Let me start off by saying I love a nice bolt action rifle and I'm not ripping on them. But why are they still being used for sniper rifles in the military? I understand for the bigger calibers but in a 308 why? IF an AR10 platform rifle will shoot 1/4" groups why wouldn't you want the added firepower in case it's needed of a semi auto?
- Thread starter reelman
- Start date
1/4" groups???? Who's gas guns are consistently turning in 1/4" groups?
Because they exist.
Accuracy and consistency is not nearly as good with a gas gun.
I have owned many custom and high end factory gas guns, as well as bolt guns. A gas gun is going to expose more shooter input error than a bolt gun will, so they are not as forgiving. With a experienced shooter, a gas gun can be very accurate, but it takes practice to run them with a high level of consistency. You also have more components and moving parts in a gas gun, this requires more maintenance than a bolt gun, and we are often taking about field conditions that are less than satisfactory.
If you look down the firing line at a F Class or benchrest match, you will see rifles with the highest degree of accuracy, and where does the gas gun fit in. Can a gasser be accurate? yes, but a bolt gun by design is going to be inherently more accurate than a gas gun and more forgiving for the shooter. This is not to discuss the obvious benefits to a gas gun, we all know what they are, but since we are talking accuracy, that is the discussion.
If you look down the firing line at a F Class or benchrest match, you will see rifles with the highest degree of accuracy, and where does the gas gun fit in. Can a gasser be accurate? yes, but a bolt gun by design is going to be inherently more accurate than a gas gun and more forgiving for the shooter. This is not to discuss the obvious benefits to a gas gun, we all know what they are, but since we are talking accuracy, that is the discussion.
you get more reliability with a bolt gun, accuracy and simple to take care of
Everything stated above PLUS alot less weight with a bolt.
What Captain Kirk said. Bolt guns are much more forgiving about things like building your position. When you pull the trigger on a bolt gun
not much moves besides the bullet. On my M21 there are rods, springs, gas cylinders, and bolts adding angular momentum and torques to the
equation. The debate rages as to how much these things effect the rifle before the bullet has left the barrel, but it definitely
plays a role.
not much moves besides the bullet. On my M21 there are rods, springs, gas cylinders, and bolts adding angular momentum and torques to the
equation. The debate rages as to how much these things effect the rifle before the bullet has left the barrel, but it definitely
plays a role.
Different tactics requires different equipment and it has less to do with inherent accuracy of either system and more to do with what a sniper team's missions actually are. Do you think a sniper always wants a casing ejecting ten feet plus from his position? The additional sound from the action? Reduced suppressor capability? Parts extending all over the place? Reduced reliability?
Stealth is a sniper's livelihood, multiple shots from a single position is what gets a team killed, and trust me when I say the duties are far more about scouting than they are about sniping. Different story in a known defensive perimeter position or an assaulting situation, and that's why the M110/M107 exists as well as the M24/M40. The primary weapon is the radio anyhow...
Stealth is a sniper's livelihood, multiple shots from a single position is what gets a team killed, and trust me when I say the duties are far more about scouting than they are about sniping. Different story in a known defensive perimeter position or an assaulting situation, and that's why the M110/M107 exists as well as the M24/M40. The primary weapon is the radio anyhow...
Bolt guns have less moving parts, which makes them inherently more accurate. They also are easier to maintain, and care for in some adverse conditions.
Lock time in a bolt gun is faster..this in turn makes them more forgiving.
AR semi auto has nothing on a nice bolt action in terms of accuracy. Not even close especially when it comes to consistency.
Not true, neither in theory nor in practice. Case and point is that a modern jumbo jet is orders of magnitude more reliable than a small single piston engine Cessna. More in the firearms domain I'd guarantee the best top end semi-autos are more reliable then the bottom of the barrel cheapo bolt guns. Now that being said there certainly are some trends in this regard (part count), but it is not all this black and white.
Swamp, the last time I checked a M40A5 isn't bottom barrel. We're talking about issued military weapon systems here, not GAP-10 versus Marlin.
I still reiterate it has little to do with the equipment and everything to do with the mission.
I still reiterate it has little to do with the equipment and everything to do with the mission.
You are changing the parameters of the question in effort to support your response.
Absolutely, a well built gas gun is going to likely be much more accurate and more reliable than the crappiest bolt action $349 special at your local WalMart. But if you do a side by side comparison of top of the line, custom built gas gun vs an equally high quality bolt gun the bolt gun will out perform in terms of long range accuracy, consistency and reliability.
