"German hunting rifle, American target rifle, British battle rifle"
A discussion to that point.
http://historum.com/war-military-history/87052-rifles-great-war.html
-
Having trouble using the site?
Contact support
Greatest Bolt Action Battle Rifle in History...
- Thread starter Sooter76
- Start date
"German hunting rifle, American target rifle, British battle rifle"
A discussion to that point.
http://historum.com/war-military-history/87052-rifles-great-war.html
True, I had some that go like butter, and others, it's like, "WTF, wtf!, wtf...then single feed 'em anyways."
M1917 Enfield would be my choice, hands down.. Especially if we are talking WW1, which is the only modern war in which bolt action rifles were not obsolescent.
M1917 Enfield would be my choice, hands down.. Especially if we are talking WW1, which is the only modern war in which bolt action rifles were not obsolescent.
I love the 1917 and have hunted and competed with this Eddystone and can sing its praises. The only shortcoming for longer ranges is the absence of a windage adjustment. There is a tool to drift the front sight but this is rather clunky. The pictured Parker Hale PH5B (which is going on a Winny 1917 project that is in progress) is the answer. The Brits outfitted P14s with this sight and my dad has a great example. Of course it is chambered in the less desireable (to me) 303. With this sight the 1917 becomes the best long range rifle of those being discussed (all "non-standard" caveats applying). Only problem is it is not legal for military vintage competition.
I don't think it's a stretch to say that when fitted with such a sight the rifle classification could be moved from battle rifle to sniper rifle.
Last edited:
M1917 Enfield would be my choice, hands down.. Especially if we are talking WW1, which is the only modern war in which bolt action rifles were not obsolescent.
Considering that no warring power outside of the US was using self loading rifles as its standard arm I’d dispute this.
Yep the Garand was an unorthodox and incredible technology at the perfect time.
It schlonged everything else out there when it came to laying down lead.
Its fortunate also we had a manufacturing base to produce and feed it.
As well we were lucky Hitler was a retard and failed to embrace the assault rifle.
True! Especially since he was specifically the retard that stopped production of the STG 44. I can imagine how much worse, WWII would have been had he not gotten involved in so many critical decisions.
Of his mistakes:
1. Declaring war on the U.S.
2. Invading Russia
3. He loved the Stuka. A scary machine, but limited in it's capabilities. When faced with real aircraft it was next to useless.
4. His thought that machine guns would kill the masses and riflemen would just be cleanup shooters, and thus why the STG 44 was canned.
5. Not pressing the attack on England, when continental Europe had fallen.
6. Not supporting Rommel in N. Afrika. It would have made their oil shortage much less.
7. Not fully fortifying continental Europe when he had that last chance.
But, I digress, we (Eisenhower) made a ton of mistakes as well, and that kept them in business as long as it did.
Getting back to the bolt action question, we often tend to compare this rifle to that rifle. Without the tactics behind what makes a good rifle, and the people who used it, the rifles's capabilities don't mean that much. I.e. if a platoon cannot alternately fire and manuoever among them, they aren't going to gain any ground. A ten or five round mag isn't going to make any difference. If faced with armor, rifles won't make a difference. Weapons to counter armor would have to be employed for them to survive. But, rifles would make a difference in their survival.
My last statement isn't to say that this thread doesn't have meaning. It does. What it takes is the leadership to find tactics that work, then train and utilize the training in combat for those rifles to come into full effectiveness. An interesting point on this is the Garand. soldiers were being taught back in the U.S. to find a target and aim. Over in combat, they quickly got taught to split into teams. Half will area fire into the objective, while the other half moves. The real advantage of the m1 over the bolt actions was you could fire while moving. Enough bolt actions could lay down the base of fire, but they could not keep up much of a volume while the manuoever unit was moving.
Which is why I said "obsolescent", not obsolete.
There were many repeating self loaders in WWII, the fact that they were not designated as THE standard arm has no bearing, IMO.
The statement would still be false. Out of all the countries involved in WWII (and that would be almost every single one on earth) only 13 types of self loading rifles were used during the conflict to any degree, and most only in the waning days. This obviously doesn’t include SMG or LMG’s, but it remains that during the war bolt action rifles were still the standard, and for most nations remained so until at least the mid-50’s. The writing was certainly on the wall, but during WWII bolt action rifles were in no danger of being replaced (with the obvious exception of the US).
It’s frightening in retrospect how easily Germany could have won WWII had Hitler not made such obvious and stupid mistakes. Every side always makes mistakes in war, but to make such obvious ones is mind blowing.
I'm stuck between Enfields and Springfields. Forcing myself to a decision I think its the M1903 A3.
