Bolt actions and jungle fighting

[CobrayCommando]

"There was a squabble between A Company and some of the 164th Army men, for Regan Fuller's men had bartered for, or stolen, some new M-1 rifles during the big night's fighting, and Army officers wanted them back. The Colonel was amused by the affair. For himself, he favored the old rifle they brought to Guadalcanal: "For sheer accuracy, if you want to kill men in battle, there has never been a rifle to equal the Springfield 1903. Others may give us more firepower, but in ability to hit a target, nothing touches the old '03. In my opinion, nothing ever will. A perfect weapon, if there ever was one."
Marine! The Life of Chesty Puller

As you may have guessed, "the Colonel" was Chesty Puller, who was by WW2 already a very seasoned jungle fighter, probably the most battle experienced officer in the entire military. He was also an excellent hunter and rifle shot. I'm interested to hear other accounts of bolt actions used in such close fighting, if anyone else has them, and opinions, which I'm sure everyone has. :)

Chesty Puller was also a huge fan of the Thompson, and evaluated it for the military while in either Nicaragua or Haiti. Can't remember which.

His thoughts on the carbine:
"The following day, Puller saw General Marshall and General Holcomb, and was off on his tour. There was a preliminary stop at Aberdeen Proving Ground, where he was shown several new weapons, among them the carbine soon to be issued to troops. Puller fired it on the range. "It's no good," he said. "Lots of fire, but nothing heavy enough or accurate enough. Give us the Springfield." Watching officers were crestfallen."

He was also a fan of buckshot.

[Ausserordeutlich]

Bet he was nuts about muzzleloaders, also. :)

[Jimro]

Remember the accounts from WWI about Germans coming under precises long distance rifle fire and believing the Marines had more machineguns than they did because of all the bullets downrange?

When facing an enemy armed with Arisaka's as the main battle rifle the 1903 can hold it's own, even in the jungle. Remember these men were trained and proficient with their arms.

Where the 1903 didn't shine was in stopping a "Bonzai" charge, but arguably even the Garand was inadequate for that task. From verbal accounts, the preferred method for stopping a charge was vehicular mounted quad M2 50 cals whenever they were available.

Later on when Japanese tactics changed and abandoned the massed charge, cave fighting became particularly nasty as Japan tried to hold on to the bitter end. Then the preferred method of "jap disposal" became frag grenades and dynamite.

During Vietnam one SOG soldier flew into his last mission with a 1903 by his side, as he had for every previous mission. I would have made a different choice, but even if he was carrying an m14 it probably wouldn't have made a difference.

Jimro

[Limeyfellow]

A number of countries have used bolt actions for a long time. The British were still using the Lee Enfield against ak47s in the 50s and so on. They worked considerably well and some variants were in use until the 1990s. In WW1 it was even thought by the Germans they were fighting against machine guns, since they had such a high rate of fire.

[support_six]

In 1940, my father-in-law was an Infantry soldier in the 3rd ID. His company was about to be issued the M1 Garand. The unit went to the weapons range for one last qualification on the M1903 before turning them in and receiving the M1. Each soldier was given the opportunity of drawing an M1 for the qualification, or keeping his M1903 for this last time. Dad and a buddy were the only soldiers in an entire rifle company (about 160) who drew M1's. They both shot in the upper 10% of the unit qualification! Dad grew to love that rifle. His enlistment was up just ten days before Pearl Harbor and he ETS'd. Later in 1943, after working in the defense industry for three years, he decided he better get back into the fray. He went down to the local recruiter who stood him in line with about 100 other guys (probably in their underwear! Don't you do half the things you do at inprocessing in your underwear?) The Master Sergeant in charge counted off ten guys and shouted, "Army"! He counted the next ten, "Marines"! ...and so on. This time Dad found himself in the U.S. Marine Corps! He was issued the M1 in the Pacific and during Korea. He loved it. Although there were a few Thompson's in his Marine Rifle Company in Korea (mostly carried by officer's) there were virtually no M1 Carbines -- mostly because the troopers refused to carry them. Seems it had a reputation for not finishing the job.

