Action rifles vs. automatic rifles

[300 H and H]

Joe,
the 30/40 Krag was between the 45/70 and the 30/03 that became the 30/06 of 1906. The Krag rifle for the 30/40 was in use from around 1890. The 30/03 was a longer necked version of what became the 30/06. Those early rifles had the barrels removed and the chamber end cut down, to rechambered for the newer 30/06. JFYI.

Regards, Kirk

 

[Jim_S]

The 30-40 Krag replaced the 45-70 for a few years around the turn of the century.

Jim

Checked wikipedia.

The 30-40 Krag was adopted in 1892. It was replaced in 1903 with the 30-03 which lasted only 3 years when the 30-06 was introduced.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.30-03

Never heard of the 30-03 until today.

 

[Gunsrus]

Sorry to butt in, Gunsrus/Sailor, to clarify a couple points:

1) the three longest sniper shots on record were accomplished with hand-operated rotary bolt action rifles. The confusion may lie with the fact that both rifles (similar to the TAC-50) had 5 round detachable box magazines.

2) the precision (which is different than accuracy) offered by the bolt action rifle, as opposed to a semiauto, lies in its ability to repeat identical chamber lockup, ignition, barrel vibration and harmonics shot-to-shot. The semiauto, while marvelous examples of firearm engineering and can indeed be very precise, cannot make this claim of exact repetition, shot after shot after shot.

That's all. The science of the great military industrial complex rocks.

Points to be remembered, Kane. I like the one about the precision. So far I'm in the company of people that know their stuff. It's very refreshing.

One of the things that this poll boils down to is quality vs. quantity. The semi-auto has been very well-developed over the 20th century. Practiced shooter can take out many targets at a time, but that's killing by the numbers, not with any grace.

True, a bolt action rifle can't pick off multiple targets in a row, but then again, you don't have to be a genius to use a rifle that loads for you. Here are both the pros and the cons of using the SLR thrown together.

1)

A much broader range of people can learn how to use a semi-auto in a shorter span of time than a manually operated one. So, the level of smartness is less in demand. Efficiency and accuracy is sacrificed in favor of speed and quantity.

2) Basic use of cover is needed to evade enemy fire using an SA, but training people to rely on cover and returning fire rapidly isn't very hard to swallow. To use cover and reload, while planning your next move, requires creative thinking and positioning. For that, you need to develop your combat skills more.

3) More expensive, but more showy, is the SLR. It offers a greater kill ratio, but the elegance of the fight and the kills is lost. It becomes more like spraying pesticide than armed conflict. The wit and savvy in movement that users of the bolt action applied is shot to hell with automatic weapons.



2)

 

[Melensdad]

While a very expensive custom built bolt action rifle will be more accurate than a semi-auto, I think most of the people who dismiss the semi-auto as less accurate are simply wrong.

Build up a $1500-$2000 AR15 or AR10 and build up a $1500-$2000 Remington 700 and I honestly believe that BOTH rifles are capable of being "1 hole" guns with accuracy differences that are so minute that neither has an accuracy advantage.

One semi-auto AR10 maker has rifles shooting 300 Win Mag at 4" at 1000 Yards.

I have personally built, and I currently own, Sub-1/2 MOA AR15s that shoot far better than I am capable of holding. One of my guns was borrowed by an Appleseed instructor, who, while holding it in a standing position with a sling, fired a 5 shot group of 3/4" at 200 yards using cheap WOLF ammo! At 100 yard ranges I've shot 1 hole groups with that gun off a simple plastic rest. And at 200 yards I've shot 1/2 MOA groups . . . and I am not considered to be a good shot amongst the members of my shooting group.

Please explain how a bolt action gun that shoots 1 hole groups is better, more accurate, etc than a semi-auto that shoots 1 hole groups?

10 shot group:

And I am not talking about fancy uber-priced "F-Class" guns that weigh as much as your ex-wife and cost as much as your divorce lawyer. I am talking about guns that are available using off the shelf components that may be tweaked a bit for accuracy but don't require a second mortgage to own.​

 

[Kane]

While a very expensive custom built bolt action rifle will be more accurate than a semi-auto, I think most of the people who dismiss the semi-auto as less accurate are simply wrong.

Build up a $1500-$2000 AR15 or AR10 and build up a $1500-$2000 Remington 700 and I honestly believe that BOTH rifles are capable of being "1 hole" guns with accuracy differences that are so minute that neither has an accuracy advantage.

One semi-auto AR10 maker has rifles shooting 300 Win Mag at 4" at 1000 Yards.

