Difference between "military" and "sporting" action?

A

ace_himself

Regular
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
I was reading in a post recently and someone made the differentiation between a military and sporting type of bolt action.

I'm guessing it's mostly a matter of precision and tolerances ie. a military bolt action rifle would have reliability and durability as a priority over the ability to shoot with precision accuracy whereas a sporting/hunting rifle isn't expected to be subjected to anywhere near the same level of rough treatment as a military rifle would be.

But what are the particulars that differentiate them?

Thank you very much
 
Doug said:
One is made for a military application, and one is made for a sporting application. Period.

Doug
Click to expand...

At first glance I thought you were knocking people who used mil. guns as hunting guns..

let me rephrase it..

a military action is an action that was built firstly for just that.. the military. Vice-versa with the sporting actions.
 
Back to TBM.........

If you think I am chucking #### at people who use military guns, please take a valium. I did thirty years in the outfit, all regular time.

The guy asking the question is asking a pretty basic question, which does not need to be parsed by platoons of lawyers. A MILITARY gun was designed for MILITARY use, and a SPORTING GUN was deisgned for sporting use. A military pattern gun might make a fine hunting gun, and LOTS of sporters would make fine military guns, but that is not in either case what they were designed for. Zillions of pimple-faced kids with their Red Ryders can pontificate to their heart's content (and probably will do so) but it is a simple question being posed, with a simple answer.

Doug
 
Let me suggest that the 'military' and 'sporting' distinctions only applies to Mausers. I can't think of too many other actions that coexisted as a service bolt action, with a civilian customer market. That said, fit and finish are the most obvious variables.
 
Often the military rifle of today ends up being the sporting rifle of tomorrow...nothing new under the sun folks.
 
OK I didn't understand the answer. How does built for military vs built for hunting differ? I can understand the military requiring heavier (? or ??) build for toughness. How does that make it bad for hunting OR (cause it was just said above that it doesn't, necessarily) what qualities are looked for in a hunting gun? Is light weight the primary consideration?

This is a real question, no troll attempt. I will freely admit my ignorance on all hunting rifle topics.

I just reread the thread pre-posting and see the 'That said, fit and finish are the most obvious variables' statement that I missed earlier....is that the definitive answer?
 
A military rifle of days past would have been built to function through the worst stuff you could throw at it. Mud, san, water, snow, and not being cleaned or oiled for ages. They had to be tough to put up with dropping, knocking and misuse. Today's military rifles are made by the lowest bidder. Stamped and plastic parts. And many have electronic or optical sights. Obviously, being tough as nails doesn't apply today. And as cool as they are, an M-16/AR-15 will never in my books, have the same level of respect or admiration as an old SMLE or '03 Springfield.
 
In a word, NONE.

All "Sporting type" rifle actions started out as a military action.
If not for the military we would still be hunting with pointy sticks.

Scott
 
Maple leaf eh, there were many purpose built lee enfields, Mas 36, mauser, springfield 03, mosins, pattern 14 and 17 rifles ( rem Mod 30) amongst other military style receivers made up for sporting purposes only. When you really think about it why not, tough, reliable and proven designs and relatively cheap to switch over production to as the equipment already is in place. bearhunter
 
Sporting or military

I think this all started because the original writer, saw on these threads, a reference made to the Mauser action. The military actions had a groove on the right side to accomadate the thumb, in loading a clip into the magazine. The commercial, or those made for sporting arms, didn't have this cut away on the side, for the thumb.
 
I like the quote I read somewhere comparing three bolt actions used in WWII - "The Germans used a Hunting rifle, the Americans a Target rifle, and the British(Canadians), a Fighting rifle"
(Mauser M98, Springfield '06, and Lee-Enfield, respectively)
While all were obviously "military" actions, they also had other strengths.
 
Doug said:
Back to TBM.........

If you think I am chucking s**t at people who use military guns, please take a valium. I did thirty years in the outfit, all regular time.

The guy asking the question is asking a pretty basic question, which does not need to be parsed by platoons of lawyers. A MILITARY gun was designed for MILITARY use, and a SPORTING GUN was deisgned for sporting use. A military pattern gun might make a fine hunting gun, and LOTS of sporters would make fine military guns, but that is not in either case what they were designed for. Zillions of pimple-faced kids with their Red Ryders can pontificate to their heart's content (and probably will do so) but it is a simple question being posed, with a simple answer.

Doug
Click to expand...

yikes don't get all defensive.

I was just saying at first glance...
 
maple_leaf_eh said:
Let me suggest that the 'military' and 'sporting' distinctions only applies to Mausers.
Click to expand...

Yes, I have heard that as well.
A military action has the thumb-hole cut-out on the left side of the reciever wall for pushing in stripper clips.

A sporting mauser action, does not have the cut-out.

This is described in "Bolt-Action Rifles" by Frank De Haas
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom