so let's say bolt-actions were still used by the military


PDA






papajack
March 19, 2008, 01:03 AM
suspending your disbelief that semi and fully automatic rifles never existed, what modern boltie do you think would be adopted?

If you enjoyed reading about "so let's say bolt-actions were still used by the military" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Buzzbox
March 19, 2008, 01:11 AM
News flash, bolt rifles are still in service.

papajack
March 19, 2008, 01:14 AM
I mean as a main battle rifle.

Anteater1717
March 19, 2008, 01:15 AM
Some form of straight pull bolt action. May be a futuristic K31.

elmerfudd
March 19, 2008, 01:19 AM
I think an Enfield with 20 round mags would be a pretty formidable rifle, but chambered for a more modern rimless cartridge.

I think a full power 30 caliber cartridge was best suited for bolt action battle rifles. Controllability and ammo weight just aren't as important when you're shooting a bolt action, so you may as well have a cartridge that can better shoot through barriers and is more likely to put an opponent down.

theken206
March 19, 2008, 01:21 AM
"suspending your disbelief that semi and fully automatic rifles never existed"

how about not?j/k

General Geoff
March 19, 2008, 01:33 AM
I agree, straight pull bolt action. Imagine an M14 but without the gas cylinder and with a big knob on the op rod handle to facilitate manual cycling.

ugaarguy
March 19, 2008, 03:34 AM
Probably something along the lines of the Enfield Jungle Carbines or Spanish FR7/8 Mausers. Those were the last general issue bolt rifles used if memory serves.

We might see something in a straight pull along the lines of the Blaser R93 or Browning Acera with short barrels, synthetic stocks, 10 to 20 round detachable box mags, and flash hiders - think jungle carbine like but straight pull.

Features of the Steyr Scout such as in butt magazine storage, integral bipod, and forward optics mount option would also be good additions. The Savage 10 series rifles with their floating bolt head and large barrel nut are features that would make life easier for armorers from the perspective of ease of headspace & barrel change.

Dionysusigma
March 19, 2008, 06:18 AM
I've thought a bit about this... and what makes sense to me is a pump-action rifle.

Fr'instance, take a Remington 7615, and give rails to the forearm for a light and/or vertical foregrip. Up the caliber to something with a bit more "oomph," like 6.8SPC, and slap on another monolithic rail from the rear of the reeciver all the way to the front sight. Optics however you like, and a folding stock for good measure.

Benefits:
Accurate
Faster than a bolt-action
Able to take detachable magazines
Less cumbersome (to me, anyhow) than a lever-action
Reliable
Stylish :D
As adjustable (if not moreso) than an AR for each individual person

Waywatcher
March 19, 2008, 06:42 AM
Some people mentioned the Straight pull, which I highly doubt would be used. It is a complex design that wouldn't hold up well in dirt and mud. You actually end up using more effort in a straight pull over a coventional turn-down due to physics. Also they were never really used in much combat...

It would be a typical bolt gun, although probably with a 10+ round detachable magazine and with Peep sights. Like an Enfield in .308.

elmerfudd
March 19, 2008, 07:08 AM
I agree with Waywatcher about the straight pull. Operating an M95 or K31 is actually slower for me than operating a fast conventional bolt action like an Enfield. Straight pull actions tend to have greater resistance at the beginning and the end of their throw which for me result in the rifle being yanked off target.

MilsurpShooter
March 19, 2008, 09:21 AM
This
http://splodetv.com/double-bolt-action-rifle

Dionysusigma
March 19, 2008, 09:52 AM
*gigglesnort* :D

You're kidding, right? :rolleyes:

strat81
March 19, 2008, 10:05 AM
I've thought a bit about this... and what makes sense to me is a pump-action rifle.
+1. I always figured I'd get a pump rifle if they ever banned semis. I may even get one just because!

My FIL has one in .30-06 that he hunts with. Nasty, hard kicking gun! Cool tho.

RLsnow
March 19, 2008, 10:21 AM
i think a group of US marines armed with Lee Enfields would be pretty scary :P

that whole, 40 rounds a minute thing just makes it all a little bit better :P

Trebor
March 19, 2008, 10:40 AM
The military bolt action design was pretty well perfected with the 1896 and 1898 Mausers.

If semi-auto's never were invented, we'd be using some form of one of those two basic Mauser designs now. They might have 10 round (or more) extended mags, but the basic action would be the same.