I have personally built, and I currently own, Sub-1/2 MOA AR15s that shoot far better than I am capable of holding. One of my guns was borrowed by an Appleseed instructor, who, while holding it in a standing position with a sling, fired a 5 shot group of 3/4" at 200 yards using cheap WOLF ammo! At 100 yard ranges I've shot 1 hole groups with that gun off a simple plastic rest. And at 200 yards I've shot 1/2 MOA groups . . . and I am not considered to be a good shot amongst the members of my shooting group.



Please explain how a bolt action gun that shoots 1 hole groups is better, more accurate, etc than a semi-auto that shoots 1 hole groups?

10 shot group:

And I am not talking about fancy uber-priced "F-Class" guns that weigh as much as your ex-wife and cost as much as your divorce lawyer. I am talking about guns that are available using off the shelf components that may be tweaked a bit for accuracy but don't require a second mortgage to own.​

Ten years ago we probably couldn't have made this comparison between a bolt gun and a semi auto. But as the technology has improved, materials have evolved, and general fit and finish has excelled, indeed there can be very little difference in "precision" between the two. That is if both weapons are used in the same way for the same reason.

This is true particularly when the semi auto is built with precision in mind to not only "act" like a bolt gun, but is "used" like a bolt gun - that is when it is used in a slow-fire mode.

The modern well-built semi auto, with consistent ammunition can indeed offer the same precise lockup, ignition and barrel harmonics as most any bolt gun.

The detrimental tangible handicap that the well-built semi auto does suffer is the inability to "jam the lands" as is common practice in bolt gun competition. This means the ability of a rifle to accept ammunition with an overall cartridge length that places the bullet in contact with the barrel rifling, if not jammed into the rifling lands. It is in this condition that the precision of the bolt gun is maximized, which in other words means a consistent presentation to the barrel rifling (the key to precision) shot after shot after shot.

A cartridge in the semi auto, on the other hand, is subject to battering in the magazine during recoil (affecting overall case length), bullet disorientation in the neck as the case rattles upward into battery, and the obvious inability for the bullet to jam the lands. This is why bullets in automatic weapon belted ammunition are crimped into the case - to withstand this abuse.

NOTE: Yes, automatic rifles can indeed be very precise. This all assumes, tho, that the automatic weapon is NOT actually being used as a semi auto or full auto weapon. (If not, what's the point?) All you are doing in this case is using a very complicated and expensive piece of machinery as a single-shot bench rester. Still, not a bad thing to have on the field of fire or leaning behind the bedroom door.

.

 

[Melensdad]

Kane, I totally agree with everything you wrote, but when talking about having the ogive of the bullet touching the lands of the barrel when chambered we are talking about custom handloaded ammunition.

I'm suggesting that with a factory built standard model precision bolt gun and a factory built standard model precision semi-auto, using factory ammo, that there is such a small difference that it is negligible. I'm suggesting that a HOBBY TINKERER like myself can build a semi-auto with stock parts that are assembled on the dining room table (when the wife is out of the house) can be as good as a gunsmith 'tuned' bolt action rifle using factory ammo.

And I'm saying that I've built the guns to prove my point.

 

[Jim_S]

assembled on the dining room table (when the wife is out of the house)

I hear that sitting in the bathtub is the best place.

Makes it much easier to find all the pins and springs that you will drop!

 

[300 H and H]

http://www.outdoorlife.com/blogs/gun-shots/2013/05/benchrest-world-record-jim-carmichel

Here is a nice artical on a world record group fired at 100 yrds. In the benchrest world there are no AR's being used. This maybe how ever due to rules requiring rifles to be single shot. Of course we know the AR may become a single shot with a sled in the clip slot and single loaded. But apparently nno one is doing this as of today anyway.

As the AR platform has evolved it should be noted that so has the bolt action. Now there are several target type precision actions on the market that now dominate the benchrest world. With a bolt gun 2oz or less trigger pulls are the norm. Not sure if an AR can be made to this level. This maybe one of the hurtles the AR has that keeps it from being competitive at this high level....

Neck sized and neck turned ammo, made custon to fit the chamber of the gun it is to be fired in is still the best way. Factory ammo can be impressive, but check out the groups being fired in the world of competitive benchrest, and find out other wise..

Regards, Kirk

 

[Kane]

Kane, I totally agree with everything you wrote, but when talking about having the ogive of the bullet touching the lands of the barrel when chambered we are talking about custom handloaded ammunition.

