Alright Zig Forumsiggers

I actually kinda would like to have a lefthanded bolthandle on a right ejecting rifle & have a pistolgrip on it
That way you can righthand the gun & cycle lefthanded, and keep dead perfect aim
The pistolgrip would help with keeping the rifle steady & give more leverage for cycling

They look like shit.

This is obviously the best I'm kidding, but I still want one

Attached: Shorty_Grip_Repeating_Rifle_S&O-GOrVd1gwRvc.webm (450x360, 13.29M)

Mauser Gewehr 98. Is there even any doubt?
Mauser still produces them.
mauser.com/m98.html

They look good on the M1 carbine, but that isn't a bolt action.

Attached: M1_carbin_with_folding_stock-IMG_6561-gradient.jpg (5616x3744, 2.03M)

Arisaka but accepts the general standard magazine of caliber and maybe have a cut out on the side for the use of a side mounted scope. Other than that rifle is perfect. 7.7 jap fits into a M14 magazine nicely.

But you've posted rifles with semi-pistol grips.

Sporting Mausers are breddy boring rifles. Tell whoever owns the Mauser name to start cranking out G98's that don't have a retarded zero of 400 some odd yards.

Attached: Saka.png (1288x966, 3.1M)

I mean, shit, the M1911 wasn't even the first pistol to use a grip safety but it's one of the easiest examples of the concept in action.

Attached: 5f95e10ed6b11856570401c742ff680c25350cff7a36cbf9f4ab3e15ef086615.png (234x200, 76.51K)

It was new because you could lift it up in a weird way, locking the whole thing

Wait are you implying you've used M14 mags with your Arisaka?

I've played with a 7.7 barrel on an M14.

That's pretty rad

Yeah? I lift my hand in a weird way when I hit the slide release and it turns the damn safety on, locking the whole thing up.. Do I go around advertising my palms as a slick new invention? Fuck no.

If I had to pick an existing one, then it has to be the MAS-36. Maybe rechambered for 7.62 NATO to use a more common ammunition.

Thread ended here.

But user, what IS a Mauser action? Dual locking lugs had been a thing before Mauser, the only significant additions he made were the claw extractor which is a pain in the dick to replace and the shroud at the rear which is only good in the case of bad ammunition.

So in otherwords a F1/F2 rifle.

No, because those have detachable box magazines that can't be reloaded with chargers due to the position of the scope. If I have a bolt-action rifle then I'd rather not bother with magazines at all. Also, the MAS-36/51 can launch rifle grenades, and that can be useful if you somehow happen to have a box of them.

Attached: MAS 36.jpg (920x508, 117.71K)

And now that I took a look at it again, I've remembered something that bothered me for a while. I know that locking lugs at the rear are a bit weaker, but they still work fine. Still, it looks like that all bolt-action rifles with them seem to have no material between the lugs and the barrel. I think the pictures should tell you what I mean. Is that correct, or am I missing something?

Attached: no material.jpg (1200x549 154.47 KB, 153.84K)

From that picture I learned my mag pouch is actually a grenade holding pouch. Also its forged from one piece it'll hold.

I know it's turned into a meme but I really like the K31.

Think back to your Statics class. Assuming the bolt acts like a rigid body, a force applied at the bolt face is the same as a force applied at the locking lugs.
The problem with rear locking lugs then is that the entire receiver has to bear the brunt of the force instead of just the barrel extension.

The MAS-36 receiver might be strong enough because of all the extra steel below the bolt. The Swiss 1889 (where the load on the opening in the locking sleeve was the biggest problem) and 1896 (which still has quite a long distance between barrel and lugs) type actions don't have much material removed in that area. I don't know anything about the others.

I think he was asking why they still work even with that problem, not why it's a problem.

Attached: More than enough to kill anything that moves.jpg (938x333, 42.65K)

this.
SMLE gets points for 10 round mag and rear locking lugs + cock on close making it a fast action, but
M1917 enfield can be loaded to 7, has cock on close action, is in a better caliber, is just a rock fucking solid rifle

The best bolt action is the one you can feed and get plenty of practice with.

...

...

Not only that Mauser sued them for stealing the designs but after losing the war US of AIDS didn't give a fuck.

Indeed. People tend to claim that more locking lugs make a rifle more accurate, and I that made me wonder how that affects these rifles. Does it matter if you take e.g. a Lee-Enfield and give it an AR-style bolt head with 8 lugs instead of the original 2? So, would that make the action any stronger or more accuare?

inb4: I know that accuracy is all about repeating the same process without any changes, so it has more to do with precision that with simply putting more lugs to the bolt head.

No
And also: Are you mentally retarded?

