I was reading one of the advantages of the straight pull bolt design (such as the Ross or Swiss K31) is that it allows for faster follow up shots, plus less head movement when cycling another round. So if this is the case, why don't we see more sniper rifles in straight pull configuration. Just curious.
Why not more straight pull bolt sniper rifles?
- Thread starter Steiner
- Start date
Straight pull rifles are more expensive to manufacture, more prone to jamming because of the more complex mechanism and they don't have as good a positive bolt lock. With a bolt action rifle, if you can chamber the cartridge and push the bolt handle down, you know damn well that things are good. With the straight pull there's more of a chance that you might not have the bolt locking mechanism fully engaged. Another advantage of bolt-action rifles is that you have better access to the inside of the receiver to clear jams and feed cartridges. The K31 has a small ejection port compared to something like a K98 action and it doesn't scope well because it ejects straight up instead of to the side.
Unregistered
Regular
- Location
- South Ontario
What happens in a straight pull mechanism if you don't engage the bolt locking mechanism fully and how easy is it to do?
If your ammo is all good and you're not rushed for time, then straight-pull rifles are pretty sweet to shoot, but if you're working in dirty conditions and you're under fire, you might not notice that that little bit of dirt made it so that you couldn't push the handle forward that last little bit to make it click into place.
Well, I think in the era where straight-pull rifles were actually being used, they were being used very rarely. Only Canada, the Swiss and the Austrians used it in numbers worth mentionning (yeah, I know about the Lee 1895, but I don't think its worth mentionning here), and all of them DID turn them into sniper rifles. Sniper rifles at the time were pretty much just the service rifle with a scope on it, so it makes no sense for any other nation to develop a straight-pull sniper rifle. Now, they're just obsolete.
Gents
Lets' think this out.
Most straight-pulls (Swiss 1899, 1911, k31, Canadian Ross, Austro-Hungarian m95) use a rotating bolt head, just like most semi-autos.
They are a manually operated close cousin of a semi-auto, minus either a gas or recoil operated reloading system.
Using the old arguments some of you are restating, an AK, M1, M16, M14, or any other rotating bolt head rifle, that is not manually operated by a turn bolt, can ever be a reliable battlefield weapon.
See something wrong here?
WWI cause many countries to enlarge the chambers on even their most reliable bolt actions to make sure they would function with out-of -spec and dirty ammo.
Lets' think this out.
Most straight-pulls (Swiss 1899, 1911, k31, Canadian Ross, Austro-Hungarian m95) use a rotating bolt head, just like most semi-autos.
They are a manually operated close cousin of a semi-auto, minus either a gas or recoil operated reloading system.
Using the old arguments some of you are restating, an AK, M1, M16, M14, or any other rotating bolt head rifle, that is not manually operated by a turn bolt, can ever be a reliable battlefield weapon.
See something wrong here?
WWI cause many countries to enlarge the chambers on even their most reliable bolt actions to make sure they would function with out-of -spec and dirty ammo.
Last edited:
- Location
- Tucson, Arizona
Just for information, a straight pull rifle is more tiring to use over a period of time (like combat). That was proven in tests done a very long time ago. The opening effort is greater. I have a Steyr 88, a couple of K31's, and a couple of Ross rifles.
Put that next to an enfield where the bolt opens easily and the mechanical advantage is greater in pushing the bolt forward Even a mouser is less tiring with it's #### on opening.
Also you are comparing apples to oranges. A gas operated rifle only depends on a straight pull action to chamber the first round. After that, its simply squeezing the trigger until the magazine is empty.
Put that next to an enfield where the bolt opens easily and the mechanical advantage is greater in pushing the bolt forward Even a mouser is less tiring with it's #### on opening.
Also you are comparing apples to oranges. A gas operated rifle only depends on a straight pull action to chamber the first round. After that, its simply squeezing the trigger until the magazine is empty.
Last edited:
John, I always operate all of my straight-pulls with the butt on my shoulder. I find no greater effort is needed that way. I have literally shot more than a hundred rounds a day in some matches with the K31 without fatigue due to operating the action.