Heck, 6.5x55 Swede is pretty much an intermediate caliber comparable to the 6.8 SPC.

None of the modern commercial rifles would be robust enough in service to use as a main military rifle.

DMK
March 19, 2008, 11:43 AM
It would definitely be something short and handy like an M38/M44 Mosin Nagant. I'd imagine the action would be a combination of the Swiss K31 and a Mauser.

I'd also imagine that if weapon rate of fire was limited, we'd have made some advancements in munitions instead.

We'd probably also see more 40mm "Blooper" type weapons deployed. Maybe some combination weapon like the M4/M203.

Acera
March 19, 2008, 11:49 AM
Does anyone not think that the 03-A3 would be used? It was the last of the bolt guns widely distributed for use by U.S. forces. It passed all the tests until the M1 came along. Possibly adding a detachable magazine?




WOW ugaarguy, I did not expect a reference to the obscure Browning in your post, I am impressed.

Funderb
March 19, 2008, 11:54 AM
Some people mentioned the Straight pull, which I highly doubt would be used. It is a complex design that wouldn't hold up well in dirt and mud. You actually end up using more effort in a straight pull over a coventional turn-down due to physics. Also they were never really used in much combat...


Don't tell that to the swiss!
They'll put the entire magazine downrange faster than you will with your fancy mauser action.

Vern Humphrey
March 19, 2008, 11:58 AM
Don't tell that to the swiss!
They'll put the entire magazine downrange faster than you will with your fancy mauser action.
How did the Swiss do in the trenches in WWI? Were they successful in the jungles of New Guinea or Guadalcanal? Did their straight-pull action perform well in Viet Nam?

Funderb
March 19, 2008, 12:15 PM
To say they never fought in combat
is not the same as saying that they built an overcomplicated machine that mostly poorly performs in dirty conditions when compared to others.
That's what we did with the m16 platform.

You cannot say however that the swiss were not a fully armed population, each person a serviceman, and each well able to fire their rifles quickly and accurately.
Because they were and are that.

slzy
March 19, 2008, 12:16 PM
are'nt m16s and m4s straight pull?:neener:

4thPointOfContact
March 19, 2008, 12:20 PM
7.62x51 or 7.62x39 Short Magazine Lee Enfield. Issue additional magazines instead of trying to rely on strippers. The Ishapore 2A1 holds 12 rounds, and there is one model SMLE that takes single-stack AK magazines. A little redesign and the receiver could accept double-stack 30-round magazines. Or....drums!! whoot!


I know I can empty 24 rounds thru a 2A1 faster by changing magazines once, than to charge the magazine with 4 stripper clips.

Vern Humphrey
March 19, 2008, 12:20 PM
To say they never fought in combat
is not the same as saying that they built an overcomplicated machine that mostly poorly performs in dirty conditions when compared to others.
No straight pull bolt rifle has ever lived up to combat standards.
That's what we did with the m16 platform.
No, that's what Robert MacNamara did. The Army rejected the M16 and MacNamara forced it on us.

Essex County
March 19, 2008, 12:24 PM
As much as I love my K31's, My thoughts are for an updated and refined Lee Enfield. Some modern design improvements and materials might make for a pretty battle rifle. Essex

Ash
March 19, 2008, 12:30 PM
Well, regardless of whether or not the K31 would have survived or thrived in combat, which we will never know because it never took the test, the final combat record of the straight pull rifle was not good. No straight pull rifle can be considered a success in combat as an infantry arm. Perhaps in the sniper's role, the straight pull fared well, but in all other uses, it cannot be considered a success. The Lee was discarded before combat, the Ross was an abject failure, and the M95 Mannlicher was abandoned as an infantry rifle after WWI (would have been abandoned before WWI had the war not intervened).

In other words, the historical record is not very complimentary towards the straight-pull rifle. And, given the Swiss usage of the various Schmidt-Ruben designs and derivatives, any current commercial hunting rifle would have fared just as well.

Ash

MD_Willington
March 19, 2008, 01:00 PM
Something like a PAR-1, it's a pump action AK

JesseL
March 19, 2008, 01:15 PM
I'd say that once manual repeaters (either bolt, pump, or lever) were invented, and once smokeless powder had it's kinks worked out; the invention of autoloading firearms was absolutely, 100% inevitable.

