What was the best Combat Bolt action?
- Thread starter 44 AMP
- Start date
Here's mine:
It is true that the 98 Mauser is stronger than the Enfield but the Enfield is strong enough for the ammo issued for it and that is what counts.
There was a contest in 1913 (or 14) where an instructor at the British military shooting institution used an SMLE (No 1 Mk3 (the older sister of the No. 4)) to engage a 12" round target at 300 yards. Firing prone, he hit it 38 times in 1 minute. This included reloading 3 times.
Drue
It is true that the 98 Mauser is stronger than the Enfield but the Enfield is strong enough for the ammo issued for it and that is what counts.
There was a contest in 1913 (or 14) where an instructor at the British military shooting institution used an SMLE (No 1 Mk3 (the older sister of the No. 4)) to engage a 12" round target at 300 yards. Firing prone, he hit it 38 times in 1 minute. This included reloading 3 times.
Drue
I've read many places that:
The 1903 Springfield was the finest target rifle of the 20th century,
The 98 Mauser the best hunting rifle, and the SAMLE the best combat rifle.
Ask any German soldier of WW1 how he felt about the SMLE.
(Especially in the hands of those devils in kilts)
The 1903 Springfield was the finest target rifle of the 20th century,
The 98 Mauser the best hunting rifle, and the SAMLE the best combat rifle.
Ask any German soldier of WW1 how he felt about the SMLE.
(Especially in the hands of those devils in kilts)
CobrayCommando
Moderator
Yeah, hmm what are Brits using now? Possibly the ****tiest gun in existence?
The British have never cared as much about their troops as we have, they are always getting stuck with some ****ty piece of kit or another... Boots that fall apart in a week, knives that can't hack through a paper sack (MOD anybody) etc. If you want to read about how much they care for their soldiers read a detailed history of some Boer War battles.
However I must agree that the Enfield was the best bolt battle rifle. It was almost as fast as the Garand, and for practical purposes, and over 50 yards, the Enfield was probably its equal. You could top it off, it held two more rounds and with practice reloaded as fast if not faster despite requiring two clips instead of one. You can fire about a round a second max with both.
personally
I prefer the WWI (Mk III*) to the WW II (No4) SMLE. I just like it better. While I am a big fan of Mausers (and their derivatives), smooth operation and 10 rnd capacity gives the SMLE the "edge".
Not all Mausers are created equal. I find the straight bolt handle mausers to be more difficult to operate rapidly than the bent bolt handle versions. The Arisaka has a horrid safety.
As a sporting rifle, Mauser is the best, but the SMLE just seems better for rapid fire, and I think that could be a telling argument in combat. None of them is the best POSSIBLE design, but we've learned alot since they were thought up. When it comes to weapons for armies, the idea that "it doesn't have to be the best, it just has to work, and work now" has a lot going for it.
I prefer the WWI (Mk III*) to the WW II (No4) SMLE. I just like it better. While I am a big fan of Mausers (and their derivatives), smooth operation and 10 rnd capacity gives the SMLE the "edge".
Not all Mausers are created equal. I find the straight bolt handle mausers to be more difficult to operate rapidly than the bent bolt handle versions. The Arisaka has a horrid safety.
As a sporting rifle, Mauser is the best, but the SMLE just seems better for rapid fire, and I think that could be a telling argument in combat. None of them is the best POSSIBLE design, but we've learned alot since they were thought up. When it comes to weapons for armies, the idea that "it doesn't have to be the best, it just has to work, and work now" has a lot going for it.
Cobray,
The British are responsible for issuing about the best combat revolvers ever, two of the very best auto pistols, one of the very finest submachineguns, one of the very best squad machineguns and one of the most loved versions of the FAL.
I find your comments perplexing.
The British are responsible for issuing about the best combat revolvers ever, two of the very best auto pistols, one of the very finest submachineguns, one of the very best squad machineguns and one of the most loved versions of the FAL.
