Is there still a place for the bolt-action fighting rifle? [Archive]

MountainRaven

01-11-16, 20:38

So I've been working my way through Jeff Cooper's Commentaries. So far I'm on Vol. 4, No. 4 (from March 1996).

One thing that should probably be stated right out the door is that Jeff Cooper's preferred home defense weapon is the shotgun. He speaks highly of the Lupara - what most of us would call a coach gun, an 18" barreled side-by-side, specifically with hammers - and states that his choice is a pump-action with one round of low-brass #6 birdshot followed up by 00 buck. So I don't think he's necessarily fond of the proposition of using a rifle of any variety for home defense.

Having said that, the Colonel seems to mention somethings over and over again and I was hoping to get some input on them from other folks.

- His definition of a "street sweeper" is a lever-action rifle.
- He repeatedly points out that he believes the Lee-Enfield No. 4 rifle is a superior arm to the SKS for the common man. It appears that at least part of this is due to him believing that a handful of men with bolt action rifles can rapidly upgrade their armaments by seizing them from the dead.
- He states - in developing the rules for practical rifle competition - a desire for there to be only one division for competition, not separate divisions for manually-operated firearms and self-loading firearms. He has quoted an individual as saying, "I shoot a bolt-action instead of a semi-automatic because I do not want to wait for the bolt," which fits into his larger view that a rifleman with a bolt action rifle should have already operated the action by the time his (or her) sights are back on target and that, therefore, the semi-automatic rifle does not possess a practical advantage over the manually-operated rifle. (He also states that he sees no advantage in speed to a lever-action versus a bolt action - speaking for myself, I believe that I can run a bolt action faster than I can run a lever-action.)
- On a semi-related note, he felt that the Armed Forces of Haiti were, as individual soldiers, better armed than the American soldiers and Marines then poised to invade - as the Haitians were armed with M1 Garands and the Americans with M16s. (The AKM and M1 Carbine also shared Cooper's enmity with the M16.)

Clearly, we have the benefit of nearly 20 years of advancements in technology and almost 15 of those years spent actively engaged in conflict and thus have a pretty good grasp on what does and does not work in combat. Perhaps the most obvious is that of the manually-operated rifle versus the automatic, at least in a military context: The British, afterall, dumped the bolt-action L96A1 in use with infantry squads in favor of the semi-automatic (not select-fire) LMT L129A1 for their designated marksmen while the US has bought the M110 and the CSASS, and many people are reporting good results from 5.56mm marksman rifles.

So bearing all this in mind... does the Colonel's advice and opinion still hold water? Is there still a place in the batteries of individuals and within irregular forces for bolt action fighting rifles? Or has the concept been thoroughly outmoded by self-loading rifles from the M1 Garand to the M16 and AK-74 to the SCAR-H and M110?

Captiva

01-11-16, 21:10

Is there still a place in the batteries of individuals and within irregular forces for bolt action fighting rifles?

I would think so. Individuals and irregular forces only. Cooper distinguishes often between the Common Man (or soldier) and the warrior elite. As you make your way through the commentaries (I am old enough as to have read them as they were released!) this becomes a frequent mantra in his writings. I suppose it has something to do with him aging.

ralph

01-11-16, 21:22

Within the groups you defines in your last paragraph, you no doubt will have some people with bolt guns, as that may be all they have, or all they could get ahold of. Depending on the skill of the shooter, they could be very viable in a sniping role, for closer engagements (200m or less, CQB) then No, IMO, you'd be better served with a semi-auto. The bolt guns have their place. But, I think rifles like AR's have shown they can do anything that a bolt gun can, and they're much more versatile.(ease of switching uppers to suit different missions) While the Colonel's advice could still work, as time goes on, and the AR system gets more and more advanced, I think the concept is being slowly outmoded.

crusader377

01-11-16, 22:11

I think a bolt action rifle can occupy a place for a good general purpose rifle but the day of the bolt action fighting rifle is long past. A bolt action rifle simply lacks the firepower to compete with a modern semi-automatic rifle for civilian use or assault rifle for military use. The following in bold are my thoughts regarding the Colonel's theories.

Having said that, the Colonel seems to mention somethings over and over again and I was hoping to get some input on them from other folks.

- His definition of a "street sweeper" is a lever-action rifle. Maybe 125 years ago a lever action was a street sweeper but it hasn't been since then
- He repeatedly points out that he believes the Lee-Enfield No. 4 rifle is a superior arm to the SKS for the common man. It appears that at least part of this is due to him believing that a handful of men with bolt action rifles can rapidly upgrade their armaments by seizing them from the dead. I think he has a point with the Enfield because it has a very fast action and it has better accuracy and range than a SKS (which is probably the least capable common semi-auto rifle, against a battle rifle like a FAL or a modern rifle like a AR15 the Enfield is outclassed
- He states - in developing the rules for practical rifle competition - a desire for there to be only one division for competition, not separate divisions for manually-operated firearms and self-loading firearms. He has quoted an individual as saying, "I shoot a bolt-action instead of a semi-automatic because I do not want to wait for the bolt," which fits into his larger view that a rifleman with a bolt action rifle should have already operated the action by the time his (or her) sights are back on target and that, therefore, the semi-automatic rifle does not possess a practical advantage over the manually-operated rifle. (He also states that he sees no advantage in speed to a lever-action versus a bolt action - speaking for myself, I believe that I can run a bolt action faster than I can run a lever-action.) AR is much quicker on target than any bolt and can be reloaded much quicker. Also gaining fire superiority is huge and a group of men with bolt rifles would be suppressed by a equal size group of men with semi auto rifles.
- On a semi-related note, he felt that the Armed Forces of Haiti were, as individual soldiers, better armed than the American soldiers and Marines then poised to invade - as the Haitians were armed with M1 Garands and the Americans with M16s. (The AKM and M1 Carbine also shared Cooper's enmity with the M16.)Again there is a reason why the M16 was rushed into combat in Vietnam. Quite simply NVA soldiers with AKs had a degree of fire superiority over U.S. troops with M14s. Also ARVN troops with M1s and carbines were heavily outmatched by the NVA soldiers with AKs.

