Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345
Results 41 to 49 of 49

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

  1. #41
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Black Hills, South Dakota
    Posts
    4,658
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by w squared View Post
    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.

  2. #42
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Phoenix, Az
    Posts
    4,374
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    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 co 1/30th Infantry Regiment
    3rd Brigade 3rd Infantry Division
    2002-2006
    OIF 1 and 3

    IraqGunz:
    No dude is going to get shot in the chest at 300 yards and look down and say "What is that, a 3 MOA group?"

  3. #43
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Phoenix, Az
    Posts
    4,374
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8b5ondZv5o

    LAV video referenced above.
    C co 1/30th Infantry Regiment
    3rd Brigade 3rd Infantry Division
    2002-2006
    OIF 1 and 3

    IraqGunz:
    No dude is going to get shot in the chest at 300 yards and look down and say "What is that, a 3 MOA group?"

  4. #44
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Black Hills, South Dakota
    Posts
    4,658
    Feedback Score
    0
    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.

  5. #45
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    2,057
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Coal Dragger View Post
    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.
    "Man is still the first weapon of war" - Field Marshal Montgomery

    The Everyday Marksman

  6. #46
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Black Hills, South Dakota
    Posts
    4,658
    Feedback Score
    0
    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.

  7. #47
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Vegas
    Posts
    6,717
    Feedback Score
    5 (100%)
    Somewhat on topic:

    "I never learned from a man who agreed with me." Robert A. Heinlein

  8. #48
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    SWMT
    Posts
    8,188
    Feedback Score
    32 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by BrigandTwoFour View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Koshinn View Post
    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.
    Last edited by MountainRaven; 03-03-16 at 00:05.
    " Nil desperandum - Never Despair. That is a motto for you and me. All are not dead; and where there is a spark of patriotic fire, we will rekindle it. "
    - Samuel Adams -

  9. #49
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    West Virginia
    Posts
    275
    Feedback Score
    17 (100%)
    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.
    It would be great. Right up until you could no longer find ammo for it. Then you'd have a really nice stick. You can't find cheap ammo for it right now. The .308 would be a better choice. Sticking to military ammo is a better plan. Rifles that shoot the 5.56 NATO and 7.62 NATO calibers and a good 9x19 pistol, are the best choices for if and when things go pear shaped. That ammo is plentiful today and would be easy to come by. I've seen the Walking Dead, I'm still trying to figure out why they are all running around with AKs.

    SamM
    NRA Benefactor Life Member

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •