ww1 vs modern weapons

[chuy]

Ive always had conflicting views of this. There are more and more full auto weapons being made while bolt actions are being left behind. Its probably fact that ww1 weapons packed more punch than modern weapons so what gives? I really dont like " more lead down range in less time" idea that is being used today. Are modern .338 magnum really that better than 30-06s? I think a springfield 1903 can really put a nice group from long ranges what a modern rifle would do.

The height of the bullet in terms of energy was with the 30-06 lasting during ww1 and 2. Then it dropped to the m14s 7.62x51 and dropped even further with the 5.56x45.

Silly question, is there any service rifle right now that is bolt action that doesnt have telescopic sights?

 

[Esh325]

Ive always had conflicting views of this. There are more and more full auto weapons being made while bolt actions are being left behind. Its probably fact that ww1 weapons packed more punch than modern weapons so what gives? I really dont like " more lead down range in less time" idea that is being used today. Are modern .338 magnum really that better than 30-06s? I think a springfield 1903 can really put a nice group from long ranges what a modern rifle would do.

The height of the bullet in terms of energy was with the 30-06 lasting during ww1 and 2. Then it dropped to the m14s 7.62x51 and dropped even further with the 5.56x45.

Silly question, is there any service rifle right now that is bolt action that doesnt have telescopic sights?

I'm not exactly sure what you're getting at, but as a whole the world didn't shift to intermediate cartridges until the 70's and 80's which until that point they used .308 rifles which which had the same old school power as what was used in WW1 and WW2. The Soviet Union on the other hand adopted an intermediate cartridge at the end of WW2. Weapons today are not less powerful, it's just standard issue infantry rifles in .308 have mostly vanished from the modern battlefield in favor of the 5.56x45. The .308 today is regulated to sniping use and machine gun use. A 30/06 can't be compared to a .338 magnum because they're made for different purposes really. A .338 magnum is a long sniping round made to shoot targets up to a mile. I can't honestly think of any bolt action used by a military in combat that doesn't have telescopic sights. Bolt actions are pretty much regulated to either sniping or ceremonial use in the military today. While the bolt action has gone the wayside as infantry rifle, it's found its niche as a sniper rifle. Bolt actions are stronger and therefore more suitable for firing the more powerful long range rounds like the .338 lapua, you could design a semi automatic .338 lapua, but it probably would be harder to engineer and would probably be much heavier than the bolt action. and while manufacturing of barrels and actions has lowered the gap between bolt action accuracy and semi auto accuracy, I still don't think the semi auto is as accurate.

 

[Flogger23m]

Ive always had conflicting views of this. There are more and more full auto weapons being made while bolt actions are being left behind. Its probably fact that ww1 weapons packed more punch than modern weapons so what gives? I really dont like " more lead down range in less time" idea that is being used today. Are modern .338 magnum really that better than 30-06s? I think a springfield 1903 can really put a nice group from long ranges what a modern rifle would do.

The height of the bullet in terms of energy was with the 30-06 lasting during ww1 and 2. Then it dropped to the m14s 7.62x51 and dropped even further with the 5.56x45.

Silly question, is there any service rifle right now that is bolt action that doesnt have telescopic sights?

Are you questioning the move away from late 1800-early 1900 era bolt action rifles to modern semi automatic/select fire rifles with larger magazine sizes? Really?

The only advantage they offer is their bullets had more power/penetration than modern calibers like 5.56 and 5.45, but that is it. Probably cheaper to build and a tad bit more reliable (plenty of reliable auto loaders, like the AKM and Glock series).

Modern rifles allow for quicker follow up shots, better scope/laser (for night vision) mounting, better recoil minimizing systems (AR-15 buffer tube, AK-74 muzzle break), better flash suppression, easy mounting of suppressors, quick reloads, allow for a higher rate of fire, are lighter, are shorter, have adjustable stocks for varying arm lengths and body armor types, in many cases can essentially achieve the similar accuracy as standard issue WW1/II era bolt actions, ect.

The list goes on.

