Could a Bolt Action Really be combat weapon compared with any semi-auto?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I stand corrected. The Russians were using Berdan single shot rifles.


Which explains a lot. I guess it helps to read the article :eek:

I just passed off the Mosin as some archaic collectable thing, but much to my surprise it was and it's still, highly regarded in serious insurrectionary movements in modern times.

Is it just because of cost. availibility, and toughness? I figure I'd just as soon have a Remington semi auto. Plus I can actually have one if I moved back to the city.
 
Reid,
I was talking about the lever-action guns mentioned earlier in the discussion. My argument is that a stripper-clip fed bolt action gun is faster to reload and easier to keep in action than a tubular magazine lever-action rifle.

Yeah. Funny thing is, there's no military, paramilitary/security organization or law enforcement agency in the world that would choose to issue bolt actions to defend against close attackers in 2009.
Cooper wasn't advocating a return to bolt-actions for military purposes; he was hinting that for most survival situations that one may find themselves in, a bolt gun will do the trick.
 
The professional soldiers of the BEF were capable of hitting a target at 300 yards with a minimum of 15 rounds per minute: i.e., one aimed shot every four seconds.

Those were, to the best of my knowledge, stationary targets with unlimited exposure times shot at across nicely manicured grass lawns. The same shot with any modern assault rifle, including the much maligned AK, isn't exactly rocket science for a competently trained shooter.

It's worth noting that the same guys who pulled off that trick on the KD range, then went onto the battlefield and made their contribution to the findings that infantrymen in combat with individual weapons generally couldn't hit much of anything past 300 meters and almost all successful engagements occurred inside 100 meters.

Anyone who doubts the bolt-action rifle as an effective combat weapon should ponder how the Commonwealth managed to use the No. 4 so successfully in WWII, Korea, the Malayan Emergency and the Mau Mau Uprising.

They didn't. They used the full range of weaponry available to the infantry unit and/or combined arms team and relied on crew served machine guns and artillery to do most of the killing.

Indeed, it currently remains the service arm of the Canadian Rangers and the Indian police [as the Ishapore 2A/2A1].

Neither organization is noted for their combat efficiency or high priority for equipment.

Locally-made copies have a very good track record in Afghanistan, despite the availability of automatic rifles like the AKM and AK-74.

SMLE isn't remotely the weapon of choice for professional Afghan fighters, and hasn't been since about the second day of the Soviet invasion. Most anyone who could lay hands on an AK ditched the SMLE the moment they had the chance.
 
lets see...

1000 bad guys with (fullauto/semiauto) against 50 well trained US Army/Marines snipers with M24/M40 in a 3 miles area... i favor the snipers. the bolt actionis not a weapon to clear rooms or CQB, but is a deadly weapon system used in the right hands with the right distance...

I beg to differ...

Let's see...

Does "Mogadishu @ 1993" ring a bell? We sent 150 (+/- a few) US Army Rangers and Delta troops into a hotbed to arrest a handful of bad guys. They were armed with standard US infantry and Delta weapons, i.e. M16s, M9s, and whatever the Delta boys play with. Note, these were all semi-auto/select fire weapons. ***Two days later*** 18 US soldiers were killed, 73 were wounded. Granted, the ratio was different than was stated above - 160 US soldiers vs. unknown thousands of hopped-up Somalis - but my point is that if these 160 very well trained men were armed with bolt actions, I submit the results would have been even worse than they were.

Bolt guns are great if the enemy is at distance and something is needed to "Reach out and touch someone" but against more than a handful of men, and particularly at <100 yards, a bolt action's weakness begins to overcome its strength of sub-MOA accuracy.

Think what COULD have happened if L.H. Oswald were armed with an M-1 instead of an old Carcanno [sic]?