I'm suggesting that with a factory built standard model precision bolt gun and a factory built standard model precision semi-auto, using factory ammo, that there is such a small difference that it is negligible. I'm suggesting that a HOBBY TINKERER like myself can build a semi-auto with stock parts that are assembled on the dining room table (when the wife is out of the house) can be as good as a gunsmith 'tuned' bolt action rifle using factory ammo.

And I'm saying that I've built the guns to prove my point.

No doubt at all. If Lee Oswald had been using one of your AR's, I could totally agree with The Warren Commission.

 

[Melensdad]

@Kirk, but again, you are talking about highly specialized guns, and I admit upfront that those guns will be more accurate.



@Jim, never thought of the bathtub, but the nice thing about the dining room is that there is no carpet to hide those tiny pins and springs.



@Kane, don't connect any of my guns to gubmint conspiracy theories!!!

 

[Snowtrac Nome]

I must have too many vintage guns as I do also have a savage 99 and a Winchester 88 in 284 and also a 30-40 kraig they have all been hunting with me at one time or another.

 

[two guns]

Back in 1986 when I bought my Colt HBAR AR 15, it didn't take me very long to realize that if you wanted to use it for engaging anything including humans, that this rifle is in another leage in a trained marksman's hands. Near bolt gun accuracy and repeat fire is easy and very fast as well..

Also purchased several Colt Delta HBAR's about that year. That is one deadly rifle.
Not that any other of our Colt AR's we have shoot bad. All seem pretty accurate and groups well at long distance ......
But all the others can not come close to the Colt Delta HBAR ......


.......... two guns

 

[Snowtrac Nome]

one thing I can say about the gas guns. even in inexperienced hand the lack of significant recoil makes them a lot tamer for a newbe to the shooting sports to handle.

 

[Kane]

From the complicated machinery of the semi-auto to the simplicity of the bolt action. Well, this is about as simple as you can get: the shell-holder style of the 50BMG. The bolt is removed completely from the rifle, a shell placed into the bolt face, and the bolt reinserted into the action, ready to go boom.



Like they say, bigger bullets tend to work better. Especially in this 1,000 yard gun.



See more. Use the search for the FF thread: 50BMG Rifle Recommendations, Opinions, Observations.

.

 

[RNE228]

This is very recent; until probably the last ten years or so, the AR was not that developed. Nor was the rest of the semi-auto industry. Even now, the general semi-auto selection is not on par with higher-end AR's; the AR has really evolved in to one of the most accurate, is set up properly(obviously no pencil barrel carbine).

My expierience with Rem-700V was 0.5 to 0.75MOA out of the box with Federal 168bthp match, and inexpensive budget scope.

That's why USMC snipers used Win M70V and Rem-700V. for a long time, they were using basic factory varmint riflles that were accurate out of the box.

While a very expensive custom built bolt action rifle will be more accurate than a semi-auto, I think most of the people who dismiss the semi-auto as less accurate are simply wrong.

Build up a $1500-$2000 AR15 or AR10 and build up a $1500-$2000 Remington 700 and I honestly believe that BOTH rifles are capable of being "1 hole" guns with accuracy differences that are so minute that neither has an accuracy advantage.

 

[Snowtrac Nome]

h&k has been building sporter autos for years and the accuracy achieved by those are impressive

 

[Danang Sailor]

This is very recent; until probably the last ten years or so, the AR was not that developed. Nor was the rest of the semi-auto industry. Even now, the general semi-auto selection is not on par with higher-end AR's; the AR has really evolved in to one of the most accurate, is set up properly(obviously no pencil barrel carbine).

My expierience with Rem-700V was 0.5 to 0.75MOA out of the box with Federal 168bthp match, and inexpensive budget scope.

That's why USMC snipers used Win M70V and Rem-700V. for a long time, they were using basic factory varmint riflles that were accurate out of the box.

One of the "old guys" who mentored me in the early 60's - he must have been at least 30! - used a Remington Woodsmaster
chambered in 30-06, and it was accurate to 1 minute-of-whitetail out to at least 250 yards with iron sights. Had he
mounted glass on it I'm sure he could have tightened up his shot patterns a bit. And the really old guys I knew who fought
in WWII made, according to their records, some really fine shots at extreme ranges were using M1 Garands with iron
sights only.

I believe you're selling the older auto-loaders way too short. The record says that many of them were fine weapons that
were highly accurate. Just my opinion I suppose, but there were a lot of old Garand shooters who swore by them.

 

[300 H and H]

I have seen a full race National Match M1 Garand shot in a 600 yd NRA prone match. It did quite well, but was in the middle of the pack of AR15's.. Still a very fine rifle IMHO. But it took many man hours to build it, probably much more than the AR it was shot against. Not to mention the extra cost it probably took.