The newer bolt actions are indeed more accurate, and scopes are better than they were even 50-60 years ago. Bolt action rifles still have a niche place for extremely high precision rifles, otherwise semi automatics/select fires are far more superior.

 

[Tomcat_ha]

i have read once or twice that actually who puts more bullets downrange tended to win fights in ww2. Its why germans went on to make their machineguns the mainfocus of their squads too.

 

[bier]

i have read once or twice that actually who puts more bullets downrange tended to win fights in ww2. Its why germans went on to make their machineguns the mainfocus of their squads too.

Yes, begause people under fire tend to jsut throw fire in general direction of enemy. There is only a minority really aiming.

 

[Esh325]

Are you questioning the move away from late 1800-early 1900 era bolt action rifles to modern semi automatic/select fire rifles with larger magazine sizes? Really?

The only advantage they offer is their bullets had more power/penetration than modern calibers like 5.56 and 5.45, but that is it. Probably cheaper to build and a tad bit more reliable (plenty of reliable auto loaders, like the AKM and Glock series).

Modern rifles allow for quicker follow up shots, better scope/laser (for night vision) mounting, better recoil minimizing systems (AR-15 buffer tube, AK-74 muzzle break), better flash suppression, easy mounting of suppressors, quick reloads, allow for a higher rate of fire, are lighter, are shorter, have adjustable stocks for varying arm lengths and body armor types, in many cases can essentially achieve the similar accuracy as standard issue WW1/II era bolt actions, ect.

The list goes on.

The newer bolt actions are indeed more accurate, and scopes are better than they were even 50-60 years ago. Bolt action rifles still have a niche place for extremely high precision rifles, otherwise semi automatics/select fires are far more superior.

But like I said, they have newer "battle rifles" like the SCAR-H and HK417 that equal the power of the older WW2 and WW1 rifles, it's just rifles like that aren't issued to every soldier on the battlefield like it use to be, they are more niche now with certain soldiers like marksman carrying them. The recent wars like the Afghanistan War saw the need for the old school power to come back in certain situations. I would think if anything modern rifles would be cheaper and quicker to build than the old bolt actions. A Mauser for example has a fully machined steel receiver and bolt and threaded barrel versus a stamped sheet receiver and pressed and pinned barrel of an AK-74. The stamped sheet metal is going to be cheaper most definetely. All your other points, I very much agree with. Rifles today are better than they were 100 years ago and semi automatic rifles are for the most part better than bolt actions, except in niche sniping roles.

 

[chuy]

So is it really dumb to be running around with-lets say- a type 30 bolt action now-a-days? I mean, these rifles can go to hell and back and still be in functioning state. And you guys are saying about the accuracy of old bolt actions lack to those modern. Are you sure of that? ww1/ww2 bolt action rifles are VERY accurate even today (yes still be using wood). And now just imagine if that same weapon was made today without being rushed to the battlefield-meaning a VERY GOOD rifle with near-modern accuracy. I bet modern rifles would have a fierce competition while still maintaining a real strong caliber like the .303, 6.5, 7.7, 30-03/06, 7.92, 7.62, 7.5 swiss etc.

 

[Nestor Makhno]

You need to bear in mind that modern rifles require less skill to fire well, due to a lot of features added to the design.

 

[Jpz38 Hetzer]

Wouldnt the springfield M1903 still be acceptable to use? Im not saying its the best sniper rifle ever made, But it is still pretty accurate and powerful. That would be my weapon of choice.

 

[Shadegrown]

Here is a gun that is still in use, the action based on ancient Nagant receivers manufactured during the days of Imperial Russia. Its classified as a sniper rifle, but its more of a training gun to shoot paper targets with on the range because of no safety, the ergonomics are poor and there is no attachment for carrying sling among other things. The accuracy is not an issue, but then again while the receivers might be 100 years old the barrels aren't

I feel that iron sighted bolt action guns could still be somewhat useful for hit-and-run guerrilla tactics and such if thats the only thing available. I'd still prefer to have some optics on it though.

 

[chuy]

Wouldnt the springfield M1903 still be acceptable to use? Im not saying its the best sniper rifle ever made, But it is still pretty accurate and powerful. That would be my weapon of choice.