Clearly, we have the benefit of nearly 20 years of advancements in technology and almost 15 of those years spent actively engaged in conflict and thus have a pretty good grasp on what does and does not work in combat. Perhaps the most obvious is that of the manually-operated rifle versus the automatic, at least in a military context: The British, afterall, dumped the bolt-action L96A1 in use with infantry squads in favor of the semi-automatic (not select-fire) LMT L129A1 for their designated marksmen while the US has bought the M110 and the CSASS, and many people are reporting good results from 5.56mm marksman rifles.

So bearing all this in mind... does the Colonel's advice and opinion still hold water? Is there still a place in the batteries of individuals and within irregular forces for bolt action fighting rifles? Or has the concept been thoroughly outmoded by self-loading rifles from the M1 Garand to the M16 and AK-74 to the SCAR-H and M110? For a general fighting rifle a bolt rifle holds the same role as the Liberator pistol did in WWII. It is a weapon that gives one a chance to kill someone with a better firearm to allow you to upgrade guns.

MountainRaven

01-11-16, 23:14

It seems that Colonel Cooper believed that suppression and fire superiority was best achieved by precision fires on individual targets.

Toward the end of Vol4, No4, he states that he sees no reason to instruct a defensive rifle course on the grounds that the rifle is a purely offensive weapon: Whether instructing military, law enforcement, hunters, or other civilians, that is how he taught the rifle to be used, in the attack. (The handgun is a purely defensive weapon in the Colonel's opinion, although he did not say anything about the shotgun in this piece.)

I believe that Cooper stated elsewhere in his Commentaries that he had never fired a long gun in anger, whereas apparently he had used the handgun. This might make apparent, perhaps, how his experience colored his opinion of the rifle.

crusader377

01-11-16, 23:42

Toward the end of Vol4, No4, he states that he sees no reason to instruct a defensive rifle course on the grounds that the rifle is a purely offensive weapon: Whether instructing military, law enforcement, hunters, or other civilians, that is how he taught the rifle to be used, in the attack. (The handgun is a purely defensive weapon in the Colonel's opinion, although he did not say anything about the shotgun in this piece.)

I think Cooper is being too doctrinally rigid. A rifle/carbine can be an offensive weapon or defensive weapon. It all depend on the mission of the user. In law abiding civilian use, the AR is clearly a defensive weapon. I would use mine only myself or my family were in grave danger. Even in the military with frontline units the rifle can be an offensive or defensive weapon. For example, I was a Fire Support Officer assigned to a light infantry company in Afghanistan. Even though my M4 was identical to the infantrymen in my company, my primary weapon was my radio and in my case, the M4 was clearly a defensive weapon. Same goes for your mortar crewmen, platoon leaders/company commanders, RTOs, M240 assistant gunners etc... all of which have extremely important jobs in the close fight but whose rifles/carbines are used in a much more defensive role in contrast to your average riflemen.

Mr blasty

01-12-16, 02:49

Cooper's time has passed. He served a purpose at one point and was a leader in modern fighting tactics and weapons, but he's no longer very relevant. It's certainly important to learn past history, but we need to focus more on the future and 1911's and bolt guns aren't it. Polymer and advanced ballistics with extreme efficiency of movement and an understanding of how, why and when are what's important moving forward. I like reading his stuff as well but I find much more use out of the teachers of today.

Sent from my SM-G900T using Xparent BlueTapatalk 2

Koshinn

01-12-16, 07:01

- He repeatedly points out that he believes the Lee-Enfield No. 4 rifle is a superior arm to the SKS for the common man. It appears that at least part of this is due to him believing that a handful of men with bolt action rifles can rapidly upgrade their armaments by seizing them from the dead.

I'll admit, I do not know a lot about firearms older than WW2.

However, I recently saw this video of a guy from TFB running a Lee-Enfield quickly. For someone that likely hasn't spent a lot of time behind the rifle, it's impressive:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0IGkABKvY0

I'd also note that while firearms can get better and better, you're still shooting at the same target that invented spears and slings in the Ferticle Crescent. A very quick bolt action like a Lee-Enfield might be slower than a semi-auto in close range, but the limfac can change to the person at medium-long range rather than the speed of the bolt operation. Recharging ammo is definitely quicker with a detachable box magazine, modern optics help target identification, acquisition, and engagement, and modern ammo / cartridge design can reduce the effect of wind and range while improving consistency and precision without sacrificing much "stopping power."

But even with those advantages, if you're hit by a .303 British it's not like you're going to say "hah, what an outdated firearm you are using good sir, please try again with a modern weapon!"

So while a SR-25 ACC may be better in every conceivable way than a Lee-Enfield No 4 (besides price and availability), once you get out of CQB range, it's the operator and the optic that's likely going to make the biggest difference. At an individual level, keeping optics and support equipment constant, a Lee-Enfield is a viable weapon.

But at an organizational level, hell no. The difference in rounds per minute that a semi-auto can put down vs a stripper clip-fed bolt action is night and day, largely due to the magazine change speed, but also in shot splits, not having to move your hand off the grip, keeping your eyes essentially on the target the entire time, etc. You can probably put down 2-3x as many aimed shots on target with a SR-25 ACC as you can with a Lee-Enfield No 4 in the same period of time including reloads. There was something called the Mad Minute where you'd put down as many rounds as possible on a target (varying sizes based on the particular competition, but 48", 36", 24", and 40cm have been used) at 300 yards. The record is 36 hits on the 24" target at 300 yards (1908) or 36 hits on the 40cm target at 200 meters (2015) (https://youtu.be/oHZSgNrHjXg?t=2m43s). That'd be almost trivial with an ACC with an optic and bipod.

bigghoss

01-12-16, 07:23

Auto-X Fil

01-12-16, 07:40

I agree that CQB and the transition to .223 is a big reason for this change.

Even chambered in .308, a semi will be a hugely more effective weapon in a frantic house battle like so many of our guys are caught in these days.

In a fight in the open... The bolt is still very capable. No as capable, but surprisingly good.

