide open areas like Afghanistan you'll still find the old bolt guns in play. And I would not want to be on the receiving end.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Not to be contrary, but firepower is measured at the target, not the muzzle. And a critical factor in firepower is terminal effects.

In many situations, a well-trained man firing .30 Cal AP can shoot through brush, concrete walls, or whatever the enemy is hiding behind.

And, caliber for caliber, a good man can shoot a bolt action as fast as a semi-auto can deliver aimed fire -- which is why so many of the old hands in the Palma Match cling to those old Model 70 bull guns.

The primary disadvantage of bolt guns is the training requirement.

 

[Correia]

Talk to an anybody who's had to drive a convoy through Afghanistan who they're more worried about, the old guy with the Enfield, or the young guy with the AK. Odds are the guy with the Enfield can actually hit something.

Is a bolt gun ideal? Of course not. But if it is what you have, you make your tactics suit your equipment and go from there.

 

[Matt-J2]

The bolt action is far from outdated.

Certainly. It's the skillset/knowledge/training you mention that I think tends to be lacking.

 

[Nolo]

The Mosin is one of the most effective weapons for a militia. Why? There are a billion of them and they cost less than $100 a pop. If every competent militiamen used his Mosin, fired it once, then stole the gear of the guy he shot, well, then, you'd actually have something there, now, wouldn't you?
Don't underestimate the power of a lot of guys with crappy guns.

 

[LostSonsOfOdin]

Modern Combat

Trying to stay on the man's subject here, my two cents is as follows:

If you are interested in the Mosin Nagant fmaily of rifles, take yourself over to www.7.62x54r.net and do a little work over there. The gun has been in operation for over a hundred years, and will kill just about anything it hits on target. Depending on how much time you have spent shooting, be ready for a little work and a learning curve before you can hit things easily with it. Remember these are like buying used cars, and it will probably come with some quirks to work out in the sighting and action.

As far as its suitability in combat, it was designed to do one job, and that is kill human bodies. Many people will be quick to point out that combat has changed significantly since the last batch of 91/30s rolled out of the Tula factory in 1943, and they are correct. The tactics and strategies have changed drastically, but they continue to year to year, and when you're out-gunned you get creative, fight dirty, and don't stick around to lose.

You need to be very honest with yourself about what you want a gun to do. If you visualize modern combat against a hostile force in terms of breeching doors and clearing apartment buildings, then I would cut corners around the house, eat light, take extra shifts and just make the money for a decent AK happen. If you can afford $100 in one month, you can afford $400 in 4 months. I know people who have taken second jobs strictly to afford them extra money to buy hardware and ammo.

If you visualize modern combat as hitting light armored targets from apartment windows as they slowly advance through your city, then I feel that a good 91/30 with a bright bore is the best option you've got at your price range. The recoil is even harsher on the M44s, and they were designed to have those attached bayonets, which will affect your accuracy. If you can only afford one long rifle, then teach yourself how to check the crown and the rifling, take your time, and pass up worn rifles until you find one that can still be a great shooter. I pulled one out of a big box sporting goods store last week with rifling that looks like it has never been shot. Paid $78 after tax. It was in the middle of a rack of worn out crap. Realize that buying the gun is just the beginning, if this is your goal. You'll need to train diligently and learn everything you can about your rifle, and tuning it.

Good luck, stay safe, and godspeed to getting back in shape. That will do more for your chances than a semiauto.

 

[AmishFury]

since the last batch of 91/30s rolled out of the Tula factory in 1943

to be picky the last (russian) 91/30s rolled out of Izhevsk in 1947