It would be like having an atmosphere of nothing but hydrogen and oxygen and being unable to create water.

That being said, you would probably see something like a Remington 7615. There's no reason to exclude a shift to small caliber, high velocity rounds and large magazines; and the pump action doesn't require you to shift your hands from a firing grip.

Funderb
March 19, 2008, 01:25 PM
Pump action would be hard for a sniper. they
spend most of their life on their belly after all.
Maybe as a battle rifle, but not a sniper system.

Cosmoline
March 19, 2008, 01:37 PM
Most of the rep of straight pulls comes from problems the Schmidt-Rubin and K-31's simply never had. It's like condemning the Mauser 98 because there were problems with the Mauser 88 or the needle gun. There's nothing per se unreliable about a straight pull action! To conclude otherwise is to condemn all semi autos and select fire weapons, since they operate on similar principles. Indeed, a manual straight pull offers superior torque and extraction over a semi or select fire rifle. The K-31 and S-R designs are not overly complex, they're just UNUSUAL and most American shooters don't understand them.

That said, I think the Rifle No. 4 still represents the ultimate manifestation of the bolt action war rifle. The large magazine, sufficient but not overpowering cartridge load, and the fast action are all features in its favor. It is still being used in combat worldwide, though not by first world military forces. Personally I've never cared much for them, but they do get the job done and in a pinch I'd take one over any AR platform.

Vern Humphrey
March 19, 2008, 01:39 PM
Most of the rep of straight pulls comes from problems the Schmidt-Rubin and K-31's simply never had.
They never had problems mostly because they were never put to the test.

LeonCarr
March 19, 2008, 01:41 PM
No big deal. From what I have read and experienced, the autoloading type rifle has the advantage out to about 400 yards. Bolt action rifles, especially those equipped with telescopic sights, are much more accurate past 400 yards than the "Assault Rifle", and would allow the bolt action guy the ability to take out the assault rifle guy before even being seen with the naked eye. The simple solution if armed with bolt action rifle is to learn to shoot it at long range before the target sees you :).

Just my .02,
LeonCarr

Cosmoline
March 19, 2008, 01:41 PM
They were never in a war, but as the stocks to many K-31's will testify they were put to tests over and over and over again. They drilled hard, shot and literally lived with those rifles for years. I've heard for years about how the actions don't perform well in the real world, but I've never noticed a problem with them. Nor have I heard any actual description of what's supposed to jam up on a K-31.

RLsnow
March 19, 2008, 01:41 PM
as i understand it they were trained with alot, and spent alot of time in the field.

what do you mean when you say "put to the test" ?

Funderb
March 19, 2008, 01:42 PM
If someone will donate to me a spare k31, I will gladly put the rifle through a stress test.

no takers? oh, darn.


but really, they were designed to work well in harsh environments.
In the cold, wet, and snow. That's where they were born. I'm sure they would have done fine if they were made in a non-perpetually-neutral nation.

Cosmoline
March 19, 2008, 01:47 PM
I've used K-31's in subzero temps in Alaska and worked the actions with dirt on them, but I've never done any formal torture testing. I'll keep an eye out for a rattier K31 and grab it up for that purpose. One thing I'm very good at is abusing firearms.

mordechaianiliewicz
March 19, 2008, 01:49 PM
Um, okay... I'm thinking black plastic, likely a Dragunov style stock. It would be either very long, or a carbine. A very precise target sight, and a battle sight along with a "Scout" scope would be your setup. Probably straight pull. Probably a 20 rd mag, probably something about 45 mm long, with a 6mm to
7mm bullet.

Vern Humphrey
March 19, 2008, 01:51 PM
One thing about "testing" is that no one dies in tests. No one goes through conditions that test designers never anticipated.

No weapon has ever performed in actual combat as its pre-acceptance tests indicated it should.

aka108
March 19, 2008, 01:57 PM
No 4 MkII Enfield

Vaarok
March 19, 2008, 09:58 PM
MAS-36 with a detachable mag.

alemonkey
March 19, 2008, 10:30 PM
Trapdoor Springfield.












Oh, wait...you said BOLT gun...
:D

R.W.Dale
March 19, 2008, 11:11 PM
Most of the rep of straight pulls comes from problems the Schmidt-Rubin and K-31's simply never had.