Similarly, I shot a dueling tree match with a S&W revolver for fun. I'm no revolver expert shot, and practice 10x more with semi-auto handguns. I still ended up doing very well, beating the same people I beat with the polymer 9mm. The dueling tree is a 6" disc at 10yd, which is fairly precise pistol fire. Working the hammer or shooting that long, slow DA pull was no big disadvantage. Now, I always won in 6 shots... If I needed to use a speed-loader things might have changed.

Arik

01-12-16, 07:53

It seems that Colonel Cooper believed that suppression and fire superiority was best achieved by precision fires on individual targets.

This was tried once in WW1 and it's the reason we have semi auto and select fire. This was later confirmed again in ww2. War started with predominantly bolt action rifles...Enfields, Mauser k98 and Mosins. By the end everyone was fielding Tommy guns, Garands, MP40 Stens and PPSH/PPS. Especially the Russians, who equipped entire squads with nothing but PPSH41s.

Cooper's time has passed. He served a purpose at one point and was a leader in modern fighting tactics and weapons, but he's no longer very relevant.

This^

Bolt action rifles have their place. I play with surplus rifles a little here and there. At one point I had all the major bolt rifles of ww2, now im down to just 303 and 7.62x54. I like the Mosin. It's cheap and fun to shoot and it's a piece of my history but I wouldn't use one in any kind of combat. Maybe. ....maybe with good consistent ammo I'd use a Fin M39 if I were defending a position. The Enfield is a great rifle, fast handling, the No4 has better sights than the old SMLE or the Mosin and higher round capacity. But reloading is still a bitch. Rounds have to be staggered to feed right and the detachable mag was really ment for cleaning not reloading. Even with modern bolt rifles such as the Ruger scout I don't see how cycling the bolt (which sometimes stick) is faster than semi auto or rapid fire semi auto. The other thing that AKs and ARs offer is less recoil and faster sights on target.

I wouldn't say no to bolt action rifle but only if I had a stick and a handgun

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

okie john

01-12-16, 10:23

One thing that should probably be stated right out the door is that Jeff Cooper's preferred home defense weapon is the shotgun. He speaks highly of the Lupara - what most of us would call a coach gun, an 18" barreled side-by-side, specifically with hammers - and states that his choice is a pump-action with one round of low-brass #6 birdshot followed up by 00 buck. So I don't think he's necessarily fond of the proposition of using a rifle of any variety for home defense.

While a lot of Cooper’s ideas remain valid, I don’t think there’s any question that we’ve moved past much of his specific advice. But as you read his work, you have to be aware that you can miss a lot of the contradictions in his work if you move too quickly. For example, he recommended the lupara for the masses, but he focused on the repeating shotgun for fighting in To Ride, Shoot Strait, and Speak the Truth, and felt that the semi-auto had significant advantages over the pump.

- He repeatedly points out that he believes the Lee-Enfield No. 4 rifle is a superior arm to the SKS for the common man. It appears that at least part of this is due to him believing that a handful of men with bolt action rifles can rapidly upgrade their armaments by seizing them from the dead.

Cooper had a lot of prejudices, and you have to bear in mind how he let them and his politics influence his work. For instance, he hated the 9mm as much as he loved the 45 ACP, and we still see the legacy of that in major/minor scoring systems even though we know that handgun cartridges are much less different than he swore they were. He also desipsed anything that came from the Warsaw Pact countries, so even though he loved the 30/30 Winchester, he hated the 7.62x39, which is very similar ballistically.

- He states - in developing the rules for practical rifle competition - a desire for there to be only one division for competition, not separate divisions for manually-operated firearms and self-loading firearms. He has quoted an individual as saying, "I shoot a bolt-action instead of a semi-automatic because I do not want to wait for the bolt," which fits into his larger view that a rifleman with a bolt action rifle should have already operated the action by the time his (or her) sights are back on target and that, therefore, the semi-automatic rifle does not possess a practical advantage over the manually-operated rifle. (He also states that he sees no advantage in speed to a lever-action versus a bolt action - speaking for myself, I believe that I can run a bolt action faster than I can run a lever-action.)

I belive that his goal here was to shift attention from equipment to personal excellence. At the time he was writing, older shooters often knew at least something about how to run a bolt gun, while younger shooters did not. They were more interested in the semi-autos of the day (HK battle rifles, FN-FAL, M-14, M-16, AK, SKS, and Dragunov). A lot of younger folks thought that buying a semi, loading it up with bipods and other heavy accessories and then spraying targets with lead was a better approach than shooting carefully with a bolt action that was light enough to carry for extended periods.

Also, in his mind, the M-16 and the 5.56 NATO were NOT combat effective—a real rifle fired something like the 308, 8x57, or 30/06—so he ignored them. When you’re talking about an M-14 or FAL with iron sights fired using the positions that Cooper described in The Art of the Rifle, then yeah, a good man with a bolt gun can hang in there. But if you look at an AR-pattern rifle with optical sights fired from the positions that Kyle Lamb laid out in Green Eyes & Black Rifles, then the bolt gunner will be hoplessly outclassed.

- On a semi-related note, he felt that the Armed Forces of Haiti were, as individual soldiers, better armed than the American soldiers and Marines then poised to invade - as the Haitians were armed with M1 Garands and the Americans with M16s. (The AKM and M1 Carbine also shared Cooper's enmity with the M16.)

Take that with another grain of salt--he also felt that the Colt 1860 revolver was superior to the Beretta M-9.

Clearly, we have the benefit of nearly 20 years of advancements in technology and almost 15 of those years spent actively engaged in conflict and thus have a pretty good grasp on what does and does not work in combat. Perhaps the most obvious is that of the manually-operated rifle versus the automatic, at least in a military context: The British, afterall, dumped the bolt-action L96A1 in use with infantry squads in favor of the semi-automatic (not select-fire) LMT L129A1 for their designated marksmen while the US has bought the M110 and the CSASS, and many people are reporting good results from 5.56mm marksman rifles.

