Bolt Action Rifles for Combat

A

Anthony

New member
This is a subject that comes up every so often with my friends. Using Jeff Cooper's book "The Art of the Rifle" as a basis, I formulated an "ideal" general purpose rifle that could also serve as a combat weapon if necessary.

Something in the order of a Remington 700 in .30-06 with an overall weight of about seven pounds. Other features would include a standard taper barrel, stainless steel construction, synthetic stock, tuned trigger, low power scope on quick detatchable mounts, (mounted in traditional position), ghost ring iron sights to backup scope, and detatchable 10-round magazine.

Putting aside all of the Rambo crap, how unsuitable is such a bolt action rifle or other such designs for combat use in the hands of a trained and practiced rifleman?

- Anthony
 
Hi Anthony,

In battle, discipline, training, morale, and support mean far more than how fast the foot soldier's rifle fires. To a point. But bolt actions against M16s, squad LMGs, M60s, mortars, air support with napalm? I don't think you could get any group of soldiers, no matter how good as riflemen, to go up against a modern army with bolt actions. They would, quite simply, be slaughtered.

IMHO, the sniper rifle (which is essentially what you are describing) has a place in combat, in conjunction with other forces able to back up the sniper if/when necessary.

The romantic loner, standing off the evil enemy with his trust Winchester 70, is, in reality, pretty silly, and he would become pretty dead, pretty quick.

Jim
 
I am no where near being an authority on these matters but I guess it would depend on what ranges you were looking to engage the enemy. I would think that at 100 yards and out the rifle you describe would be fine.
 
If you really wanted a Bolt Battle rifle why re-invent the wheel, my choices would be as follows (all though not set in stone)

1. Lee Enfield No4 (mk1 or 2) (.303 brit) 10rds

2. Enfield 2A No1 MkIII (.308 nato) 12 rnds

3. Spanish FR-8 (.308 nato) 5 rnds

4. Sweedish M-38 mauser (6.5x55) 5rnds

5. Finn M-39 Mosin Nagant (7.62x54R)5 rnds

6. Any good M-98 Mauser in 8x57 5 to 20rnds

But any of these will do the job and to spare
just add 500 rounds of ammo and 10 or so chargers and you are good to go. if you really want to add a 'see through' scope mount and a 4 power scope.

[This message has been edited by Nestor Rivera (edited August 18, 1999).]

[This message has been edited by Nestor Rivera (edited August 18, 1999).]
 
Hey, the Mujahadeen (sp?) did pretty well in Afghanistan with bolt guns supplementing their AK's. You're obviously not going to be able to duke it out, toe to toe, but "shoot and scoot" would certainly be a useful tactic with the bolt guns.

I fully agree with Nestor Rivera's post.

[This message has been edited by Destructo6 (edited August 18, 1999).]
 
Anthony,

I'd have to agree with Jim Keenan. As a main battle rifle, the bolt gun's era has come and gone. It is relegated to very special situations, that have a lot of collateral support.