There's nothing per se unreliable about a straight pull action!

The problem with a straight pull is that UNLIKE a turn bolt rifle with it's powerful camming action you're at a marked mechanical DISADVANTAGE with regards to chambering and extraction.

In other words you can FORCE the bolt closed on a chamber full of crud and fouling with little effort on a turn bolt rifle. Heck it's quite easy to rip the case head right off a really stuck case in a turnbolt that's how much leverage you have.

Try the same thing with a K-31 and you'll be kicking the bolt handle for half an hour trying to open the action.

This is the same reason you cannot reliably neck size cases for any straight pull rifle. No mechanical advantage.

A K31 is fine when shooting ammo produced to EXACT specs in the relativity surgical environment of the shooting range. But suitable for the trenches they ain't.


MAS-36 with a detachable mag.

I agree! The MAS36 was the final and top development of the bolt action infantry rifle. So overbuilt they make a Mosin action look like a DAISY BB gun, I simply cannot envision one breaking. Very simple as well, IIRC there's only something like 13 parts to the action/bolt assy. Great sights that are almost bullet proof all you need is the addition of a 10rd mag and a safety mechanism.

JesseL
March 19, 2008, 11:32 PM
The problem with a straight pull is that UNLIKE a turn bolt rifle with it's powerful camming action you're at a marked mechanical DISADVANTAGE with regards to chambering and extraction.


This sounds reasonable, but why is it not an issue on gas-operated autoloaders that use breech mechanisms that are functionally identical to straight pull bolt actions?

Timthinker
March 20, 2008, 12:20 AM
This is an interesting hypothetical thread which I have thought about for a long time. My take on it is the bolt-action rifle reached its pinnacle development by the late 19th century. By that time, bolt-action rifles were repeater firearms using smokeless powder. No contributor has suggested a bolt design that departs from those essential parameters. Now, this is not to say that some improvements such as composite materials or detachable magazines could not improve the tactical efficiency of such guns. Yet, these improvements, if they are seen as such, do not change the essential handling qualities of this old design. Therefore, I believe a modern bolt-action rifle would not differ significantly from what we have seen in the past. I hope this helps.


Timthinker

Hoppy590
March 20, 2008, 12:40 AM
Mosin Nagant, M44.

MAYBE the mythical M44L. longer barrel, folding bayonet. chambered in 308 or a rimless 7.62X54 ( it hurts to NOT type the R... seriously, i typed it 3 times and had to delete it)

maybe slap a detachable mag. MAYBE. :D

though i agree, pump action is the best idea. lever action is good for standing fire, but not for prone.

R.W.Dale
March 20, 2008, 06:08 AM
This sounds reasonable, but why is it not an issue on gas-operated autoloaders that use breech mechanisms that are functionally identical to straight pull bolt actions?

Cause with autoloaders you still have a quite powerful gas system and springs aiding in feeding and extracting.

Ash
March 20, 2008, 08:08 AM
Yeah, the gas-system of an auto is stronger than a man's arm. If you disagree, you could always try to keep the Garand, M14, AK, or SKS bolts shut with your hand when you fire it. And, when you end up with a wicked case of game-keeper's thumb, or end up with your thumb on the ground, or a giant gash in your palm, you'll quickly appreciate the power of the system.

Indifferent wartime ammo could be a real problem - but again, who knows? The K31 was never used in combat.

Though I am a Mosin man, I would think a #4 Mk 2 Enfield cut down to carbine length would be the perfect combat bolt action rifle. (not a #5 in case, by shortening the #4, the wandering zero could be eliminated)

Of course, I would be very happy with a Finnish M27 cavalry carbine (or, if need be, an m44).

Ash

woodybrighton
March 20, 2008, 08:14 AM
it would be an enfield the no4 no5 war winning can't build a better bolt action battle rifle
http://www.rt66.com/~korteng/SmallArms/leenfld.htm
20 to 30 hit a minute at 200yards
Using the L42 the 7.62mm sniper variant completely ruined a civy practical rifle
shooters day more hits faster than he managed :D
mind you the 100 metre runs finished him off :evil:
and i was loading the rounds by hand :D

Baba Louie
March 20, 2008, 08:39 AM
woodyb,
I enjoyed reading the last sentence in that link... The all time aimed fire record with a bolt action rifle was by Sgt. Snoxall of the British army, 38 hits on a 12" bull at 300 yards in 1 minute.Gives a man a goal to aim and shoot for... ya know?

