Bolt Action vs. Semi Auto - Page 5




 
--
 
August 19th, 2005  
Missileer
 
 
I think there is a training manual for sniper teams but I'm sure it can't cover every scenario that a team is liable to encounter. The spotter probably wants to be the one capable of defending the team if they are discovered so an M16 would lay down enough cover to escape.

I have a friend who was wounded in VietNam bad enough to be sent Stateside but before he was sent back, he was in special ops and said that everyone in his team was asked if they would care to go back for sniper training. He said they were asked if they thought they could kill anyone from ambush. I thought that was strange because I thought that was the idea. He said well the guy looking for snipers went back and put an accent on the anyone. He told them he couldn't kill women or kids and especially civilians. He was never asked again.
August 20th, 2005  
FO Seaman
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SMPRfidlis
lol back on the subject i would have to go with the bolt action for any weapon that is shooting for a one shot one kill. You dont need a semi-auto say if your going after ONE high ranked officer or something of the sort. semi-autos like the .50 beretta aren't used little for anti-personal sniping unless it is at a GREAT distance or the target is behind a wall . In that case though the round really isnt doing the damage but the debris hitting the target.
You mean the M82A1 Barret, not beretta.
August 20th, 2005  
LeEnfield
 
 
Bolt action is fine and the average magazine holds ten rounds, this comes a right pain when you are under attack by a far larger force, then you have fiddle with the bolt each time you fire then pick your target and lock on to it. In no time flat you then having to reload and the whole time you are doing this the enemy is getting closer and closer. No give me a semi Automatic rifle and a pile of full magazines any time, you don't lose your aiming spot so easily and you not reloading so often, and when you do reload it is a lot quicker.
--
August 23rd, 2005  
SMPRfidlis
 


I DO mean the M82A1 Barret

August 24th, 2005  
mmarsh
 
 
5.56 (or anyone)

Two questions for you.

If the accuracy is minimal between the the semi auto and bolt action then why did the US Army, Marines go back to the bolt actions M24 and M40 from the M21? Surely a sniper would prefer to have the use of a semi auto weapon where he to be stuck in a close quarters fight?

You have mentioned your opinion your support for a .50 cal rifle for civilian use. Im a moderate on the guns issue, I favor certain restrictions but not an outright ban. The .50 cal strikes me as the sort of weapon that should be banned. It would be an ideal assasination weapon for high profile targets, like those that ride in armoured limos. And the thought of being hit by one makes me squeemish...

I dont really see a use for it other action other than for murder. the same way I think fully automatic, grenades, flamethrowers, et al are banned. I'm curious can you express your reasons?
August 25th, 2005  
FO Seaman
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mmarsh
5.56 (or anyone)

Two questions for you.

If the accuracy is minimal between the the semi auto and bolt action then why did the US Army, Marines go back to the bolt actions M24 and M40 from the M21? Surely a sniper would prefer to have the use of a semi auto weapon where he to be stuck in a close quarters fight?

You have mentioned your opinion your support for a .50 cal rifle for civilian use. Im a moderate on the guns issue, I favor certain restrictions but not an outright ban. The .50 cal strikes me as the sort of weapon that should be banned. It would be an ideal assasination weapon for high profile targets, like those that ride in armoured limos. And the thought of being hit by one makes me squeemish...

I dont really see a use for it other action other than for murder. the same way I think fully automatic, grenades, flamethrowers, et al are banned. I'm curious can you express your reasons?

Ok I'm no expert on bolt-actions (I'm a semi man), but most military bolt-actions use match grade ammo with a boattail to reduce drag. The ammo has a certain type of powder and the scope must be "doped in" to the serial number on the box. An M21/M14 can use any type of 7.62x51mm (NATO, US, Russian, ect...), the M24 and M40 must have match grade of the barrel will expand and it will cause warpage on the stock. The M40 has a medium-heavy free floating stock with a gap between the barrel and stock the thickness of a dollar bill and if that gap is in any way "filled" or the stock touches the barrel the rounds will vary when they hit a target. (Plus bolts use the bullets gases to be pushed down the barrel as with any gun, but on a semi you must divert a small amount to eject the casings.)