Q
 
PB Walsh

That is Winchester Model 95. A classic. The 30-40 Krag version was issued (or maybe privatly purchased) to the officers in Teddy Roosevelt's Rough Riders in the Spanish American war. That one looks like one of those but the poster says it is 30-06. Either way, that 95 is just beautiful.
 
One has to wonder whether the "brass" were utterly devoid of basic common sense, or if they actually had a mandate to "thin the herd" because there was high unemployment among young men or something.

There were several problems:

First, the British (from whom most of our WWI lore comes) had a small but highly-trained professional Army at the outbreak of the war. They had to build a mass army "under fire" (John Keegan's words.) The pre-war professionals had a low opinion of the new troops' ability to do anything complex, so the simplest tactics were adopted -- march in line abreast into the enemy trenches.

Second, an Army is like a battleship, difficult to turn around. Despite any attempts at the top to develop new methods, the old methods persisted in the trenches for a long time.

Third, ranking officers did not visit the trenches and see for themselves. Sir John French, the first commander of the BEF only went into the trenches to say good bye when he was relieved. He burst into tears, saying, "My God! Did we send men to fight under these conditions?" His successor, Douglas Haig, wouldn't even visit the wounded for fear it would make him "soft."

Fourth, the great fear among the Allies was that Russia would collapse (as actually happened in 1917.) To keep Russia in the war, the western Allies had to continually attack to take some pressure off the Russians. The Germans for their part mostly stayed on the defensive in the west and slaughtered the attacking British and French -- hundreds of thousands of lives were sacrificed for this political aim.

Fifth, there was no good battlefield communication system. Troops would advance laying telephone wire behind them, but the wires would be quickly cut by enemy artillery fire. A radio tranciever in those days would have filled a wagon. Without communications, more sophisticated tactics were much more difficult to execute.

Sixth, back to the battleship analogy -- at the beganning of the war the British placed huge orders for equipment, weapons and munitions, based on their understanding of the need. In prevous wars, they had found highly-mobile field artillery firing shrapnel to be most effective -- so they ordered light guns and lots of shrapnel. What they needed was heavy guns and High Explosive (HE) ammunition. One result of this early mistake was that the lengthy bombardment preceding the Battle of the Somme in 1916 was almost totally ineffective.
 
Third, ranking officers did not visit the trenches and see for themselves. Sir John French, the first commander of the BEF only went into the trenches to say good bye when he was relieved. He burst into tears, saying, "My God! Did we send men to fight under these conditions?" His successor, Douglas Haig, wouldn't even visit the wounded for fear it would make him "soft."

****, did they sing Gilbert and Sullivan songs, too? These guys sound like the characters from their satires, not real generals!

Thanks, Vern! That was really informative.
 
1000 bad guys with (fullauto/semiauto) against 50 well trained US Army/Marines snipers with M24/M40 in a 3 miles area...
God forbid the 1,000 bad guys lay down a base of fire and then advance under it in buddy rushes. Snipers would die.
 
Vern-

Yup!

And you might add Seventh, Armies tend to prepare to fight the last war they fought in. The last major European wars had been the Napoleonic wars. Bright uniforms, cavalry charges, massed charges in parade ground formation, etc. Outmoded tactics clung to by autocratic leadership. Lions led by donkeys. The army was viewed as an almost insignificant extension of the navy, and battles were settled with bayonets and swords. The idea that firepower would determine battles instead of the bravery and gallantry of the individual soldier was "stuff and nonsense". And unfortunately, a learning curve that should have been steep was not.
 
And who said anything about well trained? I think the question is just the weapon itself. What makes a Mosin any more of a combat rifle than a Remington semi auto? I realize a Mosin has stripper clips but a Remington is semi auto. I mean if you miss you still get another few chances with the Remignton w/o having to take aim all over. And I would think an SKS pinned to 5 would be better than both.
 
A Remington 7615 pump-action in .223 can be set up like an AR-15, and are even legal in England. A high-powered bolt-action isn't the only rifle alternative to a medium-powered semiauto.
 