The 1903 is a better target rifle, the No.4 mk1 is an outstanding rifle with it's fast cycling and 10 round magazine, but .303 is just a little too old school for me with its rim and low pressure. I look at 1903's as America's Mauser so full credit to Mauser and the large ring Model 98.... But the 1903a3 has it all. Peep sights that are great combat sights, CRF, manual eject, modern high-pressure rimless cartridge with smokeless powder, bent bolt, easy stripper clip usage... I think it just kind of got hidden in the shadow of the M1 Garand.
The 1903 is a better target rifle, the No.4 mk1 is an outstanding rifle with it's fast cycling and 10 round magazine, but .303 is just a little too old school for me with its rim and low pressure. I look at 1903's as America's Mauser so full credit to Mauser and the large ring Model 98.... But the 1903a3 has it all. Peep sights that are great combat sights, CRF, manual eject, modern high-pressure rimless cartridge with smokeless powder, bent bolt, easy stripper clip usage... I think it just kind of got hidden in the shadow of the M1 Garand.
I gotta disagree with those who think the .303 isn't capable. It progressed in bullet design where the .30-06 did not. It was actually capable farther than the .30-06. Not that the .30-06 didn't have the potential, every time that was introduced, higher-ups in the U.S. pushed those ideas back down.
Anyhow, the .303 feeds just fine out of the weapons it's chambered in, the Lee Enfield and the P-14. 30-06 does the same.
The difference is the bullet. The British made various variants of the .303 ammo much more efficient, whereas in the U.S. we had the chance to copy the Swiss GP-11. That got dumbed down to the M1 ammo. Then McArthur got involved and made us go back to the 150 gr. so the M2 was born. So, it's like the 30-06 regressed. In this comparison, I think the .303 is superior. It's about bullet efficiency, not case capacity and power.
What are you referring to? The Mk7 Ball was a flat based bullet not unlike the M2 Ball projectile (other than the aluminum or wooden tip in the nose under the jacket). Mk8 FMJBT was typically reserved for machinegun use from my understanding. Other than potentially more rapid destabilization in flesh because of the CoM pushed rearward, there's not a huge ballistic advantage either way between Mk7 and M2.
Splitting hairs really. 174 @ 2450 or 150 @ 2750, with BC in the .380-.430 range. Although not WWI/WWII applicable, there is M72 Match that made much more sense than M2 ball for the .30-06 (and now obviously tons of modern alternatives with much higher BC). And make no mistake, I don't think the .303 isn't/wasn't capable, but the .30-06 was/is higher pressure, and had more room to improve. The biggest issue I have with .303 is a rimmed cartridge in a box magazine-- having owned/shot more than a couple of them it does happen that rims end up on the wrong side of eachother and jam up the works. Cordite is also hell on throats. Enfield stripper clips are also kind of take it or leave it for me.
If we want to talk about projectiles I give that prize to the Germans or Swedes.
If only there was a M1917 A1 that had a 22" barrel, windage-adjustable sights, 200yd BZO on the battle peep, and fired a rimless 6.5x50ish cartridge from a 10 round magazine...
Splitting hairs really. 174 @ 2450 or 150 @ 2750, with BC in the .380-.430 range. Although not WWI/WWII applicable, there is M72 Match that made much more sense than M2 ball for the .30-06 (and now obviously tons of modern alternatives with much higher BC). And make no mistake, I don't think the .303 isn't/wasn't capable, but the .30-06 was/is higher pressure, and had more room to improve. The biggest issue I have with .303 is a rimmed cartridge in a box magazine-- having owned/shot more than a couple of them it does happen that rims end up on the wrong side of eachother and jam up the works. Cordite is also hell on throats. Enfield stripper clips are also kind of take it or leave it for me.
If we want to talk about projectiles I give that prize to the Germans or Swedes.
If only there was a M1917 A1 that had a 22" barrel, windage-adjustable sights, 200yd BZO on the battle peep, and fired a rimless 6.5x50ish cartridge from a 10 round magazine...
^^ 1943 No 4 Mk 1 Longbranch Enfield . Unfortunately I can’t see the front sight clearly anymore
to repeat this .
to repeat this .
I laughing at the last statement. Because in reality, in this debate there's a lot of, "If we could this from this gun and that from that gun, and that over there from that ammo, but still keep this..." And yes, I'm one of thooose people.
And, I gotta agree, the Germans, maybe the Swedes, had the best bullet. One of Hitlers idiosyncrasies. In demanding the machine gun play a major role the push was on to see how far they could get their bullet to go. Because of that, the 198 gr. German patron can remain stable out to 2500m.
Added: I might be needing to do some research. My understanding was snipers were using 174 gr. loads, like the riflemen. Apparently not. They were supposed to use the Mk VII., as the Mk VIII was eroding barrels too fast. So, what snipers got hold of isn't what the rest of the British Army was using. My caveat in this is I was never really interested in the Lee Enfield until I got one. Then they became really interesting.
Last edited:
Perhaps Webster makes a good argument for domestic manufacturing and a tariff or two to ensure we maintain a strategic manufacturing capability.
