Do Bolt Action Rifles still have a place in today's military?

[CmdrSlander]

Well do they? The M40A3/A5 and the M24 are the only one's currently in service but they are adopting the XM2010 soon from what I hear. However, the SR25/M110 are seeing fast adoption. So will bolt guns be in the military's arsenal in 10 years? 20 years? 50 years? OR should we do away with them now?

 

[NG VI]

I think the best place for them is placed on roofs or other fixed positions that need defending, like outposts, chambered in very heavy cartridges, or at least ones that have superb long-range performance and flight characteristics, where they will not be alone, and their primary use is as early warning for the rest of the troops at the base, and causing as many casualties as possible before enemy fighters get close enough to be able to fire their weapons to effect against our troops.


There's a lot of open country in Afghanistan, it would be good to have a couple of dedicated rifles scanning the horizon, that are capable of reaching out to interact with any belligerent that makes the mistake of showing up in the glass, before they can land shots on the base.

 

[Six-Gun]

Until someone finds a way to make a semi-auto as cheap and consistently accurate as a bolt gun, the answer is yes.

 

[NG VI]

I think the government is paying between ten and twenty thousand dollars per rifle and accessory set for the M40 whatever bolt actions they use, while accurate bolt actions are economically easier to find than autoloaders for the individual, private shooter, for the government it's really pretty irrelevant and I doubt there's any real difference for them in cost between their bolt guns and their M110 rifles.

 

[Six-Gun]

Oh, trust me. Cost matters. I'm active duty Air Force and presently work for Air Force Material Command in an acquisitions billet. Cost matters with everything. That's the whole reason they have a bidding process. It's also often why stuff gets sent back to the drawing board: "make it work just as well, but for 15% less so that we can get the quantitty we originally requested within our buget costraints." Unfortunately, it's the acquisition process that often make the cost of these gun/jets/pencils/toilets so ridiculously expensive. If I showed you a flow chart of the acquisition process, it would make you cry. All of that testing and paperwork gets factored into the price. While $20K sounds like a lot of money to you and me, there were almost certainly several other bidders who were either asking more for a similar feature set, or not matching the feature set that the new rig has has for only slightly less.

EDIT: Yep. Here's a bit from Globalsecurity.org on how the bids worked for the XM2010.

The M24 Sniper Weapon System Upgrade was procured under a Nondevelopmental Item acquisition approach...Interested offerors were required to submit 4 bid samples as part of their proposal submission. These bid samples would be provided at no cost to the Government and would be utilized for competitive evaluation testing. [Right there, they're telling us that the bidding manufacturers had to eat the initial cost of research and delevopment, which was surely passed on to the customer - the Army in this case.] Bid samples would be returned to all unsuccessful offerors, in an "as tested" condition, following contract award. Any potential contractor was also required to provide relative background information on their capabilities to provide contractor logistics support for depot level maintenance of the entire upgraded weapon system.

The Army's Program Executive Office Soldier (PEO Soldier) awarded Remington Arms Company a contract on 20 September 2010 for what was then referred to as the "M24 Reconfigured Sniper Weapon System." The award was to result in the near-term fielding of 250 weapon systems, which were chambered for .300 Winchester Magnum cartridges. The new chambering significantly extends the weapon's maximum effective range. The Army expected to begin fielding the upgraded weapons to deployed US Army Snipers by the end of December 2010.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/m2010.htm

 

[jmorris]

When they no longer have a place they will stop spending our money on them.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Until some finds a way to make a semi-auto as cheap and consistently accurate as a bolt gun, the answer is yes.

The best semi-autos tend not to be better than the best bolt guns, but they are better than a lot of bolt guns, even some previously used for precision shooting (sniping) by various militaries. Several militaries field semi-auto sniper rifles as the rifles do meet the stated accuracy requirements.

I don't believe that the M110 faced the same accuracy requirement of the M24 during testing, but apparently in field use, both tend to fall into the 0.5-1.0" range with the M110 having a faster rate of fire and larger magazine.

So necessary accuracy apparently isn't the issue, but cost is a real consideration as you noted and not just for the US, but many countries.

Of course, reliability is also a relevant issue. With fewer parts and a much simpler action, bolt guns will be more functionally reliable than the semis in more environments.

