Cycling speed - lever vs bolt
- Thread starter cdncowboy
- Start date
- Location
- Somewhere on the Hudson Bay Coast
There's more to it than how quickly you can cycle the action. If you are faced with multiple targets, and a rifle that produces significant recoil, which of course means different things to different people, the passage of time between shots is nearly the same, regardless of which repeating action we consider. If I am shooting a .375 bolt gun, and Mark Sullivan is shooting his .577 NE double rifle, in theory there should be no contest as to who can put rounds on target quicker. But in the real world, the time it takes for Mark to bring his rifle down out of recoil, and then reacquire his alive and moving target, means, if I'm on my game, my second shot and his would be fired in the same instant. Whether his shot or mine hits a millisecond quicker, means nothing to the buffalo, but it means something to us if our shots aren't fast enough.
Cowboy Action loads are light, and the cartridges themselves are underpowered by modern standards, so would never be used in the field in the same way. For that reason, the rate of fire observed in Cowboy Action events could never be replicated if the shooting was at a wild boar, with a 95 Marlin, or an 86 Winchester, stuffed with maximum loads under 500 gr bullets. I was brought up on bolt guns, and they are my preference, but I recognize the real advantage of the traditional lever action rifle. That advantage is not the lever, but rather the thin profile, making the rifle much easier to carry under difficult and challenging conditions. This is where the traditional iron sighted, lever action rifle truly shines. How fast the follow-up shot is unimportant, the real question is if its fast enough. That question can only be answered by the hunter's manual dexterity, balanced against the circumstances he's faced with in the moment. The mechanics of the rifle are not irrelevant, but they are less important.
Cowboy Action loads are light, and the cartridges themselves are underpowered by modern standards, so would never be used in the field in the same way. For that reason, the rate of fire observed in Cowboy Action events could never be replicated if the shooting was at a wild boar, with a 95 Marlin, or an 86 Winchester, stuffed with maximum loads under 500 gr bullets. I was brought up on bolt guns, and they are my preference, but I recognize the real advantage of the traditional lever action rifle. That advantage is not the lever, but rather the thin profile, making the rifle much easier to carry under difficult and challenging conditions. This is where the traditional iron sighted, lever action rifle truly shines. How fast the follow-up shot is unimportant, the real question is if its fast enough. That question can only be answered by the hunter's manual dexterity, balanced against the circumstances he's faced with in the moment. The mechanics of the rifle are not irrelevant, but they are less important.
canadaman30
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Far from the City
That guy got skill
Sums it up perfectly.
Yes I have. Especially with lighter guns and rim fires. You have to watch your left thumb though.
Speaking of bad form, this guy is keeping his thumb alongside the grip, rather than crossing it over to the left. You lose most of your grip strength that way, and it's harder to control the recoil. Try gripping a hammer that way and pounding in a nail.
Ignoring staying on battery it all boils down to distance the hand moves from closed breech to closed breech and the working of the trigger. The least amount of movement is the pump. It is equal to bolt travel. The trigger hand needs no repositioning.The next, to my casual observation depends on the firearm, some long military actions appear to take more movement to unlock, draw back, push forward and relock the bolt than short action levers. Unless using an unconventional trigger pull, both require the trigger hand to be moved away from the trigger, requiring the shooter to reaquire trigger contact. Stock design plays a part too. Yes some have developed rapid shooting skills with a particular action. Some very skilled shooters can do it with aimed shots. I am not sure these exceptions are comparable to each other giving variations in recoil, sights, stock design, firearm weight and action length.
blasted_saber
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- A blue part of Ontario
Lots of people here never heard of the Enfield Mad Minute
Y'all need to hunt with a Ruger #1 for a few years as I have..........you'll learn the accuracy of the first shot is 100X more important than the speed of the second shot, even in the defense of life and limb. This also applies to the second shot if necessary. If one feels that a super fast second or even third shot is essential then they make hunting semi autos for just this reason and just these people. I have never felt the need to go out and see how fast I could go through 100 rounds of ammo with my bolt action repeaters. I have played "Rifleman" with some of my lever guns just for the fun of it, but never seriously competed or found a hunting situation where it was necessary. I have found for myself, while shooting at running jackrabbits and coyotes that if I missed with the first shot the odds were that the next three in the rifle were going to be wasted and only actually connected with a second, third or fourth about 1 in 10 maybe.
I have never been in actual combat so the NEED for this type of training has never become a part of my shooting discipline. I have never been in such a target rich environment, while hunting, that the need to lay down 3 or 4 animals in 5 seconds has arisen. Even the time I did shoot 4 impala from the same group, speed was not part of the equation as the impala had no idea what was going on just that 4 of their buddies got real tired, real fast. If I were to regularly find myself in such a situation, I would purchase a Browning BAR in 30-06 or 300 WM and practice with it until highly proficient. I did hit my blue wildebeest 5 for 5, first standing and the next 4 running so I guess I can do what is necessary, when necessary if I have to, but seldom find myself in this position.
Practicing shooting moving targets offhand with properly aimed shots is much more productive in my opinion, of course speed is an asset but not above accurate shooting.
I have never been in actual combat so the NEED for this type of training has never become a part of my shooting discipline. I have never been in such a target rich environment, while hunting, that the need to lay down 3 or 4 animals in 5 seconds has arisen. Even the time I did shoot 4 impala from the same group, speed was not part of the equation as the impala had no idea what was going on just that 4 of their buddies got real tired, real fast. If I were to regularly find myself in such a situation, I would purchase a Browning BAR in 30-06 or 300 WM and practice with it until highly proficient. I did hit my blue wildebeest 5 for 5, first standing and the next 4 running so I guess I can do what is necessary, when necessary if I have to, but seldom find myself in this position.
Practicing shooting moving targets offhand with properly aimed shots is much more productive in my opinion, of course speed is an asset but not above accurate shooting.
The way he is doing it is actually a technique advocated by plenty of riflemen for quick bolt manipulation. I believe it was taught to soldiers in the bolt action era. Jeff Cooper was a proponent of this method.
I think it's a holdover from the days when they were using the 1903 Springfield. As you can tell from my first post, I don't agree with it. It also seems to be favoured by shooters who like a short length of pull, to keep their thumb out of their nose. I've never been able to detect any difference in speed having the thumb on one side or the other, but there is a difference in control.
I agree I've been hunting almost exclusively with T/C Contender carbines and Prohunters for years now.
I have bolt & lever actions as well and even played with semi-autos but my go to hunting rifles/carbines are single shots shorter overall length now the better.
Brings back memories. I hunted grouse with a .22. I had a variety of repeaters - bolt, semi, lever. Every now and again, I would start being careless and miss a lot of birds. When that happened, I pulled out my trusty Cooey 39 for a few weeks. That go me back on track PDQ.Later, I switched to a Kentucky rifle with round ball and 22 gr. 3f powder. One shot is all you had, and it had to be a head shot.
The Ruger 1 has really grown on me these last few years, I admire the simplicity of action. With my 303 I've taken 2 kinds of deer and a grizzly. Only a mule deer needed a second shot as he was climbing the mountain after I missed him standing broadside at embarrassingly close range.
I used to bust dirt clods as fast as I could with a DWM Argentine carbine, I bet I could do so faster and more accurately than I could with a lever.
