Bolt Action Rifles for Combat

[Anthony]

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

[James K]

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

[Keeper]

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.

[Nestor Rivera]

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).]

[Destructo6]

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."
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

[Long Path]

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.

[Prichard]

n


[This message has been edited by Prichard (edited February 07, 2000).]

[Trevor]

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.

[Aleksandr]

I am seriously considering a similar rifle, the Steyr ProHunter (http://www.gsifirearms.com/product/s-prohunter-main.html). 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.

[Anthony]

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

[Matt VDW]

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.

[cornered rat]

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.

[BigG]

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

[CapeFear]

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.

[cornered rat]

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?

[James K]

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

[Prichard]

n


[This message has been edited by Prichard (edited February 07, 2000).]

[Ossi]

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

[4V50 Gary]

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

[James K]

I don't know about Afghanistan, but the British in Northern Ireland were operating under some heavy constraints. Another case might be Budapest in 1956, when the Soviet army's response to sniper fire from a building was to turn tank guns on the building and blast it to rubble. They didn't care whether "innocent" people were killed or not.

Jim

[slabsides]

Well, guys, I read Anthony's post, and then I read your replies, and I'm confused. He asked what you thought of the rifle he described, as a '...personal weapon that could also be used for combat.' Then you spent lots of time telling him that his dream gun wasn't suitable for military use. I didn't understand that he was describing a first line issue infantry weapon, as some of you seemed to. I assumed that he was talking about a rifle that could both hunt and defend; stand-off and close-in. the implication being that accuracy and precision would be necessary attributes, as well as firepower. The doctrine of spray and pray doesn't come into this. A lone rifleman, well supplied with ammunition, can give good account of himself against individuals, as well as large and small disorganized groups in situations of insurrection, civil disorder or riot. The bolt gun of .30 caliber has only limited capabilities as a general issue military weapon, granted. But IMHO, as a 'general purpose' rifle, it still beats a pointed stick or an AK/AR/SKS all to blazes. slabsides

------------------
An armed man is a citizen; an unarmed man is a subject; a disarmed man is a slave.

[EMDII]

Sounds like the 'What's the best rifle' question on the Practicle Rifle boards.

If you could choose ONLY one bolt gun, here's my take:

1) Steyr Scout package, .308 w/ all the trimmings.
2) Savage Scout, .308
3) FR-8, .308 (Do we have a trend here?)
4) Enfield Number 4 Mark I/II- slickest action I've seen, and you can fight your own 'Defense of Rourke's Drift' just fine!
5) Any converted 'short' Enfield (Jungle or Tanker)
6) Any rifle the shooter can hit targets with using a reasonably powerful cartridge.

Not too many 'MODERN' rifles here. Interesting.

If I thought I'd need a S/A, I'd opt for an FN FAL. Slick, sturdy, universal, accurate to military specs. If you can hit an E-type silhouette at 400m all day long (you can, believe me) then the rifle itself will do it's part.


------------------
Train like you fight: second place is not an option.

[Snickersnee]

Prichard, actualy I hear there was once a weapon that would allow a lone hero to whoop butt on an entire army; sometime during the Cold War the U.S. Army developed the Davy Crocket Atomic Bazooka. I can't say for sure if this weapon existed, but I hear it did from people I trust.

My all-time favorite rifle was Enfield No. 4 Mk. 1 "tanker carbine". It looked real cool, was solid as a rock, and worked pretty good too. I liked the 10 round magazine and the bayonet lug. The bayonet is one of my favorite martial arts weapons. Ah the joys of the Western arts...

Anyway, I'm not a big fan of recoil, not so much because it spooks me as much as the noise bugs me and I like to shoot a lot but hate recoil pads, so I invariably end up battered and bruised. I'd like the same sort of action and look in .223 with a higher capacity magazine.

That said, firestorm tactics will usualy beat out marksmanship and I don't think that a bolt action rifle has any palce in a front line infantry unit and I except for special cases like taking out key command personel, I have serious doubts as to how much a sniper really alters the course of a battle.

