Are there any sporting rifles that would stand up to a battlefield?
- Thread starter goon
- Start date
- Status
Tag
Member
sorry I have no framework from which to comment, however recently I have been wondering about this as well.
How does barrel life compair between sporting rifles and battlerifles?
Would a modle 70 action hold up as well as a mauser on the battlefield?
curious.
How does barrel life compair between sporting rifles and battlerifles?
Would a modle 70 action hold up as well as a mauser on the battlefield?
curious.
Vern Humphrey
Member
The fundamental difference between a Model 70 and a Mauser is in the stock. Military stocks are thicker, clubbier, to withstand breakage.
Winchester used to make "Musket" versions of various rifles, including the model 1895 (which, being a lever action, was not as tough as a good bolt action.) A Model 70 Musket would be as tough as a Model 98 Mauser.
Winchester used to make "Musket" versions of various rifles, including the model 1895 (which, being a lever action, was not as tough as a good bolt action.) A Model 70 Musket would be as tough as a Model 98 Mauser.
El Tejon
Member
"Sporting rifles" have long been used in war. THR knowledge, activate!
Let's see, off the top of my head, I can think of references to:
1. The American War of Independence--sport rifles used to great effect at such places as Freeman's Farm by Mr. Morgan's boys;
2. The Napoleonic Wars--the famed Austrian snipers with sport luftgewehren, Russian snipers with rifled muskets, etc., etc.
3. The War of Southern Treason--both sides used "sport rifles" of American and European design, including some very noted incidents;
4. The First World War--British snipers with "elephant" guns shooting hardened Dutchie positions, German "sport shooter" snipers, etc.
5. Second World War--American troops using commerical weaponry and accessories;
6. Vietnam--Carlos Hathcock and many other American snipers used commerical "sporting rifles"
Continues to this day. More of a speciality weapon than line weapon though.
Let's see, off the top of my head, I can think of references to:
1. The American War of Independence--sport rifles used to great effect at such places as Freeman's Farm by Mr. Morgan's boys;
2. The Napoleonic Wars--the famed Austrian snipers with sport luftgewehren, Russian snipers with rifled muskets, etc., etc.
3. The War of Southern Treason--both sides used "sport rifles" of American and European design, including some very noted incidents;
4. The First World War--British snipers with "elephant" guns shooting hardened Dutchie positions, German "sport shooter" snipers, etc.
5. Second World War--American troops using commerical weaponry and accessories;
6. Vietnam--Carlos Hathcock and many other American snipers used commerical "sporting rifles"
Continues to this day. More of a speciality weapon than line weapon though.
DMK
Member
Like El Tejon indicated, snipers in Vietnam used sporting rifles with sporting optics. I'm sure they had to endure some rough treatment. Apparently they did very well.
Other than converted '03 Springfields and Garands left over from previous wars, there were no purpose built military sniper rifles at the time.
I think the biggest problems with commercial rifles are they probably won't stand up to hand to hand combat, and they don't have the capability of high rates or volumes of fire. Commercial sporting arms are designed to be light, and able to accurately fire at most three or four shots at a time. This is OK for a sniper in combat, but it is not satisfactory for your typical front line trooper.
Other than converted '03 Springfields and Garands left over from previous wars, there were no purpose built military sniper rifles at the time.
I think the biggest problems with commercial rifles are they probably won't stand up to hand to hand combat, and they don't have the capability of high rates or volumes of fire. Commercial sporting arms are designed to be light, and able to accurately fire at most three or four shots at a time. This is OK for a sniper in combat, but it is not satisfactory for your typical front line trooper.
Double Naught Spy
Sus Venator
Just because of a classification such as "sporting" or "military" does not mean the gun will or will not stand up or suffice in a battlefield situation. As noted, all sorts of sporting rifles have been used through time in military situations and quite well. Many military guns have been used well in sporting situations. Many military guns have been crap and NOT stood up to the battlefield situation and some sporting guns just plain suck, period, for sporting and anything else.
It is not the classification, but the application that counts in determining a good battlefield gun from one that is not.
It is not the classification, but the application that counts in determining a good battlefield gun from one that is not.
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2002
- Messages
- 22,505
Off the shelf? Try the Remington 700 VSS. Very slight variation from the GI stuph.
1) Stock lighter and slimmer stock than the PSS or the military HSP stock and doesn't have the extra swivel stud for the bipod
2) Aluminium trigger guard whereas military steel.
3) 5R rifling on GI. But standard Remington barrels are among the best for factory production.
