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

Status
Not open for further replies.
I am genuinely surprised that no one had mentioned the SMLE. The Lee- Enfield is the fastest bolt action rifle that I know of... is it possible to to get more rapid fire out of a semi? Yeah, but as far as aimed fire: I remember reading something about the SMLE being able to fire a round a second aimed.
 
I might move back but I just can't come to grips with the idea of compromising my freedom. But the idea of living near cute tattooed art chicks might be getting the better of me .

You should consider moving to a more free place rather than trying to figure out how to tolerate one as bad as NYC.

+1. Now I'm not advocating moving south. (We don't need any more Yankees down here.:D) But I know that the "Little Five Points" area of Atlanta could probably put most of NYC to shame when it comes to tattoed women (and men), and anything else you could dream up. I've seen people with enough tattoes, that if you couldn't see their face, you'd never know what their skin color was. One of them was sporting a green mohawk of about 1 foot tall, and he was black.

I'm sure that most larger cities have a section very similar. You don't have to stay in NYC area if you don't want to. Sounds to me like you want to move back there, and just want someone to reaffirm it for you. I for one, won't. I wouldn't live there if I had to. I'll give my tax money to a state/county that trusts me, not one that want control over me.

Wyman
 
go to youtube; considered one of the top 10 combat weapons of all time. the 303 enfields of britain. Way ahead of it's time, with a supersmooth action, I have had one and they are, combined with a actual 10 round mag, plus one in the chamber, this weapon was used regularly, even into the Vietnam war.
Many of the opponents of this weapon, thought many times, going against a british platoon, seemed like going into a position filled with automatics.
 
By the way the Spartans were the highpoint of weapon and military technology, they were far better equipped than the invading Persians.
A combination of bronze, and iron weapons, professional training, knowing their own backyard, and the motivation to defend their country from an army that just rolled through the open plains of Asia unstoppable was how they did it. The Spartans (any Greeks soldiers really) had the best options for weapons and armor in the world at that time. The Greeks had a large multi layer bronze shield, that when used correctly in formation protected them from their helmet to their ankle, as well part of the soldier to their immediate right. They had lightweight, well balanced 8ft long spears with razor sharp iron points, they had a chest plate of bronze armor that protected them from any sword, spear, arrow, etc that would hit them in the entire torso. They had multilayer bronze helmets that protected almost the entire head and neck, they had armor that protected the ankle and lower leg (dont go by the movie 300 for the truth). The Greeks had well designed javelins (carried many of them) to throw, and were experts at this. The Greeks had razor sharp short swaords, and their training focused purely on using a simple effective, and organized style of fighting as a single force, not one Greek would step from his postion, this was why the Greek Phalanx was impossible to stop for so many hundred years, this is why the Greek Phalanx was so effective to conquer all of Asia to almost China. The Greeks had a hand to hand combat system called Pancration, this, and thanks to Alexander the Great was the predecessor to all martial arts in the far east, or the style that revolutionized all other martial arts.
The Persians had wicker shields, cloth, wood, leather, and wicker armor and clothing. The Persians were used to fighting in cavalry charges in open fields.
They had a mix and match of short swords, dagger, short spears, arrows and bows, etc.
On 2 major battles before and after the battle of Themopolyae the Greeks were outnumbered by 3 to 1, or 10 to 1, both times the Greeks won because of superior training, superior equipment, and superior tactics. The Persians used their money to influence the Greeks as an army for hire during these times, the Persians knew they could not defeat the Greek army no matter what, but money and power have advantages.
A bolt action used a a sniper rifle in the right hands can be a very deadly weapon, in fact it can and has proven to be a better choice for a sniper than the Russian semiauto dragunov. A sniper is vulnerable, and needs lots of support, so a bolt action has its place if used correctly.
 
w houle beat me to it.

Some reports from German soldiers in WW1 were about their impressions that British soldiers with Lee-Enfields had automatic weapons.

And LEs hold ten rounds, in contrast to LEs which hold only five.
 
The Persians had Tanks, APCs, and other Light Armored Vehicles (AKA Elephants, Chariots, and Calvary). According to the accounts the Greeks had none of these. :)
 
Any centrefire rifle (of any calibre) is an awesome weapon - especially if you and your friends have them and your opponents don't. The first shot is the one that counts anyway. As far as combat goes - strategy and tactics are more important.

In a jurisdiction where autos or semi-autos are illegal, there are still some really good options in rifles worth considering.
 
The wandering zero of the number 5 came about as an excuse to get the SLR lots of no5s about with no mysterious wandering zero:scrutiny:
20 aimed shots a minute is easily achievable with an enfield the weight of aimed fire you can put down with one compared to a Mauser becomes embarrassing the longer it goes on.
don't play that game with a mosin its wrong to pick on the disabled:(

when you have to make shots count you take aim. automatic fire feels good but rarely achieves lots of hits at long range
 
I've been re-reading Cooopers commentaries recently, and anyone familiar knows that he feels the bolt action is all you need.

For Cooper, at least what I derive is, aimed fire by a truly skilled marksman = hits.

And hits are better than thousands of vaguely aimed shots which really amount to area fire.

It seems its certainly easier to train riflemen to aim in the right direction and by volume get your kills vs. single aimed shots.

At least that's what I derive from it.
 
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.
 
as well part of the soldier to their immediate right.
Actually, it protected the soldier to their left. Spear was in the right hand.
this was why the Greek Phalanx was impossible to stop for so many hundred years,
The Phalanx was vulnerable when unsupported by other types in troops in certain terrains. Alexander hired many 'Scythian/Persian' horse-archers as his army moved across the steps of Iran to fend off other tribal horse-archers! Unsupported infantry in the open against mounted archer has no recourse. But why exactly are we talking about this?
 
