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

[MountainRaven]

Double-tap.

[Frailer]

...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]

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]

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]

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

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

[pinzgauer]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.