I find your comments perplexing.
Germans built the most beautiful rifles
Russians built the most indestructible rifles
Americans built the most accurate rifles
But the British, the British built the best rifles, silky smooth, super fast actions, larger capacity magazines and to some a very beautiful piece of work as well.
Russians built the most indestructible rifles
Americans built the most accurate rifles
But the British, the British built the best rifles, silky smooth, super fast actions, larger capacity magazines and to some a very beautiful piece of work as well.
CobrayCommando
Moderator
1. What about my comments do you find perplexing?
2. What about my comments do you disagree with?
Limeyfellow
New member
Add to that the L85a2 has been found to be one of the most reliable assault rifles now they worked out the bugs and a cleaning regiment and has always been one of the most accurate. Sure it took 20 years to fix, but the M16 took just about as long to fix its problems also.
PlungerLips
New member
I will at least give one rifle an honorable mention here in addition to all of the fine bolt actons previously discussed in this thread. The Finnish M39. Yes, it's a Mosin action, but refined, accurate, very rugged and I have got to get one
Mike Irwin
Staff
"Yeah, hmm what are Brits using now? Possibly the ****tiest gun in existence?"
And the SA-80 has what to do with the Lee Enfield, or the current state of equipment procurement in Britain?
Oh, I know the answer to that...
Absolutely nothing.
And the SA-80 has what to do with the Lee Enfield, or the current state of equipment procurement in Britain?
Oh, I know the answer to that...
Absolutely nothing.
To really evaluate the best bolt action battle rifles, you really need to look at what people at the time thought was the best. What was available and what was ordered in the highest numbers by the most armies. The Mauser 98, and all its variants, was in use on 4 continents by more armies than you can come up with quickly. The SMLE was in use by British Empire forces (Commonwealth later) and no others I can think of. No army sends its soldiers into combat to die, at least not with the primary goal of their soldiers being massacred and killed by superior forces.
The Mauser was such a superior design that many nations tried to copy the design, and others just flat dumped their older rifles (Remingtons, Krags, Winchesters, Hotchkisses, etc) and stood in line to buy the Mauser. Mausers were issued as front-line battle rifles around the world well into the 1950s.
The SMLE pre-dated the Mauser, was outperformed in Africa in the 1890s by the 1891 and 1893 Mauser rifles, and the British were trying to get rid of it even before WWI (remember the P14?). They redesigned it several times (that's what Mark I, Mark II, etc., means). They tried geting rid of it again before WWII but could not find and field replacements in time. Finally they succeeded in the late 1940s. And good riddance.
It's fine to be a fan of something, but don't let that blind your judgement or interfere with reality. If you prefer the SMLE, or the MAS, or the Carcano, or the Mauser, be honest with yourself and others and just say you prefer one over the other.
The Mauser was such a superior design that many nations tried to copy the design, and others just flat dumped their older rifles (Remingtons, Krags, Winchesters, Hotchkisses, etc) and stood in line to buy the Mauser. Mausers were issued as front-line battle rifles around the world well into the 1950s.
The SMLE pre-dated the Mauser, was outperformed in Africa in the 1890s by the 1891 and 1893 Mauser rifles, and the British were trying to get rid of it even before WWI (remember the P14?). They redesigned it several times (that's what Mark I, Mark II, etc., means). They tried geting rid of it again before WWII but could not find and field replacements in time. Finally they succeeded in the late 1940s. And good riddance.
It's fine to be a fan of something, but don't let that blind your judgement or interfere with reality. If you prefer the SMLE, or the MAS, or the Carcano, or the Mauser, be honest with yourself and others and just say you prefer one over the other.
So you're taking the tact that world sales are a better predictor of quality than actual features? So twinkies are therefore better than eclairs, and Scary Movie 3 is better than Citizen Kane?
Since you're an expert on the history of these rifles, who did the British offer to sell the SMLE to? It's a little hard to talk about comparative use if the rifle was unavailable.