[CobrayCommando]

Neat. The more I learn, the less I realise I know.

I used to think revolvers and bolt actions were useless.

[silicon wolverine]

If i had to go into combat today with my choice i think id take my old surplus 8mm mauser. i can stand off 800 yards and hit a dinner plate wiht iron sights while you guys with M4s and AK's are kicking up dust 300 yards infront of me. Plus a good solid wood stock and a 12" bayonet isnt too bad either.

SW

[CobrayCommando]

I hope you bring along a pistol for house clearing! As much as I admire and enjoy shooting bolt actions, I also acknowledge that for phone-booth ranges they are a bit lacking especially against multiple foes.

A dinner plate at 800 yards is extremely impressive, especially with iron sights, and even more so standing if I understood you correctly. My range terminates at 400 yards. I've never tried anything over that but I imagine it would get exponentionally harder as the range increased. Shooting my my Mauser, with its corroded bore and surplus ammo, I can hit the steel plate probably 7/10 times at 400, it is probably the size of a mans torso, with another persons scoped rifle I've never missed.

I've never shot a quality, iron sighted rifle before though. How hard is it to hit at those ranges?

[revjen45]

I was taught to shoot a rifle by a retired Army officer who knew Co. Townsend Whelan. His favorite rifle was the 1903 and he taught me to make every shot count. Yeah, when facing a banzai charge firepower may beat accuracy but against marauding criminals I think 2 or 3 head shots will convince the rest to seek easier prey. Obviously you also need a handgun for when things get up close and personal. In a Katrina type situation I wouldn't feel poorly armed with a full power military bolt rifle and a reliable handgun.

[Fat White Boy]

In most firefights, the word is volume of fire. You need to throw more rounds at the bad guys than they are throwing at you. You keep their heads down while you fire and maneuver into a position that allows you to kill them. Of course, the more accurate the fire the better, but volume is first.

If accuracy really were more important, everyone would be armed with Scoped Remington 700's...

[CobrayCommando]

Scoped rifles are not inherently more accurate then bolt actions, and I don't see what the big fuss is about them. I wear glasses and without them I can still see and hit a steel plate at 400 yards. The problem is training, its much cheaper to train your troops in volume of fire then accuracy.

If volume of fire really were more important, everyone would be using American 180s.

[TPAW]

i can stand off 800 yards and hit a dinner plate wiht iron sights

How could you even see it?............................:rolleyes:

[Fat White Boy]

This is from a study conducted by the military after WWII...

Project SALVO
In 1948, the Army organized the civilian Operations Research Office (ORO), mirroring similar operations research organizations in the United Kingdom. One of their first efforts, Project ALCLAD, studied body armor and quickly concluded that they would need to know considerably more about battlefield injuries in order to make reasonable suggestions. Over 3 million battlefield reports from WWII were analyzed and over the next few years they released a series of reports on their findings.
This was from a study conducted after WW II...

Their basic conclusion was that most combat takes place at short range. In a highly mobile war, combat teams ran into each other largely by surprise; and the team with the higher firepower tended to win. They also found that the chance of being hit in combat was essentially random — that is, accurate "aiming" made little difference because the targets no longer sat still. The number one predictor of casualties was the total number of bullets fired.

These conclusions suggested that infantry should be equipped with a fully-automatic rifle of some sort in order to increase the rate of fire. It was also clear, however, that such weapons dramatically increased ammunition use and in order for a rifleman to be able to carry enough ammunition for a firefight they would have to carry something much lighter.

This is what eventually lead to the M-16...

[burnera]

a "might-be" parallel would be longbowmen vs crossbow's

It took a decade or so to train a longbowman in the medieval era, from the time the kid was a teenager to the early 20's. A lot of time and money would go into one man, and boy could he kick arse. Hit man sized targets at 200 yards, draw bows ordinary people couldn't, etc.

Crossbow gets invented.

