Rates of Fire

Status
Not open for further replies.
Here's fast aimed fire with a bolt-action .303 Enfield. Keep in mind that each round has twice the power and more than twice the recoil as 5.56x45mm.



A lever-action can pretty much keep up with a semiauto in terms of rapid aimed fire (see the other videos upthread), and a detachable-magazine lever-action or pump-action .223 would be just as fast to reload as a .223 semiauto.
 
Good evening,

Does anyone have good information about rates of fire between semi, lever, pump, and bolt action rifles?

An individual at another forum has latched onto the fire rate, which is why ARs need to be banned, that similar outcomes to recent shootings wouldn't happen if the shooter used a pump or a lever or a bolt. I think it is a silly argument, but I'm having trouble putting it into words.

Thanks

The semi auto rifles being more capable are precisely why it is critical they NOT be banned.

The point of the Second Amendment, the point of an armed citizenry, the point of all of this, is not to infringe on the effectiveness of those arms.

The premise of this person's argument is faulty to begin with.
 
An individual at another forum has latched onto the fire rate, which is why ARs need to be banned, that similar outcomes to recent shootings wouldn't happen if the shooter used a pump or a lever or a bolt. I think it is a silly argument, but I'm having trouble putting it into words.
Clint Smith invited Mike Venturino to participate in a match designed for AR15-style rifles. Mike used an 1873 Winchester in .38-40 and won -- you can read about it in Rifle.

Mike's secret was he wore pants with cargo pockets full of .38-40s, and at every opportunity grabbed a handful of cartridges and stuffed them in the magazine.
 
As mentioned - see Jerry Miculek fire a six round revolver, reload it and empty it again in 2.99 seconds while hitting his target every time. Or watch Rob Leatham fire a single stack 1911 (and reload it in one second). I have watched both from close up and it is astounding. The rate of fire that the weapon is capable of is pretty insignificant compared to the skill of the person wielding it. :scrutiny: Plus as we saw recently all you really need is a truck and poor security to slaughter a large number of victims. The rate of fire argument is ridiculous. I would not even debate the subject with someone who believes that it matters because they're not seeing the big picture. Most of those people also believe the 5.56mm cartridge is a "high powered" caliber when most States will not even allow hunting deer with it because it is too weak.
 
Last edited:
Oh I've seen Jerry. Even "John Wick" is pretty handy with a gun.

I might be fighting a losing battle with this guy, in fact I am. Yet I don't like just leaving it. Ignorance spreads a lot faster that facts, and once it gets ingrained its mighty hard to correct.
 
Last edited:
As mentioned - see Jerry Miculek fire a six round revolver, reload it and empty it again in 2.99 seconds while hitting his target every time.

He does have world records for that but I haven't seen splits by a human with a single trigger gun faster than Mr. Munden.

Jerry is one of the most humble professional shooters I ever met though.
 
The people in the videos or mentioned for their speed in shooting anything other than an AR are by anyone's standard simply one of a kind. Go to a range, any range, and ask for volunteers to demonstrate their shooting prowness with something other than an AR. Tell them they will be scored on # of hits on 10 - 15 yard targets in a timed event and missed shots will not count against your score. Do this test 50 times in 50 places and then come back to this forum with your results. No world champions invited.

In the hands of an average skilled shooter, an AR will win every time. You can kill dozens and dozens with a big truck and you can do the same with a semi auto handgun if you practice enough, But to argue that rate of fire or shots on target with a revolver or bolt action rifle is pure poppy cock.
 
Several times I have used my pump shotgun with heavy loads and found shells ejecting before I deliberately "pumped" it. Figured out that with a backwards force on the forend, the recoil overcomes the holding force on the forend and unlatches the action. Then the forend comes back from the holding force and ejects the empty.

I've often thought that with practice I could develop that "trick" into a rapid-fire system, but I just ain't that tactical and my object was to knock individual birds down, not clear dark alleys. Besides, I had a three-shot plug in it most of the time.


I've shot SMLEs fairly often and at first found the cock-on-closing feature awkward, but then realized that this was conducive to rapid fire simply becuase the bolt-opening effort was so light, and then the cocking effort was just part of the bolt-closing motion.


Thinking back pver 65 years of shooting, I realized that I have never used a lever action firearm*. I can't believe that myself. Amazing!