USSR
March 20, 2008, 09:00 AM
I would not find myself lacking if I had to use my Smith-Corona 03-A3.

Don

Zouave Rifle
March 20, 2008, 09:17 AM
OK, I believe that the Mauser or Springfield is the best bolt gun design. A modernized combat bolt gun would have one of the two action types with a short barrel, 10 shot detachable box magazine, and possibly a composite stock. I think also mounting a 2X red dot scope (like a Bushnell) for quick target acquisition would be a good idea.

Lever actions or pump actions would work fine too, with the same features. Maybe a '95 Winchester carbine with a 10 shot detachable mag and red dot sight.

Rimless cartridges would be the best due to ease of loading and feeding.

IndianaBoy
March 20, 2008, 09:29 AM
The same Mauser action that has been fielded since 1898, with a 10 or 20 round detachable magazine.

Second option a Lee Enfield is also an excellent possibility.

IndianaBoy
March 20, 2008, 09:30 AM
Springfield is a Mauser copy. Academic I know... but it is.

SlamFire1
March 20, 2008, 09:31 AM
Why does anyone think it would have to be built around a pre WWII action?

The best of the Pre WWII actions was the 98 Mauser. But it was very expensive to build. Most of the safety features in the Mauser have been dropped in later actions, to cut cost.

I could envision something where the receiver was simply an aluminum housing. The locking recesses in the barrel. That way you can change barrels out as in the AR type action and only use high grade steels on the bolt lug and barrel locking recesses.

Straight pull, I think the action would be straight pull. Not K31 or Ross, maybe something like putting a handle on a AR type carrier. I agree primary extraction and chambering would be more difficult on a straight pull, but there may be clever ways to use the recoil of the rifle to unlock the bolt, to provide primary extraction, or maybe just flute the chamber.

Polymer stock, optic sights, 6.5 mm intermediate round, magazine fed.

rbernie
March 20, 2008, 10:51 AM
That said, I think the Rifle No. 4 still represents the ultimate manifestation of the bolt action war rifle.Roger that.

A Lee Enfield #4 chambered in a rimless intermediate cartridge and sporting a 16" barrel would be a pretty satisfying boltgun.

Vern Humphrey
March 20, 2008, 11:05 AM
I would go with the Springfield -- with the following updates:

1. Better iron sights. The front sight would be a flat-topped blade, 1/8" wide, protected by "ears." The rear sight would be an adjustable aperture mounted on the receiver bridge. Battlesight zero would be 250 yards.

2. There would be a scope, with mounts forged integrally with the receiver (the rear sight could be mounted on one of them.) The bolt handle would be shaped to clear the ocular lens, and the safety would swing horizontally -- like the Winchester Model 70.

3. Gas handling. The bolt would vent down into the magazine well, and there would be escape holes in the receiver ring. There would be a thumb cutout in the left raceway and the bolt shroud would have a flange to block the raceways.

4. There would be a detatchable magazine.

Colt46
March 20, 2008, 11:17 AM
those suckers are FAST.

I'd go to a smaller calilber such as 6.5 though. Give them good sights and turn my troops into a nation of riflemen.

Trempel
March 20, 2008, 11:56 AM
Of all the military bolt rifles I've shot, the 03-A3 was the absolute best. Easy handling, buttery-smooth action, reliability, strength and superb accuracy, which was helped by decent sights. If I were limited to a bolt gun, that would be my first choice.

HJ857
March 20, 2008, 01:29 PM
I'd think the CZ 750 would be a pretty decent battle rifle.
http://www.cz-usa.com/product_detail.php?id=75

JesseL
March 20, 2008, 01:39 PM
I'd think the CZ 750 would be a pretty decent battle rifle.

At almost 12 pounds? Really?:uhoh:

rbernie
March 20, 2008, 01:57 PM
Of all the military bolt rifles I've shot, the 03-A3 was the absolute best. My primary quarrel with the 03 is the weight, with mechanical complexity being a secondary concern.

HJ857
March 20, 2008, 02:04 PM
At almost 12 pounds? Really?


Nah. I could see it in two versions, one similar to how it's marketed now, and a lighter version, but I like it's features. We're all just having fun anyway, eh?