Grab some dude off his plow, teach him how to crank the string back, aim, and press a lever, rinse and repeat. Now you have know-nothings being paid $.25 a day to die in your war, and they are out killing knights in full suits of armor.

[CobrayCommando]

Yes I've read that before. Our M16s no longer have a fully automatic function, and Marines are trained well in marksmanship despite the added cost. I have a friend just out of basic and the firing logs that he brings back are proof positive of that. Now he is in infantry school and they get even more training of such a nature.

We know from Vietnam that total number of bullets fired means nothing, and that automatic fire in a rifle is overrated at best.

Do you believe that report? Do you believe that accurate aiming makes little difference?

Show me a group of enemy soldiers who have fully automatic weapons and are horribly innacurate but put out a bunch of bullets, and I will send in a force of Marines one quarter their size to wipe them out with carefully placed .223 bullets.

Oh wait, THAT'S IRAQ. Score 1 aimed fire, score 0 Project Salvo.

[44 AMP]

The Military Repeater. No lever or pump ever made it into use like the bolt action. Autoloaders rule now, because warfare changed. It is an evolutionary process.

I don't remember the source, but I do recall reading that, on Guadalcanal, the Marines were given 40 rounds for their Springfields. This was supposed to last them several days in combat! Individual riflemen were trained to shoot when they had a target. Putting down covering fire was the job of the belt fed machinegun.

The German model was that the rifle squad supported the machine gun.

That is what bolt action rifles are for. Full size rounds, allowing powerful hits at long range, when conditions allow. Course, there is a down side. They aren't at their best in close quarters.

Between the US M1 and carbine, the German sturmgrwehr, and the mechanization of modern militaries the bolt action battle rifle waned. Modern infantry rifles are intended to allow (and encourage) cover fire from individual riflemen. They fire smaller lighter rounds in order to be able to accomplish this.

The mobile nature of today's combat means encounter ranges freuently are shorter, long range rifle fire is provided by specialists.

New tools allow for new ideas, and new ideas create new tools. We continue to evolve to improve our efficiency.

[TPAW]

Cobray Commando says

We know from Vietnam that total number of bullets fired means nothing, and that automatic fire in a rifle is overrated at best.


Not true in all cases. When on patrol in the bush and your field of fire was very limited due to vegatation, bushes, trees, elephant grass etc., most of the contact made was ambush style at very close quarters. Spray and pray allowed you to find some cover if you weren't hit with the first volley of fire by the enemy. It was only after you had decent cover that shot placement was attempted, if you could even see the enemy. Much of the time you didn't. There were times when the emeny would let you walk past them. Once you did, they would pop up behind you from spider holes and other forms of concealment, and shoot you in the back. Here again, spray and pray helped to keep their heads down for a moment or so, allowing you to take whatever cover you could find. I've been there!

[Art Eatman]

Which gets back to military doctrine. A buddy of mine, USMC Lt. in Vietnam, described it as a controlled high rate of fire to force the enemy into cover, while using the primary weapon: The radio.

Accurate aimed fire at long range is a good thing, but first you have to see the enemy. It's not all that common for one group of troops to watch another group moving around out in the open, unaware that they were being observed. If you have a radio and see such movement, the deal is to call in the artillery or call for air support.

Art

[Ausserordeutlich]

Re: Hitting dinner plates @ 800 yds: It's a lot easy to make hits on a keyboard than in real life. :rolleyes:

[biglabsrule]

I've always liked the idea of a mixture... the m16 and m4s are pretty nice allround but it's always good to throw in a saw too.. My father likes to talk about the m79 grenade launchers he had in vietnam. No single arm is an all situation answer.

[TPAW]

Art

It's not all that common for one group of troops to watch another group moving around out in the open, unaware that they were being observed. If you have a radio and see such movement, the deal is to call in the artillery or call for air support.