BTW, the reason why we've always "mickey-moused" the sniper rifles is that we have had a tradition of being caught napping. The American Revolutionary War riflemen brought their own and it wasn't until 1803 (or slightly before that) when the first U.S. issued rifles were made. Even then, specialized riflemen's rifles did not come into vogue. During the Civil War, a lot of sporting rifles were procured by both sides. The South generally rebored them to .58 caliber and the North reserved them for sharpshoooters (over 2k in the inventory - but I forgot the date). Of the five & 1/2 companies of U.S. sharpshooters (2 1/2 were Berdan's 1st U.S.S.S., 2 were Massachusetts Sharpshooters and Brady Michigan Sharpshooters) who had scoped rifles, they brought their own. The U.S. Government did get to procuring a few and these were reserved for the sharpshooters.
During WW I, we were napping again and that horrible Warner Swazey was introduced. The USMC seemed to have its act together, but it adopted from the civilian sector (Winchester Model 5A scope in WW I). WW II was no different and the 03A4 with its miserable Weaver 330 (not nitrogen sealed so it fogged up or had to be drained) was not on par with either the Russian M31/90 w/PU or PE or the British No 4(T). Again, the USMC went a bit better with the Unertl but they went outside to John Unertl for that scope. By war's end, the M1C was introduced and while it was OK, it didn't enjoy the accuracy of a bolt gun (especially with that Hart flash supppressor).
Korea we weren't caught short in terms of rifles. We had M1Cs and M1Ds but the problem was there was no sniping program left over from WW I. It had to be built ground up - again. Same with Vietnam. The USMC again turned to the Unertl (and later the Redfield) and sporting guns (Win M70 and then Remington M700). It wasn't until the late 1980s when we started a permanent program with procurement of high quality stuph. Our own Jim White hails from those days.
1) Stock lighter and slimmer stock than the PSS or the military HSP stock and doesn't have the extra swivel stud for the bipod
2) Aluminium trigger guard whereas military steel.
3) 5R rifling on GI. But standard Remington barrels are among the best for factory production.
BTW, the reason why we've always "mickey-moused" the sniper rifles is that we have had a tradition of being caught napping. The American Revolutionary War riflemen brought their own and it wasn't until 1803 (or slightly before that) when the first U.S. issued rifles were made. Even then, specialized riflemen's rifles did not come into vogue. During the Civil War, a lot of sporting rifles were procured by both sides. The South generally rebored them to .58 caliber and the North reserved them for sharpshoooters (over 2k in the inventory - but I forgot the date). Of the five & 1/2 companies of U.S. sharpshooters (2 1/2 were Berdan's 1st U.S.S.S., 2 were Massachusetts Sharpshooters and Brady Michigan Sharpshooters) who had scoped rifles, they brought their own. The U.S. Government did get to procuring a few and these were reserved for the sharpshooters.
During WW I, we were napping again and that horrible Warner Swazey was introduced. The USMC seemed to have its act together, but it adopted from the civilian sector (Winchester Model 5A scope in WW I). WW II was no different and the 03A4 with its miserable Weaver 330 (not nitrogen sealed so it fogged up or had to be drained) was not on par with either the Russian M31/90 w/PU or PE or the British No 4(T). Again, the USMC went a bit better with the Unertl but they went outside to John Unertl for that scope. By war's end, the M1C was introduced and while it was OK, it didn't enjoy the accuracy of a bolt gun (especially with that Hart flash supppressor).
Korea we weren't caught short in terms of rifles. We had M1Cs and M1Ds but the problem was there was no sniping program left over from WW I. It had to be built ground up - again. Same with Vietnam. The USMC again turned to the Unertl (and later the Redfield) and sporting guns (Win M70 and then Remington M700). It wasn't until the late 1980s when we started a permanent program with procurement of high quality stuph. Our own Jim White hails from those days.
Tag
Member
thanks guys, very interesting.
What about the Winchester M-70, Ruger M-77, or the Savage 10/110 series.
What I am really thinking about is durability and longevity. I would like to get one good bolt action and not have any problems with it for the rest of my life.
I figured that if a gun could stand up to being on the battlefield, it could stand up to anything I can do to it.
What I am really thinking about is durability and longevity. I would like to get one good bolt action and not have any problems with it for the rest of my life.
I figured that if a gun could stand up to being on the battlefield, it could stand up to anything I can do to it.