My Swiss K31 and P210 must be junk! No one bought those things.
Since you're an expert on the history of these rifles, who did the British offer to sell the SMLE to? It's a little hard to talk about comparative use if the rifle was unavailable.
My Swiss K31 and P210 must be junk! No one bought those things.
Mike Irwin
Staff
"The Mauser 98, and all its variants, was in use on 4 continents by more armies than you can come up with quickly. The SMLE was in use by British Empire forces (Commonwealth later) and no others I can think of."
Scorch,
On its face, that might seem to be a valid method of assessment, but I think it's not.
There's a very CRUCIAL difference that has to be taken into account.
Mauser was a commercially developed and made rifle, which was then licenses to other nations.
The Lee-Enfield was not. It was made by the British government at its arsenals and was never licensed to any other nation.
Any nation on the face of the earth could call on Mauserwerk and say "We'd like 100,000 rifles in XXX caliber made for our army, your assistance in building a factory in our nation to make subsequent rifles, and a production license that allows us to build those rifles in our own nation."
That never happened with the British, as they never offered that sort of commercial option to nations outside the commonwealth.
That Mauser did arm many possible German rivals apparently caused some concern in the Germany government.
Once again, though, the issue is what rifle was the best COMBAT rifle. It's already been shown that the Mauser falls short in several combat categories -- speed of action and magazine capacity being two.
As for the Lee-Enfield's performance in South Africa, much of that can also be attributed to tactics of the warring parties, not just the rifle. To that point the British had never encountered the kinds of tactics used by the Boers and were ill prepared for them until they got a couple of forward-thinking leaders into the field.
The British drove the Mauser-weilding Boers into submission, and the British used the experience and made a number of modifications to the design, including the addition of charger lips on the receiver bridge, to allow faster reloading.
Don't forget, also, that the standard Mauser in German hands was also redesigned a number of times. The K98, with it's rifle length and straight bolt handle, eventually morphed into the K98k with its turned down bolt handle, for example.
If, however, you want to look at ultimate outcomes, in two general wars, the Lee-Enfield was on the winning side, the Mauser on the losing side.
Scorch,
On its face, that might seem to be a valid method of assessment, but I think it's not.
There's a very CRUCIAL difference that has to be taken into account.
Mauser was a commercially developed and made rifle, which was then licenses to other nations.
The Lee-Enfield was not. It was made by the British government at its arsenals and was never licensed to any other nation.
Any nation on the face of the earth could call on Mauserwerk and say "We'd like 100,000 rifles in XXX caliber made for our army, your assistance in building a factory in our nation to make subsequent rifles, and a production license that allows us to build those rifles in our own nation."
That never happened with the British, as they never offered that sort of commercial option to nations outside the commonwealth.
That Mauser did arm many possible German rivals apparently caused some concern in the Germany government.
Once again, though, the issue is what rifle was the best COMBAT rifle. It's already been shown that the Mauser falls short in several combat categories -- speed of action and magazine capacity being two.
As for the Lee-Enfield's performance in South Africa, much of that can also be attributed to tactics of the warring parties, not just the rifle. To that point the British had never encountered the kinds of tactics used by the Boers and were ill prepared for them until they got a couple of forward-thinking leaders into the field.
The British drove the Mauser-weilding Boers into submission, and the British used the experience and made a number of modifications to the design, including the addition of charger lips on the receiver bridge, to allow faster reloading.
Don't forget, also, that the standard Mauser in German hands was also redesigned a number of times. The K98, with it's rifle length and straight bolt handle, eventually morphed into the K98k with its turned down bolt handle, for example.
If, however, you want to look at ultimate outcomes, in two general wars, the Lee-Enfield was on the winning side, the Mauser on the losing side.
Limeyfellow
New member
Lets see the Lee Enfield was used by North America, South America, Africa, Europe, Asia, the Middle East and Australasia. Oh it was used in every continent but antartica that means. Strange.