IF! it was available and you trusted the "Red Legs" to put it on target fast enough. Fire missions in many cases took too much time, and, by the time you got one, the enemy would be gone, or, scattered like roaches when a light goes on the second the first spotter round hit. That would have made it too easy for us grunts in the Central Highlands of Vietnam. What you say is true, however, that's the ideal situation which did not present itself often enough where I was......mostly mountains.
Further south in I Corp where there were rice paddies and such, that may have been a viable option, not so where I was. The canopy was too thick.

[CobrayCommando]

Thanks for the input everyone.

Regarding cover fire, we issue our guys with M249s, one per squad, thats 800 rpm of fire rate or so and it uses 200 round boxes of belted ammunition. It is the perfect application for the .223, you can carry a lot and it gets the job done. It should allow riflemen to manuever or get into position to lay down accurate fire, or for an M240/recoilless or artillery to get on target.

So I still do not fully understand the necessity of spray and pray with rifles, although I do in Vietnam, now that you've told me. We only had the M60 and those were only issued at the platoon level I think, like our modern M240.

With the possible adoption of the Ultimax LMG by the Marines it looks like they are taking the concept even further. A couple of these per squad and you COULD arm the rest with bolt actions. They allow accurate fully automatic fire from hundreds of yards away while standing.

[juliet charley]

The Enfield fared pretty well in the "Malaysia Emergency" in the 50s (and Mau Mau Uprising as well)--maybe better than the M16 in Vietnam in the 60s. At least, the Brits won those two (but then they didn't have a hostile press at home turning victory into defeat, either.)

[Mannlicher]

The Enfield fared pretty well in the "Malaysia Emergency" in the 50s (and Mau Mau Uprising as well)--maybe better than the M16 in Vietnam in the 60s. At least, the Brits won those two (but then they didn't have a hostile press at home turning victory into defeat, either.)

and dont forget that in the Kenya uprising the mau mau were not a supported client state with a protected sponsor state supplying the weapons, material and support.
In Malaysia, the Brits made extensive use of the Sterling sub gun as well, and as in Kenya, there was no protected sponsor state. In other words, it was not a proxy war like VietNam was. The insurgents never really had the hearts and minds of the peasants.

[CobrayCommando]

Those really were different wars. And I have an interesting little story that happened in the Mau Mau uprising concerning the SMG. A group of British soldiers had set up an ambush near a river, and successfully executed it, killing several insurgents. One of their leaders, named Dedan Kimathi, was wearing an old wool British army coat, and was fired on by a soldier with a Pachett 9mm SMG from 30 yards, shot in the back. Kimathi kept running despite being struck by multiple 129 grain FMJ 9mm bullets. The soldier that shot him bitterly complained that he saw the bullets strike but bounce off, and tests proved that the 9mm did not even penetrate a wet army blanket at double thickness.

The story ends happily however as he was later caught and hanged for his crimes. This story is recounted in David Scott-Donelan's book "Tactical Tracking Operations".

[BUSTER51]

hitting a dinner plate at 800 yards is a little far feched,when my eyes were younger I have done it at 500 meters with iron sights .but 800 yards with a 8mm mauser with iron sights that I would have to see in person to believe. how many can do it with a scope? any how I can't think of any one who would condone issueing troops a bolt action rifle as the main prime weapon,a sniper yes regular infantry no. :confused:

[CobrayCommando]

I'm not condoning it, however I do wonder what it would be like if we did issue our soldiers with M16s bolt actions.

The more I think about hitting a dinner plate 800 yards away with irons sights while standing, the more I wonder. I'm almost positive I couldn't do it.

[Crosshair]

I'd just get me and 10 friends, hide, and just keep shooting at them util we hit something important. All that matters is that you can get the bullet close to the enemy. With a volume of fire you are bound to hit something eventualy.

During the Plevna Delay, when the Russians where forming into ranks 1,200 yards away from the Turks they where already taking casualties and it only got worse as they advanced. This does not mean that the Turks could aim at a specific person. Provided they knew the range, (and they did) they could lob bullets at the enemy and would eventualy hit something. (The Turk officers would call out the ranges to the troops, who would adjust their rifles.) Of course, when the Russians got within 200 yards, the Turks pulled out their Winchesters and REALLY cut the Russian lines to pieces. So sometimes you need both power and rate of fire to get the job done.