****, did they sing Gilbert and Sullivan songs, too? These guys sound like the characters from their satires, not real generals!
A friend sent me an excellent little book entitled Over the Top by Arthur Empey. Empey was a sergeant in the New York National Guard who went to England in 1915, joined the British Army and fought on the western front.

I'm a professional soldier, and what Empey wrote makes the hair stand up on the back of my neck.

The British staged bayonet charges with unloaded rifles. The fear was if they got to shooting in a melee, "might shoot one of our own chaps, eh?"

Empey voluteered to attend a "bomber" course -- where he learned to make home-made handgrenades. British troops were using jam tins filled with clay, nuts and bolts and explosives instead of factory made grenades.

Empey was wounded, losing an arm the day before the Battle of the Somme began. He was part of a patrol sent out to take a prisoner. They had no firearms! They were "armed" with clubs, knives, and loops of barbed wire to secure prisoners. The Germans, laboring under no such disadvantage, blew Empey's arm off.

How could officers allow stuff like this to happen?
 
Ever seen the Tiger section of Monty Python's The Meaning of Life?

Reminds me of that, too.
 
They had no firearms! They were "armed" with clubs, knives, and loops of barbed wire to secure prisoners. The Germans, laboring under no such disadvantage, blew Empey's arm off

This is the 2nd time I've heard of such a thing: an army showing up on a battlefield w/o a firearm. And both were from a discussion on this board concerning combat rifles. The other time was the Chinese in the Korean war. I guess any type of rifle is better than either of those deplorable situations (guess it depends on which side you're on). Thank heaven for the 2nd amendment boy . . .
 
I was thinking only of US Springfields, which AFAIK were loaded singly with the magazine locked out for offensive use, and the rounds in it held in reserve for defensive use.
A magazine cut-off was originally a feature of the SMLE, but IIRC was deleted in the Mk III* version (introduced in 1915). It's one of those ideas that seemed to make sense to brass hats and boffins, but had no practical application in the real world.

My argument is that a stripper-clip fed bolt action gun is faster to reload and easier to keep in action than a tubular magazine lever-action rifle.
I agree John.

They didn't. They used the full range of weaponry available to the infantry unit and/or combined arms team and relied on crew served machine guns and artillery to do most of the killing.
That's true of WWII and Korea, but the same comments also apply to other armies equipped with semi-automatic or automatic individual weapons.

He was part of a patrol sent out to take a prisoner. They had no firearms! They were "armed" with clubs, knives, and loops of barbed wire to secure prisoners.... How could officers allow stuff like this to happen?
Well, 'muddling through' is the British way. And given the covert nature of their mission, perhaps their lack of firearms isn't really surprising. Bringing along heavy and relatively cumbersome rifles would have served no real purpose ... if detected, they would not have been in a position to take on the entire German front line, and their only option would have been to melt away into the darkness of no-man's land (assuming no flares!).
 
By the way the Spartans were the highpoint of weapon and military technology, they were far better equipped than the invading Persians.

You beat me to it. The Greeks were not over matched in weapons or armor. Numbers? Yes, but not standard equipment. The Persian Hoplite soldier had a very lightly constructed shield and almost no body armor. A fact that became very significant when they hit the front wall of the Spartan line of defense. While the heavy Spartan shields and armor could stop their weapons the Persian shields and armor were easily penetrated by Spartan spears. This fact allowed the Greeks to inflict awful casualties on the Persians and hold out as long as they did.

Ask all the infantry on infantry calualties from the US during WWII in the European theater. Us...Garands, Them.... Mausers. they managed to get plenty of us dead with 98Ks


Ask a German solider which he would have rather had a K98 or a Garand. There's a reason the Germans developed the Sturmgewehr 44 during WW2. And the reason isn't because the Garand was getting it's @$$ kicked in head to head conflicts with the K98.