Attached: r u retarded.webm (480x270, 209.75K)

funny. what you posted is actually referred to as a pistol grip, as it's styled after a pistol grip.
they're both fine.

go FR-8 instead, it's cooler

Do you have a single argument against rear-locking lugs, Abdul?

More locking lugs does not in itself increase accuracy. A rifle redesigned around more or beefier locking lugs will likely be more accurate because:
1. More lugs means better indexing (also better indexing in comparison to friction)
2. Beefier locking lugs will flex less and you will have more repeatable lockup in addition to more reliable indexing.

The mere presence of more lugs does not necessarily improve (it might actually detract because of less locking surface)
But a redesign accommodating more, stronger lugs, will probably give better performance.

Considering the Lee-Enfield in particular, the primary downsides to the design are
1. split bridge (the channel that the bolt rides in is open at the top, like a mosin, as opposed to a mauser)
2. only two locking lugs and sort of an emergency lug
Rear locking lugs actually reduce the bolt throw and if done properly increase reliability, speed, and possibly safety in the case of over charged cartridge.

this kaiserlich und königlich rifle shows you can do rear locking lugs and have a solid bridge which makes for a much stronger action.

Best bolt action in general would probably be the K31.

Best rotary-bolt would probably just be some derivative of the M1917. They're ugly little guns (nobody will ever convince me that those massive sight hoods aren't hideous), but I've never heard anybody actually say anything bad about their performance.

The Gewehr 98 is the best bolt-action rifle ever.

Does anyone know of a decent bolt action .22 that takes down and has a 5+ round magazine?

How has my Swiss raifu turned into a meme?

Kar98K

Attached: 1_ta006057_600.jpg (600x600, 48.86K)

I find it amazing that at the beginning of the 20th century the bolt-action rifle was state of the art, cutting edge tech and at the end the assault rifle was the standard issue weapon. What will we have in 2099?

Weaponized diversity rape

We already have that! England wins again!!!

tactical airdrop of HRT

I might be a bit obtuse, but why is that? Isn't the lenght of the bolt basically the same as the lenght of the cartridge and the thickness of the locking lugs?

kek

Attached: 483413faaedc0f55344a018d2e4c47b220bcaeb418b52c880168b982ac8afd00.mp4 (750x720, 1.53M)

I CONQUERED ALL THE CHIPPIES

Kinda overengineered, but very cool. Grip safeties like that freak me out a bit, but there again this isn't the kind of thing you'd be issuing to people(or using) in scenarios where it could be grabbed at or something. Also that ad has enough 80s/90s infomercial autism to make it worth saving.

Attached: w r k.png (1228x1902, 883.39K)

I think its because for standard lugs the bolt has to travel the length of the the cartridge + the distance from the end of the magazine to the lug recess. With rear lugs you could hypothetically have the lug recess right up against the rear of the magazine and the feed ramp against the front, removing the length of the lug recess from the total length of travel. I don't have an example of this, but maybe someone here more knowledgeable than I might.
Is bolt throw supposed to mean the total length of bolt travel or the angle of rotation to unlock the bolt? I've heard it used to describe both, but I think length is supposed to be "bolt throw" and rotation "bolt lift."

Springfield was most desired WW2 sniper rifle EVEN BY THE GERMANS even though it was almost exact copy of their own Mauser. Mauser was a bit dated by the time Springfield 1903, so there were a few minor tweaks, and IIRC the 30.06 is more "inherently accurate" than the 7.92 Mauser.

But today, I'd LIKE maybe the Ruger 357 little bolt action, or CZ full stock in 308. But if I really needed to "make meat" I guess I'd go with Tika lightweight in 308 or 270.

Jesus Christ this was painful to read, please go back to Reddit

More of a copy of an 1893 Mauser.

Doubt.jpg

Well, the M1903 was the most accurate service rifle in use when it was adopted, and that was owed at long range largely to its target-style iron sights compared to a Mauser's much simpler rear notch, but it was by no means a 'sniper rifle' by itself and the ones selected for sniper duty weren't much better than the normal rifles, which was true of every military's sharpshooters at the time. They just used top-shelf infantry rifles with scopes put on. .30-06 is also a more powerful and flatter shooting round than 8mm Mauser, which might be where that guy gets his "inherently more accurate" claim, but overall he's just a moron.

All that considered, I would rather have an M1D or a Gewehr 43 than a Springfield, since they had basically the same accuracy as the infantry bolt actions (3-4 MOA) but there's something to be said about the lesser recoil and easier follow-up shots of a self-loading rifle. The G43 wasn't a very reliable rifle in poor conditions or after fouling, though… so a Garand DMR is probably the all-around best choice. A very expensive rifle, however.

...

The 1903's battle setting on the leaf zero'd in at 547 yards, just as retarded as the G98's 400m battle zero. Garands have a real bad problem with dirt which was never rectified with the adoption of the M14 and the offset mount leaves much to be desired. G43's don't exactly have a problem with dirt, more so its the unadjustable gas system shattering op rods and bashing the shit out of the receiver until it cracks.

Amd what about best raifu?

Attached: Bundesarchiv_Bild_101I-567-1503E-15,_San_Felice,_Inspektion_von_Fallschirmtruppen.jpg (800x542, 64.16K)

The only problem was it’s perfection. Nothing the krauts could do to make it better so they banished it after the war.

More or less the problems with the FG42 came from just being complicated, most of those problems carried over to the M60.

Shut your dirty faggot mouth. Just because you have a nigger level IQ doesn’t mean you can run your mouth. You’re probably some coastal or city dweling faggot, if you’re not Q*ebecois subhuman.

You may call me a dirty frenchman but it does not detract from the truth of the matter. If I recall it didn't last long in swiss service.

Attached: 1418787381461.jpg (354x385, 42.49K)

That was the point, moron. Congrats on your 20 IQ.

But I love her, don’t you know I know she’s flawed? You didn’t have to point it out user. Some men are happy in our delusion…

The best military bolt rifle around during WW2 was either the M1917 Enfield or the Ross. Both were excellent bolt guns and the Ross continued to see service with snipers after it was replaced.

The Type 38 and 99 Arisaka rifles were also bretty gud.

All bolt action rifles were made obsolescent when the Garand and other self-loaders started getting adopted.

Attached: tumblr_oxvlkhOJFu1tmp9m0o1_1280.jpg (1280x927, 196.48K)

I'll go with the options of elite Nazi snipers who could put scopes on both Spring or any German rifle.

In WW2, sniper rifles of standard caliber were the "pick of the litter" and picked after an expert tested a few standard issue guns.

Springy were the shit, no doubt due to post Mauser improvements as well as luxurious peacetime pre-war US manufacturing.

How about you head right back to reddit or cuckchan?

The main problem of the M60 is that it was designed by people who never had to use it outside of a firing range. And it also wore out quickly. But I really can't see how it's complicated. What were the issues with the FG-42?

From what I can gather, the Swiss made some prototypes based on the FG-42, then they went for the Stg-45's system in the Stg-57. In other words, they did play around with that system, but it was never in actual service.

Attached: FG 42, first model Stg 51, Stg 54, second model Stg 51.jpg (480x360, 30.5K)

The request required the rifle to weigh about as much as a K98k, which meant they had to slim the rifle down as much as they possibly could. While wartime production wasn't in panic mode just yet and it's a lot more resilient than the Sturmgewehr, this means it's got snug tolerances, a very thin receiver, and a buttstock that may as well be balsa wood.
It was more complicated in how they slapped everything into such a dainty rifle and not the individual ideas themselves, like its firemode changing from open bolt full-auto to closed bolt semi-auto at the flip of a switch, the buffer system in the buttstock, the fact that they even put a bayonet on it, and a standardized(?) scope mount just begged for problems from a WW2 Germany as with all things they made. Too much potential for things to go wrong but even if it was fucked it went to the field anyway

ITT: we hate legibility

Back to cuckchan, nigger. Having elementary school level literacy and requiring everything to be spaced like a child’s picture book, doesn’t improve legibility.

I believe the open bolt full auto and closed bolt semi-auto system was rather complex.

Any choice that doesn't end with a "98" is wrong. Gew.98/K98's are the supreme bolt action rifles. The SMLE, while firing faster with a larger magazine, are shit. Their main claim to fame, "the mad minute", is just a tribute to Britain's inability to field a decent fucking LMG.

I own a K98.

Peak quality.

Don't space your posts like that

You have to go back

also
Looks like someone can't think for themselves.

I too enjoy a rifle with a receiver that stretches over time and a soldered-on rear sight assembly.
and has a minimum 500 meter sight adjustment

Actually it’s 400

I take it that you have absolutely no practical, real world knowledge of 98s, and are only regurgitating fuddlore. In other words, shut up faggot.

The irony is that practical and real world knowledge is exactly how you find out that German Mausers, which are popularly sporterized, stretch like taffy over consistent use.

yeah, no. Pre-WW1 Gew.98s can suffer from poor heat treatment, and late war (both) may have the same issues. But any other 98, especially K98ks from1935-about 1944, should be good to go as long as you aren't being a dumb nigger and using hot rounds that the fucking thing wasn't designed for. You're probably just a dumb nigger who has never owned one, though.

You know they were literally trying stamped Kar98s at that point, right? Anything post-Operation Citadel is increasingly cheap production and those rifles are known for poor fit and finish and parts breakage. The Gewehr 98 was never remarkably innovative for long anyway, and there is a reason that no civilian or military bolt action has been based on the Mauser design in decades other than Mausers themselves, and the modern ones don't even have anything in common with the tradition. Or do you still believe that stupid fuddlore about muh German engineering Remingtons?