A little something to be "the Arsenal of Democracy" say?
I don't think the Germans could have ever won the war. I do believe they could have made it a lot more difficult for us to win. I also don't believe it was possible for them to get what many senior officers wanted towards the end, and that was a stalemate/truce that would have left them fortress Europe. We would have shed enough blood to eventually wear them down. Not to mention they had not only brought us into the war, they brought the Soviets. That was a juggernaut they were not going to beat, either. With the current technology and resources, they simply didn't have enough in the end run to keep up the defense needed to maintain fortress Europe. They NEVER had the manpower to take the world, like Hitler wanted.
Last edited:
@sandwarrior
What are these magic 303 bullets I've seen you mention a few times? I'm no scholar of British ammo but I've never seen anything real fancy loaded in 303 cases. Certainly nothing that looks as aerodynamic as some of the 6.5x55 bullets or the Swiss GP11 stuff.
What are these magic 303 bullets I've seen you mention a few times? I'm no scholar of British ammo but I've never seen anything real fancy loaded in 303 cases. Certainly nothing that looks as aerodynamic as some of the 6.5x55 bullets or the Swiss GP11 stuff.
I have to say, it was a very, very good thing the British dumped the P13 idea. That round has about the same power as a 7mm rem mag. Way too much recoil. And, even the built up P-13 wasn't going to handle it's pressures through a mass volume of fire. They wisely returned to what they had and that was the .303
Post WWII, they came up with the .280 British, which would have been awesome had they gotten a chance to be acknowledged throughout NATO for it. Instead, under political pressure, they adopted the 7.62x51 (.308). I've heard "supply" was the big reason, as it was going to be us who supported the free world after the axis fall. The .308 used the same bullet, case and a relatively close machining required to make the cases. We also had yet to adopt various rifles that got chambered for it. It's easy to fault the decision in hindsight, but knowing only what we did then, unknowns weren't something we wanted to chance.
I'd say the reason they dumped it was because it was more powerful than the .30-06. It failed test after test for longevity in the field. The barrels got too hot and wore out too fast. And after a short time, none of the testers wanted to shoot it anymore. It had to much recoil. it was definitely a step up from the 30-06 in every respect. Which, fired a 150 gr. spitzer @ 2750. Not the same as the heavier .276.
Maybe they should have consulted with you and hung on to it?
Here's an excerpt from a Forgotten Weapons blog:
The Pattern 13 rifle itself was excellent – it balanced and handled well, it had very good sights, and a smooth and fast bolt throw. However, the .276 Enfield cartridge was really more potent than it needed to be, and caused problems. The cartridge threw a 165 grain bullet at just under 2800fps, pretty close to the ballistics of today’s 7mm Remington Magnum. Loaded with Cordite propellent, this led to excessive barrel wear and unpleasant recoil, along with some parts breakage. However, as final testing was being done in the first half of 1914, the Great War broke out.
At this point, plans for using a new cartridge were abandoned. The rifle itself was redesigned in the .303 cartridge, to be manufactured in large numbers by American firms under contract. It would also be refitted for the .30-06 cartridge and used in large numbers by the American armed forces as the M1917 Enfield rifle. According to General Julian Hatcher (who ought to know), it was the best rifle of the First World War.
Added: it's your opinion, and not everyone else's that the 1917 is the best. I like the rifle a lot. But it doesn't hold ten rounds. And charging is not as fast as cycling. Charging is faster than changing mags, but if you have the option of both, it's better than not having the option. The Lee Enfield was smooth, and the cartridge quite adequate for what it did.
Last edited:
I din't say they were close. But they could have won if Hitler hadn't made some of the decisions he did... Britain was on the ropes and no matter how much material support they received from the US never could have recovered to defeat Germany without Hitler's inane decision to open a second front in Russia and later to declare war on America. If Hitler had focused on defeating Britain before attacking Russia history would probably be very different.
Germany had a very well trained and led Army (despite its, in hindsight, ridiculous doctrine that focused on machine guns), but it's Navy and especially Air Force were not of the same quality. Goring especially was in a position of power that he never should have been. He was a decorated combat pilot in WWI but he had never been to staff college and was not properly equipped to plan or be in command of the entire Luftwaffe, and looking at his failures and the analysis of why it becomes very obvious that he never should have been in charge. But then Hitler had a penchant for putting people in positions they never should have been in.
Again, Germany was never close to winning once Hitler open the second front in Russia, but they could easily have been successful if stupid decisions had not been made.
I think Germany very likely could have won the war if Hitler waited to attack Russia until after Britain had been knocked out. Germany then could have focused on Russia without having to split its forces. If they'd done this and if Hitler hadn't decided to deviate from the established plan, German forces likely would have rolled over Russian forces before they'd had time to dismantle and move their industrial capabilities to the isolated East. This would have prevented Russia from being able to build up the necessary tanks and material resources needed to beat the German Army. Zukov was not a great Commander, but he was competent and after Russia was able to build up the forces necessary (usually more than twice what the Germans had in any given battle) he was able to win on sheer numbers alone (tho the T-34 was an amazing tank).