Vern Humphrey
Member
I have a Winchester Model 70 made in 1939. This year, a friend was using it elk hunting in Colorado. We had more that two feet of snow in the mountains, and everything got soaked as we moved down to lower elevations. That Model 70 did everything it was asked to do.
I also had a Ruger M77 as a backup rifle, and it didn't seem affected by conditions -- although never asked to do what my M70 and Bigfoot Wallace (my custom '03 Springfield) had to go through.
I also had a Ruger M77 as a backup rifle, and it didn't seem affected by conditions -- although never asked to do what my M70 and Bigfoot Wallace (my custom '03 Springfield) had to go through.
El Tejon
Member
Ford, Chevy, both do just fine and you can buy parts for them everywhere. Same with the rifles you mention.
Swamprabbit
Member
Well, the Winchester 95, I believe, some some limited use during the Spanish American War.
I also think of the Winchester 54 (daddy of the M-70). These rifles even had the stripper clip guide on the receiver.
I would think the M-70 Classic series bolt actions would hold up. The bolts field strip down very easily and they feed very reliably. They would need a good set of open sights available though.
I also think of the Winchester 54 (daddy of the M-70). These rifles even had the stripper clip guide on the receiver.
I would think the M-70 Classic series bolt actions would hold up. The bolts field strip down very easily and they feed very reliably. They would need a good set of open sights available though.
There are (or at least were) several requirements of a military rifle that were/are not met by most sporters. The first was ruggedness; most sporters just would not take the abuse dished out in the military, mainly because the stocks were too light.
The second was that the average GI be able to understand and maintain his rifle well enough to keep it functioning. That meant easy disassembly into major groups, few small parts to lose, and the ability to clean out dirt, mud and general debris. Ideally, all disassembly would be accomplished with a simple tool or with parts of the rifle itself. (Whether the M16 meets this requirement is open to question.)
The third (and increasingly less important) is the ability to take a bayonet. One of the main objections to the rifles used in the Revolution was the lack of a bayonet, which meant that riflemen could be, and were, run down and bayonetted by British troops after they had fired their one shot. Bayonets are not often used in combat today, but are useful as a psychological weapon in dealing with civil disturbances.
A fourth is lack of protection against a hot barrel. Most sporting rifles have no handguards, not a problem when firing one or two shots at a deer, but a consideration when a rifle is fired hot in battle.
Of course, one can take a sporting rifle and use it "as is" in special cases, such as sniping. Or one can make a sporter rifle easy to maintain, and put on a military stock, handguard, and bayonet lug. But then it is not a sporter rifle, it is a military rifle.
Today, there is considerable divergence. The civilianized military rifles are still basically military rifles, even without bayonet lugs. The true sporters are not intended for military use and are not likely to be used as such except in those special cases. IMHO, a Ruger Mini-14 or Remington 7400 would not stand up very long in combat even if provided with selective fire. The various bolt action and lever action sporting rifles would be hopelessly outclassed and unsuitable in general.
Jim
The second was that the average GI be able to understand and maintain his rifle well enough to keep it functioning. That meant easy disassembly into major groups, few small parts to lose, and the ability to clean out dirt, mud and general debris. Ideally, all disassembly would be accomplished with a simple tool or with parts of the rifle itself. (Whether the M16 meets this requirement is open to question.)
The third (and increasingly less important) is the ability to take a bayonet. One of the main objections to the rifles used in the Revolution was the lack of a bayonet, which meant that riflemen could be, and were, run down and bayonetted by British troops after they had fired their one shot. Bayonets are not often used in combat today, but are useful as a psychological weapon in dealing with civil disturbances.
A fourth is lack of protection against a hot barrel. Most sporting rifles have no handguards, not a problem when firing one or two shots at a deer, but a consideration when a rifle is fired hot in battle.
Of course, one can take a sporting rifle and use it "as is" in special cases, such as sniping. Or one can make a sporter rifle easy to maintain, and put on a military stock, handguard, and bayonet lug. But then it is not a sporter rifle, it is a military rifle.
Today, there is considerable divergence. The civilianized military rifles are still basically military rifles, even without bayonet lugs. The true sporters are not intended for military use and are not likely to be used as such except in those special cases. IMHO, a Ruger Mini-14 or Remington 7400 would not stand up very long in combat even if provided with selective fire. The various bolt action and lever action sporting rifles would be hopelessly outclassed and unsuitable in general.
Jim
Tag
Member
Jim,
What about the Mauser? Aside from the handguards/hot barrel protection, what makes the Mauser a "battle rifle"?
I'm guessing the ruggedness of the stock is the main issue... But like I said, I have no frame of reference and am just looking for info.
