Semi auto rifles were really a fools errand

Semi auto rifles were really a fools errand.
An unnecessary luxury for your soldier. He would be just as well served by a bolt action.
Now fully automatic firepower is a different thing of course, but semi auto? Expensive and simply not needed.

Attached: garand.jpg (259x194, 4K)

Nope.

>t. Kraut or Nip

You know absolutely nothing. The upgrade to semi auto was necessary and ingenious. It changed warfare. Rifles now held twice as many rounds and could fire them off three times as quickly, followed by a >5 second reload and do it all again.

Charges became outdated. A banzai attack used to be intimidating and somewhat effective. Guess what now? You’re charging semi auto rifles and carbines with your bolt action. Guess you and a load of your comrades are going to get popped and dropped, drastically reducing the number that actually make it to the enemy line and ultimately fucking you over.

And the M1 Garand is amazing. At the time, it was pretty legit tech, and the fact that they were mass produced and issued helped with the war effort A LOT.

Full retard is not always the way to go. In fact, it usually isn’t.

Learn up before you post dumb shit again.

>less than five second reload, you get my point

>Rifles now held twice as many rounds and could fire them off three times as quickly
And most of those rounds fired missed. Billions of rounds have been fired and missed.
>Charges became outdated
Charges were already outdated. Even in the Civil War, most charges failed unless the attackers had overwhelming numbers, surprise, or some other advantage.

>A 5 Rd bolt action is all you need goy
Kindly fuck off, you retarded no guns faggot.

You act like that has ever mattered, ever. You’re going to miss a shit ton. Capacity and rate of fire increases offset those misses. When you can fire again, and faster, before needing a reload, that is a good thing.

>what is suppression
>what is engaging multiple targets

Basically you’re saying that an M16 offers no advantages to a bolt action of any variety. I expect you to only own and use a five-shot S&W and a five-shot bolt gun, otherwise you are hypocritical and oppose your very own views.

>billions of rounds have been fired and missed
t. one shot one kill armchair general
Warfare isn't like your video games, fag

>responding to pasta

>You act like that has ever mattered, ever.
It has always mattered.

>You’re going to miss a shit ton
Not necessarily. Before assault rifles became the worldwide norm, soldiers really did have better marksmanship.

>When you can fire again, and faster, before needing a reload, that is a good thing.
I agree. It is a good thing, but there are tactical and economic trade offs associated with it.

>what is suppression
Something best done with belt fed full auto.

>Basically you’re saying that an M16 offers no advantages to a bolt action of any variety
Where did I say that? I'm not OP.

t. guy who uses spray and pray like a nigger

>spray and pray
Stop thinking real life is like the video games you spastic

I don't even play video games, but I do know that the typical gunfight involves thousands of rounds per kill.

Yes and this was learned in ww1. That's why almost every nation chopped down thier rifles and accuracy boner died diwn. Germans to k98, French to Mas, Italians to short carcano, etc.

The idea that one shot should be one kill is a retard notion the world had when smokeless powder came around and battles where supposed to be sniper duels.

>be kraut
>shoot
>miss
>proceed to get shot twice by the time i get to rack the bolt

I’ve been saying for months that semiauto is really only a necessary or desirable feature in a combat rifle, but in a combat rifle it’s a *very* necessary and desirable feature in the modern day. It doesn’t add that much utility in durr hunting or target shooting, but in combat... you bet it does.

Bruh, if the caveman down the jungle turns his club into a fucking gravity hammer, you're going to have to change something as well.

Seriously though, think back, there was an old tactic called "volley" fire. Yeah, more firepower is always a benefit.

Everyone in this thread doubts OP, but lest they forget, I should remind them that Elmer Keith could easily blow 5 men away armed with a bolt action rifle while they are out of shape fat boys and numales with their AR-15s. It really is a no brainer.

Ok tuff guy. We get it, you feel like a big man with your plastic toys. I understand. I too was once like you, until I discovered cowboy action shooting.

Fun fact, the indian ishapore 2a1 was the last general issued bolt action. Indians were still using a bolt actions into the 1960s

Attached: bait.png (224x225, 4K)

>That's why almost every nation chopped down thier rifles
How do you know that was the reason they did that. What evidence do you have?

>Expensive
Bolt guns weren't cheap either.

You know what's more expensive than buying semi autos? Having to recruit, train and equip new soldiers, because you give them obselete weapons and they die at a higher rate.

Even pricier? Losing the battle/war that was vital to your national interest.

Attached: 1514933026094.jpg (703x480, 39K)

>implying war is in the nation's interest
>implying war doesn't benefit only a very small minority of people
>implying war isn't a tremendous waste of resources.

>full auto
>bolt operated one shot per cycle
Why not have both
>select fire

it's a meme. you're responding to a meme. go the fuck back to your upvote website before you post dumb shit here again.

Call me crazy, but I'd say it's in the national interest not to get eaten by a rival power and cease to exist.

>T. 120 y/o boomer