The rifle system in question would be the Knight's M110 sass. It had some issues and is being revisited. From Wikipedia:
Replacement or reconfiguration of M110
In 2011, the U.S. Army issued a request to the private sector to reconfigure or replace the current Knight Armament M110 sniper rifle as the current version of the M110 was not functioning well in the field requiring significant maintenance and replacement of parts.[5] The U.S. Army responded to the referenced article clarifying that the rifle was functioning perfectly and they are just looking for a smaller, lighter version of M110 for the spotter in a sniper team, providing the sniper is equipped with the new XM2010. "The spotter will have an urban sniper support weapon which will be the M110. … Now you’ve increased the lethality of the team…"—Program Manager LTC Chris Lehner.[6]
The specifications the U.S. Army has issued are as follows:[7]
Operation: Semi-automatic
Caliber: Compatible with 7.62×51mm NATO cartridges
Accuracy: Capable of 1.3 minute of angle dispersion or better with match ammunition
Size: Overall length shall be reduced using a shorter barrel and/or collapsible buttstock. Maximum length not to exceed 39 without suppressor. Desired minimum length is less than 36 with stock collapsed.
Weight: Weight shall be under 9.0 lb for unloaded rifle without optics and accessories
Grip: A modular, adjustable pistol grip.
Trigger: A non-adjustable match style trigger.
Hand guard: A forend that includes a fixed 12 o’ clock rail with configurable 3, 6, and 9 o’ clock rails.
Sound suppressor: A muzzle mounted, detachable sound suppressor.
Muzzle device: A compensator/muzzle brake compatible with the sound suppressor.
Bipod: Tool-less detachment featuring cant and pan/track capability.
Day optic: An Army specified variable power day optic and compatible rings.
Back up sights: Iron sights offset 45 deg from the DOS.
Sling attachment: Flush cup, quick detach sling attachment points.
Other: The upgraded M110 must meet the operational and environmental requirements that were fulfilled by the original M110 SASS.
Replacement or reconfiguration of M110
In 2011, the U.S. Army issued a request to the private sector to reconfigure or replace the current Knight Armament M110 sniper rifle as the current version of the M110 was not functioning well in the field requiring significant maintenance and replacement of parts.[5] The U.S. Army responded to the referenced article clarifying that the rifle was functioning perfectly and they are just looking for a smaller, lighter version of M110 for the spotter in a sniper team, providing the sniper is equipped with the new XM2010. "The spotter will have an urban sniper support weapon which will be the M110. … Now you’ve increased the lethality of the team…"—Program Manager LTC Chris Lehner.[6]
The specifications the U.S. Army has issued are as follows:[7]
Operation: Semi-automatic
Caliber: Compatible with 7.62×51mm NATO cartridges
Accuracy: Capable of 1.3 minute of angle dispersion or better with match ammunition
Size: Overall length shall be reduced using a shorter barrel and/or collapsible buttstock. Maximum length not to exceed 39 without suppressor. Desired minimum length is less than 36 with stock collapsed.
Weight: Weight shall be under 9.0 lb for unloaded rifle without optics and accessories
Grip: A modular, adjustable pistol grip.
Trigger: A non-adjustable match style trigger.
Hand guard: A forend that includes a fixed 12 o’ clock rail with configurable 3, 6, and 9 o’ clock rails.
Sound suppressor: A muzzle mounted, detachable sound suppressor.
Muzzle device: A compensator/muzzle brake compatible with the sound suppressor.
Bipod: Tool-less detachment featuring cant and pan/track capability.
Day optic: An Army specified variable power day optic and compatible rings.
Back up sights: Iron sights offset 45 deg from the DOS.
Sling attachment: Flush cup, quick detach sling attachment points.
Other: The upgraded M110 must meet the operational and environmental requirements that were fulfilled by the original M110 SASS.
Last edited:
Try not to look to the military for an example of what’s best in the sniper weapon system arena.
Equipment selection decisions there might be supported by all kinds of official looking documentation and processes but the military process is adversely influenced by historical, personal, institutional, political and financial factors that have no bearing on the technical merit of a particular sniper weapon system.
Semiautomatic versus bolt action has been discussed at length on this site in the past decade and as yet no consensus has been reached. However; if you want an indication take a look at the gear used at any of the major competitions around the country (excluding military).
Equipment selection decisions there might be supported by all kinds of official looking documentation and processes but the military process is adversely influenced by historical, personal, institutional, political and financial factors that have no bearing on the technical merit of a particular sniper weapon system.
