[mattifikation]

Soo.. you'll make an argument for nail-shooting paintball guns, but not bolt action rifles?

You asked for pros and cons. I told you a pro: no mags. It doesn't sound like a big pro, until you don't have any mags.

When they get close enough that you need fast reloading, they're also close enough to switch to a PDW, Submachine gun, or sidearm.

I'm not saying I'd pass over an AR15 for a Remington 700, but I *am* saying that there are certain people who'd do just fine that way. And I *would* take a nice, accurate bolt-action with a sidearm over an AK-47 any day.

Just like the pro of a big knife: No bullets. The knife sounds useless, until you don't have any bullets.

[Faran Brigo]

Not at all. I suggested a way to make a paintball gun relatively useful if you don't have anything better, if you have a real gun then don't bother with it.

I didn't say the lack of magazines wasn't a good thing, I said I think the benefit is offset by being reduced to 5 shots before each reload, then having to load each round individually.

Alright, we didn't say anything about combos, but if you'd pass an AK for a bolt action, then why wouldn't you pass an AR15 over a bolt action if the AR15 is not nearly as tough as either the bolt action OR the AK47?

A knife (REGULAR knife, not a ghurka khukuri or customized blade) sounds useless (as a weapon) bullets or no bullets, and if it isn't a combat knife is IS completely useless. No knife will chop or pierce through bone easily which means any attempts to kill a zed with one must involve jamming it through a thin area, like the temples, eye sockets, back of the head, etc. and that takes skill and practice which most of us just don't have. Dismemberment is out of the question, and damaging muscles to reduce mobility is feasible, but it still leaves you with a zombie still attacking and very close to you. Getting a combat knife that is forged in one piece is about as easy as getting an axe which is better than the knife and can be used as a tool too.

Personally, I belong to the group of people that only knows two ways to use a knife, stab and cut, so I'd rather run or carry the weight in ammo than try to fight a zombie with a knife.

This post has been edited by Faran Brigo: 01 July 2008 - 01:34 PM

[mattifikation]

I'd pick a bolt action over an AK because of accuracy. I'd pick the AR15 over the bolt action because the AR is accurate enough for most work and is a better compromise between accuracy and capacity.

[bandits1]

mattifikation said:

I'd pick a bolt action over an AK because of accuracy. I'd pick the AR15 over the bolt action because the AR is accurate enough for most work and is a better compromise between accuracy and capacity.

You mean you'd pick a bolt-action over an AK if you had a solid sidearm to back it up, right?

You wouldn't make the same choice if the weapon you selected was your only weapon, would you? That would be insane.

[JakAttak]

never have 1 gun always more.

[mattifikation]

Yes, yes, that's definitely what I meant. I wouldn't go sole bolt action unless I didn't have a choice.

[JakAttak]

good idea

My post is too short.

[Faran Brigo]

Quote

A trained shooter can deliver just as many accurate shots with a bolt action rifle as someone with a semi automatic rifle.

The BEF during WW1 was so good at this that the advancing Germans thought they were using machineguns. How many people can pull this off? you tell me, after the professional army was expended during the early stages of WW1 this never happened again on the western front. But yes, trained shooters are effective you got a good point there.

However, if you're expecting me to believe with equally competent shooters that the guy that has to reload 5 times by hand and cycle the bolt manually can down the same amount of targets in the same amount of time than the one who doesn't have to do either of those, I'm sorry, I'm afraid you're going to have to show your work.

[bandits1]

stonyman65 said:

Bolt action rifles are just as effective as any other rifle if not more effective.

A trained shooter can deliver just as many accurate shots with a bolt action rifle as someone with a semi automatic rifle.

Also, do to the fact that you have to conserve your ammunition, you will have to pick your shots. this will also get rid of the "Rambo" syndrome of shooting wildly without aiming.

I, too, find it impossible that two shooters of equal skill - one with a 30 round AR-15 and one with a 5-or-10 round bolt-action - would be able to put down the same amount of targets in the same amount of time.

And while I agree that it's best to try and aim carefully and make every round count, I would feel better having the option(and ammo-capacity) of going "Rambo" if I so choose. I don't want the measly five-round capacity of my weapon dictating what I can and can't do.

Like Faran Brigo mentioned earlier in this thread: the best way to make someone a more effective combatant in a life-and-death situation isn't by taking away most of their bullets.

This post has been edited by bandits1: 03 July 2008 - 12:02 AM

[john154]

Again now we're getting into AR vs War Rifle and thats not fair to the War Rifle. Of course the modern assualt rifle is the wiser choice and you'd be a fool to choose otherwise given the option but don't discount grandpa so readily. The old gun's still a shit kicker.

[Hitman]

I'd much rather take my FAL over my arisaka , or carl gustav , or mauser , or any hunting rifle that I own. however , from a safe enough place I can put the 5 shots to very good use that I have.

if all I had was my win mod 70 I don't think I'd go doing house clarance drills anytime soon. then again I don't plan on using my FAl for that either.

[Faran Brigo]

john154 said:

Again now we're getting into AR vs War Rifle and thats not fair to the War Rifle...

Of course bolt action rifles are respectable, they weren't the standard firearm of so many nations for so long without good reason. Their disadvantages are nullified if you're not in immediate danger or have some room or obstacles between you and your target. Most of them have loads that would put 7.62 NATO to shame.

john154 said:

Of course the modern assualt rifle is the wiser choice and you'd be a fool to choose otherwise given the option but don't discount grandpa so readily.

So far, three people have said exactly that a bolt action is preferable to an assault rifle. The point I'm trying to stress here, and probably the other guys will agree here is exactly what you've said there, in most cases it's foolish to choose the bolt action over the assault rifle.

This post has been edited by Faran Brigo: 03 July 2008 - 04:56 AM

[JakAttak]

honestly but a main point is in most places you are more likely to find ammo for hunting rifles than assault rifles.

[Hitman]

JakAttak said:

honestly but a main point is in most places you are more likely to find ammo for hunting rifles than assault rifles.

doubtfull . most places keep more .223 and 7.62X39 on hand than .300weatherby mag or .375 winchester. if a place is looted or otherwise ransacked its doubtfull you'll find much more than a few loose .22's

[Faran Brigo]

Well he's got half a point there, in the U.S. it's common to find intermediate rifle rounds, in most other countries however those are military/LE only weapons, so, you'll have a better chance of finding something like 30-30 or 30-06 than 5.56 ot 7.62.

[mattifikation]

After awhile, the "weird rounds" might be all that's left, just because there's fewer people going after them. A new store just opened in my area, they've got some Mauser M98's for sale for like 70 bucks. Any gun-savvy people here think it's a good deal?

[JakAttak]

I before before E except after C.
and uhhh maybe. I buy guns for hunting and target practice so f**k if I know.

[Faran Brigo]

mattifikation said:

After awhile, the "weird rounds" might be all that's left, just because there's fewer people going after them.

WE would take the common rounds, I think most people would just go with the biggest gun they see and perhaps not even the correct ammunition.