Terry

*BB guns as a kid don't count.
 
Last edited:
The MA AG just banned all semi autos on the expressed reasoning that being an assault rifle didn't make any difference - the features weren't the issue, the self loading capability was the problem. Some bloggers were happy she did - it was the point to the bans all along, they were only cosmetic.

The 21 foot issue was discovered by Tueller that a shooter with holstered weapon could be tackled before he got his gun out - not reloaded. It's self defense/LEO doctrine now and almost dogma that an armed citizen can't get their weapon out in time. It's also not the point - the topic is "rate of fire" and it's effective use against soft targets.

The DOD and specifically the Army and combat units are telling soldiers to keep the M4/M16 on semi auto fire and to use full auto only when directed. The anti gunners Hollywood notions that troops are using full auto all the time is ignorant at best, and manipulative at worst. They are using it against us trying to create an image of spray and pray being combat doctrine when it most certainly is NOT. Since 99 out of 100 citizens have never served the misleading idea is perpetuated by continually repeating it in the news. The recent adoption of red dot optics over the last 15 years also highlights that the DOD is trying to get soldiers to aim. If spray and pray was a good idea we'd have stuck to iron sights because no improvement was needed.

Nope, the troops are still taught to aim a rifle and pull the trigger at targets one at a time. What hampers the process is being exposed to return fire long enough to get your shots off - the enemy is aiming and shooting bullets one at a time, too. Higher rate of fire weapons aren't used so much on a single point target like just one soldier, they are used as a small area weapon with a beaten zone - much like a portable mine field in the air. It's extremely difficult to cross the line of fire when stretched across our line, which is where a machine gun is optimally used. We have grenade launchers, mortars, artillery, bombs, rockets and missiles, too. It's not all about the soldiers rifle and it's never the only asset. Soldiers carry offensive and defensive grenades and can set up mines, too.

Rate of fire is just another feature taken out of context and made to look "dishonorable" as an argument against legal ownership. If you are a rancher or farmer hunting down feral hogs, it's a very welcome and necessary ability to shoot more than one before they all run off. If you are a hunter and your first shot was poorly placed, getting off another without the monkey motion of operating the bolt and regaining a sight picture is MORE ethical than watching the game limp away to be lost because you couldn't pick it up in time. I've seen more game down from a fast two shot sequence than a bolt gunner cranking out the rounds in a hurried hail of gunfire. It's very easy to tell out in the field.

The anti gunners idea that rate of fire is the problem doesn't really wash. It's just part of their scheme - don't for a minute think they will stop there.
 
Tell them they will be scored on # of hits on 10 - 15 yard targets in a timed event and missed shots will not count against your score. Do this test 50 times in 50 places and then come back to this forum with your results. No world champions invited.

Sounds like most any USPSA/IDPA match I have been to. And IMO Jerry Miculek is one of a kind but that doesn't mean he is unbeatable by the average guy. I beat him myself on a few stages at Nationals the year I shot a revolver.
 
Sounds like most any USPSA/IDPA match I have been to. And IMO Jerry Miculek is one of a kind but that doesn't mean he is unbeatable by the average guy. I beat him myself on a few stages at Nationals the year I shot a revolver.

By definition I think Jerry is unbeatable by the average, save for a major firearm/ammo malfunction or something of that nature.

And I agree with the poster who started this sub topic, the 'take 50 people from the range and score with an AR vs with a lever or pump or revolver" and you'll see that what the antis are saying is pretty accurate.

But as I said in my first post, that is precisely why firearms such as the AR-15 style rifles are so important to protect from infringement
 
One thing - caliber matters. I can unload my .44 mag lever gun as fast as my 7.62 (Soviet) SKS in aimed fire. Both carry 10 rounds. But my 5.56 Saiga simply has less recoil, and the sight picture is much more rapidly reacquired. No comparison.

Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk
 
FWIW it's not all about rate of fire either, my fastest SMG can empty a 32 round mag in 1.6 seconds but if the target is at 300 yards I would rather be using a halfway decent bolt action.
 
Some LEO dudes rock pump action Remington 5.56 carbines since their departments (stupidly) won't let 'em have ARs.
 
Ban ARs with millions in circulation.

Gun control writer Robert Sherrill, "The Saturday Night Special", 1975, noted that the net result of a gun ban would be millions of guns dumped on the grey and black market. (This is the USA and remember the prohibitions of alcohol and marihuana?)

In the EU proposals to restrict guns after the Paris attacks, the Czech government acknowledged that a ban on military style civilian guns would simply drive them underground, and not help.

Make ARs a hot black market item, that won't make the public safer.
 
The technical aspect of rate of fire is how fast the gun itself can be ready to fire another round.

Other than fully automatic weapons - which do not in reality belong in this discussion as they are heavily regulated - the term rate of fire is totally dependent on the operator.

In the case of a semi-automatic firearm, the action doing much of the work would seem to make it more lethal. Except that "number of rounds fired" is not the same as "hits scored on target". A semi-automatic firearm may be more intimidating to one who knows little about the function and use of real firearms, but isn't as intimidating to a person with knowledge.

At this point, live conversations degenerate into 'finger tapping' contests. Which have no relevance either.

However, the sort of political animal who wants to outlaw firearms has no regard for reality. Facts and demonstrations do nothing to sway their adherence to the agenda. All the facts indicate an armed society is safer than an unarmed society; which matters not a whit.
 
Originally posted by Carl N. Brown

Ban ARs with millions in circulation.

Gun control writer Robert Sherrill, "The Saturday Night Special", 1975, noted that the net result of a gun ban would be millions of guns dumped on the grey and black market. (This is the USA and remember the prohibitions of alcohol and marihuana?)

In the EU proposals to restrict guns after the Paris attacks, the Czech government acknowledged that a ban on military style civilian guns would simply drive them underground, and not help.

Make ARs a hot black market item, that won't make the public safer.

Carl Brown pretty much hit the nail on the head. I don't understand why people think that if a law is passed, that somehow all the bad stuff will go away. Worked out great with drugs, didn't it? Weve had a "War on Drugs" for 20-some years. Hows that working out for stopping drugs from making it into the country and showing up on the streets?

If it became impossible to buy guns legally, they would be supplied by black market suppliers, just like drugs. There are literally boatloads of full auto guns floating around the world, vastly more than there are semi-autos in private hands in the US.

Sorry, but that ship has sailed. Its a dream to think that simply banning them, even without the legal and constitutional issues of taking peoples property without compensation (or who exactly is going to pay for them if they were paid for at market value?) , and the fact that in the gun banning haven of Australia, only a small percentage of guns in private hands (20-40%?) were actually turned in. Compliance was low, and the US is much more likely to ignore such laws.

The cry is usually "well, it wouldn't have stopped THAT one, bit it MIGHT stop the next one". Well, maybe, and maybe not. Why is everyone in such a hurry to pass a law they admit up front isn't effective? Whats next when that doest work? (hint, look at Germany with very strict gun laws, they are already talking about them needing to be stricter after some of the recent nonsense). So, whats the real objective? Pass law we know wont help, then continue to pass more until there are no guns? That's the only way I see it stopping anyone getting killed, but then there would have to be house to house searches and seizures. I doubt that would go well or last long.

The premise this thread is based on is flawed. Doesn't matter how fast a semi-auto shoots. What does anyone propose to do about it that would actually change anything? I haven't heard ANY realistic ideas put forth. A ban would be a joke. And widely ignored. And create an entirely new black market and gang enterprise. Great.
 
Last edited:
We've had a "War on Drugs" for 20-some years. Hows that working out for stopping drugs from making it into the country and showing up on the streets?

It goes back for much, much longer than that. We've been trying to control some of the most popular recreational drugs for a century or so. And, as you note, they still exist. People who want them can get them. And the black market we've created spawns a large fraction - likely a majority - of the "gun violence" in America.

Great post, Malamute.
 
Carl Brown pretty much hit the nail on the head. I don't understand why people think that if a law is passed, that somehow all the bad stuff will go away.

They admit as much, most of the time, they look at taking our liberties in an incremental manner.

Same thing that happened with the NFA put some guns in a registry then 52 years later closed it for new manufacture of civilian owned FA and everything is in place so if they decide they want to come and get them, they can.

52 years is quite awhile but if you look at a timeline of gun laws here you can see that they are coming out more rapidly than any time in our history.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/rightsandfreedoms/fl/US-Gun-Control-Timeline.htm
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top