A semi-automatic rifle has a bolt that will move once you fire

>>34520343
Ask Australians, that's how they butcher rifles to make them complaint

>>34520343
>would it improve accuracy?

It's more about the fact that the bolt is not slamming into the breech. But in theory yes

>just exactly how much energy is used to cycle an action?

Depends on the rifle and its cartridge, but not enough to make an appreciable difference. When comparing bolt action and semi-auto, the difference in velocity, given equal barrel lengths, is usually within 60 feet per second

>>34520343
>Since the bolt would not move in this case, would it improve accuracy?
No. The bullet is long gone from the rifle before the bolt is even unlocked.

>>34520343
It would probably improve range and bullet energy since some of it isn't lost to cycling the action

>>34520360
>It's more about the fact that the bolt is not slamming into the breech.
Please elaborate. Do you mean that the inaccuracy comes from the action closing after having fired a round?

60 feet per second on something like a .308 would mean 20-25 Joules.

>>34520362
Then how come semi-auto rifles are generally less accurate than their bolt-action counterparts?

>>34520387
>Do you mean that the inaccuracy comes from the action closing after having fired a round?

Yes. It causes the barrel to vibrate, which makes follow up shots less accurate. In theory.

>>34520398
So the barrel vibrations created after the bolt closes stay in there for so long that the follow up shot, even a minute later, will be affected?

Wouldn't the same thing apply to a boltgun?

>>34520362

It's the consistency of how the bullet seats in the chamber that improves accuracy. Manually seating the bolt is more consistent than semi auto, although semi auto actions have improved and difference is not as great as it once was.

>>34520387
>Then how come semi-auto rifles are generally less accurate than their bolt-action counterparts?
Precision (not accuracy) is about having the gun in a very repeatable state before firing. I don't think semi automatic rifles with a bolt design conducive to repeatable lockup and an identical barrel to another rifle that was bolt action would show any measurable difference in precision.

>>34520387
Because they're not built to be.
Bolt action sniper rifles are usually built with autistic precision

>>34520425

This factors in as well. Manual bolt guns can have a tighter tolerance then a semi auto. The more "play" a bolt has, the more inconsistent the lockup will be but the more reliable it will feed.

>>34520423
Then why aren't semi-auto rifles made with bolt designs that promote repeatable lockup?

>>34520425
>Bolt action sniper rifles are usually built with autistic precision
So are semi-auto ones, but the boltguns still outperform them.

>>34520445
So what you're saying is that a semi-auto needs a looser tolerance in order to function, but that tolerance is bad for accuracy.

>>34520412
>So the barrel vibrations created after the bolt closes stay in there for so long that the follow up shot, even a minute later, will be affected?

I have no idea. I would assume it only lasts seconds.

>Wouldn't the same thing apply to a boltgun?

I doubt it.

>>34520448
>So what you're saying is that a semi-auto needs a looser tolerance in order to function, but that tolerance is bad for accuracy.

You understand the AKM now

File: 1495945316566.jpg (125KB, 331x506px) Image search: [Google]

125KB, 331x506px

What the fuck is going on in this thread.

Are you people legitimately retarded??

>>34520801
Yes.

Now explain why we're retarded.

>>34520824
despite there being thousands of firearm designs, you want me to explain why bolt action is not necessarily more 'accurate' than semi auto?...

Anon you should really read hatchers notebook or literally anything about firearms. Semi auto gives you just as accurate of a shot; with the ability to take quicker follow up shots when you're comfortable with it.

You're thinking magdump, when you should be thinking steady consistant fire.

>>34520891
>Semi auto gives you just as accurate of a shot; with the ability to take quicker follow up shots when you're comfortable with it.
Wrong. For example, the M110 is expected to to about 1.3 MOA, the G-28 that's going to replace it will do similarly (factory warrantied to 1.5 MOA), yet the M40 is easily sub-MOA with a much lower unit cost.

>>34520448
>Then why aren't semi-auto rifles made with bolt designs that promote repeatable lockup?
They generally are more concerned with other things, but most modern designs are quite repeatable.


Even so, the most important factor here is the barrel and ammunition. Everything else is pretty much minutia.

>>34520973
You are talking about barrel quality, ammo and consistency, not semi automatic designs.

Anon if you legitimately think that a bolt action is more accurate than a semi automatic because it doesn't have 'moving parts' I cannot help you.

>>34520973
The M40 has a significantly thicker profile barrel than either the M110 or the G28.

>>34521003
see >>34520398

>>34521003
So you're saying that with identical barrels, idetnical ammo and identical shooters, they'd perform exactly the same?

>>34521022
Then why don't those two have a similar barrel profile? I mean, they're 10K+ USD each, you'd think some of that money would have gone into a decent barrel if it's a rifle meant for sharpshooters.

One point that I think needs mention is that precision rifles are often built in bolt action because the inertia caused by the movement of the mechanics will slightly change the trajectory of the bullet at long range, as there can be a difference of angle at the end of the barrel.
This effect is most likely too small to even be a source of concern for most weapons, but when you are talking about extreme ranges...
Aside from that, an automatic weapon, as long as it's fired and held correctly, gives accuracy readings similar to another weapon of same caliber and similar barrel length.

In fact, the bullet weight is far more important in that case, as larger weapons show.

>>34521023
>>34521028
They will perform the same based on the shooter. Barrel harmonics are something you worry about if you're shooting 500m+ if not further, depending on the round.
Yes the physical action of the rifle cycling can throw your aim, but there is no set timer that says 'SHOOT NOW!' so you have plenty of time to get your aim back on target. Fuck off with this retarded metal gear solid level of interpretation.

>>34521028
>Then why don't those two have a similar barrel profile?
Because they were concerned with weight and 1.3 MOA maximum spread is more than good enough for range you'll employ 7.62 NATO at?

>>34520445
Semi-automatic feeding aslo damages ammo during chambering. Super autists even feed bolt guns manually tp prevent damage from recoil to ammo siting in the magazine.

>>34521093
Jesus christ. Yes this does happen with VERY SPECIFIC RIFLES. Not all of them. Please just stop.
>call others autists
>mentions autistic shit
nice work

>>34520973
Did any of the guys shooting the M40 hand load? I would imagine long range shooters would.

If so, brass fire formed exactly to your chamber and only neck sized is a big accuracy advantage bolt actions have.

>>34520387
Because semi automatic rifles are often not designed with extreme accuracy in mind while bolt action are, a semi auto is totally capable of more or less bolt action level accuracy, in the case of the AR-15 for example.

>>34520343
>Since the bolt would not move in this case, would it improve accuracy?
No. That meme logic that is used to justify bolt guns and meme guns is wrong.
The only things that influence accuracy are the barrel and the tolerances of the action.

>On a semi-related note, just exactly how much energy is used to cycle an action?
Entirely dependent upon the shooter, bolt carrier, pressure curve, gas port, etc.
The end result is that its negligible.