Originally Posted by
BrigandTwoFour
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.