Wonder if a low tech bolt action is more reliable than a semiauto. Especially, in adverse environments. When accuracy and reliability are important, I’d choose a bolt action. Or a revolver, too. Same idea.
“Wonder if a low tech bolt action is more reliable than a semiauto.“
A Mosin Nagant is about as reliable as they come, and far more accurate than most believe.
L
The Test. Until lately, the Marines’ standard rifle was the 38-year-old war-tested Springfield, which was also the Army’s rifle until 1936. Since the Army adopted the Garand, the Marine Corps has been under pressure to do the same. The Army last week, had about as many Springfields as Garands in service, but was substituting Garands as fast as production (about 700 a day) permitted.
After boiling down results of all the tests for accuracy, ruggedness, general fitness for combat, the board rated the rifles: 1) Springfield; 2) Garand; 3) Johnson; 4) Winchester. Best that the board could say for the Garand was that it was “superior to the other semi-automatic rifles . . .”; “superior in the number of well-aimed shots that can be fired per minute”; could be quickly cleaned in the field. Sum & substance of the findings was that the Garand was a fair-weather rifle, excellent on the practice range but far from good enough for the Marines when the going got tough. The going in the test was very tough. Examples:
– The rifles were doused in mud “of light consistency.” Results: “The M-1903 [Springfield] rifle can be operated. However, the bolt became harder to operate as the test progressed. . . . The M-1 [Garand] rifles would not function and the longer an attempt was made to operate the bolt by hand the harder it became to open.”
– The board assumed “that troops have landed through light surf [as Marines must often do] and that rifles were dropped or dragged over wet sand in reaching cover on the beach.” The rifles were exposed to saltwater spray (but not actually soaked in water), dropped in wet sand. Results: the Springfields fired “in the normal manner.” But “the bolts on the two [Garands] could not be opened by hand after the first and second shots respectively. The firer had to stand up and use his foot against the operating handle in order to open the actions. Both [Garand] rifles . . . failed this test.”
– The board assumed “that troops have landed through heavy surf sufficient to break completely over men and equipment, and immediately engage in combat on a sandy beach.” Results: both Garands failed to operate as semi-automatic rifles (i.e., reload automatically after each round). One failed completely and the firer had to hammer the bolt with a mallet; “the other operated by hand with extreme difficulty. …” The Springfields continued to work, with slight difficulty. On these salt water tests, the Garand was rated last, the Springfield first.
“Wonder if a low tech bolt action is more reliable than a semiauto. Especially, in adverse environments. When accuracy and reliability are important, I’d choose a bolt action. Or a revolver, too. Same idea.”
I like Ruger single shots or bolts for one shot/one kill situations. For groups of coyotes or feral hogs then a semi auto.
Why the heck would I spend over $1000 for a hunting rifle ?
Depends on how adverse the environment is. Bolt-actions are actually more prone to moisture intruding into the firing pin channel and freezing than other designs. Sarco and other militaria vendors used to sell canvas action covers for rifles, mostly WWI-vintage stuff.
In general, any firearm that has proven to be reliable on the battlefield is adequately reliable for hunting.
I hunt deer with an AR-10.
I like the fact that when I come home from a drizzly day in the woods , often empty handed, that I am not spending hours cleaning a gun I haven’t shot.
The AR is clean(water free) in about 30 minutes.
>>Wonder if a low tech bolt action is more reliable than a semiauto. Especially, in adverse environments. When accuracy and reliability are important, I’d choose a bolt action. Or a revolver, too. Same idea.
It’s the 21st century. Modern design and manufacturing processes have made semi-autos statistically as reliable as revolvers and bolt-actions. If you shoot 1000 rounds you might see a difference, but if you need to shoot 1000 rounds, then the semi-auto will make that a lot more practical.