Thirst ,heat, and tiring eyes were always more of a factor, although the vision of untrained troops or unaccustomed civilians trying to operating them off the shoulder, does bring a smile to my face, as I do instruct and coach shooters on using the k31 in Swiss matches and have seen people trying to do just that.
As to the semi-auto vs. straight-pull issue, the only difference it that it is all manual in the straight-pull action. The important factor is that the straight-pulls, along with all semi-auto and full-auto weapons in military service since the last bolt action was dropped from mass issue, do not have the “mechanical advantage” of a bolt action, yet the semi and full-auto's have proved themselves to be reliable in battlefield conditions.
I have yet to see an AK with feeding or ejection problems and have sworn blue murder at a few Mosin Nagants, which just did not like feeding, and especially extracting some East-bloc surplus ammo.
Thirst ,heat, and tiring eyes were always more of a factor, although the vision of untrained troops or unaccustomed civilians trying to operating them off the shoulder, does bring a smile to my face, as I do instruct and coach shooters on using the k31 in Swiss matches and have seen people trying to do just that.
As to the semi-auto vs. straight-pull issue, the only difference it that it is all manual in the straight-pull action. The important factor is that the straight-pulls, along with all semi-auto and full-auto weapons in military service since the last bolt action was dropped from mass issue, do not have the “mechanical advantage” of a bolt action, yet the semi and full-auto's have proved themselves to be reliable in battlefield conditions.
I have yet to see an AK with feeding or ejection problems and have sworn blue murder at a few Mosin Nagants, which just did not like feeding, and especially extracting some East-bloc surplus ammo.
Last edited:
Wow, some interesting 'conclusions' about straight pull rifles here. Allow me to agree with Diopter, as far as he goes. There are a host of various straight pull designs, several still in production, even if it is civilian. And yes the Swiss, Austraians and Canadians used s-p rifles as sniper rifles. The idea that camming the bolt down could in any way add anything is dubious at best.
The Blaser 93R is a simple way of blowing any 'doubts' about camming a bolt down or 'percieved' defects in a s-p rifle clean out of the water. Certainly any S-P rifle has 'positive lock', otherwise there would be alot of dead users.
Various guns using S-P designs have been fielded militarily over the years, some were better designs than others, personally I rate the M1895 well, but it has massive design issues IMHO, but that has no impact on its mechanical soundness, or ability to be accurate. Additionally most snipers don't treat thier guns like a squady or grunt would. Its a precision tool, and shown the due care. Any S-P gun can be made accuarate, accurate enough to compete in the Olympics (as a simple example), wether in centrefire or rimfire.
Militarily they have not been heavily used, primarily to the simplicity of a standard BA, versus the SP. But that hardly means an SP can't, and hasn't done the job.
The Blaser 93R is a simple way of blowing any 'doubts' about camming a bolt down or 'percieved' defects in a s-p rifle clean out of the water. Certainly any S-P rifle has 'positive lock', otherwise there would be alot of dead users.
Various guns using S-P designs have been fielded militarily over the years, some were better designs than others, personally I rate the M1895 well, but it has massive design issues IMHO, but that has no impact on its mechanical soundness, or ability to be accurate. Additionally most snipers don't treat thier guns like a squady or grunt would. Its a precision tool, and shown the due care. Any S-P gun can be made accuarate, accurate enough to compete in the Olympics (as a simple example), wether in centrefire or rimfire.
Militarily they have not been heavily used, primarily to the simplicity of a standard BA, versus the SP. But that hardly means an SP can't, and hasn't done the job.
I think another factor was that the folks in charge of the military have always been very traditionalist. It took them a while to switch from single shot to bolt-action repeaters because they thought that the soldiers would waste ammunition with the repeaters.
i'll add its a technology advancement thing. the straight pull was the next "new" thing on the market for army guns. just like a cased cartridge was the "new" thing in the civil war. sometimes "new" works; like tanks, and sometimes not so well, like flying boats.
Straight pull works, but it's not enough of a revolutionary improvement over a bolt-action to warrant re-arming an army with it, especially given the additional manufacturing costs required for the precision machining of the bolt.airwapiti said:
