Talk:Bolt action

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Firearms (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Firearms, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of firearms on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 

Major bolt action systems[edit]

I've added a section on the three major bolt systems- Mauser, Lee-Enfield, and Mosin-Nagant. I'll try and research them a bit more (and hopefully get some photos from somewhere) over the next week or so. --Commander Zulu 11:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

It should be noted that there are other bolt systems that are independent of any of those. For example, the Schmidt-Rubin action differs vastly from all three. — Red XIV (talk) 05:32, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't know much about the Schmidt-Rubin system, but feel free to add a section- it certainly seems to merit inclusion!--Commander Zulu 12:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Some of it needs to be rewritten, like the mauser part, it seems very incoherent as to what exactly makes it a seperate system (i'm more familiar with m98's, and dont have much knowledge of mosins at all), is it cam assisted cocking, or forward locking lugs, or just the full length claw extractors, etc... Also the m98's strength doesn't come from the third lug, that's a safety lug which actually doesn't (or shouldn't) engage on its abutment. Its there in case the forward lugs break so that the bolt doesn't fly back into the shooters brain. The strength of the action comes from a number of things, mostly the significant amount of material on the forward reciever ring reinforcing everything.Sd4f (talk) 03:11, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


Rather than subdivide with K-31 and other designs, just put "split bridge"- that covers all the Schlegelmilch designs, like the Mosin, Commission of 1888 rifle, Mauser-Verguiero, Carcano, Mannlicher-Schonauer, and more. --Vaarok 1:23, 03 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.194.189.149 (talk)

There's also the Ross, which was a straight-pull. Trekphiler (talk) 22:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

question[edit]

The XM26 Lightweight Shotgun System (LSS) is the most advanced and recent example, which may hold the distinction of being the first bolt-action shotgun to be used in military service.-taken from the artical

is it realy bolt action its more pumpaction, and if it pump theres been plenty of others

No it is in fact a bolt-action shotgun. Bolt action is literally working the bolt, while pump works several parts which open the receiver.--LWF 17:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The British and the Indians were using .410ga bolt-action Ishapore shotguns back in the late '40s, so the XM-26 isn't the first bolt-action shotgun in military service; I've removed the incorrect statement from the article. --Commander Zulu 03:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Headspace[edit]

The "Headspace" section of this article seems out of place -- both in that it is the first item discussed (while an important safety issue for surplus rifles, it's not necessarily a key concept in the discussion of bolt action) and that it is inserted as the hierarchical parent of the "Loading" and "Benefits and Drawbacks," which doesn't make sense. Any thoughts on re-arranging, such as moving the headspace note farther down, and promoting Loading and Benefits and Drawbacks to higher heading levels? - Racingmars (talk) 22:00, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

  • I agree. The ordering of some of the sections should be moved around. I would suggest the history section follows the introduction, as most articles of any kind normally do. Then I think a new section be made to include the Loading and Benefits and Drawbacks parts, with the possible heading of Use of bolt action or General use or something. Then would come the major systems section, hybrids, and references(article needs refs). Just some ideas.
  • I also think more mention should be made for the Schmidt-Rubin system, perhaps after the bit on Mosins, and the history section expanded, like including when each major system began and ended vast use. If needed, I have examples and pics of all three major systems, and of the Rubins, and even a short video of a K31 being operated. Kresock (talk) 02:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Unlocked & unloaded[edit]

Can other bolt-actions than the Krag be fitted for gate loading, or is it a unique feature? Trekphiler (talk) 00:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Straight-pull bolt actions[edit]

I noticed that several pages (eg. the K31 article) that refer to straight-pull bolt actions link to "bolt action", although this article only briefly mentions them in the "Other variants" and "Operating the bolt" sections without a proper definition.
Should there be
- a new article about straight-pull bolt actions linking here?
- a new section outlining different categories before explaining the standard systems like Mauser, Enfield etc?
- no change, because of the comparatively small number of straight-pull bolt actions?

--84.160.221.24 (talk) 16:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd say "No change", because the total number of notable straight pull rifles can be counted on one hand, and of those, only the Ross Rifle, the Steyr-Mannlicher M1895 and the K31 saw anything approaching widespread use.--Commander Zulu (talk) 12:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Is there a reason that no mention is made of Fortner biathlon rifles in this article? Based on a short google search, it appears that Fortner is widely used by professional biathlon competitors, and is therefore a notable straight-pull design. See, for example, [1]. Marvin KS (talk) 17:01, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

it is virtually impossible for a bolt action firearm to jam.[edit]

I think this statement needs citation, and I am also inclined to think it is incorrect to a certain degree. I have fired many bolt actions that have jammed for various reasons, many because of a failure to eject for one reson or another, then closing the bolt on a new round when the spent one is still in the chamber. Also with single round bolt action rifles ( the ones that you have to put a new round in each time you fire it) can jam easily if the new round is not put in properly.