Thanks CanadAnon, I got mixed up.

I almost understand the reason for people spamming the 56% maymay now.

Why didn't more military bolt actions put the rear sights on the back of the receiver instead of the back of the barrel? It obviously wouldn't be practical for something like a Mosin with a hole in the back of the receiver, but for other guns it seems like it would be helpful as long as you don't specifically want a short sight radius for quicker alignment. If the barrel/receiver connection was super flexible it would be a problem, but I'm guessing the longer radius would more than make up for any possible decrease in rigidity. Do non-aperture rear sights become impossible to use if they are too close to the eye or something?

Attached: question!.jpg (803x790, 55.37K)

This is just stupid wild ass guessing, but I'm going to say cultural inertia. There's really nowhere else to mount a rear sight on a traditional lock-stock-and-barrel construction rifle, cartridge breech loaders require easy access to the rear of the receiver to facilitate loading and ejection, you can't go reaching over or around a rear sight, and split-ring bolt actions like the Mosin were in vogue for a long time.

But then that just begs the question of why tang sights weren't more widespread. Like you said, maybe they wanted to ensure alignment by mating both front and rear sight to the same piece of metal, the barrel.

Also pulling shit out of my ass, but it's completely possible that the Engineer or Gunsmith just designed it that way, and since it worked or was cheap, no one ever bothered with changing it. I know that's the biggest reason the military still uses Plated Thru-Hole parts on their circuitboards- it's cheaper to replace the PCB than to fix it, but you'd have to pay an engineer to redesign it with better specs and easier-to-obtain SMT components, so everyone just sticks to PTH even as warehouses are emptied of the last parts that were manufactured back in the 70s. The same could be true of sights in the context of engineering.

Grandfather's SMLE. Supposedly it "saw action" during the riots in California back in the 60's. Too bad it's not in my possession any longer. Ah well, it was a rusty piece of junk despite being accurate and only 1-3 mils off at 200ish yards after all that time. (flags are misleading)

Attached: Lee Enfield Variants.jpg (1280x851, 198.77K)

The Ross is one of the best bolt action rifles ever made. It just had a small flaw that no one considered an issue because everyone assumed that newfies wouldn't fuck it up. But newfies fuck everything up. Everything.

And the Enfield is a better rifle than the Mauser or the Springfield that copied a lot from the Mauser.

Hell, I'd say the Gewehr 1888 superior to the Gewehr 98 in many ways, especially it's method of clip loading. The magazine issue could have been easily fixed with spring loaded cover that only opened when an empty clip was pushed out.

Ross's don't handle dirt well at all, a rifle that was built for someone blasting bambi and bullwinkle with the best quality of ammunition not rolling around in filth using shit a somali would turn down.

Don't think fudds shoot their guns enough to fuck a receiver, not to mention it was the Winchester Model 70 that used a Mauser bolt until they decided to cut cost.

My 2 cents:
While I am inclined to agree with with the assessment of the Enfield as the top military bolt action rifle (even though I hunted deer for years with an Arisaka), I have to say that comparing the old military bolt action rifles to today's modern bolt action rifles is almost apples to oranges, especially when all of the factors are taken into consideration.
When you consider things like the trigger, the price, the reliability, the quality of the materials, the engineering, the weight, in addition to the accuracy and the ballistic performance, you get a much different picture.
The Winchester XPR 7mmRM for example, is sub-MOA @200 yards out of the box, is largely Browning tech and engineering (the tolerances would make the even the Germans applaud), and can be had for less than $500. Three-lug bolt (again, Browning), that sweet-ass Winchester trigger…I'd have a hard time saying that the Enfield is better or worse, simply because they are two completely different pieces of equipment, designed in completely different eras, and for completely different purposes. I guess my point here is that asking what is the best bolt action rifle is like asking what the best internal combustion vehicle is. It is a vague and ambiguous question that can not be meaningfully answered without additional parameters. Otherwise you are going to be seeing one user say "Pontiac GTO" and another user saying "1972 Formula 1", and another user saying "Evinrude 2-stroke", etc.

Don't insult my 455 waifu.

based. Shame the /f1/ board died

The correct answer is indisputably the M4 Sherman. It combusts its internals better than any other vehicle ever produced.

Attached: sherman tank crew.jpg (530x930, 198.19K)

Mausers are, or were, the most common fudd gun to require headspace adjustment from gunsmiths. Mostly sentimental reasons, and it was done until it was clearly unsafe in which they bought another to repeat the process.

It's not the form but where it came from. German and Spanish Mausers are resilient only in that they bend rather than break(those would be the Swedish Mausers).