Though in jungle fighting I would like something that could give me a volume of fire. Save the bolt gun for when I am up on a mountain plinking at enemy troops in the valley below.

[Limeyfellow]

The joys of volley fire. Alas those days are past us by about a hundred years.

A plate at 800 yards tends to be too much for these eyes. I done it before at 600 yards and I could only just make out the target with iron sights shooting from sandbags.

Bolt actions tend to work well in places like Afghanistan. They would work fine in the rice fields of the far east, but in the close concealing distances of jungle warefare I tend to have something with a little more volume of fire.

[Speer]

My father likes to talk about the m79 grenade launchers he had in vietnam.
My step-dad was wicked with ol' Thumper in Vietnam. He loved it.

[Scribe]

I've read that in the big push into Germany in 1945, British soldiers adopted a practice of fast firing the Lee Enfield by working the bolt by gripping the handle with thumb and fore finger and pulling the trigger with the middle finger.
The film 'Dunkirk' was made in the early '50s with a young Sir John Mills playing an Army corporal trying to get his section to the beaches. There is a bit when he puts down covering fire with his SMLE when they blunder into a German patrol. I only saw it once a few years ago and as I recall the shots were fired across a farm yard so you are looking at a range of 30 to 50 yards. Bear in mind it's a film, but he gets out seven or so rounds very quickly indeed. But an M1 would probably have been quicker.

[p99guy]

Scribe, that is called the Walbrige method, and was taught to the boys of the B.E.F. in WW1 while armed with the SMLE...trained riflemen could get off 30 aimed shots per minute(out of a 10 shot SMLE) This was the mentioned situation of the Germans thinking they were facing machineguns(had nothing to do with Devil Dogs and M1903's) It works, and I have drawn a bit of a crowd at gun ranges demonstating what you can do with a Enfield "daaang, I didnt know you could do that with a bolt action"

While times, tactics, and tastes in firearms change in the armies of the world
the one thing that applies is:

Unlike aircraft, firearms have developed at a different pace....a sopwith Camel of WW1 wouldnt have a chance against a F-16, however a service rifle from WW1 is still fully capable of Killing a modern infantryman armed with the very latest assault rifle at extended ranges, and penetrate his body armor that has plates able to stop Assault rifle fire.
There was a real good reason the U.S. Army was a bit apprehensive going into Haiti 20 years ago.....they had M1 Garands and M1919A4 brownings and BAR's! I remember a general being interviewed and the reporter making a what the big deal , they are armed with obsolete relics...the reporter was corrected "you mean the opsolete relics we won WW2 and Korea with? Sir those guns arent to be taken lightly".
He had a point too.

[juliet charley]

Frankly, if I had to choose, I'd lot rather have somebody standing beside that could get off 30 aimed rounds a minute (the old "Tommy Atkins" standard) versus someone who closed their eyes and burnt off two twenty round magazines in the same time. :)

[john in jax]

My dad brought one home in mint condition (except for the ground off mum) and it shoots surprisingly well. As a kid the short stock was just right and I used to tear up soda cans at 100 yards. But after 2 or 3 boxes of Norma 7.7Jap my piggy bank and my shoulder were usually hurting, I think that metal "recoil" pad had something to do with it ;-)

[Mike Irwin]

"Remember the accounts from WWI about Germans coming under precises long distance rifle fire and believing the Marines had more machineguns than they did because of all the bullets downrange?"

I've never heard that reference made regarding the US Marines, but it was made by German officers outside IIRC, Mons, in 1914.

They were facing British regulars armed with SMLEs.

[Limeyfellow]

I've never heard that reference made regarding the US Marines, but it was made by German officers outside IIRC, Mons, in 1914.

They were facing British regulars armed with SMLEs.

Damn right. The 1903 couldn't come near to firing at the rate of a Lee Enfield No1, nor could any other Mauser, so give us back our stories and legends!

