Are there any sporting rifles that would stand up to a battlefield?

[redneck2]

My guess would be

an M77 Ruger, preferably stainless

from my limited knowledge, it's a Mauser made in the USA. Add a synthetic stock and it'd probably do as much or more than the original

 

[Damnathius]

an M77 Ruger, preferably stainless

from my limited knowledge, it's a Mauser made in the USA. Add a synthetic stock and it'd probably do as much or more than the original

Yes, the M77 is probably the most similar action to the Mauser. I own a few Mausers, and have owned many other Mausers, as well as a Model 77 RSI. BUT... The tolerances are tighter on the Ruger, and thus it would be less forgiving of stuff in the action than the Mauser. Also, synthetic stocks are lighter (as well as butted in rubber instead of steel) which lessens the effect of the rifle being used as a blunt weapon in hand to hand combat.

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.

Of course rain and snow are conditions which are found both in battle and hunting, but if you find yourself diving into muddy trenches and foxholes on your hunt, be sure to keep your sporting arm out of the dirt.

Speaking for bolt rifles ONLY, you will not find a more useful and reliable battlefield tool than a well made military Mauser. Time and many wars have proven them. Some will argue that the Springfield '03 is just as good, but what is the '03 but a stolen (literally) Mauser clone? Yes, if I recall correctly, the '03 was produced under license from Mauser, but with the onset of WWI, (or earlier) the US quit paying for the rights to produce. I digress...

Good day,

Dave

 

[dww]

THe conversation seems pointed toward the "Scout Rifle" concept advicated by Cooper, et al.

The scout is supposed to be a light rifle in a common military cartridge (plentyful ammunition) with sufficient power to take men or game at ranges reasonably expected in the field (up to 600 yards).

It is supposed to be rugged, and made from an action and parts commonly available, so as to facilitate long life and rapid repair where necessary. It is intended as a one-person weapon vs a crew-served weapon.

The problem, if there is one, with the scout rifle concept is it requires a rifleman capable of hitting at 600 yards with a 2.5 power scope. Actually, the order is 1) requires a rifleman, and 2) who can hit with a small power scope. Current military training focuses on team fire vs indivadual action.

I khow, I know "every Marine is a rifleman." That may be true. But the Marines do not engage as riflemen, they engage as rifle companies.

Point is, the item you seek is a scout rifle. Steyr failed miserably on a few items, in my view. However, the concept is sound.

dww

 

[JNewell]

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?

At least three attributes:

1. Functions after extreme physical abuse

2. Functions when wet, frozen, dirty, etc.

3. Functions after high volume of fire

4. Easily field serviced with minimal tools

5. Interchangeable parts require no fitting

There are issues of accuracy and ballistic effectiveness as well.

Many of the rifles mentioned above are sniper weapons. These are a special case, not general issue battlefield weapons. The fact that the Rem 700 action works well for snipers does not make it suitable for general issue. It's an excellent rifle, but not for the battlefield. The M70 might be better for that use, since the extractor, ejector and trigger mechanisms are all simpler, easier to service and more robust.

Compare the 1911 to a 3rd Gen S&W autoloader. The S&W is a great pistol, but it has lots of small parts that can break and are a b*tch to service. You can take a 1911 almost entirely apart with little more than a screwdriver to remove the grips.

There's a lot more to battlefield weapons than going bang, or even going bang accurately.

 

[James Bondrock]

I would expect civilian versions of purpose-built military rifles to stand up to battlefield conditions better than pure sporting rifles. In such conditions I would rather have an AR15, M1A, AK clone, etc., than, say, a Remington 742 or Browning BAR. All the preceding refers to semi-autos, of course, as bolt actions are obsolete for general military use. But if we expand the discussion to include bolt actions, I would want one based on the true Mauser action, with controlled feeding, not a push-feed.

 

[Jim K]

Hi, Tag and others,

The Mauser was designed as a military rifle, as were many sporting rifles of that era. Every designer, from Spencer and Henry to Mauser and Browning, hoped for a military contract for the simple reason that it brought big bucks (or pounds, or marks, or pesos, or lire, or whatever). Most had to settle for making their rifles for civilians, but that was not usually the first choice. Garand and Kalashnikov designed their rifles only for military use with no intent of civilian purchase.

As to comparing a hunt, even in Alaska, with combat I suspect the people making the comparison have never been in the military, let alone in combat. A hunt does not give a rifle anywhere near the beating it would receive in the service. When in a hunt does one need to fling his rifle across razor wire so his buddies can crawl across on it and avoid the wire? When does a hunter use his rifle as a paddle in crossing a stream in an assault boat? Where do bears live in houses that have to have the doors beaten down? Where does a sporting rifle get used in training day in and day out, firing hundreds of rounds? Where does a sporting rifle have to be carried loaded and ready in spite of cold, snow, sand, sleet, dust, heat, rain or some combination of the above?

And, short of an unexpected encounter with a big "Brownie", where in North America would a hunter have to use his rifle to keep from being killed?

It is certainly arguable that some military rifles (I didn't say M16) may not be up to the needs of the military. But that does not mean that the average civilian sporter would be any better or even anywhere near as good.

Jim

 

[dww]

I don't know, the Ruger 77 is pretty robust.

HOWEVER, the optics are usually where I would expect to see a sporting rifle fail miserably. The Lyman scopes used in the field in 'nam were always filling with water, according to I guy I know with three combat tours in counrty.

Great mounts with great optics are a must. Most sporting optics are too fragile.

dww

 

[Pumpkinheaver]

A man named Carlos Hathcock used a win mod 70 in 30-06 to good effect in vietnam!

 

[Master Blaster]

The savage LE series of rifles, the remmington 700 series, both with tough top notch stocks.

My Saiga .308 as configured.

If you recall the lend lease with england in WWII sporting rifles were being sent by americans for the Brits to use.