Semiautomatic versus bolt action has been discussed at length on this site in the past decade and as yet no consensus has been reached. However; if you want an indication take a look at the gear used at any of the major competitions around the country (excluding military).
+1 .................
I am sure a benchrest comp will be won by a gas gun in the future. It is going to be a while.....
I've had a Stag Model 6 Super Varminter for slightly over a year now. It is sold with a 1/2MOA guarantee, and I find it works at or around that accuracy level. PPU/Prvi-Partizan 69gr and 75gr match is a decent, affordable commercial load that delivers accuracy of at least 1MOA or better at 250yd. Handloads (HDY 75gr HPBT Match/23.5gr Varget, SRA 69SMK/24.0gr Varget) shoot at least to the 1/2MOA promise at 250yd, and probably would do even better in more capable hands than my own.
Functionally, it is prone to misfeeds, especially on the first round. But this deficiency appears to be related to the magazines, and not the rifle. When polymer mags and well worn mags are used, the misfeeds disappear. The problems I've been having appear to be related to rough finish on the feed lip interiors. I believe all that's actually needed is some polishing of those surfaces with steel wool to knock down the roughness of the phosphate coating.
If I had to con the Model 6 it would regarding the basic AR's feeding issues, which are clearly not present with a bolt gun. But I also believe that with good function training and attention to magazines as above, it is a worthy contender.
Greg
Functionally, it is prone to misfeeds, especially on the first round. But this deficiency appears to be related to the magazines, and not the rifle. When polymer mags and well worn mags are used, the misfeeds disappear. The problems I've been having appear to be related to rough finish on the feed lip interiors. I believe all that's actually needed is some polishing of those surfaces with steel wool to knock down the roughness of the phosphate coating.
If I had to con the Model 6 it would regarding the basic AR's feeding issues, which are clearly not present with a bolt gun. But I also believe that with good function training and attention to magazines as above, it is a worthy contender.
Greg
I have a 6MM AR that shoots bugholes at 100 and stays under 1/2 inch past 600 yds and it is a gas gun, my Armalite AR10 with noveske barrel and my reloads shoots the same and it is gas guns also. Follow through is of the upmost importance here since lock up is much slower than a bolt gun, accuracy is there but not as easy to get aas a bolt gun, relatively speaking.
cheers.
cheers.
Last edited:
You/your rifle shoots .5" groups at 600 yards? I find that VERY hard to believe.
The gas gun/bolt debate seems to vary based on the theater of operation in my opinion. In urban Iraq, I'm sure the M110 was a favored weapon by those that used it. Shots rarely exceeded 600 yards which are easily made with the M110. I don't think you see much "practical/combat" difference between a bolt/gas gun until you are talking past 600 yards. For those regions were 800-1000+ yard shots are taken I'd imagine a bolt gun in .300WM or .338LM would be the logical choice. For a target shooter or hunter, the bolt action .308 absolutely has its place(Only 1-2 shots needed). Due to the ballistics of the .308, I'd only ever buy a bolt .308 if it was something like the SRS covert A1 due to its unique and short design. Otherwise, a gas .308 fits my needs. A .308 bolt gun is also very useful for training purposes for larger caliber bolt guns due to ammo cost. However, this discussion seems to be aligned around combat use in which I'd agree with you OP the M24/M40A5 are beginning to become more obsolete as gas guns become increasingly accurate and lighter in weight.
I think he meant 1/2 MOA out to 600, 1/2" groups at 600 would be unheard of
I would suspect the KISS principle has a lot to do with it.
Current generation bolt rifles are both more simple to maintain as well as being more reliable under field conditions than current semi-auto precision prospects, other than some less-than-accurate examples such as the AK-47.
Seeing semi-auto rifles at tactical matches has shown me that they are simply more likely to fail, and a two day tactical match is not nearly as demanding as Iraq or Afganistan.
Current generation bolt rifles are both more simple to maintain as well as being more reliable under field conditions than current semi-auto precision prospects, other than some less-than-accurate examples such as the AK-47.
Seeing semi-auto rifles at tactical matches has shown me that they are simply more likely to fail, and a two day tactical match is not nearly as demanding as Iraq or Afganistan.
The semis you see at matches are probably not good examples of a military weapon. In general, our military's bolt guns are probably less reliable than a properly set-up M4.