Again, it always comes back to Hitler making stupid decisions that had disastrous consequences down the road.
We are debating over the tiniest bit of minutia. If the .276 Enfield had excessive recoil, then so did 30-06 M1 Ball and M2 Ball, and so did the 8mm Mauser.
If given the choice of having to endure 2850 ft*lb of recoil (roughly the average for 30-06 to 8mm), I would rather have the more efficient 7mm bullet.
Whether or not the P13 was better than the SMLE is up for debate here. But the people at the time thought that it was a step in the right direction, and that the 10 round magazine wasn't as significant an advantage as we would like to make it out to be.
The 5 extra rounds had very little, if any at all on a riflemans sustained rate of fire. A lot of fuss gets made about the Mad Minute reccords, and as far as I can tell a lot of myth. British firing practices called for 15 aimed shots in a minute for their rapid fire; a feat that is not difficult to attain.
If given a choice of any of the World War I bolt action rifles, I would definitely pick either the M1917 Enfield just on the virtue of the sights, accuracy, and ergonomics. I don't think British manufacturing was ever quite on par with America when it came to rifles.
Being able to find your target inside of your sight picture is going to make the practical accuracy of the 1917 much better. The trigger is also much much better; the Lee Enfield has a terrible trigger when compared to any of the Mauser based rifles.
The ammunition itself was most likely better as well. The IMR series of powders came out during the inter-war years, and are actually still useful today. When's the last time you could get cordite in stores?
I say this as someone who owns both rifles. I hunt with a No.4 Mk.2 on some days of the week. But the No.4 didn't come out until after World War I, which to put it nicely, made it as practically useful as the P14/M1917 but was overshadowed by semi-automatic rifles and machineguns.
This made me laugh... Seriously, Compare a British made No4, even a war time build when they were under constant bombardment, to a Savage made No4. In every instance I have found the Savage builds to be rougher. They'll still shoot and have all the advantages (and disadvantages) of a No4, but they are much rougher in fit and finish, and the action is no where near as smooth.
Outside of the 'made in America' BS, I've never understood why Savage made No4's seem to go for more money that British or Canadian made rifles.
In theory every rifle was overshadowed by the Garand (the only semi-auto used in sufficient numbers), but that isn't the question.
It's almost impossible to overstate how disastrously incompetent the Nazi state was. Germany started the war as the most powerful country in Europe, and ended the war as the 6th most powerful country in Berlin. The German Field Marshalls that got to write their memoirs after the war like to absolve themselves of blame by pinning all of the bad decisions on Hitler himself. The reality is that Hitler made just as many good decisions as he did poor ones.
Operation Sealion could be a whole entire case study of how poorly thought out German war plans were. The Germans were not at all experienced in amphibious assault and planned on using motorized river barges to cross the English channel and capture a deep water port in tact to offload the rest of their Army. The barges would have likely floundered in the Channel on any but the best of days. Many of them would have sunk even if the Royal Navy didn't shoot them. They would have had no naval fire support. No air supremacy. Their airborne troops would have been made into mincemeat like they were in Crete, but on a larger and more disastrous scale. The Kreigsmarine surface fleet would not have mounted a serious challenge to the Royal Navy on even the best of days. Germany lost 50% of its Destroyers, 50% of its heavy cruisers, and 30% of its light cruisers in the Invasion of Norway. The Kreigsmarine surface fleet could never go toe-to-toe with the British home fleet.
The Wehrmacht would not have been better off to attack Russia at a later date either. It is not like the Russians were asleep at the wheel and not already making their own preparations for war in 1939. The relocation of Soviet industry to the East was already taking place prior to Operation Barbarossa. The Red Army was also in the midst of modernization and reform in 1940, and weakened from the Winter War against the Finnish, that Hitler saw it as his best chance to conquer Russia, and he was probably right. The success of Barbarossa was mostly because of its timing; not because of inherent superiority of the Wehrmacht.
That brings me to the next point. Enemy at the Gates is not a documentary, and the Russians didn't defeat the Germans because of manpower alone. Once again it's an area of history that was widely colored by Nazi Field Marshalls writing their memoirs after the war, and their accounts were in large part biased from their beliefs and desire to save face. By the middle of the war, the Soviets had tactical parity with the Wehrmacht, and only by including civilians that the Germans purposely starved, bombed, or killed, do we get to the ridiculous idea that the Germans inflicted 10:1 or 20:1 losses on the Soviet Union. They blamed Hitler, or their unreliable allies, or human waves...basically everyone but themselves. The reality is that the Wehrmacht was not just bested by "unfair" strategic advantages, but they were also bested at a tactical level.