This is exactly what I mean. Nobody needs fancy shmanzy modern rifles with mall ninja status on the gun and such. Basic springfield with telescopic sight and thats it. I dont see why they removed these rifles out of combat. I would even go as far to say that I would use Lebel model 1886 rifles in modern combat. I mean, these classic weapons are gourgeous. No modern weapon can top them in looks and in performance these vintage rifles still have their niche.

 

[Floyd]

This is exactly what I mean. Nobody needs fancy shmanzy modern rifles with mall ninja status on the gun and such. Basic springfield with telescopic sight and thats it. I dont see why they removed these rifles out of combat. I would even go as far to say that I would use Lebel model 1886 rifles in modern combat. I mean, these classic weapons are gourgeous. No modern weapon can top them in looks and in performance these vintage rifles still have their niche.

Your naivety and ignorance of military logistics is showing....

Sure they may be niche. And as specialized weaponry goes, often one in specialized service can choose their weapon of choice. The problem with allowing one or two in every company to have odd weaponry brings with it the logistics problem of keeping them supplied with non-standard issue ammunition.

The performance thing is just...well...wrong. Particularly as far as 'sniper' weaponry is concerned. Case in point...the Barrett 50 cal. or the latest cartridge of choice for snipers, the 338 Lapua Magnum. Until recently, that round held the record for the longest confirmed sniper kill (2,475m or 2,707yds).

 

[chuy]

Your naivety and ignorance of military logistics is showing....

Sure they may be niche. And as specialized weaponry goes, often one in specialized service can choose their weapon of choice. The problem with allowing one or two in every company to have odd weaponry brings with it the logistics problem of keeping them supplied with non-standard issue ammunition.

The performance thing is just...well...wrong. Particularly as far as 'sniper' weaponry is concerned. Case in point...the Barrett 50 cal. or the latest cartridge of choice for snipers, the 338 Lapua Magnum. Until recently, that round held the record for the longest confirmed sniper kill (2,475m or 2,707yds).

Ok just because a certain cartridge made some world record, it doesnt mean anything. Virtually any cartridge can make that shot if the round can go that far along with page-long physic calculations. And they like the .50 BMG as a sniper's rifle cartridge? That round was made for Machine guns and now its being used as anti material/sniper rifle cartridge.

Lets forget military logistics for a minute. Why would the average sniper in the military today would need a rifle chambered in 338 or 50 bmg that the 30-06 (springfield) cant do? WW1/2 snipers were great off with their springfields virtually shoot anybody at any practical range. Obviously these modern rifles/cartridges may do it better but they abandoning these rifles/cartridges like modern cartridges are day and night in comparison in their ballistics.

 

[Floyd]

The short and simple answer is that optics are far better today than they were 50 years ago. Effective ranges have been increased with the newer optics and the newer calibers.

What person in their right mind would want to be any closer to the enemy than required? The way modern armies fight has changed. The way war is waged has changed. . If the older weapons were on par, don't you think they'd still be used by modern armed forces?

But you're right. You don't need to have super ballistics or super optics to be an effective sniper. Wasn't it Simo Hayha from Finland that shot over 500 Soviets in the Winter War? iirc, he usually used iron sights. Billy Dixon (during the American Indian wars) is up there with his Sharp's 50-90 falling block rifle shooting a black powder cartridge. There are exceptions to every rule.

And yep, the 50BMG is indeed a very popular round for modern snipers (for obvious reasons). Barrett revolutionized the recoil system making it possible to reasonably and comfortably shoulder fire the round. In fact, the 50BMG holds about a third of the records for longest distance.

Did you know that in today's modern world, with just a few clicks of the mouse, one can explore the benefits and advantages of modern weaponry with just a small amount of self-education and deduction.

 

[Flogger23m]

Without going into specifics, I'll just say once again, WWI/II era weapons are dated. Not just rifles either.

If you were to go into combat with a G98/Mosin/whatever I'm sure you'll start wishing you had an M4, SCAR or Tavor (insert other modern weapon) rather quickly. People don't use modern equipment because they get cool points on the internet, but because it is better. Quality night vision mounts and IR lasers can make the difference between life and death.