So bearing all this in mind... does the Colonel's advice and opinion still hold water? Is there still a place in the batteries of individuals and within irregular forces for bolt action fighting rifles? Or has the concept been thoroughly outmoded by self-loading rifles from the M1 Garand to the M16 and AK-74 to the SCAR-H and M110?

I spent several years on Special Forces A-Detachments, so I feel that have at least a passing acquaintance with the nuts and bolts of guerrilla warfare. I think bolt guns have a lot of use for the individual, especially for hunting. And if the hunter spends enough time developing the skills it takes to use a bolt gun well in thick brush, which means close, fast shots and running the bolt hard, then he or she will give up very little to the individual shooter armed with a semi-auto. But for military operations in urban terrain, I’ll take the semi-auto every time.

If I had to put together a neighborhood militia, I’d definitely want a couple of good scoped deer rifles IF they were in the hands of people who know how to shoot them well. Couple that with a gaggle of high-grade semi-autos and pallets of ammo for the less talented among us, and you’d be able to defend your subdivision until the flood waters receded.

Okie John

TiroFijo

01-12-16, 11:54

IMO, Cooper was so full of prejudices and had strong opinions on matters where he lacked up-to-date technical knowledge that you have to take everything he wrote with a good dose of salt...

Pilot1

01-12-16, 12:10

I have an Enfield No. 1 Mk III, and a Mauser K98k. They are both wonderful bolt gun battle rifles. Relevant? Yes, they can still be effective obviously. That being said, I'd still rather have an FAL, G3, M14, French MAS 49/56, or M4/M16, but would not want to be on the receiving end of .303 British nor 8MM Mauser out of a bolt gun.

Meta-Prometheus

01-12-16, 15:19

I would say they still have their place and use these days. It's mostly understanding their limitations. There are more appropriate firearms these days that would serve the average person much better. However not everybody can afford the modern offerings or maybe they simply have no interest in them.

turnburglar

01-21-16, 14:44

Sun Tzu would probably have more relevant advice than Jeff Cooper.

Captiva

01-21-16, 18:06

Glad to see a number of fellow Stanford grads and UC master degree holders questioning and criticizing Cooper's mental abilities.

mack7.62

01-21-16, 20:21

I wish I had that poster from a few years back "How else can you arm 5 guys for $300" with the Mosin-Nagant's. A few basic cheap bolt actions might be handy to have around in bad times, not everyone will deserve a top notch tricked out AR just handed to them. As far as Cooper keep in mind his time, it took a long time to get where we are today and the techniques he taught helped us get here. Before internet and DVD's is was all print or personal instruction, how many shoot houses were around in the 60's, mostly just KD on a range. Jeff was one of the first pushing drawing from a holster and using two hands.

PrivateCitizen

01-21-16, 21:32

IMO, Cooper was so full of prejudices and had strong opinions on matters where he lacked up-to-date technical knowledge that you have to take everything he wrote with a good dose of salt...

I think this is accurate.

As much as I like his Scout notion and am drawn by its nostalgia that time has come and gone. The 308 AR class is close to eclipsing most of the definition of the 'fighting bolt action.' They don't all 'make weight' in the most rigid of terms but are potentially close enough now to make the differences academic, IMO.

Were he still present I suspect he'd be so rigid on his own views as to deny the modern benefits. I doubt he'd have evolved with the times. The old guard is struggling.

MountainRaven

01-21-16, 23:05

I've noticed him speak on occasion of his HK91, so I wouldn't say that he was entirely set in his ways and it seems that he softened over time on the Glock. Might even have really liked to handle a PredatAR or SCAR. He certainly didn't express any misgivings about an automatic scout, beyond weight.

But I think that the ability to travel with a bolt action scout, particularly internationally, would have been - and might still be - seen as a definite advantage.

I don't doubt that he'd still be anchored to the 45-caliber, to the 1911, and to the 308. I think he was tied to his experiences in the Pacific and Korea, but I don't think he was so rigid to not evolve with the times. I think the evolution of some of his students and contemporaries, like Ken Hackathorn, Ed Head, Louis Awerbuck, Gabe Suarez, Pat Rogers, &c., should give some indication of where he might have been today.

MountainRaven

01-21-16, 23:06

Double-tap.

Frailer

01-22-16, 08:26

...Cooper had a lot of prejudices, and you have to bear in mind how he let them and his politics influence his work...

Most--perhaps all--of us could substitute our own name for "Cooper" in the above sentence, and the statement would remain true.

We'd all do well to periodically take stock of ourselves in an effort to find what our biases are. We've all got them.

Averageman

01-22-16, 08:48

I read a lot of Colonel Coopers stuff as it was being printed and I have one or two of his books still on the shelf and well read over the years.
I value what he said, but it has to be taken within the context of the time it was written and where and how those idea's were developed.
I would never disparage the guy, but it is a lot like taking advice from your Grandfather, the true core of what they are saying may be correct, but no small amount of technological development has passed them by.
"The Art of the Rifle" is a classic and a must read for anyone who picks up a long gun.

SamM

01-29-16, 06:30

It's now the 21st century. I agree with many of Cooper's points but his spectrum of information was different than the battlefield of today. If you apply his reasoning to hunting in general, his thoughts on rifles is very poignant. I like light hunting rifles and fast handling carbines are the best for upclose work. Such as ranch rifle use. You aren't going to lug around a 10 to 12lb bolt-action rifle if you might get a shot at a coyote while walking your property. However, if you are hunting coyotes, you would be better served to sit with a heavy barreled rifle. In a defensive situation, I can see the same reasoning working well. The 6.6lb bolt gun requirement is sound. Many AR type rifles can be built To this requirement, using the new parts available today in these modern times. You just pick your favorite and there you go.

Cooper's original concept was a rifle for a man that could only have or only wished to have one rifle. In general, the bolt gun is more accurate that's why he picked it. The semi-auto rifles of the time were heavy. He grew up in a different time. Most of us today have a rifle for everyday of the week, and triple redundant hunting rifles. We all want the latest and greatest and more, more, more of it. As I get older, I realize that he made some great points that could be valid depending on your situation. Myself, I am recently retired. My gunsafe was packed with rifles that I never shot. Several AK and AR rifles that were never used. That has changed quite a bit in the last few months. Now, a couple of higher quality rifles and optics suit my situation better than a safe full of rifles. Until recently my rifle of choice was a Tavor. That also has changed.