The entire page needs citing and references, hence the "unreferenced" tag on it. As for jamming my K31's have never jammed, but my Enfield No. 4's , k98K's, and Mosin's have occasionally failed to extract the spent round, so I know it is not true to say "it is virtually impossible for a bolt action firearm to jam" but adding it is original research, which is prohibited on Wikipedia. Kresock (talk) 02:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Feel the power[edit]

It's been removed, but everything I've ever read (by no means exhaustive) says bolt actions use more powerful rounds, which I think is what the original edit was meant to convey. Votes to revert? TREKphiler 05:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

cock on opening rate of fire[edit]

How is cock on opening slower than cock on closing? Seems unlogic to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.233.224.118 (talk) 20:04, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I think all mentions of rate of fire in relation to bolt actions should be removed. The rate of fire in a bolt action is completely determined by the person firing the rifle, not the action design. The relative rate of fire is a matter of opinion so it shouldn't be in the wiki. Bottomline is there is no substantiation let alone an explanation for it. Just saying the cam-assisted cocking has force on the uplift of the bolt is silly because the cock-on-closing designs have the full mainspring weight on the closing motion of the bolt. Sd4f (talk) 12:52, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
Cock-on-closing actions cycle faster than cock-on-opening actions; anyone who's fired a Lee-Enfield can attest to this. Other factors include whether the rifle has a straight bolt (Gew 98, M91/30, M96) or a bent bolt (Lee-Enfield, M1903, K98), the calibre of the rifle, and the skill of the shooter; but regardless of that CoC actions are noticeably faster than CoO actions.Commander Zulu (talk) 14:18, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
I have both types of rifles, number 4's and m98's some sporterised, others in military form. I don't see any noticeable difference. I just think that a lot of this "rate of fire" is propaganda sent out by the brits to basically make their soldiers think they had a comparable rifle when in reality it was a somewhat crude, old and weak (if it was so brilliant why did they develop the p14?). The brits made up other things at the time as well like that their pilots ate lots of carrots to hide the fact that they had radar. Sd4f (talk) 02:55, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
Our experiences clearly differ, as every Lee-Enfield I've ever fired has been noticeably faster on the reload than a K98 or M91/30. As for the Lee-Enfield being "crude, old, and weak"... are we talking about the same rifle? Commander Zulu (talk) 03:09, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect statement about Mosin action[edit]

In the Mosin action section of the article, the author states that the Mosin action is not used in any commercial rifle. This is highly inaccurate. Sako sells at least a dozen different models that all use the Mosin action or a modified form of the Mosin action.

Also, a quick question about the history section. If the Mosin uses an internal box mag, how was the Mauser G93 the first to employ it? If I remember my history correctly, 1891 came before 1893. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.194.139.10 (talk) 04:40, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

The Mosin's internal magazine is not a box, it's a vertical stack. The result is that the Mosin's magazine protrudes from the stock, while the Mauser magazine is entirely contained within the stock, for the same number of cartridges. 198.49.81.49 (talk) 17:19, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh my.[edit]

"One well known example is that bolt action rifles designed for the .223 Remington can usually safely fire the more powerful 5.56x45mm NATO, while auto-loaders might malfunction." The only compatibility issue between .223 and 5.56x45 is higher chamber pressures. It is entirely a matter of the chamber/locking lugs' structural strength. Method of operation is next to irrelevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gekigasky (talkcontribs) 09:15, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Contradiction regarding magnum rounds[edit]

The section on the Mauser system states:

"The Mauser system is stronger than that of the Lee-Enfield because of the third locking lug present at the rear of the bolt, and with its two locking lugs just behind the bolt head is able to better handle higher pressure cartridges (ie "Magnum" calibre centrefire rifle cartridges), while the Lee-Enfield or Mosin-Nagant actions require some strengthening to do the same task."

The section on the Lee-Enfield system states:

"This type bolt can be used on modern magnum rounds and is found in several bolt-action .50 BMG rifles today."

The section on the Mosin-Nagant system states:

"Like the Lee-Enfield bolt system, the Mosin-Nagant system can be suitable for use with modern "Magnum" calibre centrefire rifle cartridges (the BOHICA Arms .50 BMG being one)"

All three state that they are suitable for use with magnum or .50 caliber rounds. They also seem to imply that either the Mauser is the only one that ordinarily can or that the Mauser is the only one that cannot handle these powerful rounds. Which is it? Axeman (talk) 00:16, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Springfield Clarification[edit]

I added the "clarification needed" template to the history section. It says the US supplanted the Greene Rifle with the Springfield; there are almost 2 dozen different types of rifles called "Springfield". Which one was it? Jmfriesen (talk) 04:08, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Given that AFAIK they only ever had one bolt-action Springfield standard-issue, I'm going to guess it's the M1903. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.92.226.127 (talk) 03:45, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

About the rate of fire[edit]

I remember reading that in WW1 British soldiers would use a certain technique to fire their Lee-Enfields faster by holding the bolt with their index finger and thumb and using their middle fingers to fire, resulting in up to 60 RPM (details here). Can anybody find a better source for this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.92.226.127 (talk) 03:42, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Funny, but needed correction[edit]

"The first bolt-action rifle was produced in 1824 by Barack Obama, (...)" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.107.12.148 (talk) 17:19, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

File:LA2-Blitz-0150 Infanteriegewehr M98 side.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:LA2-Blitz-0150 Infanteriegewehr M98 side.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 17:27, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Mismatched bolts[edit]

Added to Safety and Headspace section. A minor disadvantage of bolt action designs but a growing problem with some serious consequences.(SM527RR (talk) 00:10, 12 February 2012 (UTC))

The Difference of "Cock on Open" vs. "Cock on Close" Actions[edit]

This would help. The Difference of "Cock on Open" vs. "Cock on Close" Actions. Komitsuki (talk) 10:21, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

  1. ^ http://qz.com/54254/this-german-invention-is-used-in-95-of-rifles-in-biathlons/