Sleeping Dog
March 20, 2008, 02:05 PM
I don't think the K31 would be all that great. It seems nearly impossible to chamber a round quietly. If I don't slap the bolt forward with some force, it can fail to fire. So, not very useful for hunting, either, unless you want to walk around with a round in the chamber.

Anything Mauser-related would be good. I like the Spanish FR8 because the sights are similar to M1 / M14 / M16 - a peep near the eye, and a substantial post (not like the skinny invisible thing on an 03A3).

Owlnmole
March 20, 2008, 03:40 PM
I think you could do a lot worse that an CZ-527 Carbine (http://www.czusa.com/product_detail.php?id=15) in .223 or 7.62x39mm.

Give it a steel buttplate and a bayonet lug for close-in work, and double the magazine capacity, and you have an updated Enfield Rifle No. 5 in a handier caliber, giving up some range for less muzzle flash and kick, faster follower up shots and a lighter ammo.

As a matter of fact, does anyone know if anyone makes larger magazines for the Cz-527 than the factory five-rounders?

Ash
March 20, 2008, 04:11 PM
Now, an Enfield jungle carbine in 7.62x39 would be pretty good.

Ash

SlamFire1
March 20, 2008, 04:33 PM
Those of you who love the Springfield, you have not broke enough parts with the thing.

I have shot thousands of rounds through my Springfields. I can remember replacing (at least) three firing pin tips, three firing pin collars, and two cocking pieces.

I know I have busted an extractor. I have this fuzzy memory of replacing the ejector. Pretty sure I replaced one.

I have sent back to every supplier, used 03 bolts that the bolt stop had sheared through the left lugs. There is so little contact surface that you will find a lot of service bolts with that problem. You will also find lots of bolt stops that look like a rat took a bite out of them.

The Springfield action has this little rear tang pad, it just digs into the stock and ruins the bedding. Plus the rear tang screw is angled forward.

03 or A3, it does not handle gas well. Better wear your shooting glasses because the gas from a piecred primer is going right in your eye.

In every instance where the Springfield designers departed from the M96 Mauser (I don't know if they had a M98 to look at), the action got worse.

I have a target Mauser 98 action that I dry fired at least 50,000 times and is on its third barrel. The bolt has been cycled enough that the case hardening wore through the bolt cocking cam. So I had to replace the bolt. But nothing, absolutely no part broke.

You can't do that to a Springfield with out a box full of replacement parts.

Trempel
March 20, 2008, 06:48 PM
Those of you who love the Springfield, you have not broke enough parts with the thing.
Fair enough. The Springfield that I shot belonged to a friend of mine. I loved shooting it, but honestly have no long-term experience with the rifle.

For the most amount of ammo through a single bolt gun, for me it would be a Yugo Mauser. About 3000 rounds of corrosive surplus through it without a single problem, but it wasn't nearly as accurate as the Springfield and the action was never as smooth. I don't know if the German or Czech guns were any different.

rodregier
March 20, 2008, 07:13 PM
.303 Calibre, Lee Enfield, No 4 MkI * is still being issued to the Canadian Rangers serving in the far north.

http://www.sfu.ca/casr/101-rifle-enfield.htm

Given the Arctic conditions, long distances and polar bears present, seems like a sensible choice to me.

TAB
March 20, 2008, 07:26 PM
I think we would most likly still have the Spring feild 03 in some varrent.

Deer Hunter
March 20, 2008, 07:31 PM
It would be a pump action, thats for sure.

R.W.Dale
March 20, 2008, 07:54 PM
It would be a pump action, thats for sure.

I am one of the biggest fans of pumps you'll ever see. But the problem is they still suffer from all the same problems the aforementioned straight pulls do. The only real difference in a straight pull and a pump rifle is the location of the charging handle

GunTech
March 20, 2008, 08:24 PM
One only need to look at what features were considered essential when the bolt gun was the main battle rifle.

Must haves:

Controlled round feed
Fixed, non-rotating extractor
Fixed ejector
Simple trigger

Desirable: facility to recock the striker in the even of a misfire (without working the bolt)

Detachable magazine.

The classic combat rifles are the M1907, the K98 and the SMLE.

I'd vote for an updated Winchester M70/FN SPR with a synthetic stock and 10 round detachable magazine. Triggers don't get much simpler, although the M70's might have to be ruggedized at the expense of trigger pull

Anteater1717
March 20, 2008, 11:49 PM
Here we go http://www.armalon.com/pr.shtml

Sunray
March 21, 2008, 12:05 AM
"...a group of US marines armed with Lee Enfields would be pretty scary..." A group of Canadians called the PPCLI, armed with Lee-Enfields, scared the German Army at least once during W. W. I and again in W.W II. And the Chicom/NKPA, at Kap Y'ong, in Korea.
"...Fixed, non-rotating extractor
Controlled round feed
Fixed ejector
Simple trigger
Desirable: facility to recock the striker in the even of a misfire (without working the bolt)
Detachable magazine..." Of your 'classic combat rifles' only the Lee-Enfield has your desired features. Mind you, only the No. 1 is an SMLE.

papajack
March 21, 2008, 07:52 AM
what do you guys think of the ruger M77? from what I hear, it's a modern day Kar98k?

ShunZu
March 21, 2008, 08:40 AM
what do you guys think of the ruger M77? from what I hear, it's a modern day Kar98k?

You're right. The M77 is based on the Mauser 98 bolt.

BigG
March 21, 2008, 09:15 AM
Steyr Scout - ?

GunTech
March 21, 2008, 09:26 AM
what do you guys think of the ruger M77? from what I hear, it's a modern day Kar98k?

Too many castings, bad bedding design, poor barrels, complex trigger. But it might be a starting point

GunTech
March 21, 2008, 09:39 AM
..a group of US marines armed with Lee Enfields would be pretty scary..." A group of Canadians called the PPCLI, armed with Lee-Enfields, scared the German Army at least once during W. W. I and again in W.W II. And the Chicom/NKPA, at Kap Y'ong, in Korea.
"...Fixed, non-rotating extractor
Controlled round feed
Fixed ejector
Simple trigger
Desirable: facility to recock the striker in the even of a misfire (without working the bolt)
Detachable magazine..." Of your 'classic combat rifles' only the Lee-Enfield has your desired features. Mind you, only the No. 1 is an SMLE.

I don't care for cock-on-close, and the mag is not the best I've seen, but the the Lee Enfield has many of the right attributes. I am partial to the number 1s, hence SMLE, but the number 4 is a better gun in most respects.

One does have to wonder about the Lee Enfield in light of the P14 though. Any bolt gun historians here who can explain the P14 in relation to the SMLE? Was the SMLE found to be deficient during the Boer War such that it required a replacement?

The poster who made the comment about ammunition had a valid point too. The modern bolt action rifle need not be chambered in a full power round. An intermediate round would certainly do the trick, particularly in light of modern bullets and propellants. I've seen several conversions for small caliber rifles using semi-auto magazines. No need to restrict yourself to small mags full of big bullets. Both rifle and ammo could be mad smaller and lighter without sacrificing much.

GunTech
March 21, 2008, 09:44 AM
Here we go http://www.armalon.com/pr.shtml

The Armalon is based on the Reminton 700, which is a pretty bad starting place for a combat rifle. Yes, the 700 is the basic of many sniping rifles, but those have very different requirements. I've personally snapped the bolt handle off on a 700, and worked on many with extractor issues. Lack of controlled round feed is another killer, along with a plunger ejector that is notorious for jamming up when exposed to fine dust or poor maintenance.

We want an AK type of robustness, not a manually operated M16.

elmerfudd
March 21, 2008, 10:20 AM
Why would you want a smaller round? Remember, this is a bolt action rifle we're talking about here. No one is going to flip the selector to 'auto' or 'burst' or for that matter even 'semi'. Back in the days when wars were fought with bolt actions, 100 rounds would have been a huge combat load and I believe most nations had a standard load of something like 40 rounds. When you're carrying such relatively small loads of ammo, ammo weight isn't that much of an issue. Neither is controllability for that matter. You still have to work the bolt and that's going to slow you down and throw you off more than the recoil. So as long as you're dealing with with these shortcomings that are inherent to the bolt action, why not fire a cartridge that can better penetrate trees, cars, bricks and cinder blocks and retains more energy at long range?

Another interesting point is that both nations that went to war with intermediate caliber rifles decided to dump them in favor of higher powered cartridges. In the case of the Japanese, I think this is especially interesting since they were of very small stature at the time and you don't just decide to equip an army of people that stand maybe 5'3" with a full power cartridge for no reason.

