Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Bolt "battle rifle"

Discussion in 'Rifle Country' started by Mencius, Nov 12, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. paintballdude902

    paintballdude902 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2007
    Messages:
    2,872
    get an enfield. ive sold several mausers and mosins... never let go of an enfield.

    back to the FR-8 pretty sure its used to hold thecleaning kit. never got a real answer but on mine it was just big enough to hold one .308 IIRC the front of it is part of the bayonet hookup
     
  2. Unka-Boo

    Unka-Boo Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2012
    Messages:
    43
    Location:
    Milwaukie, OR
    They do hold the cleaning kit. If I remember right, a CETME kit will fit if you can't find a correct FR8 kit.
     
  3. fatcat4620

    fatcat4620 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2010
    Messages:
    1,263
    Location:
    TN
    Hard to beat an enfield... You could go <deleted> crazy and ream out a .303 enfield to 7.62x54r. With 54r going for $150/880 rounds its cheap.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 6, 2013
  4. BBDartCA

    BBDartCA Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2011
    Messages:
    535
    I think the FR8 is a very good choice.

    A great choice in terms of great accuracy, sights and strength is the Danish Madsen 47. The latest developed bolt military rifle incorporating some of the best features from the at that time established weapons.

    http://www.geocities.com/hiker1250/m47.html

    [​IMG]
     
  5. Robert101

    Robert101 Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2010
    Messages:
    966
    BBDart, that FR8 is awesome. My only comment is to the initial post that requested a bolt action battle rifle. I was a bit confused. I guess in retro the FR8 fits that admirably. But in today's world a battle rifle is semi-auto or better true "select fire" for military.
     
  6. Edarnold

    Edarnold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2012
    Messages:
    640
    Location:
    Northern Illinois
    Sporting bolt actions are designed to have desirable features such as fast lock time, convenient safeties, stiff receivers with minimum cuts for magazine and ejection, and ease of manufacture. Every one of these features is bought at the expense of reliability compared with the Mauser 1898 design.

    If reliability under adverse conditions is necessary, an action tested in WW1 trenches, African desert sands, and Russian winters is going to beat a sporting action with a brazed-on bolt handle or a complex trigger mechanism hands down. The FR8 or a gun built up on a military-spec M98 action will fit the OP's needs better than any alternative type.

    IMHO
     
  7. CountGlockulla

    CountGlockulla Member

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2011
    Messages:
    196
    Location:
    Texas
    Ruger GSR for a more modern twist?

    Scout.gif

    Strong bolt action, magazine fed, ability to use scopes, iron sights, red dot, ect.
    Short, fairly light weight, handy for sure. Mine is accurate enough and fun to shoot.
     
  8. Mencius

    Mencius Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2010
    Messages:
    150
    Location:
    South Carolina
    Yeah, this is the idea. Man, you guys are coming up with some great ideas. Makes me think I need 4 or 5 of these, just in case ya see...

    I do like the Ruger Scout too, they are just too expensive. I think I could get one of the others and half a case of ammo for the same price.

    One more quick question about 308 win and modern 30-06 in these rifles. I know (think?) the FR8 was made with a stronger action, will it handle the modern loads? How about the 2A1? Enfields? Hmm...
     
  9. Unka-Boo

    Unka-Boo Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2012
    Messages:
    43
    Location:
    Milwaukie, OR
    The 2A1 was designed ground up as a 7.62x51 gun using "modern" steel....that said, we all know the debate over 7.62 vs .308 interchangeability....

    If in doubt, Remington's "reduced recoil" .308 load I beleive maches 7.62 specs.

    I don't think you'd go wrong with either, just a matter of preference.
     
  10. 303tom

    303tom member

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2011
    Messages:
    4,059
    Location:
    Missouri
    I shoot .308 in mine all the time...............
     
  11. BBDartCA

    BBDartCA Member

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2011
    Messages:
    535
    If the OP has a desire to hunt with a real battle rifle and the budget is not huge, I'd look for an Israeli Mauser in 308 / 7.62 NATO (preferably one that came over straight from Israel via Armspcorp, not the ones that came out of South America). They used to go for a couple hundred bucks. Very accurate, stone ax reliable and the ammo is cheap to come by. A 1903A3 Springfield (peep sights) is a good choice but pricing is long beyond cheap nowadays. Enfields are still cheap but decent hunting ammo is not easy to come by when you ... Cabellas carries the PPU 145g soft points usually. Enfields can be a crap shoot as they seem to have a lot of variation in barrel diameter.

    If the OP wants something that's just reliable with iron sights, there are many, many excellent low cost options out there.
     
  12. rcmodel

    rcmodel Member in memoriam

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2007
    Messages:
    59,082
    Location:
    Eastern KS
    It also allowed the FR-8 to mount the same bayonet used on the CEMTE assult rifle they also used at the same time.

    images?q=tbn:ANd9GcThR4lGT6hw2jUGPDE9JD-dwDgV4bKuZdI1McegNeb_gxiQ1twTlw.jpg

    rc
     
  13. Ash

    Ash Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    5,358
    Location:
    Anywhere but here
    The 1917 Enfield in 30-06 was carried by more US troops than the 1903. It almost became the standard rifle, replacing the 1903 following the war. They run between $300 and $450 for a decent version, less for sporters, more for pristine collectors rifles. They have excellent sights and have among the tougher actions available.
     
  14. FMF Doc

    FMF Doc Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2011
    Messages:
    582
    Location:
    NC
    I am with the Enfield crowd. The SMLE was, in my opinion, the best bolt-action battle rifle ever made, and the 303 is pretty much the same as a 308 ballistically. If you can find one, get the reloading supplies and you'll be set!
     
