• Watch Out for Scammers!

    We've now added a color code for all accounts. Orange accounts are new members, Blue are full members, and Green are Supporters. If you get a message about a sale from an orange account, make sure you pay attention before sending any money!

Are semi auto rifles harder to shoot?

One more thing, it has been stated here that youngsters seem to do better with the AR than other types. The recent explosion of youngsters winning Distinguished Rifleman status suggests that the AR is indeed easier for them to shoot accurately; but, of course, that is a comparison between the AR and M1A.

Or maybe the "Youngsters" have as of late been more interested in shooting AR platforms and the precision abilities that have become more prevalent as opposed to an M1A that let's be realistic is an older platform and not necessarily as endearing. But assume away...
 
Well, Graham, it appears that your video made my point without you being knowledgeable about it. I actually thought you had learned something. At any rate, your video shows what's happening at the gun after the bullet has left the bore. While in the bore, an AR, in any caliber, needs to be controlled just as a bolt gun would need to be controlled, meaning proper application of the elements and factors of a steady position. I believe the AR's design (M16 A2/A3/A4) allows for more consistent control by its design than does the typical generic stocked bolt gun. That may be why we are seeing some of today's bolt action rifles, like the Tubb 2000, being made more characteristic of the AR's design.
Have another look at the video. BTW, it's not mine. The video does not show that an AR in any caliber needs to be controlled just as a bolt gun would be controlled: It shows the opposite; the reason why they are to be controlled differently.

And the AR design, because of its pistol grip, only allows for more consistent control by design if you cant the rifle. The main reason why chassis systems have become popular for NRA hi-power shooting is because the butt can be adjusted for the cant used in positional sport-shooting. The AR stock, however, by design, does not allow for more consistent control of the rifle.

Sterling, there's no point in repeating a mantra about the fundamentals of marksmanship as a response to every post on every topic. Here the OP is not asking about the design of the AR or for a recitation of the factors of a steady position. He is asking about the practical effects of the reciprocating mass of the bolt carrier.
 
Last edited:
Actually, I suspect that the largest part of why DR badges have become so much more common with the ARs today has less to do with the rifle's "shootability" than with the logistics of the M1/M14/M1A family. Guys like Holliger, Frank White or Derrick Martin, who can build a tack driving AR are very easy to find. Failing that, you can put one together all on your own with just a modicum of mechanical ability using a tremendous array of very high quality parts on the market today. Either of these routes will result in a rifle that's entirely on par with those used by AMU or any of the other military teams. This wasn't the case with the M14s, where the military teams had a very clear advantage over virtually all civilian shooters, both in terms of parts and competent gunsmiths (gunsmiths, not armorers) to assemble them. The M14s/M1As took an incredibly high level of maintenance to keep them running in peak form, and that was frankly beyond the financial reach of most shooters. Once a well built AR is put together, you basically shoot it until it needs a new barrel. You don't need to be constantly worried about bedding going south, trigger issues, the flash suppressor, op rod, etc., etc., etc., like you did (do) with an M14. They're an inherently more accurate platform than the old M1/M14 family, and the fire an inherently more accurate cartridge that's also easier to shoot. No great mystery here.
 
Kevin, agreed.

I used to shoot an M14 that was permanently glued to its stock. Even then, my scores went up when I began shooting ARs. Much of it had to do with using better bullets under less recoil despite the jacked-up design of the pistol grip, stock and forend on a factory AR.
 
Last edited:
Properly set up, I think both bolt and AR's are pretty easy to shoot. AR's are much easier for fast follow up shots as there is less muzzle rise because the recoil goes straight back as oppose to up (muzzle climb).
 
In theory, AR's should be a bit harder to shoot. That being said, I remember when I was checking the sighting on my Les Baer AR heavy varmint in .204 Ruger. Scope is a 5-25 S&B. My 12 year old daughter walked by and wanted to try it. She got into prone position, and fired 5 shots at about the same rate she would have shot a bolt gun. Target was at 400 yards. Her group was just under 2.5". This was off a bipod. I do not think she has trouble with AR's.

Beginner's luck. :)
 
Graham,

That jump was noticeable. I can remember when a 470 was pretty well guaranteed to make the cut, just about anywhere, back when the M14s were THE Service Rifle. I earned about half my points with M14s while I was in the service (and had the benefits of those gunsmiths and truckloads of parts I mentioned), and finished off with the AR once I'd gotten out. Once the black rifles took over, that 470 line was a distant memory. Since then, I've seen guys nail down 480s-485s, and walk away with "first leather" and sympathy. My scores went up, right alongside everyone else's. Still, I don't think the ARs are any easier to shoot, and probably even a bit harder. Shorter sight radius makes them less forgiving of alignment errors, and the pistol grip allows you to make pistol shooter fuck-ups, as well as rifle shooter fuck-ups. But considering all the other advantages they bring to the table, they're a very clear improvement. I think the building and maintenance issues are the really big factors here, though.
 
