Which WAS better army rifle of its time?


PDA






OneShot!
June 21, 2007, 03:37 PM
Before WWII most of the world probably used mostly two rilfes for their army. Although these two do not belong from the same time period, but I am curious to know your opinion on which of the following WAS better rifle of its time:

M1 Garand, or
Lee-Enfield

I am impartial because I really like both.

If you enjoyed reading about "Which WAS better army rifle of its time?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Boats
June 21, 2007, 03:46 PM
The SMLE was evolutionary.
The Garand was revolutionary.

That settles the debate for me. I own the Garand and have operated a SMLE. The smelly is among the fastest bolts I have ever fired, but it's still a bolt gun. I could sustain a higher and more accurate volume of fire with a Garand and suspect that would be true of most shooters. The Garand is way better on the move too.

The Garand was the harbinger of the future and the SMLE one of the last gasps of the past.

Eightball
June 21, 2007, 04:09 PM
Dont feed the troll.....

SMLE
June 21, 2007, 09:00 PM
I can't really vote in this poll the way it is phrased. Both rifles served side by side in WWII and Korea, and both did a superb job. The Lee Enfield was hands down the best BOLT ACTION military rifle ever issued. The M1 was a great rifle, but it did have a few "bugs", (Not being able to "top off" the magazine is one commonly mentioned fault.) The M1 was not the best it could have been.

I will now be donning my flame-proof suit and waiting for the outcry of offended M1 fans. :evil:

azhunter12
June 21, 2007, 09:46 PM
M1 because it was semi.

Although I love my enfield.

Cosmoline
June 21, 2007, 09:49 PM
It's not a bad question. The Enfield usually wins the polls for best bolt action war rifle, from a military point of view. The Garand wins for best WWII era semiauto. Comparing the two, I'd go with the No. 4. You're comparing the very best bolt action for this particular task with an early, somewhat flawed semi. The Enfield had a higher capacity, was easier to feed and didn't suffer from a sensitive gas porting system. You could feed an Enfield a wide range of ammo from heavy 215 grain ball to light spitzers without trouble. But a Garand? It ate only what it ate, and feeding heavier .30'06 into it was and is not advised.

sm
June 21, 2007, 10:00 PM
Most of your posts are POLLs on both THR and TFL.

I have never posted a poll, as polls are too restrictive and confining .


Now the polls you are posting on both THR and TFL have been done to death, a simple search would have answered your polls.

Post counts.
Honest, I really do not like post counts on forums.

Still...if you really want to increase your post counts?
Really! I don't want mine.

I tell ya you what, wanna send $5 to THR for every post I have?
I see a win-win for everyone if you do.


:)

Eightball
June 22, 2007, 01:05 AM
I tell ya you what, wanna send $5 to THR for every post I have?
I see a win-win for everyone if you do.If I had the extra $89,040, sure.

SturmMackRuger
June 22, 2007, 02:09 AM
the m1 is the best battle implement ever devised so said General Patton he didn't say anything about the Enfield.

tkendrick
June 22, 2007, 03:11 AM
You could feed an Enfield a wide range of ammo from heavy 215 grain ball to light spitzers without trouble. But a Garand? It ate only what it ate, and feeding heavier .30'06 into it was and is not advised.

I don't think that applies. In the military you shoot what you are issued. I shot literally tens of thousands of milsurp M1 ammo thru a Garand back when they were the standard for NHP matches. Don't recall having many problems with the thing functioning.

It wasn't nearly as picky the m16's (A1's or A2's) that I was using on active duty.

Sunray
June 22, 2007, 03:29 AM
"...do not belong from the same time period..." Who told you that? Both models of the Lee-Enfield were used during W.W. II and Korea.
"...General Patton he didn't say anything about the Enfield..." G.S. had absolutely zero experience with any Lee-Enfield. He had no need to say anything about the equipment used by another army. Any comments he made about U.S. kit was to bolster the confidence of U.S. troopies.
The No. 4 Mk I rifle IS NOT AN SMLE!!!! Only the No.1 Mk III was an SMLE.

Don't Tread On Me
June 22, 2007, 05:57 AM
Hmmm...I see these One-Shot polls and "vs" threads are becoming a trend.


Well, in the spirit of having discussion being that this is a discussion forum - the M1 Garand hands down.


The M1 has had the luxury of having perhaps the most lopsided advantage over its opponents in all of firearm history. How can you possibly compare any of the bolt-action rifles to the firepower of semi-auto M1 Garand, which is (practically speaking) just as accurate? Maybe muzzle loaders vs. the first breech loaders. I've read of battles being decisive as a result. But the M1 served an entire world war vs. 2 massively powerful enemies, spread across much of the world in virtually every environment in hundreds of battles.

That is why so many people love it. It represents the best of America. When America rose up against a huge challenge and prevailed. We won - and we used the Garand. We were better. It was the best on the field. It was made in a time when it was absolutely essential that our men had the best. Best manufacturing, best materials, best design, best performance. Went hand in hand with the whole rise of America to a superpower.

The M16 had the AK-47 which evened them out. The 1903, Lee Enfield, MN, Mauser etc....none of these had a significant edge over the other.

The M1 was a massive leap forward. A squad armed with k98's vs a squad armed with M1's. No contest. The only thing that could out perform the M1 was the rise of medium cartridge fully-automatic weapons (like the AK, FAL, M16, M14), but they represent an entirely new doctrine of which created a new era that the M1 did not belong to. When it comes to full power .30cal - the M1 Garand was the pinnacle of that era. It was the last word on the subject. It delivered the death blow. Not only was it the last word, but it was an all out slam dunk.



I don't have one. I need to get one.

DawgFvr
June 22, 2007, 12:08 PM
I vote M1 Garand...hell, I have a home shrine to the Garand...

DMK
June 22, 2007, 01:53 PM
Which WAS better army rifle of its time?Why are you guys jumping on him? It's a decent topic. I haven't seen these two rifle specifically compared to each other before.

I say hands down the Garand was the better rifle of it's time. Like Don't Tread on Me stated, it was way ahead of it's time and had a big advantage of its contemporaries. Not only was it an advanced design for a fielded service rifle, it was extremely reliable and effective. Not bad for the first of its kind.

The Enfield was and is a fine rifle. It had numerous advantages over other bolt actions of the period, but it was not semi-automatic. Perhaps comparing a single rifleman to another single rifleman, that didn't make much difference. But compare a platoon of riflemen with Enfields to a platoon of riflemen armed with Garands.

Essex County
June 22, 2007, 02:00 PM
I voted M1 but, I would feel fine with either.....No flies on the Enfield...Essex

Limeyfellow
June 22, 2007, 02:18 PM
the m1 is the best battle implement ever devised so said General Patton he didn't say anything about the Enfield.

He also said we didn't need any better tanks than a Sherman because no tank would ever be in a situration where it would be battling another tank and many other comments where he talked out his rear end. In the end he was lucky not to get court martialed for insubordination and his little habit of executing his prisoners into mass graves by machinegun fire. But thats enough about Patton, back to the question at hand.

I still would give the Lee Enfield the advantage most of the time. It allowed more rounds that had a better loading system, since in my opinion the en bloc system is fundamentally flawed.

You could put variable rounds in the Enfield. I personally like 180 grain stuff, but fired heavier and lighter bullets of all kinds over a 80 grain rate. You have to be careful with your Garand or you are going to bend the operating rod. The same if you reload be careful not to put the pressure too high.

Infact the gas system of the Garand has had many problems and the whole thing was thrown out and replaced with an older gas system after the war to design the M14.

I guess the major advantage of the Garand though would be close quarters where aiming wasn't so important and it was more point and squeeze. Otherwise the rate of fire is pretty much the same.

Cosmoline
June 22, 2007, 02:58 PM
I don't think that applies. In the military you shoot what you are issued.

But with the Enfield, the Brits could issue whatever they had on stock. Old heavy ball or newer light spitzer.

Beyond that, the Garand's clip feeding was archaic even by the 1930's, and unlike subsequent semis such as the SAFN it did not have an adjustable gas system. It was reliable and did fine for what it was, but to pretend it was the ultimate semiautomatic battle rifle is jingoistic nonsense. It was an early and interesting semiauto rifle. Probably the best all around semi of the war. But between the two I'd go with the Enfield.

kcmarine
June 22, 2007, 03:16 PM
Garand. Sure, it wasn't as advanced as some of the other semis of the time, but to use that as a reason to see it as inferior to the SMLE is unreasonable. It's making the Garand look inferior to the SMLE by comparing the Garand to more advanced rifles and not the Enfield. As far as comparing the two, there is no comparison. The Enfield is a bolt action rifle based on an later- 19th century design that was nearly 50 years old by the time WWII had come. The Garand was a giant step in increasing the firepower of the individual soldier and was way ahead of anything the German, Italian, or Japanese infantryman had in WWII.


ETA:
Whether or not the Garand ate what was put in it is more of a problem for the recreational shooters of today (like us) than it was for the American soldier in WWII. We have to take whatever the CMP decides to import. Otherwise, there aren't many available loads for the M1. But the American war machine during WWII provided more than enough ammunition for the soldiers of this country and probably a few others. Ammo was not a concern.

kcmarine
June 22, 2007, 03:38 PM
MAS 49/56

Hmmmm... 49/56. Not used in WWII, I believe.

Cosmoline
June 22, 2007, 03:43 PM
The Garand was a giant step in increasing the firepower of the individual soldier

Was it really, though? How much faster in aimed fire could a soldier shoot with the Garand than with the Enfield? I've never seen a head to head shootout, but I have seen some Enfields being shot mighty fast.

db_tanker
June 22, 2007, 03:48 PM
:D



http://i160.photobucket.com/albums/t187/db_tanker/new%20humor/image020.jpg

kcmarine
June 22, 2007, 03:56 PM
Quote:
The Garand was a giant step in increasing the firepower of the individual soldier
Was it really, though? How much faster in aimed fire could a soldier shoot with the Garand than with the Enfield? I've never seen a head to head shootout, but I have seen some Enfields being shot mighty fast.

Yes, but if I were a soldier having to go house to house in a Dutch town, I would MUCH rather be an American soldier with an M1 than a British soldier with a Lee- Enfield. You're right, the Garand and Enfield are about equal at the longer ranges when it comes to targeting, but at closer ranges, the M1 has the advantage. And since the M1 is equal to the Enfield at long ranges but better than the Enfield at close ranges, the M1 is the better rifle overall.

M1 Shooter
June 22, 2007, 04:10 PM
The M1 was "the finest battle implement ever devised". When Patton said that it was very true. There was nothing better, and nothing even equaled it at the time. Most WWII and Korean War combat Vets I've talked to had nothing but praise for the rifle. Sure it has a few warts, nothing is perfect, but in its time it was the best in the world. Many here seem to be comparing it to more modern semi auto designs. Thats not very fair. The later designers had the work of those who went before them to learn from. John Garand and the other early designers of semi auto military rifles were essentially making it up as they went along. You have to remember that before the M1 there were NO semi auto military rifles that worked worth a damn. The M1 was the first standard issue semi-auto military rifle in the world that worked, and worked well.

jaholder1971
June 22, 2007, 04:26 PM
A whole lot of nothing going on in this poll...

They were the right rifles for the countries at the time. The proof of this is in the fact that German isn't the official language of Europe and Africa.

Cosmoline
June 22, 2007, 04:31 PM
By that standard, the Mosin is the greatest rifle of the war

kcmarine
June 22, 2007, 08:00 PM
The rifles have to be of comparable eras.

MechAg94
June 22, 2007, 08:52 PM
Weren't the British planning on replacing the SMLE at one time? I can't remember if it was pre-WWI or II.

Number 6
June 22, 2007, 10:04 PM
Weren't the British planning on replacing the SMLE at one time? I can't remember if it was pre-WWI or II.

Yes, it later became the M1917 used by the US forces in WWI.

http://world.guns.ru/rifle/rfl19-e.htm

Cannonball888
June 24, 2007, 10:20 AM
M1903. Servicemen were reluctant to give up these accurate battle-proven rifles for the Garand replacements. The 1903s were still being used by entire USMC rifle companies even into late WWII.

gaweidert
June 24, 2007, 02:08 PM
In a ten shot speed and accuracy match, the Enfield could probably beatthe Garand. My father-in-law (USMC 1939 - 1948) was involved in testing the Johnson rifle for the Marines. As part of the testing, he had to compare both rilfes againt the 03A3. He was involved intesting because he did shoot on a base rifle team. For 10 shot speed and accuracy he could out shoot the Garand, but not the Johnson. Clip loading really slowed down the Garand. He demonstrated how he did it with my 03 Mark I. He would fire the rifle and then work the bolt during the recoil. By the time he was coming back down on target he had a new round in the chamber. The Johnson had a quicker target reaquisition time than the Garand and he could not outshoot it as it had the ability to top off the magazine form stripper clips. I would imagine that the Enfield could outshoot them all in such a test.

All that being said, the Garand did rule the battlefield of WWII. A 10 man squad could lay down a lot of cover fire in a short time with it. Used in situations where you had to make the enemy keep his head down so you could maneuver close enough to take him out with grenades, mortars etc. it was a superb weapon. Believe it or not, rifles only accounted for about 15% of the casualties in WWII. Artillery, bombings etc. accounting for the rest.

Yes my father-in-law had to be ordered to turn in his 03A3 for a Garand. In his eyes, the Springfield was an extension of his right arm. Shortly after that, he was issued a Thompson 45 which was his preferred weapon in the South Pacific as all the fighting was close and the 45 was a real man stopper. He thinks the M1 carbine not much more than a toy for use in combat.

cracked butt
June 24, 2007, 02:30 PM
M1.
The Enfield was an alright rifle and all but it was still a bolt action. There were a few people who were so familiar with the enfield around that could shoot faster than a soldier with an M1, but that doesn't necessarily make it a rule. Jerry Miculek can fire 6 shots from a revolver, reload and fire six more in a blink of an eye, but that doesn't mean a revolver is going to be faster and more accurate than a Glock in most other people's hands.

jaholder1971
June 24, 2007, 02:45 PM
By that standard, the Mosin is the greatest rifle of the war

The more I shoot my 91/30 and my M44, the closer I get to that conclusion.

Rexster
June 24, 2007, 08:36 PM
In its time, the SMLE was simply superb as a FIGHTING rifle, for ARMIES. Mausers and Springfields and the like may have fired more powerful cartridges, and been more accurate, making them superb for the individual rifleman, but the SMLE was arguably better for armies fighting battles. I cannot vote in the poll, because it closed before I had time to post, but would have chosen the Garand for the one reason that means much to me personally; it is a superb rifle for those of us who shoot as lefties, whether because we are lefties, or may be righties but are left-eye dominant. To fire a quick shot, it is infinitely better/quicker to throw the rifle to the shoulder corresponding to the dominant eye, and when working a bolt in a hurry, it is infinitely better not to have to reach over the top of the rifle, which interrupts the sight picture. Duffers who take the rifle from the shoulder to work the bolt may not understand this, but those of us who keep a rifle shouldered while working the bolt certainly do.

mp510
June 24, 2007, 08:54 PM
Comparing the Garand and Lee Enfield is apples and oranges. The Garand was adopted in the 1930s, the Enfield taces it's lineage to the late nineteenth century. Both were best of their respective realms.

jerkface11
June 24, 2007, 09:13 PM
The Garand was such a great rifle that the army kept it for several decades oh wait no they didn't.

M1 Shooter
June 25, 2007, 12:32 PM
The Garand was such a great rifle that the army kept it for several decades oh wait no they didn't.

