[Rebar]

Out of these: Enfield no. 4 mk 1, Kar98k, and Springfield 1903, which would be the most accurate, as issued? Which would be handier/better battle rifle?

And how would the Kar98k compare to the M1 Garand, which would be more accurate, handier, etc., as issued?

[JShirley]

Probably a toss up between the 98 and the '03. The 03 IS a Mauser, for all practical purposes.

I think the Enfield is the best battle rifle of the three. More ammo, decent sights, faster to fire multiple rounds.

[El Rojo]

It isn't listed, but my most accurate surplus gun is my Swiss K31. It outshoots my 1903, my K98, M96 Swede, all the Mosin Nagants, and certainly my Ishapor .308.

I think the K98 and the Garand are in a different class are they not? Issued? That is a good question. Maybe I will go do that tomorrow, shoot my Yugo M48 vs. my Garand.

[WilderBill]

I think that the 98 Mauser might be a touch more accurate as issued in general.
The trouble with trying to compare one of each to find out is that the sample size is way too small.
Individual rifles will sometimes vary quite a bit. I doubt that a Mauser made in the last months of the war would compare to one made between the wars, for instance.

[CaesarI]

I believe the expression was:
The Americans had the best target rifle.
The Germans had the best hunting rifle.
The British had the best battle rifle.

but that's for WWI. WWII included the Garand, which was, according to Patton "the greatest battle implement ever devised".

Giving us the best battle rifle, the brits, the highest capacity rifle, and the germans the best hunting rifle.


-Morgan

[cracked butt]

Having shot a few examples of each, out of the first group, I would say the Springfield is the most accurate.

Between the k98 and the garand, I would pick the k98 for accuracy every time.


Out of the bunch, I'd say that the M1 Garand is the handiest and best battle rifle if only because its a semiauto, but thats just my opinion.
:D

[444]

For practical accuracy, I would have to say the '03 would be the winner. For one thing, it had a peep sight. Another thing is the peep sight is mounted at the rear of the action to give you the maximum sight radius. The '03 made a name for itself as a target rifle for years in formal match competition.

The handier, better battle rifle is the Enfiled. It has twice the mag capacity. The mag was detachable, although it was never intended to be used with spare mags. The action is supposed to be the fastest of all bolt actions. It is probably the least accurate of the rifles you list, especially in the No.1 configuration with the rear sight mounted half way down the barrel. They also have a huge chamber which increases reliablility, but accuracy suffers.

[DonP]

The Garand is in a totally different class and price range, so let's just talk about the bolt actions. (But start saving now for the Garand you really need in your collection)

Start with the premise that every individual rifle is always a crap shoot to one degree or another and the ultimate accuracy accessory is you and practice.

IMHO ...

My most accurate is my Enfield, No. 4 Mk II. I love the battlke and micrometer peep sight.

next is the O3A3 with the peep sight.

K98 is thrid and maybe the most fun to shoot

My Mosin Nagant 91-30 is just too much fun not to have one or two around.

Understand that most WW II battkle rifles are desigend to zero at 200 yards or so, give or take. At most ranges they will shoot high at 100 yards to totally confuse you.

Don P.

[cheygriz]

If you're buying a rifle for formal target shooting, none of the above. All three of them are more accurate than you will ever need when used or their intended purpose.

If you're buying a rifle for plinking, fun, perhaps hunting, and perhaps for use after social upheaval, I would recomment the .303 Lee-Enfield.

The Springfield and Mauser are slightly more accurate, but the Enfield has twice the ammo capacity, is somwhat more rugged, and has proven itself on battlefields all over the world for over a hundred years.

[thisaway]

The Enfield is more rugged than the Mauser? How?
Thanks,
Thisaway

[cheygriz]

Heavy duty construction. Hold each in your hand, shoot them both, you can feel the difference.

AND: The guys with the Enfields beat the crap out of the guys with the mousers. TWICE!