I'm not a real fan of the 5.56 NATO round in a hunting rifle. Probably, not many are. In a defensive rifle, it's perfect. I can carry a lot of extra ammo. In this role I can see a semi-auto being clearly the best choice. My AUG A3 M1 is a dependable and constant companion on my property. It is very accurate, easy to clean, and a simple well proven design. In a hunting rifle, I want easy to find ammo and a proper bolt action rifle. I love European rifles and gravitate toward them. Shot placement is more important to me here. The .308Win or 7.62 NATO, if you prefer to call it, is the perfect all purpose cartridge for my use on whitetail deer. Groundhogs and coyotes are targets of opportunity and I would not hesitate to take one with it.

Here's where Cooper's thoughts on rifles come into play for me. I'm tired of generic cookie cutter rifles that weigh more than they need to. I have a real aversion to wood stocked rifles. Just don't like them in general. I like inert plastic. My new hunting rifle will be a Steyr Scout in 7.62 NATO. Using proven military cartridges is just a good idea. The features and design of the Scout rifle is simple and natural. Extra mag in the stock, so I'm not fumbling about in my pockets to find the extra one I brought. Brilliant! Not sure that I will use the bipod that much but it's better than carrying one around. I finally see the point he was trying to make and I have adapted his thoughts to my hunting situations. I think in that context it works. These two rifles, I believe, will serve me well in the field and in a defensive role, if that need should arise. As always your mileage may vary and I don't expect anyone to agree with my opinion on this. My AK and AR rifles have all been sold off. I just grew tired of them and the associated problems and compromises. The AUG just works better for me. I'm not interested in how fast I can speed load it. I do just fine with it.

SamM

WillBrink

01-29-16, 07:45

pinzgauer

01-29-16, 09:05

If you apply his reasoning to hunting in general, his thoughts on rifles is very poignant. I like light hunting rifles and fast handling carbines are the best for upclose work. Such as ranch rifle use. You aren't going to lug around a 10 to 12lb bolt-action rifle if you might get a shot at a coyote while walking your property.

Snip

Cooper's original concept was a rifle for a man that could only have or only wished to have one rifle. In general, the bolt gun is more accurate that's why he picked it. The semi-auto rifles of the time were heavy.

Snip

Here's where Cooper's thoughts on rifles come into play for me. I'm tired of generic cookie cutter rifles that weigh more than they need to. I have a real aversion to wood stocked rifles. Just don't like them in general. I like inert plastic. My new hunting rifle will be a Steyr Scout in 7.62 NATO. Using proven military cartridges is just a good idea. The features and design of the Scout rifle is simple and natural. Extra mag in the stock, so I'm not fumbling about in my pockets to find the extra one I brought. Brilliant! Not sure that I will use the bipod that much but it's better than carrying one around. I finally see the point he was trying to make and I have adapted his thoughts to my hunting situations.

Cooper was never advocating the scout rifle to replace service rifles in mainstream mil usage.

It was very much a one rifle for one man compromise, and one that I still follow in many aspects for hunting.

At the time civvy AR's were not robust nor had the wide range of options. 308 options were the (heavy) M1A, HK91, FAL, and garands. All fine rifles, but 4-5 lbs heavier than the scout rifle for equiv config. AR10s were unobtanium in the US except as import dealer samples.

And bolt actions were half the cost of the semis, or you could get a premium bolt gun with decent optic for similar cost.

We're he still alive my bet is he'd be in the Grendel or 6.8 camp, with lightweight ar-15 platform, and low power variable, etc.

I cringe when I see AR's with bipods and VFG. And a giant sniper scope plus a red-dot. Bench queens.

I love the handling of a pencil barrel 14.5" middle with minimal "stuff" on it. I'm still shooting irons on one as its just fun and effective. Know I need to put an Aimpoint or LPV on it, but don't want to add even that weight.

I also cringe when I pick up a ruger gunsite. Nice rifle, appeals to my Cooper instincts. But 1-2 lbs heavier than it should be, unclear why. I own light ruger bolt guns, so I know they can make them light when needed.

nick84

02-03-16, 15:35

When it comes to firearms, no doubt. When it comes musings of the state of man, timeless.

"An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it." - Col. Jeff Cooper

Glad I read all the way through the thread before I said exactly the same thing.

For me, the first time I got to use a Mk11 I wanted to throw the M40 in the dumpster. While I understand the Colonel's concept of the scout, the only time I see myself with a bolt gun anymore is hunting, very long range precision shooting, and/or if life or work should force me to move to one of the dysfunctional blue states. When I step out on the porch of my perfectly picket fence suburban home, I can't see 500 yards in any direction, let alone 1000.

So I suppose the best answer to the original question is: It is no longer relevant for a fighting weapon where I'm located, but it depends on where you happen to be.

Coal Dragger

02-03-16, 19:38

As much as I enjoyed reading Cooper growing up, his ideas of a fighting rifle have been rendered obsolete. I don't think the good Colonel ever experienced building to building urban warfare, nor did he witness the maturation of the modern self loading infantry carbine. Furthermore he had the same view on effective calibers as many old timers who were not able to use the current ammunition technology that we enjoy. For a fighting rifle/carbine it is tough to beat one of the very refined examples of today's well made M4 pattern carbines in 5.56mm or if heavier rounds are needed a FN SCAR 17. In fact had Cooper ever laid hands on the SCAR 17 I suspect he would have approved of it.

At any rate a bolt action as a fighting rifle that you would pick over a modern semi-auto is in my mind no longer realistic. The only exception being a sniper rifle in the various magnum calibers that is reasonably portable, here the bolt action still rules the roost.