***?! Yes they did. The M1 was standard issue from 1936 to 1957. Thats 21 years as standard 'A' issue, and it was used by reserve units and the National Guard well into the 1970's, probably another 20 years. Thats at least 30 to 40 years the M1 was in the Army's inventory.

mukluk
June 25, 2007, 05:55 PM
Just a bit of info for the "Garand was first" crowd:
http://www.cruffler.com/historic-june00.html

jaholder1971
June 25, 2007, 11:21 PM
Quote:
The Garand was such a great rifle that the army kept it for several decades oh wait no they didn't.
***?! Yes they did. The M1 was standard issue from 1936 to 1957. Thats 21 years as standard 'A' issue, and it was used by reserve units and the National Guard well into the 1970's, probably another 20 years. Thats at least 30 to 40 years the M1 was in the Army's inventory.

when my father left the USAR in 1980 his transportation company was in the process of getting rid of their M1's and qualifiying on the M16A1.

Fort Riley's MP battalion still had a couple M1D sniper rifles in one of their arms rooms in 1993. I saw them while visiting a cousin who was an E5 there.

M1 Shooter
June 26, 2007, 12:21 AM
Just a bit of info for the "Garand was first" crowd:
http://www.cruffler.com/historic-june00.html


Yeah, yeah, whatever.:rolleyes: I know about that French POS.
The French Mle. 1917 was never standard issue though, nor was it ever going to be. Especially since it was breakage prone, and very dirt sensitive, which was a problem with all the early military semi autos chambered for full power cartridges. What makes the Garand stand out is because it worked, worked well, and it still works, plus the fact that it WAS THE FIRST STANDARD ISSUE SEMI-AUTO MILITARY RIFLE.

HPJeep
June 26, 2007, 12:24 AM
Why not ask which was better: trapdoor Springfield vs 1911A1 vs AK47? Your poll is like comparing the Ford model T vs the Olds 442. Both were good for their time but how can you compare apples to oranges?

Geronimo45
June 26, 2007, 12:35 AM
Thought Mexico had the first semi?

The Lee-Enfield's bolt is a work of art, I've got to say... never seen a full-power bolt-action that handled that well. Swedish Mauser, Turkish Mauser, Mosin (pretty unfair comparison on that one) - nothing seems to come close. Seems like a hell-or-high-water rifle to me. As for the Garand... no data. It's a semi-auto. By nature, it's more likely to jam on you - but allows awfully fast shooting, I suppose.

M1 Shooter
June 26, 2007, 12:51 AM
<snip> As for the Garand... no data. It's a semi-auto. By nature, it's more likely to jam on you - but allows awfully fast shooting, I suppose.

I have fired thousands of rounds through both M1's and SMLE's, and the number of malfunctions has been about the same for both types.

HiroProX
June 26, 2007, 01:04 AM
The Garand's lack of an adjustable or auto-regulating gas system is of no consequence. Neither the successful SKS-45 or AK-47/AKM had an adjustable gas system either, didn't prevent the latter from becoming the most prolific automatic rifle of the post-WW2 era.

And Mexico put a semi into limited service in the late 1890s. The Mondragon, though it was more finicky and failure prone than a Soviet AVS-36.

Of course if you want to get picky about firsts, Federov's Avtomat beat out the Stg44 and AK-47 by 3 decades.

Red Mist Effect
June 26, 2007, 01:15 AM
As i have said before the japs in WWII thought that the aussie's had auto's because they could and keep up a constant rate of fire 10 rounds 10 seconds 5 seconds to load and when you finished your mag with the enfield it didn't go ping iam sure the enermy loved that sound.

M1 was good as could be obtained by the us army at the time but not great and as for clearing houses in dutch towns i never thought that it was that good.
only cause you would go

bang bang bang bang bang bang bang PING!!!! oh s%#t! iam out.
IMO

jerkface11
June 26, 2007, 10:24 AM
If the garand serving as a specialty weapon or a weapon for second tier troops counts as service then the enfield is STILL in service.

mukluk
June 26, 2007, 06:29 PM
I have fired thousands of rounds through both M1's and SMLE's, and the number of malfunctions has been about the same for both types.