Last edited:
While that is certainly up for debate, I think most people would agree that the optics on any precision rifle are more likely to fail than the rifle itself. With ammo being nearly equal in chances of failing as the rifle depending on what it is. If looked at as a weapon system, the bolt vs. gas reliability debate gets a bit more complex when the optics and other accessories are thrown into the mix. I still stand by my previous comment where 1 MOA accuracy is needed out to 800 yards the gas gun gets it done with faster follow up shots, less recoil, and more options to customize. But to each his own and that's why both are still made/purchased.
Understood. I only brought optics into the discussion because reliabilty of gas vs. bolt was being brought up. IMO, gas vs. bolt reliability becomes less of a concern when you are relying on a magnified optic which is much more prone to failure. Since the OP was discussing "sniper rifles" I assumed a day optic at the very least was being used with the possibility of night optics.
Are you comparing apples to apples?
The nice reliable M4 you mention is presumably not the sub-MOA (or 1 MOA minimum if you prefer) & 800 yard effective weapon that the current bolt action sniper rifles are supposed to be.
Changing the AR15/M16/M4 from a nice handy carbine to a precision sniper rifle requires tighter tolerances which in turn seems to hurt reliability.
Additionally, the 5.56 round that is utilized for the M4 is not normally considered to be effective to 800 yards.
Even with the modifications that the internet says happen to make the M4 into the designated marksman weapon, they don't appear to fit the current criteria to be the primary sniper rifle.
Is there any loss in reliability of the designated marksman carbines compared to the current M4?
With respect to one comment about the optics being the component most likely to fail on the current sniper rifles, if true, that component would be common to both a bolt rifle and a semi-auto and so would not be a reason to pick one platform over the other.
One large reason why they are still being used is because they are in the inventory, and frankly when they need to pass out rifles, they pass out what they have in the inventory. What they could, or should have in the inventory is largely irrelevant to the OP's question of "Why use a 308 bolt gun?"
I would prefer a well set up bolt gun over an M4 carbine for engagements at any significant distance (over 450 meters for example). Simply put, a 308 bolt gun will reach out to 800 meters much better than an M4 carbine with an ACOG or similar sighting system will...and they are available to pass out to people who need them.
Sure, it would be really neat to have a super accurate semi auto 338 Lapua rifle issued, but they just aren't in the inventory in the quantity that 308 bolt guns (and ammo) are.
I would prefer a well set up bolt gun over an M4 carbine for engagements at any significant distance (over 450 meters for example). Simply put, a 308 bolt gun will reach out to 800 meters much better than an M4 carbine with an ACOG or similar sighting system will...and they are available to pass out to people who need them.
Sure, it would be really neat to have a super accurate semi auto 338 Lapua rifle issued, but they just aren't in the inventory in the quantity that 308 bolt guns (and ammo) are.
Logistics. Next question.
Do you have a source for the information that the military .308 bolt gun is supposed to be a sub-moa rifle to 800 meters, or is that not what you meant?
I'm going to have to ask for a source on this as well, because tolerances have nothing to do with it and the 77SMK military round is indeed effective to 800 on its intended target from a military M4 in a DM role.
Nope.
Last edited:
Okay, first let me state that I am a semi auto guy but a bolt gun will always win out against a semi in terms of accuracy and reliabilty. I am taking about bolt guns used in a military/law enfrocement role not your walmart hunting rifle. The best of the semi autos perform in what I call "good enough" for for killing things. The best semi autos are not benchrest guns but in the hands of a shooter who is well versed on how to use a semi (.308 as we are talking about sniping) it will be good enough to do the job. I will say the semi in todays world does make one question the use of a .308 bolt gun though, the Army was wise to use a long action. I would choose a M110 over a m24/m40 if the enagements were withing 800 to 900 yards but extend that and a .300 WM would get the nod everytime. Like it was posted before, it's just another tool in the box.
Sometimes I quote myself.
graham,
You seem to be holding back...why don't you let em have it?
Your statements indicate that they are used because, well, they are in the inventory.
All these statements regarding absolute accuracy, relative reliability etc seem academic.
You seem to be holding back...why don't you let em have it?
Your statements indicate that they are used because, well, they are in the inventory.
All these statements regarding absolute accuracy, relative reliability etc seem academic.
And I would like Sinister to chime-in on this one. He has institutional knowledge on this that I don't have.
