The 1903 Springfield was unquestionably a better rifle than the

>>33573173
these troll threads just keep getting worse

>>33573177
Not trolling. Just stating an obvious fact.

>>33573185
He's right tho. You're not even trying anymore.

It's 2 in the morning stop posting shitty bait. I'm sure a 5 round bolt action would fare really well in the jungles of Vietnam against gooks with AKs and 30 round mags

>>33573173
A good thread died for this shit bait.

>>33573253
One round's all it takes to kill a gook. Unless they outnumber us 5 to one, we won't even need to reload.

Larry Thorne was carrying a 1903 when he died. 1903 didn't save Thorne. M16 better.

>>33573319
I'm pretty sure the only thing that could save you from a helicopter crash would be a parachute.

I own an 03A3 and an A4gery, only thing I'd choose the 03A3 for is deer hunting.

>>33573368
There's not much difference between shooting one medium sized mammal and another.

>>33573173
The AR15 works flawlessy in the mud. Does the 1903 hold up to those high standards?

>>33573957
Yes.

1917>1903 fight me

>>33573173

GJ OP this thread will be up for days. As usual, you offer nothing but fuddlore.

>>33573173
>Suppressive fire is a specialized job better suited for a machinegun.
Good thing the M16 is a machine gun.