Moving on from that, even without the Soviet Union, the Germans would have lost. The Germans were horrible strategic planners, and their inability to produce the same amount of war material as the allies wasn't due to lack of resources and raw material...but also because German industry was incredibly inefficient on it's own. A German factory was in no ways equal to an American one. America produced as many M4 Sherman tanks during the war as Germany produced tanks of all types from 1939 onward; that's including Panzer I's and IIs. And American tanks were qualitatively better, even compared to the later German tanks, which had a bad habit of breaking down, setting themselves on fire, and having file-to-fit parts.
As a state, Nazism was incredibly bad. The V2 program, their tanks, jets, and everything else that gets held up as examples of Nazi technological superiority falls completely apart on examination. The Allies didn't concentrate on producing heavy tanks, rockets, or jet fighters because they couldn't, but because they appropriately weighed their value, and decided against it. The Germans pressed their jet fighter into service before it was ready out of necessity; not because they were qualitatively ahead of the Allies. It's a pretty common trend that German wonder-weapons have some sort of fatal flaw that their fans won't tell you about, or deliberately understate. The Panther tank was a heavy tank powered by the motor from a medium tank that had a bad habit of setting itself on fire, and blowing up its transmission. German jet engines didn't have nearly enough longevity to be practical on a wide-scale. Their efforts at a strategic bomber are equally laughable.
"The cost of the development and manufacture of the V-2 was staggering, estimated by a post-war US study as about $2 billion, or about the same amount as was spent on the Allied atomic bomb program. Yet the entire seven-month V-2 missile campaign delivered less high explosive on all the targeted cities than a single large RAF raid on Germany. While such a massive expenditure might have been justified if it had had a military impact, the V-2 accomplished nothing of significant military value." - V-2 Ballistic Missile 1942-52, Osprey Publishing.
That gets us all the way to the Manhattan Project and superior Jüdische Physik. If Germany somehow manages to hold on longer than it did, Berlin and Hamburg get nuked in 1945 and surrenders.
I've owned pretty much every type of Enfield there is at one point or another, so I am pretty confident that your assessment that the Savage rifles are somehow worse is pretty shaky. Every Savage rifle I've had was pretty much the same as any No.4. They must not have been that bad if Parker Hale was willing to convert some of them to sniper rifles during the war.
Compare a WW1 Enfield to a Springfield 1903, a P14, or a 1917. Their really isn't one to be made. The 1903 had much higher manufacturing standards than the Enfields. Even the most accurate Enfields were not on par with the 1903s and 1917s. The acceptance standard for the No.4 Mk. I (T) was not exactly awe-inspiring.
Even my brand-new No.4 Mk II isn't on par with the old star-gauged 1903's.
I didn't say worse, I said rougher... There was/is nothing wrong with the Savage made rifles in terms of practical accuracy and reliability. What I'm talking about is the standard of quality. Savage rifles in general were just rougher and not as smooth as British and especially Canadian rifles. Obviously not enough for them to be rejected during wartime, but still.
I don't have enough experience with the P14 or M1917 to comment on them, but I'm not sure you can compare WWI Enfield's and M1903's. Besides being two very different rifles, the M1903 was built exclusively by national armories at Springfield and Rock Island and held to a very tight QC standard under essentially peacetime standards. The 1903 was simply not rushed thru production the way the Enfield was required to be by the British during that conflict.
***Side note***
It's interesting that you criticize the accuracy standard for a No4 to be accepted to be converted to a (T) platform. The 1903a4 had no accuracy standard and were simply "off the shelf" rifles manufactured by Remington. Mosin sniper rifles didn't either. They simply had to shoot better than most other rifles manufactured. The Enfield at least had a standard and a 5 shot 3MOA group for the time period isn't bad. For a mass produced battle rifle, it still isn't bad today. After conversion where the rifle was carefully accurized and the stocks specifically fit to the rifles by Holland & Holland they were very accurate (Usually around 1.5MOA but I've seen some sub-MOA groups). The reality is they were the only true sniper rifles of the period in the sense that we think of them today, and good enough that they essentially remained in service until the 1980's.
And Parker Hale never converted Savage or any other rifles during the war.
This is absurd; in a conflict where semi and full automatics were a rarity, and Napoleonic line tactics were being shoehorned in despite their obsolescence decades earlier, it made a big difference. Reloading half as often as your enemy is a huge advantage, not everyone started the war using MGs, and when you aggregate every rifleman (which was most infantrymen) against a massed attack it absolutely makes a difference. That's twice the time concentrating on your enemy instead of grabbing your chargers and getting them into your rifle. It is capable of more than 15 aimed shots in a minute despite that being the standard. The discussion here is its role as a battle rifle, not a sniper rifle.