------------------
Mykl
~~~~~
"If you really want to know what's going on;
then, you have to follow the money trail."
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
 
I could easily see the logic in issuing accurate bolt action rifles to every other soldier. But can you imagine practicing "Quick Kill" (tm) with a scoped 700? The thing about the automatic carbine of today is, it can and does double as a ready sidearm in close-quarters. Consider engaging house-to house with a bolt action, as opposed to a light handy carbine on semi. Excelent movie scene that demonstrates the Quick Kill technique was in Platoon, where Wm. Dafoe moves rapidly through a jungle, point-shooting enemy soldiers with his M-16 from the hip, without so much as stopping.

On open field battle, or mountain terrain, accurate, dependable rifles are to the advantage. I'm not sold that a bolt is necessarily inherently more accurate, but it's probably easier to make a light .30 cal bolt rifle accurate than to make a light .30 automatic (or semi) accurate. If someone would make a 7-pound Garand that was as accurate as the old ones, I'd be sold. 1 MOA is just fine! Perhaps if Ruger could fix the accuracy problems on the Mini .30, and set it up to take .308, we'd have something!

I'm not sold on the Remington as a battle rifle. To be sure, they inherent accuracy is there, but there's just too much evidence that the extractors and safeties are a bit on the wimpy side for combat. Also, there's the issue of push-feed again (this issue's been discussed in the "Scout Rifle" discussions in this forum.). A Mauser action would thus be indicated.

Finally, with a combat bolt action, why not go with .308? The modern loadings are so very close to .30-06, it almost doesn't bear arguing over, and it's a short action. Shorter action equals less weight, more compact receiver, shorter bolt throw for faster, more reliable chamberings.


I like Nestor Rivera's suggestion of the 2A No.1 MK III in .308 Nato, except I would modify it with a light synthetic stock, and it really needs the EXCELLENT No. 4 or No.2 sights on it. It's very fast as a bolt action, and reasonable accurate.
 
McBride's World War I book "A Rifleman Went to War" offers a good review of the bolt action rifle in war. Whether that weapon is still viable depends upon a variety of factors (some of which McBride honestly evaluates). I wouldn't dismiss the turnbolt yet. I agree with Cooper that the success of the assault rifle (as a primary small arm) has led most military organizations away from the importance of markmanship. For this reason alone, the bolt action rifle must not be forsaken since it represents the the last hope for soldiers to hit the mark.

------------------
It only takes one bullet to change your life.
 
I am seriously considering a similar rifle, the Steyr ProHunter. Factory 10 round adapters and magazines are available, and the accuracy and reliability seems to be widely acknowledged. I'll probably go with a 30-06 and a traditionally mounted Zeiss 3x9 (the American-made version). Various online vendors sell the rifle and scope for about $700 and $500 respectively.
 
Here's an update for you. Ironically, a friend of mine called me last night to say he was selling much of his collection of rifles.

One of them is a 1950s or 1960s manufacture Enfield Number 4 complete with sling, stripper clips, and spike bayonete. It was from the last batch made and it's quite accurate.

What do you think?

Suitable ammunition?

- Anthony
 
Anthony,

Are we talking about a rifle to arm an infantry division or a rifle to arm a lone partisan?

If it's going to be just me versus the legions of darkness, my only viable strategy is to hit and run. Therefore, I'll pick a Winchester 70 over an M16 because I want to be able to hit at the greatest range possible so the bad guys won't be able to just hose me down with their assault rifles.

IMHO, the bolt action rifle is obsolete as a general issue weapon because other weapon systems (artillery, air, machineguns) can do a much better job of dominating wide open spaces. Today's riflemen fight in the nooks and crannies of the battlefield where rapid fire is essential.
 
I am very strongly tempted to go with a bolt rifle because they seem to need less maintenance to function. I am, however, not finding any .223 rifles with magazines over 6 rounds, and even those are awkward. Perhaps I ought to look for a .308 Enfield...

Having on occasion carried two incompatible camera systems, I am leery of simply saying that "mini14 is my short-range carbine and the bolt gun is the longer-range companion"...I doubt I'd have the luxury of having both handy.
 
The research (during the '50s) that led to the adoption of the M16, indicated
1) Soldiers do not like recoil
2) Unaimed fire resulted in more casualties than aimed fire (i.e., the pix where they show a guy raise his rifle over the edge of the foxhole and shoot without looking)
3) Most causalties were inflicted at close range (<300 yards, I think)

Not saying that I agree with all the above, but the bolt gun don't cut it any more.
Why do you think those WWI rifles had 18" bayonets? :)

------------------
Remember: When you attempt to rationalize two inconsistent positions, you risk drowning as your own sewage backs up... Yankee Doodle
 
Anthony,
I'll give you my opinion in two parts.
First. I own a Remington 700 in 30-06 and it is my favorite gun period, but the Remington 700 is the worst possible bolt action for a combat rifle. Any Mauser or Enfield is vastly superior in a non sniper role. Non Mauser extractor deer rifles need not apply.

Second. Will a bolt action work in combat? That depends on what you consider combat. Will you be in another man's army, going where you are told, when you are told? Forget about the bolt action! It has too many limitations for a all purpose rifle. The whole world recognized this in WWII. Notice that all the countries that issued a bolt action battle rifle also issued huge amounts of subguns. (i.e. Britian, Germany, Russia). If you are a Freedom Fighter, choosing when and where you will and more importantly will not fight then the bolt action probably has another 100 years of serious use left in it. This is just my opinion, all my combat experience was with the M16.
 
I just held up a ruler at arm's length and triangulated how far a particluar standalone cubicle was. The answer was 55m, give or take. That, in my mind, was the not even the outer limit for quick handgun shooting. That speaks very poorly of 100m rifles in the open country but also means they are amply adequate for house-to-house work. Given that where I live, few buildings are separated by as much as 100m, the carbine just might work out. However, just about anywhere outside oftown a bold gun could be useful. What seems to limit bolt rifles is that they have tiny magazines which are slow to reload or change. Any exceptions to that impression?
 
Hi guys,

Please don't misunderstand, but have any of you guys ever seen even an infantry company in action, let alone a regiment? Do you know what kind of firepower a modern army can and will bring to bear on even a minor irritant like a sniper?

Guerilla warfare (the "loner") sounds fine until the enemy takes your town and kills 100 civilians for every one of his casualties. That causes one to think after while.

Jim
 
A good sniper with a rifle, bolt or semi-auto, can of course kill enemy soldiers, and the threat of sniper fire also causes stress and possibly affects moral on those not shot by the sniper. However, most of the military duties are best performed with other kinds of equipment than sniper rifles, and also it is not worth giving a sub-MOA bolt gun to a soldier who is not a good shot, and every soldier surely is not that. Many soldiers are better of with a little less accurate gun that gives a lot more firepower.

It is difficult to say what is the optimal amount of snipers in a military unit. In my country (Finland) normal rifle companies include three snipers, and I think that relation (one sniper in every 40 to 50 men in infantry units) is quite typical to modern armies. As far as I know, some special units in many countries have one sniper in every squad. More than that, I think, would be all too high sniper density.

Using bolt guns in other roles than sniper weapons is totally obsolete. And thinking about ambushes, a high volume of fire is needed, and bolt guns surely don't give that. Snipers are needed in modern combat, but giving bolt guns to non-snipers is just waste of firepower, and an army consisting solely of snipers could not stand against an assault of a determined enemy.

Every combatant has his role. It is wrong to think that snipers could replace nowadays often underrated infantrymen in ground combat.

Ossi
 
I think it would be tactically unsound to arm entire front line units with bolt guns. Perhaps specialized soldiers, like snipers or sharpshooters, yes, but not entire units. Even if they enjoy the advantage of range, remember the British response to German Snipers? 25 pdr artillery or a Sherman tank.

While they were initially armed with bolt actions of the SMLE genre, even the Afghan mujahideen took up AKs once they got them from the Soviets. Mykl is right, the time for the bolt action is past. It still enjoys limited applications, but not for units designated for front line duty.

------------------
Vigilantibus et non dormientibus jura subveniunt
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top