[BHP9]

The M98 is considered the most advanced Military bolt action ever made. Most other military bolt guns are just an inferior copy of it.

M98. Outstanding accuracy.
Outstanding gas escape provisions. Light years better
than the 1903 gas escape system.
Able to be stripped right in the field.
Firing pin replaceable without tools. (not possible with the
British enfield.
Extreme reliability.
Much more accurate than the M1 Garand
Much more rugged firing pin compared to the two piece
1903 springfield firing pin.

The only Mauser derivitive that is stronger in design is the Japanese Arisaka. Super accurate and almost indestructable. P.O. Ackley gave up trying to blow Arisaka's up. All the other bolt military guns he was able to blow up. The rear locking British Enfield being one of the weakest.

Gas escape system of the Garand is very well thought out. I saw one blow up 2 summers ago that shattered a brand new laminated stock. The gun was totaly annihilated except for the action, but the shooter did not get hurt. He was not even wearing safety glasses.

[T.Stahl]

The 98 the most advanced military bolt action ever made? Uh.

I prefer the Enfield No.4:
- Higher capacity
- Faster action
- Better sights with longer sight radius
- Softer recoil

Tamara there's more to tanks than "main gun + glacis".
I think there's more to military rifles than a sturdy system and an accurate barrel. Otherwise we'd be using Sharps. ;)

[telewinz]

03A3, all things being equal the 30/06 is more accurate than the .303, and it has a longer site radius than the '98 Mauser. One up on each rifle.

[Rebar]

Thanks for the opinions! I'm just curious, eventually I'd like to buy one of each. You hear about these weapons all the time, but I've never heard them compared/contrasted to each other.

another question:

exactly how fast (rate of fire) could the average soldier fire the 98k? The Enfield? The mosin-nagant?

[Archie]

The '03 Springfield was probably the most accurate rifle as issued . The '03 A3 was even more so, due to the better sights. I personally prefer the 1917 Eddystone, but that wasn't on your list.

The '98 Mauser was and is the ultimate action. Smoothest, most reliable and positive. Most all others are copies. The British SMLE is an exception. A cursory look shows the differences.
The Mauser is an accurate action and barrel, hampered greatly by the hideous sighting system. The "V" rear and inverted "V" front (rightly called the barleycorn) were designed for massed volley fire, not precision shooting.

The British .303 Short Magazine Lee Enfield (SMLE) is probably the best battle rifle. It is less accurate than either the '03 or '98, but only in an absolute sense. They have great sights, are easy to shoot, and will certainly score hits on the evil troops out to 400 yards without serious strain. The 303 British round is the least powerful of the three rounds, but again, only in an absolute sense. It's been used to kill most game animals all over the earth. It is certainly stout enough for military use.

(I heard a guy belittling the 303 British as underpowered. Then he proudly proclaimed his AR variant in 5.56 NATO as the nee plus ultra killing machine. Cracked me up.)

The Mosin-Nagant was designed for farm boys. You have to remember, most Russian soldiers prior experience with technology was shoveling out the stable. So they were simple and rugged. Please don't anyone take that as an insult or slight; but one has realize Russia, prior to WW1 was an under-developed nation.

All three of the rifles you mention are rugged and reliable in military form. I have to confess, the SMLE is the ugliest of the bunch. But not nearly as ugly as the Mosin-Nagant.

Rates of fire with bolt guns are pretty similar. One aimed round every four or five seconds is no big deal. The 303 had a theoretical advantage in the bigger magazine. However, all four rifles ('03, '98, SMLE and Mosin Nagant) were loaded with 5 round stripper clips. In my opinion, the M-N was the clumsiest to reload, so probably the slowest. As someone mentioned, individual rifles performed individually.

This would be an interesting test for some enterprizing gun writer wanna-be. But one would have to have at least three issue condition rifles of each format and a minimum of three shooters.

[444]

"This would be an interesting test for some enterprizing gun writer wanna-be. But one would have to have at least three issue condition rifles of each format and a minimum of three shooters."