Last edited:
I can see what you're saying here with what the OP said to a point, BUT doesn't the BRITS and heck even some of our boys use Accuracy International bolt actions in combat today? They are also using LMT MWS 20" CL (the same mod-0 rifle I own) with 4-16x50 vortex scopes in combat today which is also one hell of an accurate semi-auto rifle IMO if not the best on the combat field this very second. But trying to compare the accuracy of an AI bolt action to a LMT MWS designated marksman rifle (both are top of their game in today's combat for bolt action vs semi-auto IMO) is like comparing apples to oranges if you ask me..... I think the key word here is CONSISTENTLY shooting .25moa groups as per the OP with a semi-auto (which is somewhat of a crazy statement in itself).... Anyone can pick a cherry picked 5-shot .25moa group / target out of their ass.... now to consistently do it is a whole different story as stated in my shootout threads.... To say ANY semi-auto (civilian precision based OR used by the military such as my LMT MWS MOD-0) can consistently shoot .25moa groups (as stated by the OP) is just foolish as it just doesn't happen CONSISTENTLY with semi-autos and I have yet to see it happen,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, AND if you think you can shoot .25moa groups consistently with a semi-auto then you better start posting your results on the shootout boards because that would be AWESOME information to have.... Now, an AI bolt action is a whole different story. Both AI bolt action & LMT MWS are being used in combat today... If a LMT MWS can consistently shoot about 1moa to maybe .9moa,,,, and an AI bolt gun can consistently shoot .5moa groups if not better, for a damn near .5moa plus consistent difference, then having that extra .5moa diff @ 1000yards can make one hell of a head / chest size difference for some d-bag hiding out in a stone hut window taking pot shots at your boys.
Last edited:
low end bolt guns? I really haven't seen a bolt gun that didn't have less guns than an ar and some bolt actions were not made for getting dirty
let me also state from personal experience shooting an insane amount of groups with a semi-auto (which my mod-0 LMT MWS is being used in combat today)
to get CONSISTENT sub-moa groups with ANY .308 semi-auto regardless of manufacture (LMT, GAP, OBR, JP, POF, KAC, blah blah blah ) is really really really hard! and to CONSISTENTLY get .25groups with a semi-auto as per the OP is next to impossible especially with a .308 as per the OP. I might get flamed on this but I really don't care.... .308 AR semi-auto's are 1moa rifles on average..... yes, I can average down to .75's with my LMT,,, but that is not typical at all & that's only when the stars align with my match grade amax bullets. I would say my LMT & myself are on average .9moa.
to get CONSISTENT sub-moa groups with ANY .308 semi-auto regardless of manufacture (LMT, GAP, OBR, JP, POF, KAC, blah blah blah ) is really really really hard! and to CONSISTENTLY get .25groups with a semi-auto as per the OP is next to impossible especially with a .308 as per the OP. I might get flamed on this but I really don't care.... .308 AR semi-auto's are 1moa rifles on average..... yes, I can average down to .75's with my LMT,,, but that is not typical at all & that's only when the stars align with my match grade amax bullets. I would say my LMT & myself are on average .9moa.
You should probably get it back from whomever has it, then.
There is another factor here to consider, institutional austerity. Dont think that many of the decisions that the military makes are always the brightest or most logical.
Many of the people making decisions and that organize the panels and award contracts to manufacturers, will never and have never used the equipment.
A mil spec style AR-10, like a Larue OBR, is MORE than capable of the accuracy required by the military out to the ranges a .308 is good for anyways.......especially when it comes to making hits on man sized targets. We arent talking shooting F Class where you need a moving backer to tell if all rounds were on paper. A hit anywhere from the crotch to the head is all a military sniper needs.
If I was going into combat and I had the role of overwatch for an area out to and around 300-800 yards, Id want a Larue OBR with an 18 inch barrel. More than accurate to kill bad guys out that far with much greater fire superiority.
The only reason Id switch to a bolt gun is when big magnum calibers were needed to really reach out and touch someone.
Many of the people making decisions and that organize the panels and award contracts to manufacturers, will never and have never used the equipment.
A mil spec style AR-10, like a Larue OBR, is MORE than capable of the accuracy required by the military out to the ranges a .308 is good for anyways.......especially when it comes to making hits on man sized targets. We arent talking shooting F Class where you need a moving backer to tell if all rounds were on paper. A hit anywhere from the crotch to the head is all a military sniper needs.
If I was going into combat and I had the role of overwatch for an area out to and around 300-800 yards, Id want a Larue OBR with an 18 inch barrel. More than accurate to kill bad guys out that far with much greater fire superiority.
The only reason Id switch to a bolt gun is when big magnum calibers were needed to really reach out and touch someone.