Cooper's concept of the scout is still a good one though in my opinion. I know many members on this site have to use carbines at work, I used to briefly as well, and the mindset is different. If you take away the notion that your long gun has to be good for fighting first as the top priority, then a scout rifle makes more sense. For a general purpose rifle, that can do just about any task reasonably well the scout is a great concept. Here the bolt action still maintains advantages over a semi-auto. The bolt gun can be lighter, shorter, handier, more tolerant of ammo choice, and easier to maintain. My only gripe with a true scout rifle that sticks strictly to Cooper's specs is the scout scope. That was a neat concept 30 years ago, but with the advent of modern low powered variables the extended eye relief scope is no longer useful. A modern 1-6×24 will be much faster on target at 1×, and way more useful up top at 6× than a fixed 2.5×. Plus most of the good LPV's can be had with your choice of BDC or Mil-rad type reticles for hold over.

I like the scout concept, for a general purpose rifle you can carry all day and accomplish most anything with. I'm tempted to put one together using a Blaser R8, I have a line on one in .300 Winchester for a good price, and adding a short .308 barrel would make for a rifle that easily hit Cooper's dimensional target for a scout.

w squared

02-04-16, 19:09

As much as I enjoyed reading Cooper growing up, his ideas of a fighting rifle have been rendered obsolete.

At any rate a bolt action as a fighting rifle that you would pick over a modern semi-auto is in my mind no longer realistic. The only exception being a sniper rifle in the various magnum calibers that is reasonably portable, here the bolt action still rules the roost.

Agreed.

Cooper's concept of the scout is still a good one though in my opinion. I know many members on this site have to use carbines at work, I used to briefly as well, and the mindset is different. If you take away the notion that your long gun has to be good for fighting first as the top priority, then a scout rifle makes more sense. For a general purpose rifle, that can do just about any task reasonably well the scout is a great concept. Here the bolt action still maintains advantages over a semi-auto. The bolt gun can be lighter, shorter, handier, more tolerant of ammo choice, and easier to maintain. My only gripe with a true scout rifle that sticks strictly to Cooper's specs is the scout scope. That was a neat concept 30 years ago, but with the advent of modern low powered variables the extended eye relief scope is no longer useful. A modern 1-6×24 will be much faster on target at 1×, and way more useful up top at 6× than a fixed 2.5×. Plus most of the good LPV's can be had with your choice of BDC or Mil-rad type reticles for hold over.

Here is where I disagree with you. I own low power variable scopes on rifles that have conventional scope mounting, as well as one rifle with a low power variable scout scope. I find that the larger eyebox and scope position of the scout scope gets me on target faster in close, and doesn't hamper long range use at all. I will happily concede that scout scopes don't offer BDC reticles - but since the whole purpose of the scout rifle is to make quick hits out to 300 yards, I don't think that BDC reticles offer any benefit for this application that cannot be surpassed by effective training. With a .308, a 200 yard zero, and a 5 power scout scope you should have no issues with holdovers at 300 yards....as long as we're talking about "minute of mammal" accuracy and not a sniper competition.

The Dumb Gun Collector

02-20-16, 01:11

I really think the only thing I differ from Cooper on is the RDS. When he adopted his opinion they were spotty and ate batteries. I think he would have approved of the T-1 style optic on his Scout...eventually.

Straight Shooter

02-21-16, 07:58

IMO, Cooper was so full of prejudices and had strong opinions on matters where he lacked up-to-date technical knowledge that you have to take everything he wrote with a good dose of salt...

His opinions were based on a lifetime of personal experiences, and those of others who he trusted, many of which had "seen the elephant".
Unlike today..with an internet full of opinions from gamers and keyboard commandoes who haven't fired 100 rounds of anything in their lives. FOR HIS TIME...I believe the man spot on. Ive read him since the mid seventies, and own several books and videos of his.
Cooper was very open to new ideas and things..as long as they worked! Two examples: the Ching Sling & the Weaver Stance. Both influenced him greatly. Like EVERY trainer/personality in the gun world today, not everybody will agree with everything that came out of his mouth. Cooper had legions of men who would relate their own experiances to him first hand, those along with his own combat/military experiences led him to form his opinions on what worked, and didn't. Those old school men like Cooper, Jordan, Skelton, Keith and a few more are the very basis for every instructor today. They started the ball rolling on forming techniques and minimizing movements for fast, accurate shooting under stress. Times have very much changed, and to a degree, Cooper did too. I believe the man would have adopted most of todays ideals were he alive, maybe not.

ST911

02-21-16, 08:28

Ken Hackathorn had a number of good historical tidbits on Cooper/API in his podcast interview with Mike Seeklander: http://americanwarriorshow.libsyn.com/ken

TiroFijo

02-21-16, 13:18

Cooper was never my favorite read, much less as a guru... YMMV

wetidlerjr

02-24-16, 08:03

His opinions were based on a lifetime of personal experiences, and those of others who he trusted, many of which had "seen the elephant".
Unlike today..with an internet full of opinions from gamers and keyboard commandoes who haven't fired 100 rounds of anything in their lives. FOR HIS TIME...I believe the man spot on. Ive read him since the mid seventies, and own several books and videos of his.
Cooper was very open to new ideas and things..as long as they worked! Two examples: the Ching Sling & the Weaver Stance. Both influenced him greatly. Like EVERY trainer/personality in the gun world today, not everybody will agree with everything that came out of his mouth. Cooper had legions of men who would relate their own experiances to him first hand, those along with his own combat/military experiences led him to form his opinions on what worked, and didn't. Those old school men like Cooper, Jordan, Skelton, Keith and a few more are the very basis for every instructor today. They started the ball rolling on forming techniques and minimizing movements for fast, accurate shooting under stress. Times have very much changed, and to a degree, Cooper did too. I believe the man would have adopted most of todays ideals were he alive, maybe not.

Excellent summary of an outstanding thread.

SamM

02-24-16, 09:30

Many people forget that he developed the Conditions Color Code. It's been refined but he promoted it's use as a training tool.

SamM

brickboy240

02-24-16, 10:01

I too might not agree with some things that Col. Cooper wrote or said but the man was to be respected because of his life experiences.