The problem with this would be the condition of the rifles. Most of these old war horses are a little worse for wear and are showing their age. Then we get into when the rifles were manufacturered. For example is the K98 going to be a beautiful pre-war model or one manufactured in 1944 ?

Check this out; this is as close as we can come to this type of test. http://www.geocities.com/swedishmauser1896/lordroberts.htm

300 yards, prone, 24 inch bull, target exposed for 60 seconds. You fire as many shots as you can in 60 seconds, and only hits in the bull count.

"I understand that the record on this course of fire is 39 hits, made by a british instructor with his Lee Enfield Prior to WWII. "

Now that is some serious shooting. 39 hits inside a 24 inch bull at 300 yards, in 60 seconds. Firing a bolt action rifle. He had to reload three times and fire the 39 shots in 60 seconds. Actually who knows how many shots he actually fired in 60 seconds, because only hits in the bull count. He may have fired more meaning he might have had to reload more than three times.
Wow!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
If he had been firing any of the other rifles mentioned, he would have had to reload more often. This is where a "high cap" mag comes into play. For those not familiar with the rifles mentioned, this was not a magazine change, this was loading the rifles with stripper clips.

Note also on that link that in the last match's scores, a guy shooting an M1 went 18/27. In other words he only managed to get off 27 rounds in one minute using an enbloc 8 round clip, and hit the bull 18 times. This brit fired at least 36 rounds in a minute with a bolt action.

[cracked butt]

I noticed the Swedish 96 scored at or near the top on all of the tests on the link given. This doesn't suprise me one bit, with with how smooth and accurate these rifles are, you would almost have to try to miss a 24" bull at 300 yards.:D

The 39 hits with the enfield in 60 seconds sounds more like a legend than a reality. That would be 1 second per shot and 7 seconds for each reloading which sounds impossible for a bolt action rifle.

[444]

I can tell you this. I have shot my Sweede 96 in a Vintage Military Bolt Action match where we had a timed event (not at 300 yards though) and it was a dream. The clips load so effortlessly, and the action is so smooth. I pumped out a lot of ammo in one minute.

I of course can't verify the story. But fact is stranger than fiction. This is sort of like the saying, beware of the man with only one gun.................... I bet you could do amazing things with a rifle that you shot all the time and dedicated yourself to mastering.

[CaesarI]

I have no problem believing the story, about 39 rounds in a minute with a bolt. Cause I'd read another story where some of the better trained British riflemen out-shot Americans with their shiny new Garands in a friendly competition. Granted the Americans were just regular troops, and the Brits were at the top of their game, but it does demonstrate the outer limits of the bolt.

The Enfield bolt lends itself to fast actuation due to its position behind the trigger. Apparently they'd operate the bolt with thumb and index finger, and fire the trigger with the middle finger. But I've seen less verification on that story. Could just be they train a lot more than you or I.

-Morgan

[444]

I also saw a show on the History Channel, now I don't remember the details but it was about some British General who really stepped up their training either before WWI or between the wars. He had a lot of training time spent on rifle technique. They mentioned that same thing about working the bolt with their thumb or whatever; anyway, when they first met the Germans in combat, the Germans thought that the Brits had a huge number of machine guns because of the volume of fire that they were receiving. Actually it was just regular tommies using SMLE rifles.

[T.Stahl]

"Ten rounds, rapid fire!"

It was the British Expeditionary Force during its fighting retreat in August 1914 which slowed down von Kluck's 1st Army.

[Watchman]

Those bolt action are great for shooting at targets but the REAL purpose of the rifle was to kill the enemy and the M1 Garand had no equal.

The M1 has many storys of small numbers of troops holding off troops that were several times their size and strenth with Garands. They made the Japanese 'Banzai" charges obsolete. They also frusrated the Germans with their exellent Mausers due to the fact that you could unload a Garand in the time it took to cycle a couple of rounds in the Mauser.