I too have fired thousands of rounds through both M1s and SMLEs; in my personal experience the only one that has broken has been the M1.

Shell Shucker
June 26, 2007, 11:12 PM
MABE an EXPERT rifleman with a bolt gun can keep up with a semiauto......... I'm betting that the average 18-21 year old recruit/draftee can lay down a lot more fire power with a semiauto. Imagine that you're in a fox hole being charged by multiple close range attackers. Do you want 8 shots simply pulling the trigger or 10 shots working the bolt?
The Garand was reliable; it's a proven fact. The U.S. military ammo was standardized so the ability to digest varied loads is not a factor.
M-1 wins hands down.

Red Mist Effect
June 26, 2007, 11:22 PM
if carrying a rifle thats 9.5 M1 or 8 SMLE i no what i want
SMLE all the way.

Shell Shucker
June 27, 2007, 12:08 AM
I agree that light is right when humping a load. Would 1.5 LB or fire power be the deciding factor when SHTF? I'll wager that most WW-II vets would pick fire power given the choice. I'll even go so far as saying that MOST WW-II vets on BOTH sides would have preferred a Garand over thier issue bolt gun!

bluedsteel
June 27, 2007, 12:14 AM
Every time I take my Garand out for range time, I am amazed we didn't win WWII sooner. It is an awesome, POWERFUL, rifle.

I would feel well armed with it if I were to be sent to Iraq...maybe even better armed than with an M4...



bluedsteel

Navy joe
June 27, 2007, 12:14 AM
Seems to me they were of the same time, so not much of a question. Having owned a Garand I can say I want another and it is a fine implement. My question is this. If you were in combat, how would you ammo manage the Garand? Shoot until empty always? Dump a partial clip and reload in a lull? Dump a partial clip and retain ammo and spent clips to reclip later? Did the Army train a specific method?

GarandOwner
June 27, 2007, 01:52 AM
Not to jack the thread, but my understanding is that most would just fire off the last few rounds, rather than take the trouble to unload and reload partials

Ash
June 27, 2007, 09:35 AM
Bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang <<PING>> is a whole lot better than

Bang --- bang --- bang --- bang --- bang --- bang --- bang --- bang --- bang --- bang --- <<click>>

The manipulating hand must be taken from the rifle to operate the bolt. No matter what you think, the Enfield is, as a matter of fact, slower to operate than the Garand.

In close combat, the Garand is so much better than the Enfield I'm surprised it's even an issue. And reloading the Garand was MUCH MUCH faster than the Enfield, more than twice as fast (punch the clip and and go, versus slide the charger into the guide, slam five rounds down, then slide a second one, five more rounds. Skip the second reload and make it almost as fast as the Garand? Fine, but you only have five rounds, three rounds fewer). Tell me, who on this board recommends a bolt action rifle for home-defense???? Who recommends a semi????

Using different ammo was irrelevenet as the troops fired what was issued, which was already on clips. The clip was bar none the fastest reload, faster even than a box magazine (though the fewer rounds made reloading more often, offsetting this advantage).

It was the greatest rifle issued in WWII, so much better than the bolt guns issued to the common soldier of every other army, that it is better in WWII than the SMLE was in WWI.

Ash

kBob
June 27, 2007, 11:46 AM
Lets look at a few things.

The magazine of a M-1 Rifle holds eight rounds in a enbloc clip.

The magazine of a #4 or a SMLE each holds ten rounds naked.

To load an M-1 Rifle for use as a repeater requires the use of the enbloc clip.

The Enfields may be loaded either with two five shot strippers or single rounds to fill the magazine and the rifle once loaded fires normally without clips being available.

Sounds like the Lee Enfield has some advantages.

But wait.

Suppose one was in say combat rather than on the range. Lets take a 40 round engagement to look at.

Ammo for the Lee was generally carried in five round chargers or stripper clips.