Last edited:
This is a good read.
http://www.snipershide.com/shooting...o-vs-bolt-gun-precision-tactical-matches.html
For the current competitions the bolt action rifle has the advantage. Currently most major matches use a par time for points scoring method, and a limited round count for stage or target. Most of the shots taken are taken from non-standard less then optimal firing positions. When shooting from less stable positions under time constraint fast lock time and light triggers are a distinct advantage. With a bolt action shooters can utilize a light hold on the rifle when in the worst firing positions, where the semi-auto with light trigger has a high possibility of doubling if proper fundamentals aren't applied. The doubling isn't a huge problem unless the round doesn't impact safely, however if there's a limited round count on the stage then one has been wasted. Regarding follow-up shots or transitioning from target to target the bolt action has no disadvantage if the shooter can cycle the bolt during the recoil impulse, while moving the rifle/position to another target, or while readjusting his position after recoil.
Now lets consider ammunition. When selecting ammo to use in a semi-auto you must consider magazine length and the ability to cycle the rifle properly. When using the longest 6.5 or 6mm bullets you may have trouble optimizing the ammunition. Bullet selection and velocity play a bigger roll in points scored then semi vs bolt. If you can fire a high BC bullet at the highest velocity allowed then you have a huge advantage when dealing with the variables your sure to encounter in a match.
Until the rules set fourth by match directors depict a more realistic shooting environment then we'll never know which type of rifle is truly superior. I would like to see a scoring method used that was time plus penalties. An even better scoring system would be points scored divided by time taken to score the points. That would give the most three demential look at the weapon/shooter capability, rewording both speed and accuracy. Set a time limit on stages and deduct for targets not engaged. Let competitors fire all the rounds they want. It's almost always faster to hit with the first round. Look at stage winners from 3gun carbine stages. The top scorer will go one for one on the distance targets.
I believe that most would be surprised if those scoring methods were used. The bolt rifles would still prove superior as long as the targets were less then 2MOA and beyond 300m. 66% IPSC targets inside 300m from prone or supported firing positions the semi would be at the advantage.
If you haven't been to a match I ask that you take the equipment that you have, practice with the intent of winning, take your performance seriously, learn from your experience, then please come back and share your findings. Help grow our sport and our understanding of long range shooting.
"A man with a scoped rifle is master of all he surveys" Jeff Cooper.
http://www.snipershide.com/shooting...o-vs-bolt-gun-precision-tactical-matches.html
For the current competitions the bolt action rifle has the advantage. Currently most major matches use a par time for points scoring method, and a limited round count for stage or target. Most of the shots taken are taken from non-standard less then optimal firing positions. When shooting from less stable positions under time constraint fast lock time and light triggers are a distinct advantage. With a bolt action shooters can utilize a light hold on the rifle when in the worst firing positions, where the semi-auto with light trigger has a high possibility of doubling if proper fundamentals aren't applied. The doubling isn't a huge problem unless the round doesn't impact safely, however if there's a limited round count on the stage then one has been wasted. Regarding follow-up shots or transitioning from target to target the bolt action has no disadvantage if the shooter can cycle the bolt during the recoil impulse, while moving the rifle/position to another target, or while readjusting his position after recoil.
Now lets consider ammunition. When selecting ammo to use in a semi-auto you must consider magazine length and the ability to cycle the rifle properly. When using the longest 6.5 or 6mm bullets you may have trouble optimizing the ammunition. Bullet selection and velocity play a bigger roll in points scored then semi vs bolt. If you can fire a high BC bullet at the highest velocity allowed then you have a huge advantage when dealing with the variables your sure to encounter in a match.
Until the rules set fourth by match directors depict a more realistic shooting environment then we'll never know which type of rifle is truly superior. I would like to see a scoring method used that was time plus penalties. An even better scoring system would be points scored divided by time taken to score the points. That would give the most three demential look at the weapon/shooter capability, rewording both speed and accuracy. Set a time limit on stages and deduct for targets not engaged. Let competitors fire all the rounds they want. It's almost always faster to hit with the first round. Look at stage winners from 3gun carbine stages. The top scorer will go one for one on the distance targets.
I believe that most would be surprised if those scoring methods were used. The bolt rifles would still prove superior as long as the targets were less then 2MOA and beyond 300m. 66% IPSC targets inside 300m from prone or supported firing positions the semi would be at the advantage.
If you haven't been to a match I ask that you take the equipment that you have, practice with the intent of winning, take your performance seriously, learn from your experience, then please come back and share your findings. Help grow our sport and our understanding of long range shooting.
"A man with a scoped rifle is master of all he surveys" Jeff Cooper.