Were the bolt actions more accurate ? Probably. Did it matter at normal ranges of combat ? More than likely it didnt.

Think about it. You and a few of your buds are advancing cautiously across a field and you meet head on with several German Troopers in a chance encounter. Gernerally in a war, it whoever sees who first that wins. LEts say the range is around 100 or so yards. Its seems hard to miss right ? But everyone is jukeing and jiving and trying to make holes in the ground to hide in where there are none. If you have a Garand, you have eight very quick shots in which to hit your target. If you are a German, you had better make the first shot count because if you dont , it might be your last. Even if it takes the GI four or five shots to zero in on you do you want to be working a bolt when somebody is shooting at you ?


A semi auto will beat a bolt action in Combat. That is why we have them today. IF the bolt action was supierior for combat, we'd still be toting them/

I ve got a SwedeM-96, 2 Mosins 91/30 and M44, Enfield No 5, Swiss K-31, Turk M-38 and Springfield Garand.

The Swiss,Swede,and Mosin have the Garand beat in accuracy.If I had to go off and fight in a war though, the Garand would go with me. The 8 shot clips, ease of reloading and the rate of fire
are too big an advantage for me to want to carry a bolt.

[444]

Well if it was between the Mauser and an M1, I will take the M1 every time. The M1 was certainly not an inaccurate rifle. I don't know about just pumping out round after round trying to actually aim. The M1 has a decent recoil that you have to recover from in between shots. I realize the M1 spent many years as a target rifle where rapid fire was part of the course of fire, but this is combat we are talking about. No shooting coat, probably not using a sling, no steading shooting position and all the while someone else is shooting back.

[Watchman]

Yep.

And not manipulating a bolt was one less thing you had to worry about. I figure that the adrenaline flow would tend to cancel out the recoil issue.

I put 5 clips trough mine today. While the recoil is noticable, its not that bad.

Seems to me that the semi would be easeir to use in combat than a bolt. All you hade to do was get a good sight picture. The bolt required a lot more thought and skill.

[Bainx]

Welcome aboard. I'll bet good money you are into ironworking.

I have all the rifles you mention and Enfield No.4 is the ticket as far as a battle rifle but, the others earned merit.

Speaking of No.4s, you been tying any lately?;)

[Marcus]

The `03 probably has the edge on accuracy. Best all around battle rifle of those listed? Enfield No.4 hands down. Mausers are the standard by which all bolt guns are judged. The `03 is basically just an American Mauser. Both are fine service guns,but the Enfield has (hate to sounds like a broken record) twice the magazine capacity. It also has a better set of sights than the Mauser and a really fast action. Yes you can shoot a Mauser or an `03 fast but the Enfield`s bolt handle is ideally located and since it cocks on closing it opens very easily,almost automatically. Two shots a second is no great feat. I`d bet that a good Enfield gunner can keep up a sustained rate of fire just as high as a Garand. The Garand shoots slightly faster but will have to reload sooner and more often. Contrast the Enfield with the Mosin,the bolt handle is actually forward of the trigger guard so you have to reach for it,the bolt handle is short so you have less leverage and they require a solid shove to rotate the bolt. Yeah,you can still shoot one fast but it ain`t easy or much fun. They`re all solid guns capable of getting the job done and a lot of fun at the range though. Marcus

[Gewehr98]

To be excluded from John C. Garand rifle matches these days. Too many trophies taken away from M1 Garand shooters, so they came up with the Springfield rifle category...

I was personally asked not to bring my 1903A1 to a certain local John C. Garand match, it appears I won too many times. ;)

So I'm taking a Garand next time.

[cheygriz]

Gewehr,

I'm glad to see that somehere here has the courage to risk the flames and let people know that the Garand is not very accurate.

I've owned and/or used about a dozen Garands, mostly match guns, and I have yet to see one that will keep five shots in less that 1 1/2 inches at 100 yards. (2 1/2 is more typical, even in match guns with match ammo.)