Modern bolt guns are more accurate than your typical WWI/II bolt rifle to. Add in the modern optics, mounting quality, control layout, and other things and you'll be foolish to choose an upgraded Mosin over some of the current stuff.

As for accuracy, here is what a modern semi automatic 5.56 rifle can achieve:

http://i845.photobucket.com/albums/ab11/bigjunk1/011-3.jpg[url]http://i845.photobucket.com/albums/ab11/bigjunk1/011-3.jpg[/URL]

http://i845.photobucket.com/albums/ab11/bigjunk1/009-3.jpg[url]http://i845.photobucket.com/albums/ab11/bigjunk1/009-3.jpg[/URL]

^ Not mine and not my shooting. With modern ammo, optics, and design, this AR-15 will out shoot your typical WWII era rifle. Now imagine what a modern, purpose built bolt action will do.

If you have to fight with an Enfield rifle, as done by people in Afghanistan, then do it. But if you had the choice, you'd be absurd to use one over something more modern.

Now, you can like the older classics more if you wish as that is a matter of taste.

 

[chuy]

Without going into specifics, I'll just say once again, WWI/II era weapons are dated. Not just rifles either.

If you were to go into combat with a G98/Mosin/whatever I'm sure you'll start wishing you had an M4, SCAR or Tavor (insert other modern weapon) rather quickly. People don't use modern equipment because they get cool points on the internet, but because it is better. Quality night vision mounts and IR lasers can make the difference between life and death.

Modern bolt guns are more accurate than your typical WWI/II bolt rifle to. Add in the modern optics, mounting quality, control layout, and other things and you'll be foolish to choose an upgraded Mosin over some of the current stuff.

As for accuracy, here is what a modern semi automatic 5.56 rifle can achieve:

http://i845.photobucket.com/albums/ab11/bigjunk1/011-3.jpg

http://i845.photobucket.com/albums/ab11/bigjunk1/009-3.jpg

^ Not mine and not my shooting. With modern ammo, optics, and design, this AR-15 will out shoot your typical WWII era rifle. Now imagine what a modern, purpose built bolt action will do.

If you have to fight with an Enfield rifle, as done by people in Afghanistan, then do it. But if you had the choice, you'd be absurd to use one over something more modern.

Now, you can like the older classics more if you wish as that is a matter of taste.

I did hear that marine corps still uses M1 garands for training. Correct me if im wrong.

Yes those groups that the 5.56 did are really good. But i bet old good ol' ww1 bolts can get that or better group. I am going to list the things these classic bolts are going for that moderns dont. I will compare standard issue weapons of modern and ww2 era. (so no comparing old bolts with modern bolts since modern bolts are only used by snipers while springfields, type 38, mosins etc were used by the general infantry). so old bolts vs modern fn scars, sig 550s, m4 etc

1. The sturdiness of the weapon. Like i said before, you can go fight a war in hell and the weapon will come back in working condition. While with a modern weapon, they are reliable, but still have moving parts. Just like automatic vs manual transmission, so something is bound to go wrong with the auto transmission. Worst case scenario, field strip. With a bolt, err no....

2. stopping power. We cannot begin to compare the stopping power between these two. yes, a 5.56 can stop or kill a human but we just cannot compare it to 30-06s, 7.62, 7.92, 7.7 etc...

3. Accuracy, consistency, groups etc... Old bolts are SOLID in terms accuracy. We cant possibly say the bolts-even today- have anything short of good accuracy. While yes, those 5.56 groups look really good, we dont know what optics were used. If we take FACTORY STOCK (no optics) modern weapons listed and send you off to modern conflicts we have today, which means desert, plain-fields, alot of long range engagements, I bet you would go with a good ol' WW1/2 bolt.

everything else probably goes to the modern weapons

 

[Jpz38 Hetzer]

I think the M-1 is just used for ceremonies.

 

[chuy]

Are you questioning the move away from late 1800-early 1900 era bolt action rifles to modern semi automatic/select fire rifles with larger magazine sizes? Really?