God forbid the 1,000 bad guys lay down a base of fire and then advance under it in buddy rushes. Snipers would die.
Well aimed bolt action rifle fire is fine in certain circumstances but with a 1000 men all pouring lead on your position at semi-auto rates of fire how could you even lift your head from cover to fire back? You couldn't. And while you were pinned down groups of those 1000 are going be free to maneuver themselves into position to kill you. And they will.
 
I've heard that, too (see #66) about the Chinese in Korea, @ 1953. Their advantage: sheer numbers. They literally overran US/UN troops by sheer numbers. David Hackworth's book ABOUT FACE describes in chilling words how the US lines were "steamrolled" by thousands of Chinese. Why waste guns when numbers and the dreaded sharpened stick works just fine against raw troops with minimal ammo?

I also read that in WWII, Russians would literally send raw draftees out into the streets of Moscow, only arming every other soldier, telling them that they have a less than 50% survivability rating, so grab the dropped rifle of the dead man in front of you. Talk about de-motivators...

Q
 
Dude, that's weird looking (post 21, box-fed lever in 30-06).
"Weird looking?" You really think so? 1895 is a classic!

If you think its appearance is odd, check it out when the action is open (as has been said, it's like two freight trains being coupled together)!
Winchester-1895-2.jpg
 
Well, I'm a newer generation gun lover (15 years old), so I only like SOME classics (M1, and 1903), and rarely do I acually like wood, it's got to be PRETTY for me to like it.
 
Well give it time. Your tastes will mature, and eventually you will leave the plastic rifles and Pepsi behind ... and enjoy magnificient Mausers and single malts. ;)
 
Well, 'muddling through' is the British way. And given the covert nature of their mission, perhaps their lack of firearms isn't really surprising. Bringing along heavy and relatively cumbersome rifles would have served no real purpose ...

The lack of arms was the key reason they failed. They were shot to hell at close range.

Note that the United States Army never sends out unarmed patrols in combat.
 
The bolt action guys at the nra matches seem to do just fine even in the rapid fire events. practice and knowing ones weapon will go a long ways. When I joined the marines I had never shot anything but bolt actions and for the first few days on the range I would have traded my M-16 for my ruger M77 30-06 in a heart beat. Now sevral thousand rounds later and I concide that the M16 is a better COMMBAT rifle. I wouldn't look down on a guy who brings a bolt gun to the fight could be he know his rifle and won't miss whin the time comes.
 
I want you to consider the competency of a man like Jeff Cooper. He advocated the scout rifle, and deemed it a pretty good tool for "all seasons" (i.e. uses). Do you think he would have been deadly with a bolt action? Given the possible desparate situations that any one of us might find ourselves in, I think a highly proficient shooter with a cool head and a bolt action rifle, like a scout rifle, would do as well as any semi auto. I have a .30-06 "pseudo-scout" (doesn't quite make the perfect weight) that would be my first choice as a fighting rifle. I can snap a shot at 250 yards, or use both eyes open at 50-75 yards. It loads quickly, because the scope is out of the way of the magazine, and it handles and points better than any semi auto I have handled, thus is "faster" on the target. Translate that to you get the bad guy before he gets you, all else being equal. In any gunfight in the hostile streets of Iraq, or the foothills of Afghanistan, it is doubtful that any one soldier is getting one kill for every one or two shots. If they even tried to shoot that way, they'd be much more deadly. If all you have available without reloading is four (my Rem 700 holds four under the bolt), keep your head, shoot only when an effective hit can be placed, and reload (while moving or under cover) two every time two are fired, the gun will never be empty. Everyone can count to two, so it's not like you have to guess when it's time to reload. Sgt. York was a good expample of genuine marksmanship and a cool head (by the way, he allegedly used a 1917 Enfield, and of course, a 1911). Those qualities don't come to everyone, but then few of our police AND fighting men can actually shoot. And they are quite often in the thick everyday. I'll take the bolt action as described. The performance is then up to me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top