 

[FMF Doc]

Until we have laste rifles, yes there is a place for them. No matter how accurate the best semi is, there will probably always be a better bolt. Aditionally, it is much easier to tweak bolt guns that semi autos. In some cases, there are things that can really only be done with bolts because of the nature of the gas system in a semi. In the end you are trying to equate apples and oranges. Semis are great for laying down lots of rounds, either at several targets, or walking it on to the one you want. Bolts are great for a sinlge cold bore shot. The M40A5 I used in Afg. had a crisp smooth 3lb trigger. I would not want that on any semi. Different tools for different jobs. But yes, the bolt will be staying around for a while.

 

[Mac's Precision]

Yes, without a doubt they will always be around. The M40 is very much needed in some operations. I know I'll not be giving mine up anytime soon.

 

[303tom]

Yes, without a doubt they will always be around. The M40 is very much needed in some operations. I know I'll not be giving mine up anytime soon.

Yeh Buddy.....................

 

[CSestp]

@Six-Gun Cost matters nothing. I'm a mechanic in the USMC and you should see the prices of some of the worthless <deleted> that gets put on vics. $763 for a SINGLE nut for a MPU to go into on a generator.... $763 !!!

 

[Six-Gun]

@Six-Gun Cost matters nothing. I'm a mechanic in the USMC and you should see the prices of some of the worthless <deleted> that gets put on vics. $763 for a SINGLE nut for a MPU to go into on a generator.... $763 !!!

Right - but that's $763 vs. the cost of doing business. They will pay what they must to have what they must, but they ALWAYS bid it out against someone else to see if they can get it cheaper. That's why the bids also include the cost of logistics support/depot maintenance in addition to the per item costing, as demonstrated in the article quote I quoted above ("...Any potential contractor was also required to provide relative background information on their capabilities to provide contractor logistics support for depot level maintenance of the entire upgraded weapon system.") They have to factor that $763 nut into what the program to operate it will cost and how many of said nuts they can roughly expect to need over a period time. If they can get the same thing cheaper, they will, hence the term "always remember that your weapon was built by the lowest bidder." Yes, the soldier must have a gun, but it won't be the most expensive one.

In in Air Force example, a jet engine may run, say (at a random guess number), $14 million. When you look at what it it is, it's not much more than a metal tube, some fuel line, an ignition system, and a bunch of metal blades. Regardless, the Air Force has to have it to complete the mission and the contractor building it isn't going to hold back on the engie or it's replacement part costs when they spent millions upon million of dollars to develop that engine. However, if they finder a cheaper or, better still, cheaper AND more efficient builder or part to replace it, they will.

EDIT: As an aside...I really wanted to spare you guys this, but I feel obliged to post it. You wanna know what it takes to get something bought by your Department of Defense? Here's the process flow chart. Make sure you zoom and get ready for your eyes to bleed. Remember, this is not a joke. These are the actual wickets a new design has to conquer to get bought by the DoD. The good news for this rifle is that it's a Non-developmental item Acquisition, so it can skip some of this business, but not all of it. Regardless, it gives you a better understanding of why a contractor has to charge so much to get their money back on design development and why it costs a fortune for the US government to acquire anything:

http://spacese.spacegrant.org/uploads/Project Life Cycle/DAU_wallChart.pdf

 

[jmr40]

It is possible to put together a semi-auto in 223 or 308 that will shoot right with any bolt rifle for short to medim range sniper duties. Cost isn't that much of a factor with these rounds.

But the Army is in the process of converting their 700's over to 300 win mag for better long range effectiveness. They have experimented with using various 50 cal semi-auto rifles, but they are simply too big to lug around into most places. A bolt rifle in 300 win mag is still portable enough to carry fairly easily, and with with much better range than the 308's they are replacing.

I'd imagine building a suitable 300 mag in a semi-auto would be very expensive since there is no acceptable version already on the market to build from. It would also be a lot bigger and heavier than a bolt rifle.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Yes, without a doubt they will always be around.

Probably so, but their performance niche will undoubtedly continue to be reduced as semis take over more and more roles.

Each platform definitely has advantages and disadvantages depending on the situation in which it is to be deployed.

 

[InkEd]

Their role and quantity will dwindle but there will almost always be at least some small niche for them. Inventory should be adjusted accordingly.

 

[ApacheCoTodd]

""Do Bolt Action Rifles still have a place in today's military?""

Do...? Yes

Will...? No - but that's OK 'cause someday metallic cartridges will be a thing of the past as well.

Of course, that's assuming the whole Mayan thing is off track.