Regards, Kirk

 

[RNE228]

Generally, semi-auto's were not the most accurate. There were exceptions(accurate) than the rule.

But, yes, there have always been some fine shooter. I would like to add one of those Woodmasters to my safe... And yes, a tuned M1 Garand is on my to do list.

One of the "old guys" who mentored me in the early 60's - he must have been at least 30! - used a Remington Woodsmaster
chambered in 30-06,

I believe you're selling the older auto-loaders way too short. The record says that many of them were fine weapons that
were highly accurate. Just my opinion I suppose, but there were a lot of old Garand shooters who swore by them.

 

[Gunsrus]

Greater physical and mental fitness were also benefits that were enjoyed by using action rifles. Over time, the shooters developed much finer muscular physiques than the ones today. Not only did they have apply more strength to carry the rifles and hold them steady, as they fired them, they also had to contend themselves with the reloading process, so, their arms must have been stronger, more resilient and sleeker than the modern variety.

Their hand eye coordination must've been better, too, because they had to choose their targets more selectively. I imagine they needed to employ more cerebral tactics to hit their marks, since enemy soldiers must have also possessed similarly developed psychological and physical profiles.

 

[Melensdad]

Greater physical and mental fitness were also benefits that were enjoyed by using action rifles. Over time, the shooters developed much finer muscular physiques than the ones today. Not only did they have apply more strength to carry the rifles and hold them steady, as they fired them, they also had to contend themselves with the reloading process, so, their arms must have been stronger, more resilient and sleeker than the modern variety.

Their hand eye coordination must've been better, too, because they had to choose their targets more selectively. I imagine they needed to employ more cerebral tactics to hit their marks, since enemy soldiers must have also possessed similarly developed psychological and physical profiles.

I think this is totally subjective and I do not believe any of it can be proven as stated.

 

[Kane]

Greater physical and mental fitness were also benefits that were enjoyed by using action rifles. Over time, the shooters developed much finer muscular physiques than the ones today. Not only did they have apply more strength to carry the rifles and hold them steady, as they fired them, they also had to contend themselves with the reloading process, so, their arms must have been stronger, more resilient and sleeker than the modern variety.

Their hand eye coordination must've been better, too, because they had to choose their targets more selectively. I imagine they needed to employ more cerebral tactics to hit their marks, since enemy soldiers must have also possessed similarly developed psychological and physical profiles.

huh? Kinda like Jimmy the Greek suggesting that massive thighs are result of one's ancestors being raised as slaves. An interesting theory, tho, but still just a theory.

 

[Gunsrus]

There's not much style in machine gun firefights. In the past, the Germans used long range shooting as their particular tactic and it was used very stylishly and efficiently. In World War II, they abused of it. Omaha Beach was one example. They mopped down so many allied soldiers from afar and they were able to because of rapid fire guns. Larger casualties resulted from machine guns and made war needlessly messier and far less tactful than in the Great War.

The Germans were proof that if you give man the means to kill a large number of people at a time, he'll take advantage of it unfairly. The Allied soldiers were not in a proper position to defend themselves until they got into the bunkers surrounding the guard towers set up at the upper side of the beach. The hail of bullets was one of the dirty ways to cheat at firing from further away.

The saying "all's fair in love and war" was cruelly disregarded. There was no fairness when the Machine gun entered the scene, only carnage that spoiled what could have been a continuation of fine long distance dueling.

 

[Kane]

There's not much style in machine gun firefights. In the past, the Germans used long range shooting as their particular tactic and it was used very stylishly and efficiently. In World War II, they abused of it. Omaha Beach was one example. They mopped down so many allied soldiers from afar and they were able to because of rapid fire guns. Larger casualties resulted from machine guns and made war needlessly messier and far less tactful than in the Great War.

The Germans were proof that if you give man the means to kill a large number of people at a time, he'll take advantage of it unfairly. The Allied soldiers were not in a proper position to defend themselves until they got into the bunkers surrounding the guard towers set up at the upper side of the beach. The hail of bullets was one of the dirty ways to cheat at firing from further away.

The saying "all's fair in love and war" was cruelly disregarded. There was no fairness when the Machine gun entered the scene, only carnage that spoiled what could have been a continuation of fine long distance dueling.

Ironic, ain't it? If I have my history right, the invention of the Maxim machine gun was thought as a weapon to end all wars. The thinking was that the automatic weapon would be so lethal and devastating as to make war too cruel to be waged by a rational mankind.

Well, apparently not all of mankind is rational.