"Rougher" "not as smooth" are both synonomous with being worse or of lower quality.
You however can compare WW2 1903A3s and No.4s if you want a more direct comparison.
On your last point, is this a counterfeit?
https://www.rockislandauction.com/detail/73/3376/savage-no4-mk1-t-sniper
The ammo issued inWWI and WWII to all british infrantry men using bolt action rifles and LMG was the Mk VII load (spitzer bullet, modest BC), NOT the the Mk VIII (BT bullet). The brit Mk VIII bullet has a similar BC to the 30-06 M1 load (172 gr spitzer boat tail bullet). In any case, the performance of the british Mk VIII was inferior to the 30-06 M1 load due to the much lower muzzle velocity.
The US WWI 30-06 load (150 gr) was almost identical the the WWII M2 (152 gr) load, a spitzer, flat base bullet. It has basically the same BC as the .303 british, the .303 a little better BC because of its longer ogive filled with aluminum. The range and drop numbers of the 30-06 was WAY better due to the much higher muzzle velocity.
It's not twice the time. In order to fill up a 10 round magazine is going to take 2 chargers. A British rifleman might have less breaks in firing, but his breaks are going to be twice as long.
The British didn't feel all that strongly about the 10 round magazine followjng the Second Boer War. They felt that the advantage of a rimless 7mm round and the Mauser was signifcant enough to design the Pattern 13 rifle.
If the magazine was that large of advantage, then why did no other significant power adopt rifles with 10 round magazines? Why, when the British were looking to move away from the SMLE did they not require a large magazine? If the British themselves were fully confident in their rifle, then why were they looking to replace it following the Boer war?
It doesn't take twice as long to reload a 10 round mag with 2 chargers as it does a 5 rounder with one charger, and it doesn't take the same amount of time to reload a 5 rounder twice. You're removing it from your shoulder fewer times and staying focused on your targets.
The brits didn't move from the SMLE to the P14, they considered it but it was an also ran with the SMLE that was replaced by the No4, which has a 10 round magazine. The P14 was motivated by the desire to move to a 7mm and take advantage of smokeless poweder and would have improved on some aspects of the SMLE (namely strength), but the desire to halve mag capacity was not one of them. .303 is one of the cartridges that was able to successfully transition from black to smokeless but was not optimized for it. Most of the bolt guns used in WWII were carryovers from WWI where the Napoleonic tactics had begun to be abandoned so it wouldn't be worth the cost to say, upgrade the Mosin Nagant or Mauser to 10 rounds; especially when the future was clearly in autoloaders-which went on to favor the 10 rounder.
Yes, and they were of lesser quality compared to other makes. But that doesn't mean they weren't accurate or reliable. They served their role well. That doesn't mean that they weren't of a rougher quality than British and Canadian rifles.
A 1903a3 and a No4 is not a direct comparison. You're still comparing two very different rifles. You can compare Enfields to other Enfields, Springfield, Remington, and Smith Corona 1903a3's to each other, and the different makes of Garands to each other and in the end you'll generally find that one maker is consistently rougher that the other. For Garands it's the Winchester rifles, for No4's it's the Savage rifles. Stop trying to compare apples and oranges.
As for my last point, what exactly are you asking? Without better photos I can't tell if it's fake or not, but based on the description it sounds like it has all the right marks.
TIMEOUT!
Let's bring this discussion back into the fun realm. I enjoy the topic. BangBang, I apologize for the snarky comment about the .276 Enfield. As long as we don't go personally attacking one another, this discussion has all the hallmarks of some true learning. Many of us have shot or owned multiple rifles mentioned here. And for the sake of discussion, we've gone beyond the rifle clear up to the highest level of tactical/strategic blunders.
The one thing I like most about this thread, is you get people who've handled and shot these rifles. Hopefully done some time somewhere in the military and have an idea what it's like to carry and work a tool like a bolt action rifle within a team. Whatever rifle, in whatever cartridge. We've each seen strengths and weaknesses in each other's choices.***
We've all come to some level of discovery with what we thought was good, only to find it's only so good as you can be trained to make it good. Some of us have found that what works in the field won't ever make it into a field manual. But, that exact action will make you as an infantryman/team member a better soldier. The best rifle in the worst hands ain't gonna help much. But...it might.
Sooter76,
I just wanted to say thanks for posting this topic. It's interesting like no other. I do think the real issue, though, is above the riflemen and their capabilities. Rather, more the capabilities of the higher ups making decisions, good or bad, that send these men, with their rifles, where they go and do what they do. I honestly think any good man sent with any of the rifles mentioned in this thread, could do an outstanding job if they were trained up to a level of competence and supplied as they need to be. Supply meaning all things a soldier on the front line needs. That in itself is another topic.
***What we really need to do is have one get-together and figure out some tactical shooting scenarios and have a giant round-robin. Everybody fires everything....