Vern Humphrey
March 21, 2008, 10:25 AM
100 rounds would have been a huge combat load and I believe most nations had a standard load of something like 40 rounds.
True in the Civil War, but not true in the smokeless powder era.

The WWI US cartridge belt had 10 pockets, each with a divider so it could hold two 5-round clips.

Vaarok
March 21, 2008, 10:39 AM
The Pattern 1914 (and to a lesser extent, the Ross 1910) were both front-locking and more accurate actions designed for .280 caliber flat-shooting rimless cartridges being considered for replacement of the rimmed .303- a transitional cartridge that came about to bridge between the .577/.450 and smokeless but due to wars was never was given a chance to be replaced.

And interestingly, if you look at rifle design, the MAS-36 is the logical extension of the 1917 and SMLE- rear locking lugs that were easy to clean, rugged to a fault, swept bolt, battle peep sight, and CHEAP TO MAKE, something the SMLE and No.4 both definitely did not have as a design feature. All in all an extremely well-thought-out bolt-rifle.

Also, a standard issued ammo load was typically 100 rounds for most armies in WW1. Typically forty rounds at the ready in two sets of pouches, the remainder in the knapsack

elmerfudd
March 21, 2008, 10:41 AM
Here's a link to standard US combat loads during WW2. 80 rounds for the M1 and 60 for the 1903. I'm sure soldiers found ways to pack additional ammo, but we're still talking relatively small loads of ammo compared to today. I'm also somewhat sure that we tended to carry more ammo with us than most other countries. There have been publicized instances where the Brits have recently gone into combat with very little ammo.

http://www.45thdivision.org/Pictures/General_Knowlege/combatload.htm

elmerfudd
March 21, 2008, 10:44 AM
My mistake. 128 rounds for the M1. 80 on cartridge belt, 48 on bandolier.

SaMx
March 21, 2008, 10:51 AM
for some reason I have the desire to make a modern bolt action battle rifle. I have no idea why.

Like the 16" 7.62x39 enfield mentioned earlier but not an enfield.

Something designed to be cheap to make and take ar-15 magazines, and can be made in any caliber the ar-15 is made in. Maybe you could just change the barrel and bolt and go from .223 to 6.8 SPC to .458 SOCOM.

and with decent peep sights and a built in rail for mounting a scope.

I don't think there is really a market for such a rifle, it could be used for hunting or plinking or whatever, but it seems most people would rather get a semi-auto rifle, even if it costs more.

RubenZ
March 21, 2008, 12:07 PM
I say a Jungle Carbine Enfield. Man the action on the enfields is probably sweetest I've ever used!

Ash
March 25, 2008, 08:20 AM
To dig this up a bit, Guntech, in addition to changing the cartridge type, the Bisley folks hated the SMLE because it wasn't a target gun and could not be as accurate as Mausers. The P13 was introduced to replace the SMLE. WWI started before it could replace the SMLE and so, when the Brits were desperate for arms, the design was passed to the US to produce as the P14 in 303.

However, the Brits realized the SMLE's combat advantage over the accuracy potential of the P14 tipped everything to the SMLE. So, the P14 was dropped. Indeed, production of the P14 ended before WWI ended. The Brits were satisfied with the performance of the SMLE in the trenches, plus given the extra rounds and the better handling of the hog-nosed brute of the SMLE, the Bisley desires for a more accurate rifle melted away.

If anything, that the #4 was introduced showed how much confidence the British gained with the Enfield and the 303 during WWI. Yeah, the 303 was out-dated by that time, but reality was that the 303 was still a fine combat round and replacing it with another bolt action, given the 303/Enfield performance in WWI, didn't really make a whole lot of sense. Reality was that there would be very little real gain in a bolt action to replace it. Of course, the Brits did abandon the full-power rimmed round after Korea, where it was certainly obsolete (given that bolt guns were obsolete by that time, though the Chinese and NK's were still using them).

In the end, the P14 (later #3 rifle) was never anything more than a substitute standard in the British army. Interestingly enough, the design was never anything BUT a substitute standard (even though the US used the M1917 more than the 1903 in WWI). In both the US and UK, the P13 descendants were step-children who ended up in support roles only after WWI.

Ash

If you enjoyed reading about "so let's say bolt-actions were still used by the military" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!