Why ban .50 cal? That means that M2's used in display's and reenactments are illegal and that Civil and Revolitionary War pirod rifles and reproductions must be banned. I have a Springfeild lead ball and its 69. cal. Plus armored limos ballistic glasss can be taken out with a 7.62mm. I was thinking of buying an M82 myself, for sport shooting of course. But, why ban that? People own tanks, APC's, cannons, ect.... Oh just to clarify Grenades and Flamethrowers aren't banned.
August 25th, 2005  
mmarsh
 
 
Cadet Seaman

I was referring to civilian ownership. Grenades and Flamethrowers are banned under that National Firearms Act of 1934. Also I was referring to .50 rifles, not Heavy Machine guns. I don't know what the deal is for reenactors I know they can have them but they have to be rendered inoperable in some way. Perhaps someone else can clarify?

Im not an armourer, but a .69 lead ball (I have fired a friends Springfield 1861 Springfield .58) does not have the same punch as say a Barret M82. Which is the sort of weapon I was referring about.
August 25th, 2005  
FO Seaman
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by mmarsh
Cadet Seaman

I was referring to civilian ownership. Grenades and Flamethrowers are banned under that National Firearms Act of 1934. Also I was referring to .50 rifles, not Heavy Machine guns. I don't know what the deal is for reenactors I know they can have them but they have to be rendered inoperable in some way. Perhaps someone else can clarify?

Im not an armourer, but a .69 lead ball (I have fired a friends Springfield 1861 Springfield .58) does not have the same punch as say a Barret M82. Which is the sort of weapon I was referring about.
But the weapon is still a .50cal.

No reenactment weapon must render inoperable. Flamethrowers aren't banned. I know two people who own 1941 flamethrowers, you must have a lisence. Also the National Firearms Act of 1934 didn't ban automatics. In 1946 you could buy an M1A1 Thompson for $28, fully operable.

I myself have fired a Springfield (no shot), and it is more dangerous. Lead balls go slower than a modern round, they can get stuck in a persons body and can drag clothe, and other material with it and that can cause infections and contamination. Versus a modren rouind going as fast as they do burns of all bactria and the round just going through a target. (Was a good show on the History Channel on it.)
August 26th, 2005  
skipper
 
I read a book written about the 23 SAS guys. They had a mission where they had to knock on the IRA's door and ask them what the problem was. Anyway, things got hairy and 3 dudes ended up getting into a hired truck to get away. 2 sniper teams on the surrounding rooftops could have easily shot the guys but instead on of them used a .50 AW50F or a variant thereof and fired through the engine block of the truck. the guys surrendered, and they got three people to interogate rather than corpses. in this case a .50 CAl makes sense but with the accuracy of modern snipers, bolt or semi, the size of the hole doesnt matter, just where u hit them. unless u want to hit through doors and walls using thermals, in which case the round might richochet anyway.

To really debate the effectiveness of semi v bolt, you have to understand what type of sniping we are talking about., and the conditions that are prevailing.

In the case stated above, it was a SWAT style operation, which usually lasts 5 - 15 seconds. There are limited targets so there is no need for high rate of fire sniper weapons. Generally, each shooter gets one target and thats it. In this case a bolt is probably more preferable.

For example, in urban conditions, such as Baghdad, two types would probably be used. At squad level, the Designated Marksman would use a semi such as the the M 21, because that area would generally be considered a target - rich environment and therefore there is a need to fire at multiple targets fairly rapidly.

However, in the same locale, different assignment, Sniper team, (one shooter one spotter). Shooter would probably use a bolt action because of longer range and MOA accuracy and a smaller need to fire many shots. At a time of occupation, such as current middle east, such a team would probably be in place for short to medium periods of time, maybe with insertion by vehicle and as such would be able to take more gear with them. Spotter may have a semi auto because of the obvious close range benefits but if they can take more gear they may even get AR's for both of them.

a really good site with heaps of links is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sniper_rifles
January 13th, 2011  
Swamptick
 
Good info ... I googled this thread and read all post, but there is one question that i cant seem to find an answer to. One person mention gas escape through the bolt, but what about the gas tube of gas operated autos. Would that reduce barrel pressure or is it negligable? Im researching this for a 6mmBR biuld. One thing i have found out is that every diameter and length of a projectile has an optimum speed for small groups. To slow, it drops. To fast, the ballistics becomes volatile.