For his time, he WAS a real innovator, if you think about it. It could even be said that he was the "founder of the feast" for the modern combat pistol trainers we follow today.

Sure, he was opinionated but I sort of expected someone with his life experiences to be that way. I don't know if the M1911 would be where it is today, if it were not for Jeff Cooper and his teachings and writings.

Col. Cooper was an amazing man and he deserves the respect many of us give him.

Straight Shooter

02-24-16, 19:58

Many people forget that he developed the Conditions Color Code. It's been refined but he promoted it's use as a training tool.

SamM

The Color Code to me...is really where the foundation of personal defense was first put succinctly into words. And for me..Ive lived by it since the first time I read a few decades ago. And YES...my bacon has been saved more than once by it.

T2C

02-24-16, 21:25

Col. Cooper was a forward thinker about the use of equipment available in his day. I think that if he was still alive he would revise his thinking to the equipment and techniques available in this day and age.

If a bolt action rifle was all a person had available they would have to adapt a strategy and technique suitable for a bolt action rifle, not a semi-automatic. They would be at a disadvantage in a CQB scenario.

This topic came up after the last Vintage Rifle Match I attended. One person offered his opinion that if things were at their worst and all he had was a $120 Mosin Nagant, he would need to have the ability to hide and wait for someone carrying a better rifle and equipment to come within 100 yards.

Some of Col. Cooper's comments were based on equipment available at the time and the information is dated. Col. Cooper had the correct mindset which still applies regardless of advances in equipment and technology.

SamM

02-29-16, 19:45

Here's my new Steyr Scout in .308Win. Still looking for a scope and rings. It's setup to use my SilencerCo Omega suppressor.

SamM

38093

BrigandTwoFour

02-29-16, 23:06

To bring another figure from the past, I present some of the writings of General Helmuth von Moltke. He was a preeminent military mind of the late 1800's. If Clausewitz was the grand philosopher of war, Moltke was the protege that put theory into practice. Much of our modern military structure is based on his work, right down to red force and blue force terminology. As a fun fact, he is believed to be the originator of the modern axiom, "No plan survives first contact with the enemy."

On marksmanship, he said in 1870:

The combat power of infantry rests on the effect of its fire. It’s success depends on attaining fire superiority and exploiting it decisively and rapidly. For that reason, individual marksmanship training is of the utmost importance. Nevertheless, only correct and efficient fire control with fully exploit this training.The more fire effect is concentrated in time and target, the greater will be its moral effect. Numbers of hits alone are not decisive, but rather the resulting effect produced upon the morale of the enemy. The amount of ammunition carried along is limited. Senseless squandering of ammunition should be prevented by strict discipline. The infantry must husband its ammunition and should not fire at too great a range. But where a hostile unit is thoroughly shaken, or where its morale can be broken by enormous losses, every expenditure of ammunition is justified.

In 1869, he wrote instructions to his large unit commanders and how they should be training their men. He referenced that the Dreyse Needle Gun provided the Prussian military a 4 to 1 firepower advantage over the competing infantry rifle (this is during the Austro-Prussian war of 1866), but he directs his subordinates not to rely on that firepower advantage for long. He saw competing designs, such as the American Spencer Carbine and Henry Repeater, coming into service and realized future implications. Indeed, not two years after he wrote this passage, the Mauser entered widespread service.

In the next war our needlegun will not again be opposed by a far inferior rifle but, on the contrary, an entirely equal weapon. Superiority is no longer to be sought in the weapon, but in the hand that wields it. This essential change must be taken into consideration when translating the experiences of the last war into future circumstance.

The significant improvements in firearms make themselves felt in the extension of their reach and in the accumulation of effects at decisive points. The former property (extension of weapons’ ranges) necessitates alterations in tactical deployment and the way units fight. The latter property gives the effect of fire an offensive character that it did not previously have. It can in some circumstances be absolutely destructive and, consequently, independently decisive.

<snip>

The infantry will cling to its proven habit not to fire at too great a distance. The effects are all too little; one weakens one’s own confidence and increases that of the enemy. The enemy’s long range fire is best answered by individual and, indeed, the best riflemen. Massed fire remains reserved for short distances, where a calmly delivered volley work sin an annihilating manner and breaks the will of even the bravest enemy.

I would argue that Jeff Cooper didn't make his arguments in a vacuum. There was a long line of military philosophy before him that emphasized the importance of marksmanship skill over all other considerations. Omar Bradly was once asked what he would do differently if he invading Normandy again. His answer: "I'd concentrate on marksmanship."

I look at comments about the superiority of technology X over technology Y as relatively minor. Instead, I look at arguments that bolt actions were superior as more an argument that it ostensibly forces the user to know and employ their weapon more effectively than the enemy. The technology will always evolve, but the real weapon is the mind and hands of the one wielding the rifle.

To the OP, is there a place for the bolt action fighting rifle? Sure, why not? But it must be employed in specific manner that it is suited to.

Coal Dragger

03-01-16, 00:04

Agreed.

Here is where I disagree with you. I own low power variable scopes on rifles that have conventional scope mounting, as well as one rifle with a low power variable scout scope. I find that the larger eyebox and scope position of the scout scope gets me on target faster in close, and doesn't hamper long range use at all. I will happily concede that scout scopes don't offer BDC reticles - but since the whole purpose of the scout rifle is to make quick hits out to 300 yards, I don't think that BDC reticles offer any benefit for this application that cannot be surpassed by effective training. With a .308, a 200 yard zero, and a 5 power scout scope you should have no issues with holdovers at 300 yards....as long as we're talking about "minute of mammal" accuracy and not a sniper competition.

For me a conventional scope was faster than the scout scope for the most part, but that was using a fixed 2.5X scout scope. Having the option to suit your needs of course is great, and a user might have both like I did. I just found myself rarely using the scout scope. On the BDC in a scout scope, well no one offers one but that doesn't mean it is not possible to have one made. Leupold would probably make you a custom reticle if you wanted with hold over and wind holds. That might even be a really nifty little scope.

