Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com

Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com (http://www.firearmstalk.com/forums/)
-   General Rifle Discussion (http://www.firearmstalk.com/forums/f18/)
-   -   bolt action combat? (http://www.firearmstalk.com/forums/f18/bolt-action-combat-2433/)

RoyDMercer 10-24-2007 04:30 PM

bolt action combat?
 
For combat rifles some will argue an accuracy factor as far as how well bolt actions do but there is the obvious that with automatics bolt actions are outgunned. What kind of semi-automatics are there which people consider as accurate and reliable as a bolt action from afar?

Catfish 10-24-2007 05:33 PM

Bolt guns will always be capable of better accuracy than semi-autos, but how accurate does it have to be for combat. I have never tried to see how well my AR will shoot, but did buy some cheap varment bullet and the first load I tried shot a 5 shot group at 100 yrds. of .700. I have bolt guns the I have shot groups in the .100`s with, but this gun is for hunting coyotes behind dogs and will be fired mostly off hand at running targets. I`m quite sure that in a fire fight anyone would be better surved with a semi-auto that shot 2 moa than a bolt gun that shot 1/4 moa. My AR is a Rock River, but have heard good things about several of the other brands.

rickrem700 10-24-2007 06:39 PM

Semi Auto Battle rifle with bolt action accuracy
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by RoyDMercer (Post 10809)
For combat rifles some will argue an accuracy factor as far as how well bolt actions do but there is the obvious that with automatics bolt actions are outgunned. What kind of semi-automatics are there which people consider as accurate and reliable as a bolt action from afar?

Well, I guess the moral majority are AR-15 Fans out there, I personaly am not a fan of the .223 as it is what it is and it is a varmit round, it will suffice as a man killing round, if nothing else is available, but given the choice I would not use anything less than a .243, and preferably a 30 cal, also with the AR-15 there is a reliability issue, just add dust and dirt and they live up to the jamomatic statis they have earned!!! I will say this now that there are different platformes that offer a wider range of cal selection I would consider it, but as a last resort, I am a diehard FAL fan it in my opinion it is the best battle rifle out there, sporting a true man killing round with excellent semi-auto accuracy!!! But that's just me, opinion's will very.

matt g 10-25-2007 01:54 AM

Springfield M1As and Fulton M14s are capable of sub-MOA shots. Either will reach out past 800 meters as well.

Many military snipers prefer the M14 platform as it allows for a faster follow up shot than a bolt action would allow. You also have more ammo on tap, so if things get hot, you can effectively lay down suppressive fires. All that and the venerable .308 Win round? What is there not to love?

Bolt Action 10-26-2007 01:17 PM

Bolt action rifles will allways hold the accuracy trophy,However,in today's day and age [and this is comming from a bolt action fanatic]..Supressive fire will overule accuracy any day...but still..isn't it a good thing to have?

More or less,the best battle rifle will be the rifle that best suits your combat style.
If you like big,loud in your face combat,Combat shotguns and SMG's are your deal...If you like long range fighting,then a M-14,PSG-1 or an older bolt action gun might be of use...It all depends on what your opinion of a great rifle is..me personally,I'd take my M44 into combat any day!

However,if you're looking for a good,all around shooter...
M-14.

cpttango30 10-27-2007 12:36 AM

The 5.56 Nato or 223 was not ment to KILL combatents that is why we use FMJ bullets. If you kill a person you take one out of the fight. If you wound a guy you take three out, the one shot and his two buddies to carry his ass back to the FSH (Forward Support Hospital). The 5.56 was devloped for Military use first and just so happend to end up in the hands of varmint hunters.

The main goal of the 5.56 was to lighten the load so to speek, you can twice the ammount of 5.56 as you could 7.62 ammo. So that means you can stay in a firefight longer. This also means you can ship more ammo in less space on the logistics side of the house.

When I was in the Army my theroy was the more lead going away means less comming back. That is why I always wanted the biggest weapon in the arms room. If I could put 600 rounds per minute down range then that gave me a better chance at killing someone. Accuracy only matters to one person on the battle field the sniper.

Accuracy does not save your life in combat volume of fire does. Think about it you have one company (230 men) armed with M-16 and another armed with 7.62 bolt guns. The company with the m-16 can put down range a maximum of 161,000 (700 * 230) rounds down range in one minute. The guys with bolt guns can not even come close to that because they are limited by operating the bolt and magazine cap. Most bolt guns hold 6 round +1 in the chamber for a total of 7 rounds. You can get 30 rounds in an M-16.

Bolt Action 10-27-2007 01:26 PM

I agree with you....to a point...
Yes,in the case of suppresive fire,M-16 vs Mosin Nagant,Yes,the M-16 user would very easily suppress and destroy the Mosin Nagant combantant ..provided of course,the user of the Mosin Nagant is engaged within the firing range of the M-16..
the M-16 assault rifle has a bit of a shorter range than the Mosin Nagant does,Greater rate of fire yes,but a bit shorter of range. I think the Mosin has about 50 meters up on the M-16 in range.

However,to defend the M-16 a bit,in a normal combat situation,unless the guy with the Mosin has a scope,it's hard to hit (for me anyway) a target,a moving one at that,using iron sights from that far away. However,if the user has a scope,I think that the Mosin has 1 up on the M-16 there.

My theory goes,it doesn't matter how much lead you spray or how big of a gun you have,if you can't hit anything with it,what good is it?


All times are GMT. The time now is 01:27 PM.

Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.