 

[Bamby]

There's not much style in machine gun firefights. In the past, the Germans used long range shooting as their particular tactic and it was used very stylishly and efficiently. In World War II, they abused of it. Omaha Beach was one example. They mopped down so many allied soldiers from afar and they were able to because of rapid fire guns. Larger casualties resulted from machine guns and made war needlessly messier and far less tactful than in the Great War.

The Germans were proof that if you give man the means to kill a large number of people at a time, he'll take advantage of it unfairly. The Allied soldiers were not in a proper position to defend themselves until they got into the bunkers surrounding the guard towers set up at the upper side of the beach. The hail of bullets was one of the dirty ways to cheat at firing from further away.

The saying "all's fair in love and war" was cruelly disregarded. There was no fairness when the Machine gun entered the scene, only carnage that spoiled what could have been a continuation of fine long distance dueling.

The example above is exactly a circumstance where I'd highly prefer a fully automatic rifle. Though once the enemy is hidden behind cover I wouldn't feel at all handicapped with a bolt action because my targets would then be quick fleeting moments of opportunity when someone maybe even carelessly exposed themselves.

 

[300 H and H]

Some time before the first world war the Germans and the French had occassion to fire at one another. The Germans learned a hard lesson when it was found out the French machine guns could far outdistance those German guns. They went home with their tails between their legs and came up with the Spitzer boat tailed bullet and a whole new attitude of how to use their machine guns. But they owe what they developed to the French and the 8mm Lebel cartridge that taught them the lesson years before...

Regards, Kirk

 

[Danang Sailor]

There's not much style in machine gun firefights. In the past, the Germans used long range shooting as their particular tactic and it was used very stylishly and efficiently.

There is very little "style" in war. Perhaps there was when all combat was hand-to-hand, man-to-man ... but that type of
warfare disappeared with the advent of the first firearms. I realize you cannot understand combat having never
experienced it yourself, but take it from those that have ... being constantly in pants-wetting fear is not "stylish".

In World War II, they abused of it. Omaha Beach was one example. They mopped down so many allied soldiers from afar and they were able to because of rapid fire guns. Larger casualties resulted from machine guns and made war needlessly messier and far less tactful than in the Great War.

The Germans were proof that if you give man the means to kill a large number of people at a time, he'll take advantage of it unfairly. The Allied soldiers were not in a proper position to defend themselves until they got into the bunkers surrounding the guard towers set up at the upper side of the beach. The hail of bullets was one of the dirty ways to cheat at firing from further away.

" ... needlessly messier ... unfair ... dirty ... cheat ..." Where in the world did you get these silly ideas? War is an extension
of political aims by means of naked force; it is not a game of chess played by intellectuals wearing white gloves! The
goal of every army is to decimate the opposing army while suffering the fewest possible casualties itself. This being the
case, any tool that will allow soldiers to kill more enemies with less losses of their own is a tool they should employ to the
maximum extent possible; giving your soldiers anything less would be immoral.

The saying "all's fair in love and war" was cruelly disregarded. There was no fairness when the Machine gun entered the scene, only carnage that spoiled what could have been a continuation of fine long distance dueling.

"All's fair in love and war" means that all is fair!! If you have a weapon that gives you an major advantage it is
both reasonable AND fair to use it- that is what that old saying means!!

If you want to comment on guns in general, feel free; I have no problems with opinions that are contrary to mine. Sharing
our opinions, and the reasons for those opinions, is one of the ways we all learn. However, in my opinion at least, you need
to do more research before commenting on the use of weapons in combat, as you are making yourself look less than well
informed with posts like this one.

 

[Gunsrus]

Danang Sailor, I appreciate your commentary. It's insightful and useful, but please, I'd like to take up the issue of my understanding and knowledge through PM, not in the open. I've sent you a message. Please read it before you post here next time.

 

[Danang Sailor]

Danang Sailor, I appreciate your commentary. It's insightful and useful, but please, I'd like to take up the issue of my understanding and knowledge through PM, not in the open. I've sent you a message. Please read it before you post here next time.

PM read and answered. Handle it as you will.

 

[FrancSevin]

Danang Sailor, I appreciate your commentary. It's insightful and useful, but please, I'd like to take up the issue of my understanding and knowledge through PM, not in the open. I've sent you a message. Please read it before you post here next time.

I am confused.

Most of us humans know a lot about nothin' and a little bit more than the rest, about something.

I think most of us come here with an interest to learn more by reading the content of each other's posts. Unless it is a personal matter, why hide the revalation of pertinent and corrected information?