C-grunt

03-01-16, 01:21

Ive often contemplated a good general purpose bolt action "scout" rifle. My version was a full powered bolt action rifle with a tough as nails mount and scope. Something I could take with me anywhere and have the ability to kill anything I came across (in the continental US) out to 300-500 yards. Something that would be a decent hunting rifle but also serve as a defensive rifle if need be as its purpose is to be my sole rifle/gun (with me).

Larry Vickers recently made a video comparing bolt action and semi auto sniper rifles. Very interesting video. The semi auto had a distinct advantage at closer ranges. As the ranges increased the accuracy advantage of the bolt gun started to even the odds.

Would I choose a bolt gun over a semi auto for combat? No. But if thats all I had when shit went sideways... well ya run what ya brung.

Though I do think in a pinch the bolt rifleman could do well against lowly trained individuals if they were smart, kept at range, and used good concealment techniques. A well aimed shot from a couple hundred yards every 10 seconds or so can do a great job at suppressing someone. Ive had a lot of experience with the opposite. Guys would stick their AK over a wall and just empty mags at us from a couple hundred yards without aiming. Most of the time no round came within 50 yards of us and it had almost zero effect at suppressing our movement or fire.

C-grunt

03-01-16, 01:23

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8b5ondZv5o

LAV video referenced above.

Coal Dragger

03-01-16, 02:31

BrigandTwoFour

03-01-16, 08:25

Interesting video, can't say I disagree. Frankly even the day of the .308/7.62 NATO sniper rifle for military use may be coming to a close, within the effective range of the cartridge the semi-auto can do most of what the bolt gun can do, yet provide more versatility as the situation dictates. Only at the very edges of the cartridge capability will the bolt action really show an advantage.

At least if we're talking about a .308. Stepping up to the fast .30 calibers like the .300 Winchester, or the fast .338's like the .338 Lapua or .338 Norma is where the bolt gun really shines in my opinion. Such a rifle in a semi-auto is bound to be too heavy for practical portability with ammo and kit, I know guys have to hump the Barrett but for most applications that level of power isn't really needed. If you are going to utilize a rifle made for extreme precision, then I say make sure it is chambered in something that can maximize that potential at extended ranges while still delivering a lot of power to the target.

I think a flaw here is that we are discussing this with our current small arms tactics in mind. Obviously, if I were to be clearing buildings and fighting at close ranges, I'd want a faster rate of fire. But as C-grunt points out, you adjust your tactics to suit your weapons. Dudes emptying blindly emptying AKs over a wall aren't that much of a threat, relatively speaking. But dudes with higher power bolt guns who adopt hit and run guerrilla tactics from mid to long range (with carefully aimed effective fire) are a different story.

Coal Dragger

03-01-16, 11:05

True.

We've also been busy fighting wars where we try to limit collateral damage and civilian casualties. So that also affects our tactics. We could reduce the need to fight house to house and room to room if we carpet bombed everything flat, or hit it with hours long arty barrages.

Come to think of it, given my dislike for most Iraqis (probably wouldn't like Afghans either)....simply bombarding their shit hole cities into rubble sounds much better than risking American lives.

Koshinn

03-02-16, 11:08

Somewhat on topic:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-dE_tknOgk

MountainRaven

03-03-16, 00:03

To bring another figure from the past, I present some of the writings of General Helmuth von Moltke. He was a preeminent military mind of the late 1800's. If Clausewitz was the grand philosopher of war, Moltke was the protege that put theory into practice. Much of our modern military structure is based on his work, right down to red force and blue force terminology. As a fun fact, he is believed to be the originator of the modern axiom, "No plan survives first contact with the enemy."

On marksmanship, he said in 1870:

In 1869, he wrote instructions to his large unit commanders and how they should be training their men. He referenced that the Dreyse Needle Gun provided the Prussian military a 4 to 1 firepower advantage over the competing infantry rifle (this is during the Austro-Prussian war of 1866), but he directs his subordinates not to rely on that firepower advantage for long. He saw competing designs, such as the American Spencer Carbine and Henry Repeater, coming into service and realized future implications. Indeed, not two years after he wrote this passage, the Mauser entered widespread service.

I would argue that Jeff Cooper didn't make his arguments in a vacuum. There was a long line of military philosophy before him that emphasized the importance of marksmanship skill over all other considerations. Omar Bradly was once asked what he would do differently if he invading Normandy again. His answer: "I'd concentrate on marksmanship."

I look at comments about the superiority of technology X over technology Y as relatively minor. Instead, I look at arguments that bolt actions were superior as more an argument that it ostensibly forces the user to know and employ their weapon more effectively than the enemy. The technology will always evolve, but the real weapon is the mind and hands of the one wielding the rifle.

To the OP, is there a place for the bolt action fighting rifle? Sure, why not? But it must be employed in specific manner that it is suited to.

This reminds me of one of the recurring themes of Alexander Rose's American Rifle: A Biography - which is that the history of small arms development (at least in the United States) seesaws back and forth between two major factions: One that emphasizes marksmanship and one that emphasizes rate of fire. An example of the rate of fire faction winning out is the M1 Garand. Interestingly, an example of the marksmanship faction winning out is the M14 (had the ROF guys won out, we probably would have ended up with something more like the early FAL prototypes). And then the ROF guys swung things to the M2 Carbine and M16... only for the Marksman guys to swing things back to the M16A2 with it's more delicate sights, longer LOP, heavier barrel, and deletion of Auto in favor of Burst. With things seeming to have swung back to the ROF guys with the general issue of the M4A1.

There does seem to be more of a moderate faction, too: Guys who seem to balance precision and rate of fire. I'm not certain if there is a poster child for this moderate doctrine. Perhaps the SOPMOD Block 2 M4A1? Heavy barrel, Auto selector, generally seen with a low-power variable/SpecterDR. Vice an M16A4 with ACOG or M4A1 MWS with M68. I'unno.

Somewhat on topic:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-dE_tknOgk

I've thought that something like a Kimber 84M Mountain Ascent in 300BLK with subs, a can, and a low-power variable would make a very useful/dangerous zombie apocalypse/guerrilla sniper rifle.