Semiautomatic V. Bolt Action

13436 Views 34 Replies 8 Participants Last post by muzzleblast, Dec 24, 2004

AK

Discussion Starter · Dec 22, 2004

I ran a quick search to make sure this wasn't redundant.

I noticed that the SR-25 seems to be gaining in popularity, but I wondered how accurate it would be in comparison to a "proper" sniper rifle, such as a M-40A3, which is current USMC issue, or the M-24 SWS, current US Army issue.

In my opinion, any semiautomatic rifle designed with a scope mount in mind is really a designated marksman's rifle, since my experiance with semiautomatics is limited to military-grade assault weapons restricted to semiauto, and a half-assed .22LR.

If by "Smoothing" the action on a semiautomatic, the accuracy that is required for a sniper rifle can be achieved to meet or exceed that of a traditional bolt-action rifle, then the Semiautomatic would fall out of the Designated Marksman's Rifle category (Such as the M-16A2/E3, and the SVD Dragunov) and into the realm of the sniper rifle. (Such as the HK PSG-1, Walther WA-2000.)

However, any accurate semiautomatic rifle I have heard of tends to be either too heavy or too delicate for military useage in a sniper role, such as the PSG-1 and the WA-2000. The M-21 and SVD-K rifles are surpassed by their bolt-action equivalents.

Therefore I suppose the question I am trying to ask at 0622 after no sleep for two days is:

- For operations in the realm of Military Sniping, would you prefer to be carrying a Bolt-Action or Semiautomatic rifle, based on your experiances and any knowledge gained?

Save

1 - 6 of 35 Posts

Yimmy

· #17 · Dec 23, 2004

re

I dont like the way nations these days issue grenade-launchers as assault rifle attachments; I think the weapon was put to far greater use when the soldier only had it, in the form of the M79, and no assault rifle.

It is pointless lugging around an assault rfile and its ammo; all it does is limit the number of grenades they can carry, and encourages them to use the rifle.
You don't want the section grenadier wasting his time with a rifle, other people will be doing that, the grenadier should be laying out grenades.

Save

Yimmy

· #19 · Dec 23, 2004

re

There are no roles the grenadier can not carry out with his GL.

He has HE shot, HEP shot, Buckshot, Smoke, White phosphourous, Flare etc etc.

In Vietnam there was a special vest for the M79 grenadier, which culd carry I think 24 grenades, it may have been more.

I do not think the grenadier should have a rifle and I do not think they should have a pistol; just the GL.

As a side note, near the end of Vietnam a new M79 was designed, which refitted the old weapons with a 4 shot tube magazine and a pump; this pump action grenade launcher is ideal in my opinion. I'll see if I can find a pic.

Edit:

See less See more

Save

Yimmy

· #22 · Dec 23, 2004

AK said:
So you enjoy sending comrades home in a body bag? To leave them with only a grenade launcher is tantamount to duct-taping a live grenade to the side of their head.

Hardly, it was common practice for soldiers in Vietnam to be armed only with the M79, and I don't recall anyone thinking it a more dangerous role than any other.

I would be perfectly content to be armed only with an M79.

In the great scheme of things, you really do not want your grenadier wasting his time with a rifle. If you look at post war statistics it is clear that explosive ordance such as artillery, air support, mortars, grenade launchers etc cause far more cassualties than bullets.
A sections firepower comes from its LMG's, grenade launchers and anti-tank rockets. Those with a rifle are just their to cover the use of the real weapons.

Save

Yimmy

· #25 · Dec 23, 2004

re

I do agree that a spotter for a sniper should not be armed with an M79 alone, that would be stupid, given that his role is to sprey out bullets as the two men retreat if they are located.
I would argue that a minimie-para would be better for the job than an M16+M203 however.

"However, the M-203, M-203A1 [Modified by Diemaco for the C-7 series] is a much better alternative to the craptastic UBGL that the Brits are issued."

As you know, I am all for a stand alone grenade launcher, not for a rifle-GL combination. However I fail to see how the British duel combination is any worse than what the Americans or Canadians use, infact, every source I have read indicates it to be a superior weapon.
On what grounds do you believe it to be inferior?
You see, a bullpup with grenade launcher will always be better balanced than a conventional rifle with a grenade launcher; simply due to how the conventional weapon will be front heavy in comparison. The bullpup will also be easier to wield, due to the grenadier being able to use his trigger finger to fire the grenade, the rifles and grenades trigger being so close. Also it should be noted that when attached to a rifle, the H&K grenade launcher is superior to the M203; this is due to the manner in which it is loaded, while the sliding breech of the M203 can only accept rounds of limited length, the side opening on the H&K launcher allows for vastly longer cartridges to be used.

I don't know what MOUT training you have done, however whenever I have done FIBUA, you don't have your supporting soldiers clearing buildings, they support, and hold the ground taken by the soldiers clearing rooms. I think you will find a LMG and grenade launcher in support can do far more damage to a building in opposition hands than a rifle can.

Concerning you mention of the British LMG, it is far superior to the RPK, it shooting from belts of 200 rounds... the minime-para is a fine weapon.
I assume you meant the LSW; a weapon which does its job of extending the range of a section in much the same way as the Druganov does for the Russians.

I won't debate the OICW, as the entire programe was a mockery, and is worthy of its own thread.

See less See more

Save

Yimmy

· #27 · Dec 23, 2004

re

Concerning the LSW, they all have the 4X SUSAT, even when at units which have irons on the rifles.

The LSW imo is not such a great idea, it being just a long range version of the rifle, having the scope and bi-pod, with longer-heavier barrel.
I would say the LSW is just as good as the SVD, but it is nowehere near as good as the Bren which it replaced in a way, hence why we rushed off and bought the minime-para for Afghanistan and Iraq.

Save

Yimmy

· #29 · Dec 24, 2004

re

Nah, Jeff wouldn't make it past the front garden. Got the bear traps out I have!

Save

1 - 6 of 35 Posts

This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.

Top Contributors this Month