[Lonestar.45]

If I remember correctly, the normal load-out for a soldier/marine carrying a Garand was 60 rounds. That's what they set up the supply lines for, and that's what the soldiers that hit Normandy on D-day carried. Not a lot by modern standards.

Keep that in mind when you think you'd be laying down lots of suppresive fire w/the Garand.

[T. O'Heir]

"...believing the Marines had more..." That was the Canadian Corps(PPCLI, as I recall. During one of the several times they were left holding off the German Army alone) with No. 1 Mk III Lee-Enfields not Marines with '03's.
"...the Brits won those two..." They went into and stayed in the jungle chasing the CT's. No patrols from firebases.

[Mike Irwin]

"If I remember correctly, the normal load-out for a soldier/marine carrying a Garand was 60 rounds. That's what they set up the supply lines for, and that's what the soldiers that hit Normandy on D-day carried."

60 divided by 8 is.... 7.5.

Hard to carry a half an en bloc clip.


IIRC, the standard load out was 80 rounds in 10 clips.

Many soldiers hitting the beach carried spare bandoliers, as well. Each bandolier held 48 rounds.

There's a photo from D Day, or a few days after, that shows a group of soldiers, one of whom appears to be sporting about a dozen dozen bandoliers. That could, however, simply be a guy doing an ammo run for his buddies.

Troops equipped with the M1 carbine carried at least 5 15-round magazines.

[Scribe]

'The Walbridge Method'. Excellent. I don't have a Lee Enfied as yet, but a No4 is on my wish list. I was very interested in a No4 MkIV from AIA, but the more the more I read about them, the less interested I get. I am a Mauser enthusiast, but a friend of mine had an SMLE once and there was no questioning the fact that it was slicker handling than my K.98. The only area where the Mauser was ahead was with the stripper clips which were less finicky.

[p99guy]

I currently have a 1943 No.4 Mk1 with a A.J. Parker Match dioptor rear sight, and a 1943 Byf K98K and several K31's..I havent gotten around to Moisens yet, but as I have a C&R license its bound to happen.

the enfield striper clip has to be loaded up a certain way as .303 is a rimmed cartridge, but after that they work just fine...but yes the 7.92 mauser stripper is simple and foolproof.


http://img228.imageshack.us/img228/9156/0425050269dq.jpg

http://img132.imageshack.us/img132/8012/20060131001wj6.jpg

[HorseSoldier]

a "might-be" parallel would be longbowmen vs crossbow's

It took a decade or so to train a longbowman in the medieval era, from the time the kid was a teenager to the early 20's. A lot of time and money would go into one man, and boy could he kick arse. Hit man sized targets at 200 yards, draw bows ordinary people couldn't, etc.

Crossbow gets invented.

Grab some dude off his plow, teach him how to crank the string back, aim, and press a lever, rinse and repeat. Now you have know-nothings being paid $.25 a day to die in your war, and they are out killing knights in full suits of armor.

I'd say not really. You can't just hand a guy a rifle and make him a credible practitioner of combat marksmanship any more than you can hand him a rifle and make him a credible NRA competition shooter.

The problem was that training traditionally lagged behind combat reality, and lots of people in positions of authority fought the notion that you did not really need to be able to engage targets from 600 meters away, from the kneeling, making proper use of your sling and all that. Works great if a Zulu impi is coming at you, but just pointless on a modern battlefield for anyone but a smattering of designated marksmen or snipers.

For everyone else, every moment spent worrying about how to make 550 yard shots on the KD range should be spent learning how to shoot quick, fast close range engagements, with multiple targets.

[CobrayCommando]

I just have to wonder, what happened to warfare? Is it because soldiers move in smaller, less visible packs that they engage at shorter distances?

[HorseSoldier]

I just have to wonder, what happened to warfare? Is it because soldiers move in smaller, less visible packs that they engage at shorter distances?