Something, we may need to do here is get the OP, or anybody else, set the parameters of what is "most accurate" for them. Also, of note are some juxtapositions I didn't see coming.

First, when I think of 'ride' or 'drive' when it comes to shooting, I think of free recoil as on the bench, or 'driving' ones shoulder behind the butt of a rifle and allowing no recoil movement. I think position shooting has the same attributes, i.e. rolling with the recoil vs. stepping into it and stopping it. This seems especially true when shooting heavy recoiling cartridges. Each would think that the other way is less accurate. Yet, I've seen both methods produce extreme accuracy. And, that accuracy is out to long ranges. I say as long as the shooter remains consistent each time he does it his way. I wasn't aware that where the offhand was placed was also considered the 'ride' vs. 'drive' difference. So, I learned something there.

Second, lock time and dwell time as it relates to unlocking are often misunderstood. What I feel affects the op, and other AR users is how pressure and dwell time relate to unlocking. Thus my statement about finding a load that not only has good barrel harmonics for their rifle, but also is compatible with the gas system. While the carrier isn't moving while the bullet is in the barrel, pressure is building up against it.
As we've covered many facets of this topic I think a few myths are busted. But, a few facts come out of it as well. The military went to the AR because it was easier to shoot than a bolt gun. To be fair though, bolt guns were in 30-06, not 5.56. I think the recoil factor is as much to credit for that as is the type of rifle. Another truism that stands as far as accuracy goes is AR's are NOT used in the ultimate accuracy game, bench rest shooting. I'm talking serious competition. So, with a very fine line, regarding accuracy most of us never achieve to begin with, I'd have to say bolt guns give the best accuracy.
HOWEVER, this brings us back to the task at hand in giving the op an opinion and helpful advice. Relative accuracy as required to shoot the courses he pursues, the AR is plenty accurate. As I mentioned in my first post, an AR properly built with a load worked up for it is going to be accurate enough to score hits at a level that can win competitions for him. Or, just meet his long range accuracy goals.

With that in mind I would suggest a couple things. Get a known good shooter to shoot some groups at the ranges you want to shoot to. You may have a rifle problem. And, take one method of shooting and get instruction in it. You are at the point that troubleshooting the method you use isn't finding anything wrong, And yet you are not attaining the accuracy you wish to. Sometimes just sorting things in a different way will allow you to see where the problem lies. As you well know, the only way to improve here is find the glitch that is holding you back. Is it you?, the rifle? or the load? Remember, it is YOU who will need to see and acknowledge the problem to fix it. An instructor can point it out, but you need to acknowledge it and make the changes.

FWIW, I used to have a strange recoil anticipation. I call it 'shark-eyeing' the shot. I would catch myself hunkering down just a little more and my eye's rolling up in my head right as I squeezed the shot off. About like you would do right as you stepped into a nasty fight. There's that split second during an attack that your body goes into the defensive offensive mode. You are going offensive, but certain parts of your body go defensive. Eyes being number one to notice. And, of course they mean a lot when shooting.
 
Last edited:
But, a few facts come out of it as well. The military went to the AR because it was easier to shoot than a bolt gun. To be fair, bolt guns were in 30-06 not 5.56.

I was under the impression the military went from the 1903 variety bolt action .30-06 to the M1 Garand in .30-06 to M14 in 7.62x51 to the AR series in 5.56...
 
I was under the impression the military went from the 1903 variety bolt action .30-06 to the M1 Garand in .30-06 to M14 in 7.62x51 to the AR series in 5.56...

I think he was talking about in a Sniper Rifle. Which is also wrong since Bolt Action Rifles are still being used by snipers. 308-ARs is in a DMR role, not Sniper Role.
 
I was under the impression the military went from the 1903 variety bolt action .30-06 to the M1 Garand in .30-06 to M14 in 7.62x51 to the AR series in 5.56...

I think he was talking about in a Sniper Rifle. Which is also wrong since Bolt Action Rifles are still being used by snipers. 308-ARs is in a DMR role, not Sniper Role.



It was a generality, my apologies. The military went to the AR to reduce recoil and load weight for the amount of bullets carried for the M14 which was derived from the M1. Which replaced the M1903.
And the same thing applies to bolt vs. AR in sniping. Tests have shown the AR is accurate enough to do the job and if needed also produce a mass of fire which a bolt gun cannot.

But, I'll leave you two to bullshit about the details instead of giving some kind of thought to helping the OP out.
 
It was a generality, my apologies. The military went to the AR to reduce recoil and load weight for the amount of bullets carried for the M14 which was derived from the M1. Which replaced the M1903.
And the same thing applies to bolt vs. AR in sniping. Tests have shown the AR is accurate enough to do the job and if needed also produce a mass of fire which a bolt gun cannot.

But, I'll leave you two to bullshit about the details instead of giving some kind of thought to helping the OP out.

M14 is bolt action?

Who is bullshitting? I was wondering what you meant when you said the AR replaced a Bolt Action. That is all. I am trying to learn.
 