  15. RSR

    RSR Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2012
    Messages:
    16
    +1 1917 Enfield

    I've hit 2L bottles at 200-250 yards with our Enfield. Great sights compared to some battle rifles, but it is one bulky S.O.B.:cuss: It has the 06 barrel, and the .303 remains in the dungeon of the basement. I'm assuming the .303 is just as heavy. But...oh yeah, reliability was first on the list. No issues there. If the round doesn't fit, force 'er in and crank that bolt down. Always goes bang!
     
  16. JDBoardman

    JDBoardman Member

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    88
    Location:
    Dallas-Ft Worth Metroplex
    There are several drawbacks to the 1917 - unlike the Mauser and Springfield actions, the 1917 is a "cock on closing" which is not as smooth an action. It also has a slower lock time than the others, and the trigger pull is horrible. To counter the negatives, it is hell for stout, amazingly accurate, and the dogleg magazine holds 6 rounds - one more than the others. Between the wars, Remington marketed the 1917 action, minus the sight ears, as the Model 37. But it IS butt ugly.
     
  17. Ash

    Ash Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    5,358
    Location:
    Anywhere but here
    Cock on closing has advantages, too. Primary extraction is easier on such an action, for instance. The SMLE uses it, as does the vaunted Swedish Mauser. In fact, many of Mauser's designs were cock-on-closing. Sure, the 98 was cock-on-open and that was his final design, but the debate as to which is a better system has never been settled on this forum in the decade I have been here.
     
  18. Pilot

    Pilot Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2002
    Messages:
    6,650
    Location:
    USA
    The Enfield SMLE is a great choice as is a Yugo M48 Mauser.
     
  19. vba

    vba Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2008
    Messages:
    211
    This thread reminds me of why I bought my 1903A3 Smith Corona. I wanted a tough bolt action battle rifle with peep sights. My SC has an extremely accurate Remington 2 groove barrel. With my old eyes I've shot 1.5 inch groups at 100 yards.

    A rifle without iron sights is useless to me.
     
  20. Elkins45

    Elkins45 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2009
    Messages:
    3,534
    Location:
    Northern KY
    You don't have to go milsurp to get a true Mauser action. I bought a NIB Zastava Z98 for $311 out the door a couple of years ago. It's a commercial 98 Mauser action in a synthetic stock. It is everything the military guns are except this one doesn't have irons.

    Search the used market for Zastava, Charles Daly, Remington 798 or Interarms Mark X guns. All are the same rifle, just produced at different times and imported under different names, and all are true controlled feed Mauser actions.
     
  21. Mencius

    Mencius Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2010
    Messages:
    150
    Location:
    South Carolina
    I have been making a list of all of the suggestions here that look like they would fit the bill for further research and this is really a good list. I really appreciate all of the suggestions. I have to admit, I don't think any of the rifles suggested wouldn't work.

    Thanks again for all of the replies. Looks like I am going to be canvassing the gun shows now...
     
  22. mljdeckard

    mljdeckard Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2006
    Messages:
    12,738
    Location:
    In a part of Utah that resembles Tattooine.
    Something to consider, david e mentioned in post #15.

    I have no problem with wanting and shooting milsurps. But they haven't been made for a long time. There have been a lot of modernizations done to bolt rifles since WWII. I don't think it can universally be said that they are better, more accurate, more reliable, or more durable than modern commercial bolt rifles. If you don't want the conveniences and upgrades you get with an autoloader, than I really don't see a lot of advantage of getting a milsurp.
     
  23. Mencius

    Mencius Member

    Joined:
    Sep 9, 2010
    Messages:
    150
    Location:
    South Carolina
    Some of my thoughts on the milsurp route. Just my thoughts and may not be completely true. I understand there are always exceptions to just about every rule.

    1) More bang for the buck, so to speak. I think for the same dollars you get more rifle with a milsurp than a factory new rifle.

    2) Most modern rifles have to have iron sights added at another cost. Probably not so expensive, but it is another cost.

    3) I just think the old milsurps are cool. (Ok, I am not completely rational with this...)

    4) I do like synthetic and laminate stocks for this rifle which is making it a little hard to go 100% the milsurp route.

    I am definitely considering the American Rifle and the Ruger Gunsite Scout (even thought it is approaching twice what I want to spend on this) and some of the used bolt action hunting rifles out there now.

    In my mind, just from observing and this could be out in left-field somewhere, but I just get a sense that things made these days are not made to last like they were at one time. I understand technology has made things easier to produce better, but I get a sense this technology is mainly being made to make things cheaper and faster, not always better. Of course there are many exceptions to this rule. And, I am not entirely convinced if guns are or not, but this is my gut feeling on it.
     
  24. mljdeckard

    mljdeckard Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2006
    Messages:
    12,738
    Location:
    In a part of Utah that resembles Tattooine.
    There is nothing wrong with getting them just because you WANT them. It's just that your wants are pretty specific, and it makes it a pretty narrow search.
     
  25. Ash

    Ash Member

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    Messages:
    5,358
    Location:
    Anywhere but here
    The majority of "modernizations" to bolt action rifles have been in making them cheaper. A round receiver is more modern, cheaper to make, but not better. The only place modern bolt actions are superior are in planned scope mountings and accuracy. Modern bolt guns will be more accurate as a rule. That is not to say older ones are inaccurate. Indeed, many older bolt guns are more accurate than the shooter, and thus any advantage provided by superior modern barrels is not realized.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page