Well, let's see. IIRC the speed record with a bolt was set in 1914 with an SMLE at 35 rounds in 60 seconds using stripper clips aimed fire at 200 yards. It hasn't been broken to my knowledge. There was one battle in WW1 where the Germans came under fire from the British with their SMLE's and thought they were under automatic weapons fire. So it depends a lot on the quality of the training and the type of tactics.
 
A small group of soldiers with bolt guns have attacked a much larger group of soldiers firing machine guns, and won. Heard of Alvin York?

"He was awarded the Medal of Honor for leading an attack on a German machine gun nest, taking 32 machine guns, killing 28 German soldiers and capturing 132 others."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alvin_York

OTOH York was the most decorated soldier of WW I, so this wasn't something that happened every day.:D
 
The speed record set with the SMLE is poorly documented. There is apparently the possibility the sgt. was using a 20 round magazine. Also, I've never seen any reference to the size of the target involved or what was considered a good hit.
As for SMLE fire being taken for machinegun fire, that was early in the WWI. The guys doing the shooting were highly trained professional British soldiers. What about the guys on the receiving end? Were they equivalent pros from the German army or were they inexperienced reservists and conscripts? Kind of moot because the pros died like flies and that war was fought by quickly trained European and British concripts who shot at a lower level of proficiency.
The SMLE is a fast bolt action but don't let your admiration for it lead you to have overblown ideas of its capabilities. Especially if what you know about it comes in any measure from playing WWII games on your computer.
 
Any legal caliber bolt-action deer rifle that is scoped makes a very formidable long-range weapon. The scope allows you to acquire targets quicker and more accurately generally speaking. Most of these rifles are fairly flat-shooting and have outstanding penetration and knock-down power. While they are not able to fire as many rounds as quickly as semi-autos, what they do shoot tends to be much more effective, generally speaking. As mentioned previously, armies today still use them as sniper weapons.

From experience in carrying long rifles thru brush, I prefer one with about a 20-22" barrell. Something with a long 29" barrell like a Mosin is rather clumsy to wield.

For close-in shooting, a standard 12 gage shotgun is relatively inexpensive and very effective.
 
Last edited:
I've been re-reading Cooopers commentaries recently, and anyone familiar knows that he feels the bolt action is all you need.

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.

So, as much as Cooper is revered, that feeling seems to be his alone.

Yes, Elmer Keith and some associates said something similar after trying out the then-new Garand at Camp Perry, but that was for two reasons:

The enemy was still using bolt guns, and tactics for regular infantry were oriented towards more long-range fighting than CQB.

The early Garands Keith tried couldn't hit squat after a few rounds due to severe barrel warping, so there seemed to be little advantage to being able to shoot more rounds into the dirt.

Cooper is alone in this opinion in the world of modern warfare.
 
Joe,

I don't have any great admiration for the SMLE. Actually not my favorite in my collection. The point was: You can shoot a bolt rifle fast. And if you have a lot of well trained people you can put a lot of lead downrange fast. So can semi's and full auto. And as Lenin said: "Quantity is it's own quality."

Like I said: "So it depends a lot on the quality of training and tactics."

And a good chunk of those deaths on both sides came from crappy tactics like massed assaults against automatic weapons over open fields, artillery fire, and influenza. And BTW, I don't play ANY computer games, don't do paintball, or airsoft. I just happen to like to hit little things a long way away. I collect WW1 rifles and study WW1 history. Just happen to like bolt rifles and their development. And I have no interest in getting in a war to find out which is better. I happen to like small ring Mausers, and no country armed with Mausers has ever won a war. And I don't care.
 
crappy tactics like massed assaults against automatic weapons over open fields

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.

no country armed with Mausers has ever won a war.

If not, then why did the US Army pay $200,000 to Mauser in 1904?:)
 
Or because of its painfully slow reload time, unless you shoot one, load one and keep the magazine in reserve.
That's what they did with bolt guns in WW I, so any potential advantage there was moot.
[strike]Absolute nonsense[/strike]. Have to disagree with you there. The Lee-Enfield and Mauser 98 both used stripper clips and were not typically loaded one at a time.

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. As is well known, the German post-action reports from the Battle of Mons claimed that all British troops were armed with machine guns! See generally "Mad Minute" for more information; or watch this video.

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. Indeed, it currently remains the service arm of the Canadian Rangers and the Indian police [as the Ishapore 2A/2A1]. Locally-made copies have a very good track record in Afghanistan, despite the availability of automatic rifles like the AKM and AK-74.
 
Armed Bear, you got me on that one. Good eye.

Although "technically" we didn't use the Mauser, we used the Springfield:). Mauser was an ugly German word. The fact that we had to buy the patent rights from Mauser to make the Springfield seems to escape many. But then we were also making Mosin-Nagants as well (didn't use them ourselves) and Enfields.
 
Reid-

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.

It's true. Not only the US considered using box-mag Winchesters as combat firearms, so US tactics aren't the only ones to consider.
 
I am sure it was covered above...some great picks of Winchesters in this thread.

The Turks beat the Russians with repeaters (Winchesters) vs Single Shot breach loaders...not semis vs the 5-shot Moisin. While not as fast as a levergun, in the same battle, Russians armed with Moisins would have fared rather better I suspect.

It was the battle of which the OP speaks that actually demonstrated to the military world the value of the repeater. Of couse, half a century later, the M1 Garand did the same thing for the semi.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top