And that's really not a criticism of the Garand! It's accuracy is similar to the Lee-Enfield, which is to say that it's MORE than adequate for it's intended purpose as a fighting rifle.

One of the (many) reasons I don't read gun rags anymore is becaues of the rash of articles that state that the writer gets sun-moa 10 shot groups with his box-stock service grade Garand, shooting milsurp ball.

Those of us that have used Garands in competition know better.

[Watchman]

You wont get flamed from me. I know that the Garand is not as accurate as a bolt. It has to many clearances in it to make it work .

So the Garand might not be capable of a 1 and a half group at 100 yards whereas any of the bolts might be.

In terms of practicle application in a combat zone, its a moot point.

When you have to slip,shoot and boogie or get into a full fleged run and gun just to stay alive, you can have the bolts and I'll take the Garand. If I aim at the eyeball, and miss due to the inaccuracy of the Garand as compared to a Mauser, and I hit you in the forehead instead, you're still gonna hit the ground.

The accuracy standard for a Garand was what 4 inches at 100 ?

While not as tight as some, it worked.

[Rebar]

Hmmm...

So, what would the average trained private of average talent have as an average rate of fire per minute with these bolt guns?

[Stinger]

AND: The guys with the Enfields beat the crap out of the guys with the mousers. TWICE!

I don't recall the Brits ever "beating the crap" out of the Germans. I remember the Americans breaking a stalemate in WWI, and bailing England's butt out again 20+ years later.

Stinger

[cracked butt]

My scores went way up when I switched from shooting a Garand to a bolt rifle also.:D While not a tack driver, its plenty accurate enough for what its made for and would be my choice of the bunch to carry into battle.

[Andrew Wyatt]

Funny you mention the lord robert's match.


My father and I are going to be putting that on here in california in not too long.

the winner of last year's match shot an FR-8.

[444]

I just returned from our monthly vintage bolt action rifle match. We had stuff from all over, 03s, Enfields, Mausers of all countries of origin, Carcanos, and of course my K31. The winner was shooting an Israeli Mauser. But it isn't the gun, it is the man behind the trigger. Same guy won last month shooting a Carcano. And the month before that..........................
I can't beat this guy. In fact today I ended up fourth and I thought I was shooting pretty good.

[Gordon]

Umm I pretty much own them all, and have shot them for almost a HALF Century! The most accurate military rifle I own is a very low mileage 1917Remington with Lake City match ammo it has shot 1MOA groups consistently 20 years ago when my eyesight was perfect . I won a DCM garand with it in state matches back then. Remington just happened to do everything right on the day in 1918 when they made it! I used to have a match BSA MK4 smle that was pretty good at about 1 1/2 moa when I could find ammo it liked, but the 'Zero' wandered too much for me. I have a 03a4 springfield that has 330 weaver that shoots 1 1/2 Moa with lake city match but has weaver 330 scope so thats cheating. I have not bee able to get much under 2 1/2moa with my mint K31 with Swiss greased match ammo. The sights suck as do all barleycorn sighted(open) military rifles for precision fire under 3MOA.Yeah my legally tweaked NM garand shoots a little over 2moa with lake city match on a GOOD day, and zero DOES wander a bit.I think 1917's are very underated and have the action in use on half a dozen sporters including a 30pound .258Condor that groups tighter the farther away target is, 1" at 100, 1" at 200, 2" at 400 and 3.25" at 600yds! Witnessed 15 years back . Sure it has speed lock and Canjar trigger but the potential is obviously there for the heavy duty modernized Mauser 1917Enfield.:)

[cheygriz]

Stinger,

You need to study some WWl and WWll history that wasn't written strictly by American journalists.

I like John Wayne movies too, and as a proud American, I would like to believe that "WE" won those wars single-handedly. The problem is, it didn't quite happen that way.

[BigG]

Cheygriz, you may have a point but where would the British be if the good ole USA had never shown up? I think you are possibly looking at it through rose colored glasses.