Ammo for the M-1 was generally carried in 8 round enbloc clips.

Lets start with the rifle loaded when the need to fire 40 rounds occurs.

The Lee Enfield man flips off his safety and pulls his trigger and opens his bolt ten times, then reloads one clip, then another, closes his bolt and starts over.

To fire 40 rounds from his ready rifle requires he manipulates six clips which must also be removed from the rifle and works his bolt 39 times.

The M-1 Rifleman flips off his safety and pulls his trigger eight times, the bolt locks itself back, the empty clip is ejected and he loads one clip and manipulates the bolt to allow it to go forward and then repeats.

To fire 40 rounds from his ready rifle requires he manipulates four clips which are self ejecting and works his bolt 4 times.

Suddenly the Lee Enfield starts to look a bit shabby.

It is absolutley true that the M-1 Rifle can not be practiclly topped off with single rounds while partially loaded. On the other hand ejecting a partially loaded clip and replacing it with a fully loaded one is rather easy.

Anyone that has honestly done any rapid fire at multiple targets at under 50 yards against the clock can not believe that the Lee Enfield is as fast to use as and M-1 Rifle. It takes longer to reload fully with its “superior” ten round clip than the M-1 Rifle does with its “inferior” eight round one.

I have no doubt that there are Lee Enfield s that will shoot rings around an average issue M-1 Rifle.....and have no doubts that there are M-1 Rifles that will shot rings around the average LE of whatever model.

Some LEs had some pretty good sights on them. There were a host of different sights. Few were capable of being rezeroed to hit point of aim in the field and required an experienced shooter very familure with “Kentucky windage” and its application over different ranges and conditions. Sights ranged from the Parker Hale match sights to a crude non adjustable L type flip sight.

Every M-1 Rifle had Excellent sights on them. Every rifle could be easily zeroed and its range scale moved to allow accurate range adjustments for different engagements if necessary with either simple tools or just the rim of a fired cartridge. Windage was easily altered and there is a hatch mark scale and repeatable click system to allow resetting to windage zero.

For general issue to troops with average training the M-1 Rifle beats the over all LE family hands down.

Now as a US poster some of the commonwealth types are going to say I am biased to the M-1 Rifle because it is an ‘merican gun. Yes, one designed by a Canadian born designer. I guess you could say he was a very North American designer and leave it at that.

I would point out that the Lee Enfield uses the action and basic magazine design of a designer from the USA.

Yes , I do have more experience with the M-1 Rifle than the various LE Rifles. I have shot a number of the earlier SMLE long jobbers with the tangent rear sights though most of my experience with No.4 rifles was with only two rifles, a like new Savage and an “experienced” and mount stripped (T) variant that still shot quite well.

Having literally fired some of those rifles side by side with the M-1 and allowed the owners of some to shoot my M-1 of the moment, I will stand by my assertion that given the same training time and standards the M-1 made a given soldier a better, more useful soldier.

Thus the M-1 was the better rifle.

-Bob Hollingsworth

M1 Shooter
June 27, 2007, 12:04 PM
Lets look at a few things.

The magazine of a M-1 Rifle holds eight rounds in a enbloc clip.

The magazine of a #4 or a SMLE each holds ten rounds naked.

To load an M-1 Rifle for use as a repeater requires the use of the enbloc clip.

The Enfields may be loaded either with two five shot strippers or single rounds to fill the magazine and the rifle once loaded fires normally without clips being available.

Sounds like the Lee Enfield has some advantages.

But wait.

Suppose one was in say combat rather than on the range. Lets take a 40 round engagement to look at.

Ammo for the Lee was generally carried in five round chargers or stripper clips.

Ammo for the M-1 was generally carried in 8 round enbloc clips.

Lets start with the rifle loaded when the need to fire 40 rounds occurs.

The Lee Enfield man flips off his safety and pulls his trigger and opens his bolt ten times, then reloads one clip, then another, closes his bolt and starts over.