The only advantage they offer is their bullets had more power/penetration than modern calibers like 5.56 and 5.45, but that is it. Probably cheaper to build and a tad bit more reliable (plenty of reliable auto loaders, like the AKM and Glock series).

Modern rifles allow for quicker follow up shots, better scope/laser (for night vision) mounting, better recoil minimizing systems (AR-15 buffer tube, AK-74 muzzle break), better flash suppression, easy mounting of suppressors, quick reloads, allow for a higher rate of fire, are lighter, are shorter, have adjustable stocks for varying arm lengths and body armor types, in many cases can essentially achieve the similar accuracy as standard issue WW1/II era bolt actions, ect.

The list goes on.

The newer bolt actions are indeed more accurate, and scopes are better than they were even 50-60 years ago. Bolt action rifles still have a niche place for extremely high precision rifles, otherwise semi automatics/select fires are far more superior.

Same scope/optics excuse. Of course modern optics are 98234753249850735x better than ww2 (very few were made). How about without optics? yea. Losing your most valuable piece. If you were in today's combat, like i said before, desert/plain-fields/ long range engagements, would you really pick a fancy shmancy SCAR STOCK (no optics:iron sights baby) or good ol' mauser 98k with that much desired stopping power? I mean, imagine you hit a dude-with any cartridge. That dude wont expose himself ever again. He's staying there. Well, congratulations on hitting with a SCAR that was non fatal and now he wont come out. So you know that you only got one shot to hit the dude so why not make is as painful as you can? I TOTALLY disagree on the whole "more lead down rage" thing going on now-a-days. That should only be applied for real all-out war. I mean, a few rebels and they want to unload their entire magazine on them and calling tank support and so on. In modern warfare, I would remove all these weak assault rifles for stronger semis.... If there was a huge war against a major power, with thousands of men involved, then yes, suppression is key. A few rebels, not worth the money. They should be focusing in precision elimination.

 

[Jpz38 Hetzer]

Chuy, theirs a reason why most real armys use assualt rifles over battle rifles. People Who lay down the most fire tend to win fire fights.

 

[Floyd]

Same scope/optics excuse. Of course modern optics are 98234753249850735x better than ww2 (very few were made). How about without optics? yea. Losing your most valuable piece. If you were in today's combat, like i said before, desert/plain-fields/ long range engagements, would you really pick a fancy shmancy SCAR STOCK (no optics:iron sights baby) or good ol' mauser 98k with that much desired stopping power? I mean, imagine you hit a dude-with any cartridge. That dude wont expose himself ever again. He's staying there. Well, congratulations on hitting with a SCAR that was non fatal and now he wont come out. So you know that you only got one shot to hit the dude so why not make is as painful as you can? I TOTALLY disagree on the whole "more lead down rage" thing going on now-a-days. That should only be applied for real all-out war. I mean, a few rebels and they want to unload their entire magazine on them and calling tank support and so on. In modern warfare, I would remove all these weak assault rifles for stronger semis.... If there was a huge war against a major power, with thousands of men involved, then yes, suppression is key. A few rebels, not worth the money. They should be focusing in precision elimination.

Hmm...were it me, if the enemy were that far away and that dug in and I had lots of open ground to cover, I believe I'd call in some artillery, and perhaps an air-strike. Or I'd have my support armored vehicles lay down some 20mm firefire....you know, just something to get their attention. Then when I'm sure the opposing force is decimated, I'll subject my ground troops to close quarters combat. If the ground troops come under small arms fire while covering open ground, I'll direct my snipers (who are under the safety of distance) to cover their advance (50cals are great for penetration..) If its still too hot, we'll pull out and repeat the scenario. If its mountainous terrain and the only support available is by air, then the troops want to be as light and nimble as possible. Modern weapons fit that bill better. The weapons are smaller and lighter. And the ammo is lighter as well.

To quote myself, from an earlier post:

If the older weapons were on par, don't you think they'd still be used by modern armed forces?

Or do you know more than today's military experts?


meh....after re-reading your reasoning....my only comment..... Go join the military, then, if you live, come back and tell us how you won the war killing an enemy with every cycle of your bolt just like you do now in RO2.