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

[MountainRaven]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

- 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:


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). That'd be almost trivial with an ACC with an optic and bipod.

[bigghoss]

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

Pretty much this. Cooper (mostly) knew what he was talking about in his day but his day was a while ago.

[Auto-X Fil]

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.