To fire 40 rounds from his ready rifle requires he manipulates six clips which must also be removed from the rifle and works his bolt 39 times.

The M-1 Rifleman flips off his safety and pulls his trigger eight times, the bolt locks itself back, the empty clip is ejected and he loads one clip and manipulates the bolt to allow it to go forward and then repeats.

To fire 40 rounds from his ready rifle requires he manipulates four clips which are self ejecting and works his bolt 4 times.

Suddenly the Lee Enfield starts to look a bit shabby.

It is absolutley true that the M-1 Rifle can not be practiclly topped off with single rounds while partially loaded. On the other hand ejecting a partially loaded clip and replacing it with a fully loaded one is rather easy.

Anyone that has honestly done any rapid fire at multiple targets at under 50 yards against the clock can not believe that the Lee Enfield is as fast to use as and M-1 Rifle. It takes longer to reload fully with its “superior” ten round clip than the M-1 Rifle does with its “inferior” eight round one.

I have no doubt that there are Lee Enfield s that will shoot rings around an average issue M-1 Rifle.....and have no doubts that there are M-1 Rifles that will shot rings around the average LE of whatever model.

Some LEs had some pretty good sights on them. There were a host of different sights. Few were capable of being rezeroed to hit point of aim in the field and required an experienced shooter very familure with “Kentucky windage” and its application over different ranges and conditions. Sights ranged from the Parker Hale match sights to a crude non adjustable L type flip sight.

Every M-1 Rifle had Excellent sights on them. Every rifle could be easily zeroed and its range scale moved to allow accurate range adjustments for different engagements if necessary with either simple tools or just the rim of a fired cartridge. Windage was easily altered and there is a hatch mark scale and repeatable click system to allow resetting to windage zero.

For general issue to troops with average training the M-1 Rifle beats the over all LE family hands down.

Now as a US poster some of the commonwealth types are going to say I am biased to the M-1 Rifle because it is an ‘merican gun. Yes, one designed by a Canadian born designer. I guess you could say he was a very North American designer and leave it at that.

I would point out that the Lee Enfield uses the action and basic magazine design of a designer from the USA.

Yes , I do have more experience with the M-1 Rifle than the various LE Rifles. I have shot a number of the earlier SMLE long jobbers with the tangent rear sights though most of my experience with No.4 rifles was with only two rifles, a like new Savage and an “experienced” and mount stripped (T) variant that still shot quite well.

Having literally fired some of those rifles side by side with the M-1 and allowed the owners of some to shoot my M-1 of the moment, I will stand by my assertion that given the same training time and standards the M-1 made a given soldier a better, more useful soldier.

Thus the M-1 was the better rifle.

-Bob Hollingsworth

A big +1!!
Amen brother!! I couldn't have said it better myself.

Shell Shucker
June 27, 2007, 11:44 PM
Ash and KBOB, Great posts! I knew the M-1 was a lot more user friendly (more fire power) before you posted. I just didn't do the math. 39 bolt manipulations and 6 reloads vs 4 reloads/bolt manipulations per 40 rounds and simply pull the trigger...... WOW!

jaholder1971
June 28, 2007, 01:13 AM
Bottom Line: I don't care. In the face of egomaniac Germans hell bent on creating a Master race of literal Barbie and Ken Doll type humans at the expense of the rest of the planet I'll take either rifle as long as you keep the right caliber ammo coming!

Picknlittle
June 28, 2007, 08:42 AM
I watched a program on the military channel the other night. Top Ten Military Rifles of All Time, or something to that effect.

At any rate, the Garand came in about 4th I think. #1 was the AK-47. It was a really interesting piece. I don't know if there is a place you can check out Mil Channel archives or not. Last night was Top Ten Tanks. Cool!:)

Picknlittle
June 28, 2007, 08:47 AM
Found the site.

http://military.discovery.com/convergence/topten/rifles/slideshow/slideshow.html

The list is numbered backward here. The images numbered 1-10 are in reverse order of the way they were ranked.

If you enjoyed reading about "Which WAS better army rifle of its time?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!