Sure, sucks to be the guy he caps, but one man out of a batalion isn't going to be missed by anyone but his friends and family.

Also, wars are getting more and more urban everyday, where autoloaders have an edge, even over 18 inch bayonets.

As a personal weapon, I have to assume an end of the world scenario, then I'd say a good bolt action rifle would be fine because you wouldn't be facing a modern army on the field of combat, or probably even more than a handful of badguys at a time. A rugged and reliable weapon like a bolt action can be definately has an edge.

I think some of the TEOTWAWKI scenarios are pretty dumb; especialy the "bugout and hide in the woods" one. While you're hiding in the woods, somebody else is shaping the tribe that will form the nation that fills the void left by the destruction of the last. I think a lot of this stuff is just for fantasy, which is fine too. I guess I should go to the survivalist forum for this though...

[Prichard]

n

[This message has been edited by Prichard (edited February 07, 2000).]

[Edmund Rowe]

OK, if I look at the original question, it sounds like it was how effective can a man be with a light bolt action rifle with low power scope? (sounds a lot like Jeff Cooper's scout rifle concept).

I know an instructor (there's an article on him in the recent SWAT magazine) who entered a tactical carbine class at arrgh I think it was Thunder Ranch. Yes, THE Thunder Ranch with permission to use his bolt rifle which does not have a scope but does have ghost ring sights. I call these "glassless scout rifles" or "utility rifles".

Except for short range multiple target engagements, he did just fine.

In my own experience, the advantage of a semi-auto large capacity carbine such as AR-15 or something disappears around 15-25 yards depending on how good the shooter is.
(note within short range the assault rifle/carbine really shines IMHO)

With that said, a bolt gun like a #4 Lee-Enfield (my personal favorite for utility rifles) offers advantages of:
-COST!! I paid $100 for my designated utility rifle.
-benign appearance (snicker...)
-PUNCH/WHALLOP/REACH whatever you want to call it. .303, .30-06, .308 NATO, all offer quite a bit of THUMP if you want to shoot through obstacles. (watch that overpenetration, though)
-I'm not going to be crying for years if it gets lost/stolen.

Will a bolt gun do? IMHO it will do if YOU will do. It's the man, not the gun that wins.

I still love my AR-15, but the L-E #4 has a definite role in my collection.

Edmund

[Dorsai]

I guess I'll add my support for the Lee-Enfield. It is the best MILITARY/COMBAT bolt action. Barrel length, stocks, etc are a matter of personal preference. But if you are contending against an enemy with semi-automatic rifles, selective fire, MG, etc, you better plan on shoot & scoot. I wouldn't let them get within 150-100 yds before I was gone. I'd probably keep it at 200yds plus. Otherwise, the volume of fire issue will overwhelm you.
One other thing. Use an action that allows you to reload with stripper clips. That will necessitate a scout type of scope if you intend to use glass. Remember, the armies equipped with bolt action rifles went to stripper clips before the turn of the century. No point in being over 100 yrs behind the times.

------------------
Dorsai
Personal weapons are what raised mankind out of the mud, and the rifle is the queen of personal weapons. The possession of a good rifle, as well as the skill to use it well, truly makes a man the monarch of all he surveys.
-- Jeff Cooper, The Art of the Rifle

[Nestor Rivera]

Way of thread but, yes Davey Crocket was built both convetional and atomic, if memory serves it used the W56 or W54 variable yield fison device (dial a nuke) with setting from .025kt ot .25kt Two test shots were fired and the names are correct is corney

Shot Little Feller 1 Hand Placed Device

Shot Little Feller 2 Launched from Spigot morter (davey crocket) from fixed mount.

The story goes that in '67 congres found out that the deploment would be wiht an E7 or E6 commanding the Davey Crocket there was much concern that the use would be pratically unresticted and they pulled the plug on the A-bomb ver. Several of the conv. models were sent for testing in S.E. Asia

Nukes are a sort of hobby of mine.

[This message has been edited by Nestor Rivera (edited August 26, 1999).]