The machine gun, the advent of indirect (and non-self-observed) artillery and mortar fire, and the refinement of explosives and fuzes to allow the individual trooper to lob grenades, RPGs or other rockets, field phones and then radios allowing troops in contact to whistle up indirect fire, air strikes, reinforcements, etc. (To name only a few advances in technology.)

All of this forced greater dispersion on the battlefield. Dispersion, in turn, rendered the doctrine that stressed aimed long-range rifle as the desired end state in infantry training increasingly irrelevant on the battlefield. It just took decades for the powers that be in various countries to accept something that was true by about 1915 or 1916.

[silicon wolverine]

To all those who say i cant possibly "hit a plate at 800 yards". come on out to South Dakota and ill prove you wrong. to clear up any questions:

1 this is done shooting from a bench NOT standing.

2 the mauser i have has a clean, unpitted bore which i hand picked myself.

3 My long range shooting is done with comercial ammo and not cheap surplus.

awful easy to pick on a guy with your keyboard as well.

SW

[BrianBM]

As my own, personal, $.02 contribution ... the Malaysia insurrection was dominated by ethnic Chinese, in a country where they're a minority. Helps a lot when the insurgents are mostly a member of a local minority, and not always well-liked by the majority ethnic group. I don't think the press (or lack of one) had much to do with it.

The stopping power of the .223 is always a fun thing to discuss. It remains the cartridge of choice in the U.S., and the latest assault rifle out of Israel - the name escapes me - retained that cartridge. Despite experiments with 6.8 mm and 6.5, the military seems to be sticking with it, here and elsewhere.

The current service round is, I think, a Sierra MatchKing in field camo. Is there anyone here who can comment, from personal observation, as to how effective it is on target? We've all read "Black Hawk Down," and so on, so complaints about the green-tipped AP rounds then current are ... not current.

[CobrayCommando]

Sierra Matchkings are what we use in some of our 7.62s, but standard issue ammunition for the M16A2 is to my knowledge still M855, exactly what it was in Somalia. I know you asked for personal observations, however I can relay some tests results to you, done by a doctor on Tactical Forums. Basically, the Matchking will sometimes fragment quite violently, sometimes less violently, and sometimes not at all and act just like FMJ (not a terrible thing in a 7.62). This is due to the very small hollowpoint. It's still better then FMJ though. When it does fragment, you can expect something quite similar to the performance of a Nosler AMAX (in tissue/gelatin). Nasty.

We also used a "newfangled" type of cartridge in the M60's, and whenever I point out the experiences in BHD, some fan of the .223 points out that the M60 had very serious stopping power issues in that book as well. Except that we were using a saboted penetrator round. The caliber of the penetrator? .223... And driven at quite a high velocity as well. But still inferior to the M14s, apparently.

[BrianBM]

Interesting. Thank you.

I gotta stop by tacticalforums, it's been awhile since I lurked there.

[silicon wolverine]

Cobray- didnt they have problems with the penetrator part of the sabot round coming out the side of the barrel in the M60? I remember reading about it in one of my "assault weapons" books. Ive seen the .30 cal sabot ads in SG news, and other rags but was always leery of them.

SW

[Fat White Boy]

"...Plates at 800 yards."

I watched a guy with a K-31 hit a 3 foot square target consistently at 700 yards using the stock iron sights. I bought my own K-31 shortly thereafter.

[cheygriz]

The Springfield and Mauser were/are fine target anf hunting rifles. the SMLE was a FAR, FAR superior battle rifle.


As for the "standing off 800 yards," that's pure bravo sierra.:D If you're more than 300 yards away, I'll call down a fast mover on your position, or have my mortar team smoke you.

In modern infantry combat, most engagements take place at ranges of considerably less than 50 yards.

Long range riflery is fun, challenging, and a GREAT skill to learn. But for fighting, it's virtually useless unless you're a sniper.

[CobrayCommando]

Cobray- didnt they have problems with the penetrator part of the sabot round coming out the side of the barrel in the M60? I remember reading about it in one of my "assault weapons" books. Ive seen the .30 cal sabot ads in SG news, and other rags but was always leery of them.

I wouldn't be surprised.