Let's bring this discussion back into the fun realm. I enjoy the topic. BangBang, I apologize for the snarky comment about the .276 Enfield. As long as we don't go personally attacking one another, this discussion has all the hallmarks of some true learning. Many of us have shot or owned multiple rifles mentioned here. And for the sake of discussion, we've gone beyond the rifle clear up to the highest level of tactical/strategic blunders.
The one thing I like most about this thread, is you get people who've handled and shot these rifles. Hopefully done some time somewhere in the military and have an idea what it's like to carry and work a tool like a bolt action rifle within a team. Whatever rifle, in whatever cartridge. We've each seen strengths and weaknesses in each other's choices.***
We've all come to some level of discovery with what we thought was good, only to find it's only so good as you can be trained to make it good. Some of us have found that what works in the field won't ever make it into a field manual. But, that exact action will make you as an infantryman/team member a better soldier. The best rifle in the worst hands ain't gonna help much. But...it might.
Sooter76,
I just wanted to say thanks for posting this topic. It's interesting like no other. I do think the real issue, though, is above the riflemen and their capabilities. Rather, more the capabilities of the higher ups making decisions, good or bad, that send these men, with their rifles, where they go and do what they do. I honestly think any good man sent with any of the rifles mentioned in this thread, could do an outstanding job if they were trained up to a level of competence and supplied as they need to be. Supply meaning all things a soldier on the front line needs. That in itself is another topic.
***What we really need to do is have one get-together and figure out some tactical shooting scenarios and have a giant round-robin. Everybody fires everything....
Enfield was already obsolete by the time Spain and South Americans and Belgians were arming up with small rings. Cock on close and 10 shots vs 5 doesn’t mean much in a combat rifle. The exposed magazine was easily damaged and the rifle lacks primary extraction leverage which IS a BIG deal when your ammo is dirty and your rifle is hot. They were DONE in ‘14 until that pesky war started, and rightfully so. Yes they are sexy and they mostly work but damn, you have to liken it to a bunch of dumb farts trying to still use palm pilots in the age of iPhones.
The best bolt action general issue rifles were the M1917 and the K98K. You get all the hell and back reliability with controlled feeding, primary extraction, durable and useable combat sights, safe, strong, and forgiving of mishandling. Take your pick of cock on close and an aperture sight or cock on open with a tangent sight, it matters not, when killing is your job it’s what you need that matters not what you want.
The best bolt action general issue rifles were the M1917 and the K98K. You get all the hell and back reliability with controlled feeding, primary extraction, durable and useable combat sights, safe, strong, and forgiving of mishandling. Take your pick of cock on close and an aperture sight or cock on open with a tangent sight, it matters not, when killing is your job it’s what you need that matters not what you want.
So DONE in fact that it soldiered on in various iterations IN THE BRITISH ARMY until 1996.
There's a lot of evidence pointing to the fact the 30-06 was overpowered for a soldier to handle. Thus why even the U.S. Army went looking for a lighter rifle right after WWI.
My uncles reply to the bolt action debate. some younger guys at the local pub were discussing this exact topic. You know a lot of those are fine rifles. But I've stood over a lot of dead bodies with those rifles. Of course they asked what he carried. Garand
But that is outside the topic. I wonder how a Garand would fare against an FN or G3, again though, not part of this topic.?
I don't know if using the British insistence on using a rifle design for 100+ years says anything good about the rifle, more likely it just says negative things about the British military.
And I thought the US only adopted 308 as a halfl ass measure to please all the Nato countries pushing for intermediate cartridges?
And I thought the US only adopted 308 as a halfl ass measure to please all the Nato countries pushing for intermediate cartridges?
Actually, it was the .308 the U.S. shoved down everyones throat. It wasn't adopted to please anyone else.
I think if a rifle is effective in it's intended roles for 100+ years, it says something about the quality of it's design.
Thats what I'm getting at. Everyone else knew intermediate cartridges were the future and the US said "look we shrunk 30-06 a little and your gonna learn to love it dammit".
If World War 1 would not have happened it would have been done. You have to accept that fact. The Brit’s actually got completely f/ed with the Enfield the second the French came out with smokeless and then got their lunch ate for them by the Boar Mausers in South Africa. The Enfield was literally on catch up status life support the second it was adopted. They finally researched everything they thought a new rifle SHOULD BE and came up with the P-14. But when the war started they lost almost their entire inventory of arms in the first four months. They needed millions of rifles and they needed them fast. The factories simply could not afford the down time to re tool they had to keep producing or their soldiers would have been pulling Martini Henry’s out of storage (which actually happened as well). There is no shame in loving the things but to say they are the best is kidding yourself when you compare them to pretty much everything else available at that time as a front line combat rifle. Mosin people are just as passionate. The Great War saved the Enfield it wasn’t the other way around.