Last edited:
I'll get off my high horse and quit being snippy. If I misunderstood the direction you two took with your quotes of me, then I apologize.

My original post stated, "To be fair though, bolt guns were in 30-06, not 5.56." That does not say we went from a bolt gun to an AR, it simply states that for the most part when the U.S. Military converted to the 5.56 in the M16/M16A1, the only military bolt guns we had were in 30-06. The M40 was the first adopted bolt gun in in any role 7.62x51. It was adopted in 1966 but never really hit theater until at least a couple years later. Even the man who pushed for it's use, still used his M70 in 30-06, when he went back.
The point of that comparison was the military went to the M16/M16A1 for reduced recoil and reduced load for the same amount of bullets. The rifle had proven itself accurate enough (if not reliable) as of that time to field.

The ergonomics and reduced recoil of the M16 series allows for outstanding marksmanship. Unfortunately, it also allows for more bad habits to form. I'll claim that prize as many on here should as well. Something about having 20-30 rounds at your disposal leaves one wanting to solve the problem the easy way....blasting!

I'm not saying the OP is blasting, just that there is the urge to do so in many of us, just for fun.

What I'm trying to get the OP to do is look at his issue differently. Find out where the most reasonable cause of his problem lies and solve it from there. And while I know being technically accurate is important, in helping a fellow shooter, it sometimes does less good for them when we go off on tangents. I'm not innocent of that either. Just saying, I'm trying to get a line of ideas down for him to follow and correct his issue. I don't think AR type rifles have a bad disadvantage when it comes to good accurate long range shooting. As long as it meets his 'relative' needs. Bolt or AR, the rifle needs to be built up right and have a good load worked out for it.
 
Last edited:
in most every case the semi auto rifle will present a larger target as the recievers and magazines generally are larger than the typical bolt action rifle. so my take is "no, semi autos are easier to shoot" especially in profile but probably also in the oblique presentation. the main thing one must keep in mind when shooting a rifle is to make the shot before that rifle is fired at you. one also might consider simply shooting the rifle in question's bearer, and confiscating it for your own future purpose if apropriate to the scenario. meow
 
Kindly go pick an argument with someone willing to spoon-feed you while you insult them.

And on the issue of cluelessness:
RFA - Definition by AcronymFinder

I'm 55yrs old and don't need to be spoon fed anything from your plate in discussing rifle marksmanship.

I'm with Sterling Shooter's responses. I do believe he has an understanding of higher math, calc based physics
and human reflex measured in the micro-seconds.

RFA - wRong Fucking Answer: Used by USMC S/S Instructor Cpl. Daryl Conrad. I stole it from him when
I started teaching classes at Stone Bay.

I stand by my statement in reference of your post's value in this thread. No offense meant...

images


Clue? The Paper Chase.
icon_smile_wink.gif


Again, no offense. You are in good Company, Low Light and more than a few others.

I am of the fold that believes that there is no difference in a DI AR precision rifle or a precision bolt rifle as far as "driving" it.
And that the human body isn't fast enough to "correct/drive" differently what differences are believed to exist. I do not believe
or have ever seen evidence that the differences in the DI AR precision rifles design create Force Vectors that have the energy to overcome the rifle's Rest Mass.

Some words capitalized for clues.
icon_smile_wink.gif


Sorry for the million edits. It's 9:06pm EST and I'm in the Lab screwing with chemicals and electronics for customer. My normal work days are Tue-Fri.

Best to all.
 
Last edited:
Semi-autos seem to be less forgiving, but that's the typical AR-type weapon isn't optimized to be a precision weapon. Couple that with off-the-shelf mil-spec and surplus ammo (the most common kind ran through AR's) and you'll find that your average AR shooter has an inconsistent experience with them. However, if you took any plain-jane, mass-produced off-the-shelf bolt action and ran surplus ammo through it, you'd have the same result.

The average AR is NOT set up to be a precision weapon. Take the time to get a quality precision AR setup (like a KAC SR-25, LMT MWS, etc.) and it'll produce great results. Settle for a standard m4-clone setup, even a Colt, and you'll find the accuracy sub-par to what you're probably used to with a bolt gun.
 
I am no rifle “shooter”. I’m a pistol guy who has some rifles and shoots them every once in a while. So I’m probably a pretty good yard stick for your beginner/average shooter.

The only rifle I have ever shot consistently (and this not many times) is my POF 308. I can make good hits with it, but I am by no means making .5MOA groups. With out of the box ball (I have never run a “good” round through it) I am shooting in the 1-1.5MOA range. On the other hand while at the range I put three rounds through a friends 30-06 deer rifle. I had never shot it before, it was KILLING my shoulder (I’ve mashed it up a few times) and I wasn’t even trying that hard. .75MOA group.

So there ya go, in my limited experience a bolt gun is more forgiving than a semi auto.
 
have I shot bolt actions before? yes

am I an expert when it comes to bolt actions? no

IMO, I would say yes,,,,, AR's / semi-autos are much harder to be precise in comparison to bolt actions.