Thanks
What about the Mauser? Aside from the handguards/hot barrel protection, what makes the Mauser a "battle rifle"?
I'm guessing the ruggedness of the stock is the main issue... But like I said, I have no frame of reference and am just looking for info.
Thanks
IIRC, the Mauser was initially developed as a military arm. Once upon a time, there wasn't much difference between military and "civilian" arms: each group wanted the best they could get. The real schism between the two has only really happened in the last thirty years, or so.
John
John
Kaylee
Member
I'd put the divergence much earlier.. the 1930's or so, pretty much coinciding with the rise of self loaders. (Yes, it took much of the world 15 years to catch up, but the idea was there). The divergence increased with the whole idea of select fire, high capacity, intermediate carbines in the 1950s.
Sure there were still differences earlier, but I don't think the difference between a "sporter" hawken and a military 1840's musket are as great as those between say a Remington 700 and an M16. That whole story though is just one little element of a culture-wide story of increasing specialization over the last several centuries, and not at all unique to arms.
To the original question though, I think we need to be more specific that "milsurp strong, sporter weak" dichotomy. For instance, is a stainless/synthetic Ruger m77 all-weather more likely to withstand abuse in the south pacific than a wars-end era Arisaka?
Tag
Member
What is this "schism"? With modern synthetic stocks I guess I don't understand how a "battle" rifle and a "sporting" rifle could really be that different... Looser tollerances on the battle rifles perhaps? Could you shoot out a modern sporting rifle barrel faster than a military (surp?) barrel, as relates to acceptable combat accuracy?
Damnathius
Member
One main difference between military Mausers and commercial bolt rifles is that the Mausers are built slightly "looser" in order to function well with dirt, mud and whatever in the action. Also, the triggers on Mausers are not as fine as a basic sporting rifle, typically having a two stage type of pull, and also intended to function reliably under dirty conditions, and not go off when using the butt on an enemy.
In my opinion, it would be the dirt, mud, etc. that would be the downfall of the "sporting rifle" in a battlefield situation.
Regards,
Dave
In my opinion, it would be the dirt, mud, etc. that would be the downfall of the "sporting rifle" in a battlefield situation.
Regards,
Dave
dww
Member
Mimi 14?
Mini 14s are the worst example of a sporting rifle for war purposes. Call Thunder Ranch. EVERY mini 14 they have seen in their Urban Rifle course has broken beyond field repair.
When I took Urban Rifle, the AR15, HK91 and variants, and even a few AKMs were in use. Clint Smith was openly distainful of the mini-14.
I've had two, I will own no more. They both broke under what I consider normal use, and the accuracy was, well, poor at best.
dww
Mini 14s are the worst example of a sporting rifle for war purposes. Call Thunder Ranch. EVERY mini 14 they have seen in their Urban Rifle course has broken beyond field repair.
When I took Urban Rifle, the AR15, HK91 and variants, and even a few AKMs were in use. Clint Smith was openly distainful of the mini-14.
I've had two, I will own no more. They both broke under what I consider normal use, and the accuracy was, well, poor at best.
dww
FireInTheHole
Member
Let's takethis a step further...
How would modern day hunting/homedefense (IE rem 870/moss500) shotguns compare with the so-called "trench guns" from WW1 and WW2?
Does a stock have to be heavy wood to survive combat? My FAL has a synthetic stock....
How would modern day hunting/homedefense (IE rem 870/moss500) shotguns compare with the so-called "trench guns" from WW1 and WW2?
Does a stock have to be heavy wood to survive combat? My FAL has a synthetic stock....
Tag,
You wouldn't see any of the current sporting rifles on the battlefield, with the exception of the rarified sniper weapon. That's the schism- that there is such a difference between what the civilian populace and the military uses. If, on the other hand, it was common to find civvie shooters with FA weapons, I would have no plaint.
You wouldn't see any of the current sporting rifles on the battlefield, with the exception of the rarified sniper weapon. That's the schism- that there is such a difference between what the civilian populace and the military uses. If, on the other hand, it was common to find civvie shooters with FA weapons, I would have no plaint.
Tag
Member
Ok, I agree that I probably wouldn't see any modern sporting rifles on whatever fictional battlefield we are talking about. But the question remains, what is it about a battle rifle that makes it more acceptable in a combat situation? I'm guessing some of the conditions encountered on a long hunt in Alaska or Russia could be as adverse as those experienced in combat.
just thinking out loud
just thinking out loud
- Status