What you are saying about the Boer War is correct. In the current iteration, the 7mm was vastly superior in range to the .303 Enfield. And yes, because of that, they went back to the 'ol drawing board and figured more power (P-13 in .276 Enfield) was the deal. But, the reason that didn't pan out was the .276 was too much cartridge for a soldier to shoot consistently. Also, more cartridge than any combat rifle could sustain. That failed experiment, however DID produce the best round for a battle rifle, the .280 British...but not until after WWII. And of course, another story as it was in the FN-FAL. It was true too, the experiment stopped because they felt they couldn't switch over in the middle of a conflict. Much like us in Korea. The light rifle couldn't be swapped over, so they continued with the Garand. But, R&D in both England and the U.S. were still working out a better plan...not that some generals with only half a brain weren't going to ignore them anyway.
In the immediate interim of that hard lesson learned in the Boer Wars, they at least figured out, it's not about power but bullet efficiency. Thus the Mk VII and Mk VIII were born. Calibers are just diameters. It's how you massage the bullet to make it more aerodynamic, yet still give great terminal ballistics that gives you the range. Any caliber can reach out and touch at a long ways. The bullet designers need to stop thinking "blunt object" when designing bullets.
I have to say too, I agree that loving a certain cartridge, or thing is fine, but a country must consider the current advances of the time. The Enfield was not known as a jam-0-matic, neither was the Mauser, which the 1903, P-14, and U.S. 1917 are based off of. Nor were external mags damaged all that much. But, yeah, the Brits liked the Mauser more than their own Enfield as they saw what the 7mm was doing. Kind of a false idea as to what/why it's a better rifle. It's really more the ammunition than the rifle.
In spite of all this, I still love my Mausers. Having owned an Enfield and seeing what it can do, made me think they have an edge in battle where the Mauser and derivatives don't. Not that modifications couldn't have been made to them as well. That would really make things interesting.
Last edited:
So faster cycling and higher mag capacity are not significant for a combat rifle? The magazine's really not very exposed, it barely hangs below the trigger guard.
You're also ignoring the fact that the heavily tapered .303 casing extracts much easier than its contemporaries with straighter walls. Tapered cases aren't conducive to the best ballistics but greatly reduce the likelihood of extracting or feeding issues. I have yet to see any actual evidence that controlled round feeding is anything more than an overstatement of the Mauser design's importance.
Again, why didn't the P-13 survive? Too much cartridge. For both the rifle and the shooter. The ten vs. five was significant in the fact that War departments didn't want to spend money on soldiers "wasting" ammo. Most of them were not aware of combat tactics. All they saw was the bottom line in dollars not lives. In combat, ten rounds means a lot more than five rounds and five more in a stripper clip. Running between trenches it made a huge difference. Try ramming five cartridges in your rifle on the run.
German squads were not organized the same from WWI to WWII. In WWI, they were organized more like their American and British counterparts. It was WWII that they made the machine gunner the primary infantryman with the squad based around him. Before that, machine gunners were support.
The mad minute is not mythology. We used it in WWI, WWII, Korea and Vietnam. And yeah, rate and volume of fire is crucial or everyone in the world would have stayed with a bolt action rifle and not modernized themselves with semi- and full automatic rifles with high capacity magazines.
The 30-06 didn't survive as the main round for the same reason the P-13 went away. And, just to say the "administrators" of their country's military's make changes doesn't mean they are good ones. People bitched about the M16/M16A1 and M193 for years. But, it has proved lethal at combat ranges. While I, and many others thought the change to the -A2 and M855 ammo was an improvement, combat results have shown it's not. The difference is in the bullet and how it's launched.
The bottom line is none of the bolt action rifles fielded was a jammer or innacurate for battle. They all performed those dutiest. When it all got said and done though, the Lee-Enfield held twice as many rounds and was able to be fired faster, while just as battle accurate as any other rifle of it's day.
Last edited:
Sorry, this very post shoots this in the ass. I was practicing it when I was in the service. It's a hand-me-down from WWI. Whether or not British infantrymen got paid, or more specifically didn't, because this was a practice is bullshit. They did it.
Another fine example of a myth that WAS taught was individual accuracy. Check any manual. That's all that was talked about at the time. Yet the prevailing practice in the field was "massed fire". Of which, the "mad minute" very much is, except it precipitates an assault by the opposing side, in the hopes of preemptively weakening it, not just blowing rounds off for a minute.
Another fine example of "not following doctrine" was Claire Chenault. His tactics were spot on. Yet, current military couldn't see to do it his way. All his contemoraries had losses closer to 1-1. Whereas his losses were in the 1-21 category.
Just because you produce a manual of how it should have been done in WWII doesn't mean it's true.
Also of note, your speaker refers to WWII...how come the Brits didn't bring back the U.S. 1917 for it? Or Korea, or The Congo...or the many conflicts since then?
Similar threads
