Switching away from the 1903 Springfield was a mistake. Bolt

>>33288791
>t. Remington Arms Company shill
Listen pal, just because you didnt make a rifle to compete with that rifle some canadian made doesnt mean you get to bitch. The new M1 will propel us into the future

>>33288815
I don't know what you're talking about. Remington is shit. It's always been shit.

>>33288791

But you're wrong

Semiautomatic rifles are as reliable and accurate as bolt guns

>>33288849
No, they are not. The M16 is, and always has been, notoriously unreliable.

>>33288857

You're a fucking idiot and don't know shit about guns

>>33288791

It's you again. You just made this thread last week.

File: 1481771062777.jpg (180KB, 1406x2099px) Image search: [Google]

180KB, 1406x2099px

>>33288857
>Op starts a bait thread throwing the M1903 under the bus
>states that the M16 is unreliable post 1965
Hmmm... I wonder who could be behind this post?

>>33288874
How did I throw the Springfield under the bus? It's a great rifle.

>>33288791

We established in the last thread that you don't actually own any guns, and are unfamiliar with both the guns you're bashing and the guns you're praising.

You know nothing, yet spew fuddlore and conjecture for days.

File: Zombiesurvivalguide.jpg (65KB, 393x589px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 393x589px

>Bolt action is more accurate than semi-auto

>>33288893
Of course it is. Why do you think benchrest competition uses almost exclusively bolts?

>>33288893
Fuck that book, jesus christ. Max Brooks is the worst kind of fucking moron.

>>33288857

Just have a chrome lined barrel and powder that isn't 20 years old and tell grunts to do basic maintenance on their rifles.

I.e, spray the bolt and carrier with clp and don't let Robert McNamara anywhere near the militaries weapons and ammunition

>>33288941
That would be a compromise. Even when the M16 works, it is not a true rifle, but a battle carbine. It was essentially made for spray and pray, not for actually hitting, let alone hitting conclusively.

>>33288969

The nogunz is overwhelming in each and every post

>>33288969

Have you ever shot an M16?

I have. I shot the A2, and lemme tell you, you don't know shit about the M16. The rifle will kill the shit out of anything as dead as the M14 but you can hold more rounds and the m16 is lighter. The m16 is perfectly fine for the infantry.

read the goddamned reports about how the infantry fought in both world wars educate your retarded ass about guns.


>doing basic maintenance on the weapon that will save your life
>"compromise"

Kinda like how putting gas in your car for it to work is a compromise

>>33288941
>Robert McNamara
Is he the one who did that?

>>33289350

McNamara cleared the m16 for service in Vietnam even though it didn't have chrome lined barrels and chambers and shit.

Also I'm not sure if he had anything to do with the ammunition because the ammo had shitty powder that gummed up the action

>>33288791
1903 a shit
m1917 a best

File: based dubs of browning.jpg (409KB, 1788x872px) Image search: [Google]

409KB, 1788x872px

>>33289436

>implying the 1919 isnt a good ol gun

>>33288791
Warfare has switched away from prioritizing accuracy to volume of fire since WWII, dude.
Times have changed.

>>33288893
>>33288901
It was a good book when I was 13...

>tfw you can never go back to the times where you were blissfully ignorant enough about guns to not nitpick and throw autistic fits of rage at inaccuracies and fuddlore in media

>>33289499
I meant the 1917 Enfield.

>>33288857

FUDDLORE
U
D
D
L
O
R
E

File: steam punk .jpg (22KB, 595x269px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 595x269px

>>33289542

oh...well i thought you meant the 1917 machine gat

>>33289561
You retard, that's the assault rifle from Fallout 4

>>33288849
theyre much more expensive to accurize, and harder to keep that way but yes, potentially.

>>33289565
noguns faggot, that's clearly a pistol. You can tell because it doesn't have a stock.

>>33289598
So it isn't an NFA item then?

>>33289606
its a banned assault weapon

dont you see the shoulder thing that goes up?

File: any-other-weapon.jpg (26KB, 595x269px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 595x269px

>>33289606
Actually it's an Any Other Weapon

>>33289336
556 and 762x51 are both pretty effective rounds but my experience is that the 30cal makes a way bigger mess.
t.hunter

>>33288791
.30-06 was actually better of being replaced by 7.62x51.

The average military loading rarely made good use of .30-06's case capacity.

File: IMG_3742[1].jpg (86KB, 1512x437px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 1512x437px

>>33288791
The M1917 Enfield both saw more service in WWI than the M1903 Springfield and is wholly a better rifle. There is nothing the Springfield does better than the M1917 does.

The M1917 is the rifle Alvin York used to remove Fritz.

Get better bait.

>>33288849
They can be, but a good bolt-action will always be more accurate than a good semi-auto.

>>33288893
>tfw no more Lo Pan threads

>>33289803
Aw man, what happened to them? Last I heard he wasn't done reading it yet.

>>33289713
If it was better why was the 1903 the main rifle of the us military. You cant explain that

File: 1484930123666.gif (841KB, 800x800px) Image search: [Google]

841KB, 800x800px

>>33290022
Nice dubs.

The M1917 Enfield was issued in far greater numbers than the M1903 Springfield im WWI.

By WWII, the Springfield was relegated to use by the Marines (fodder) and non-frontline use.

Twice as many M1917 Enfields (a little over 2 million) were produced compared to the production of the M1903 (and variants).

Also, many early Springfield M1903 rifles suffered from inaccurate heat treating because the men in charge of eyeing the color of the heated receivers fucked up and as a result, many WW1 era rifles are dangerous to shoot.

This is not an issue with the M1917 Enfield, which touted one of the strongest actions and hard-wearing barrels of almost all other military bolt-action firearms in the world.

Lastly, cock on open is always better than cock on close, in regards to the charging of the action.

.30-06 is the correct caliber, though.

File: 1481986806038.jpg (449KB, 600x806px) Image search: [Google]

449KB, 600x806px

>>33288857
Get any wabbits lately, you fucking fudd?

>>33288969
The fuck are you even saying?!

>>33290110
>Also, many early Springfield M1903 rifles suffered from inaccurate heat treating because the men in charge of eyeing the color of the heated receivers fucked up and as a result, many WW1 era rifles are dangerous to shoot.
its well known which ones are incorrectly heat treated, not that its a particularly serious concern even if you are shooting a low number.

>Lastly, cock on open is always better than cock on close, in regards to the charging of the action.
thats just plain not true. they both have their advantages and disadvantages. also, it goes against your argument. the 1903 is cock on open, the 1917 is cock on close

>>33290187
>its well known which ones are incorrectly heat treated, not that its a particularly serious concern even if you are shooting a low number.

Only some of those low number receivers are brittle, but some aren't. Again, a non-issue with the M1917.

>thats just plain not true. they both have their advantages and disadvantages. also, it goes against your argument. the 1903 is cock on open, the 1917 is cock on close

You're correct, I am drunk.

Cock on close is what I meant. Completely effortless bolt throw that scares the Hun into thinking they're facing machine guns.

>>33290196
brittle receivers are a non-issue on the majority of 1903s as well. its not like every 1903 has a chance of being brittle, we know exactly which ones run that risk.


cock on close is neat, but it is not better than cock on open in any meaningful way other than speed. if it were, we would see at least a few modern cock on open guns.

>>33288969
>20 inch barrel

>carbine

Fucking what?

>>33289499
Checked

If my gun puts 5 shots inside a 5 inch circle and your gun puts 5 shots inside a 1 inch circle, what difference does it make when the target we are shooting at is 2 ft wide? You faggots argue about the most stupid shit.

>>33289625
No bullet button, won't somebody please think of the children!