JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.

Bolt-guns obsolete?

  • Yes, the guys in Arizona are right!

    Votes: 12 15.8%
  • No, they are full of it!

    Votes: 56 73.7%
  • Eh ... yes, but they overstated their case.

    Votes: 4 5.3%
  • Dunno ... whatever.

    Votes: 1 1.3%
  • (burp) Eh .. wut? Arizona Tea as a mixer or sumth'n?

    Votes: 3 3.9%

  • Total voters
    76
Bolts will never be obsolete. A bolt, receiver, barrel, trigger and stock... 5 components compared to 6 or more with a gas system. It will be a while before semis fully replace bolts but bolts will never be obsolete due to simplicity.
1630218227753.png

 
I may be wrong (I'm old and my recollection is poor), but I thought I saw something that said most battlefield casualties are the result of bombs, artillery and mortars, and not small arms fire. If that's the case, how do we judge the battle field effectiveness of semi-auto versus bolt action rifles. Is it a question of convincing troops that a semi-auto gives them an advantage on the battle field versus a bolt action rifle? Is it a failure to spend the time to train decent marksmanship under fire? I don't know. For my part, I'm in a decently defensible position. My job is to convince anyone seeking my stuff, if the SHTF, that there are softer targets. I figure that dropping perps at 200 plus yards with my bolt action rifle might do the job.
 
Until there is a semi-auto rifle that will shoot all ammo as reliably as a bolt action can, then no, bolt actions will not be obsolete for general purpose use. This could be accomplished by adding the capability to easily lock a semi-auto bolt and the capability to easily operate it manually (as easily as a bolt action).

For military use? Yes, bolt actions will be obsolete - probably are at this point.
 
I may be wrong (I'm old and my recollection is poor), but I thought I saw something that said most battlefield casualties are the result of bombs, artillery and mortars, and not small arms fire. If that's the case, how do we judge the battle field effectiveness of semi-auto versus bolt action rifles. Is it a question of convincing troops that a semi-auto gives them an advantage on the battle field versus a bolt action rifle? Is it a failure to spend the time to train decent marksmanship under fire? I don't know. For my part, I'm in a decently defensible position. My job is to convince anyone seeking my stuff, if the SHTF, that there are softer targets. I figure that dropping perps at 200 plus yards with my bolt action rifle might do the job.
One method of battlefield effectiveness could be any field of fire course where a shooter must engage various targets at various distances within a certain amount of time, then do the similar thing in a shoot house. Since war doesn't happen only at specific distances, all these distances must be taken into account.

The training aspect is the real difference in my opinion, because someone who is poorly trained will be less effective regardless of their weapon being semi auto or a bolt action.
 
Probably picking up my second weatherby mark v next month. In 300 wby mag. Why? Because I can! Love the fact it is the strongest commercial bolt action out there. Sure it's pricey, but you get what you pay for. Not "sniper" accurate but hunting accurate, they are guaranteed to be 1.5 moa. ( with a heavy barrel probably do better). Good enough for me. Been entertaining the idea of a 460 wby just for the 7000+ ft. lbs of energy at a hundred yards. Makes me kinda tingly all over just thinking about it.
 
I have a .308 scout rifle it takes m-14 or ar-10 mags.( under 7lbs. fully loaded) so as many rounds as you can get in any rifle. Not planning on going to war. Just want fire power with few as moving parts as possible. shoot & scoot from behind cover, that allows escape. also practice rapid fire bolt drills. some great video's out there to learn technique's if you don't know how. it's hard to break a bolt action rifle. AND remember this, if S.H.T.F it won't be like the movies. with a never ending supply of parts & AMMO
 
Didn't watch the vid.
Bolt guns will never be obsolete, even in some military instances. At least that's my opinion.
General issue for troops? No, that's why the Garand was so highly thought of.
 
Just to be letting my coffee sink in, military doesn't issue as a pdw a semi auto rifle. They issue an assault rifle and bolt guns just don't fit that category. They are excellent as support weapons in overwatch positions but just not made for close up door to door shootouts. Just opinion now. :)
 
If that is your litmus its already happened . The US Military and pretty much everyone else save the Brits have mostly adopted self loading sniping systems. The Army and USMC have been retiring their M24 and M40 rifles for quite a while hence the The Army turn in M24 SWS rifles that became available a couple of years ago to the public.




When the people who kill other people from very VERY far away use more gas guns then bolt guns, I'll agree. But only after the majority of hunters also replace theirs. Oh, and top level bench rest shooters.

I'll change my statement a bit after actually watching the video. In the context they stated, if everyone else has an automatic, you are definitely at a disadvantage within a couple hundred yards and everyone is trying to kill everyone else. It was an interesting point they made that the sand people used British enfields just long enough to pick up an AK and now it seems they used those just long enough to be given an M4...... so is it an advantage to have repeating fire? Yes. Is the bolt gun obsolete? Still no.
 
General issue for troops? No, that's why the Garand was so highly thought of.
Exactly, and they did address this, talking about how the M1 was such a vast improvement. They even said that though the venerable M1 is militarily obsolete, and has been for a very long time, it could still hold it's own on the battlefield even today.

As to accuracy, sniping and long range shooting, it was clear that the bolt-actions they're talking about are your average Springfield/Enfield/Mauser/Mosin, and not a modern scoped sniper rifle. They said that the average accuracy of those old-school battle rifles was around 4moa, not conducive to precision long-range shooting. They also did touch on the fact that it's not rifles that win wars anyhow, it's artillery.

For those who didn't watch or don't know who "In Range" is, one of the guys is Ian from Forgotten Weapons. I thought it was a pretty good video.
 
The video touched on the use of grenades too. Having an offensive/defensive tool that doesn't require line of sight is a massive difference from the fantasy civilian combat that most on this thread are postulating about.
If I was to go with grenades, I would want a launcher. Hand thrown grenades - I don't think would be that useful for me; I would not be working in CQB/etc., and because of injuries, I simply could not throw them far enough except in CQB scenarios - I would stay out of urban situations too. But yes, grenades with a launcher would be nice. About the only time I would be able to get them and afford them though, would be in an extreme WROL/SHTF scenario, and if it ever gets that serious, I probably would not survive long enough either.
 

Upcoming Events

Lakeview Spring Gun Show
Lakeview, OR
Albany Gun Show
Albany, OR
Falcon Gun Show - Classic Gun & Knife Show
Stanwood, WA
Wes Knodel Gun & Knife Show - Albany
Albany, OR

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top