Semi-Auto vs. Bolt-Action PRS Rifles: The Test That Breaks the Narrative

By Skills Gap Trainer

• Both shooters start with rifles in hand, mags in, bolts back.
• The bolt-action shooter jumps ahead in speed at the very start, quickly moving through positions and engaging targets.
• The semi-auto is not immediately faster — both shooters finish with nearly identical times, only separated by a minor mistake that required a re-engagement.

• Both shooters must move between tank trap props, engaging multiple targets per position.
• Result: Times are almost identical. The supposed advantage of the semi-auto evaporates when position changes and transitions are involved. The real decider is who makes a mistake, not the action type.

• Now it’s about speed: who can run the plate rack fastest, with unlimited round count.
• The semi-auto pulls slightly ahead — but only because the bolt shooter misses a target, has to go back, and correct the error. Even then, the difference in time is small — nowhere near the dramatic “dangerous speed” narrative pushed by some policymakers.

• Bolt-action rifles, in skilled hands, matched or beat semi-autos in practical rate of fire.
• Precision, reliability, and shooter skill mattered more than the rifle’s action.
• The “rate of fire” advantage for semi-autos is mostly theoretical in PRS or practical match shooting with bolt-action rifles.

• Modern bolt-action rifles with detachable mags and refined chassis systems can achieve rates of fire very close to semi-autos in real match settings.
• Banning semi-autos while allowing fast, mag-fed bolt actions does not meaningfully reduce practical shooting speed or potential risk.
• PRS/bolt rifles are even more accurate and offer greater range — making them potentially more effective in skilled hands at a distance.
• The real difference is shooter skill, not the mechanical action.
• The “public safety” rationale for banning semi-autos — especially for claims about “rate of fire” — is not supported by the evidence from practical field tests.
• Such bans are largely political symbolism, not technical solutions.

• Semi-auto PRS Rifle Practical Rate of Fire: High Accuracy: High Effective Range: Medium to Long Real-World “Danger”: High (in skilled hands)
• Bolt-action PRS Rifle Practical Rate of Fire: Nearly as high as semi-auto Accuracy: Very High Effective Range: Long Real-World “Danger”: High (in skilled hands)
• Modern High-End Bolt-Action Rifle (18″ Barrel, Traditional Stock) Practical Rate of Fire: Moderate Accuracy: High Effective Range: Medium to Long Real-World “Danger”: Moderate to High (in skilled hands)
• Old Bolt-Action Hunting Rifle Practical Rate of Fire: Lower Accuracy: Medium Effective Range: Medium Real-World “Danger”: Moderate

• The speed difference between old internal-mag or single-feed bolt-actions and modern magazine-fed bolts is huge.
• Once you add a detachable mag to a high-quality bolt-action, it closes almost all the practical gap with semi-autos for rate of fire in skilled hands.
• Action type becomes almost irrelevant for public safety arguments — the real leap in performance comes with the mag system, not the bolt vs. semi distinction.

• It’s not emotional or angry — it’s clinical, logical, and evidence-based.
• It challenges the status quo with undeniable, real-world data — something most policymakers and talking heads never actually reference.
• If they attack, their only option is to ignore the science, discredit the messenger, or pivot to unrelated emotional arguments… which only highlights SGT’s points.

• For five years, much of the political/media narrative — especially from the Liberal Party and their funded media allies — has framed semi-automatic rifles as vastly more dangerous than bolt-action rifles, using emotionally charged language (“assault weapon”) and pop culture stereotypes rather than real-world data.

• No controlled, scientific, side-by-side tests were used to justify these claims before pushing sweeping bans or restrictions. Instead, they relied on assumptions from movies, not on evidence from sport shooting, policing, or competition.

• In a real, controlled, expert-run field test (MDT PRS match), the actual difference in speed between a semi-auto and a modern bolt-action rifle is negligible — within a few percentage points, often indistinguishable.
• Both platforms are functionally equivalent for a trained shooter in terms of practical rate of fire. The deciding factor is shooter skill, not action type.
• The entire public narrative that “semi-auto = significantly more dangerous” is factually refuted by practical testing — at least in any setting that approximates real-world responsible use.

• The government and media did not use science, data, or real competition evidence to set policy. Instead, they pushed a narrative to justify bans — often as a distraction from other, unrelated crises (economic, health, governance, global interference, etc.).
• Law-abiding citizens were scapegoated with little evidence that these bans would actually improve public safety.
• This kind of policy-by-narrative, rather than policy-by-science, undermines public trust and diverts attention from real, complex problems.

This video demonstrates that the long-held political claim — “semi-automatic rifles are vastly more dangerous than bolt actions” — is not supported by scientific, side-by-side expert testing. In reality, the difference is negligible. Policy should be based on fact, not fear or fiction.

• Lucas Botkin often uses top-tier, competition-grade or tactical rifles. Semi-autos with premium triggers, tuned gas systems, ultra-lightweight components. These rifles are often in the absolute top 1% of performance — optimized for speed, low recoil, and fast reloads.
• The test in our article uses a typical, match-legal Ruger 10/22 (rimfire) and a bolt-action PRS rifle. These are not “race guns,” but well-equipped, practical, and widely available sport rifles.

• Lucas often trains with full-capacity mags (30+ rounds) for U.S.-style drills.
• In Canada and most PRS matches, mag capacity is limited (often 10 or less), and reloads are part of the sport.
• This reduces the practical “burst fire” potential and equalizes the action types.

• Botkin’s setups may use cutting-edge optics, offset red dots, night vision, chest rigs, etc. — all designed for maximum tactical advantage and reloading speed.
• The PRS test uses traditional, match-legal optics — excellent, but not “special forces” gear.

• Lucas Botkin is a top 0.1% shooter — years of DAILY tactical, dynamic, and competition training.
• In most field tests (like the MDT PRS match), the shooters are highly skilled, but represent the upper tier of the normal shooting community, not Instagram-tier professionals.

• Botkin’s videos show “run-and-gun,” multiple-target, highly dynamic, often self-defense or law enforcement-style drills.
• PRS matches are controlled, refereed, position-based sporting events — timed, but with defined rules and procedures.
• This matters: Real-world criminal use of firearms is never at the level shown in Botkin’s choreographed content.

• Botkin’s U.S. gear is often not legal or available in Canada. No full-auto, no 30+ round mags, no unrestricted semi-autos.
• The rifles in our article are Canadian-legal and competition-legal, accessible to any PAL holder.

• Skill & Training: Lucas is the “Michael Jordan” of gun handling — most can’t replicate it, and it’s not the baseline for policy.
• Equipment: His rifles are “race cars”; the test rifles are “sports cars” anyone can buy or build.
• Magazines: The difference between 5, 10 and 30 rounds is huge for rapid-fire potential.
• Context: Botkin is demoing tactics, often pre-sequenced, not competing in a live performance sporting match.
• Practicality: Policy should not be based on what the top 0.1% can do with top 1% gear in the U.S.