[MP-44]

I have only had experience with the Enfield, Nagant & the Mauser 98K. out of those three I would say the Enfield. 10rd mag, smooth action, faster safety and a superior sights.

[Bainx]

Yes, I would agree, Enfield. The Mauser is wonderfull. The Mosin is great. But, the Enfield is tremendous!

[Andrew Wyatt]

At least in the NUmber 4 variant, the sights, trigger and bolt manipulation on the enfield are much beter than the mauser.

I like the enfield best.

[T.Stahl]

For battle, the Enfield No.4.

[Snake Jenkins]

Enfield No.4 , then Springfield 1903/1903A3

Snake

[thumbtack]

Enfield No4 gets my vote, then Mauser, then the 1903.

[BHP9]

Best Military Bolt Action?

Here is what one of the worlds greatest gun smiths found out. His name was P.O. Ackley and he did not speculate from an ivory tower but carried out a lot of down to earth real life tests. Here is what he found.

The strongest , best designed military bolt action every made was the 6.5 Japanese Arisaka followed by the 7.7 Arisaka.

Although the steel used was not quite as good as other military bolt guns the design was superior even to the World Famous 98 Mauser the action by which all other bolt actions are judged even to this day.

The firing pin was huge and very rugged and the accuracy on par with the best of the 98 Mauser Rifles.

My own 7.7 Arisaka with a mint bore is super accurate even with cast bullets.

The Jap rifles were the only military rifles that P.O. Ackley just could not totaly destroy with over loads. All the other military bolt guns were blown up and destroyed from overloads.

One little know fact was that the American 1917 Enfield 3006 made by Eddystone was made with very brittle recievers just like the the early 1903 Springfield rifles. And the Remington Enfields were made with quite soft recievers that often stretched causing dangerous excess headspace.

P.O. Ackley also mentions that the two piece firing pin of the 1903 Springfield was very dangerous if the gun was fired with an overload because if the front portion of the two piece firing pin broke off the rear portion of the firing pin along with the cocking piece would rocket out the rear of the bolt with fatal results to the shooter.

The Lee-enfield was a rapid fire bolt gun but lacked the accuracy necessary for long range sniping and its strength was far weaker due to its rear locking action.

The Lee-enfield firing pin required a special tool for removal as compared to the instant removal with no tools of many of the other military bolt guns like the 98 mauser , Jap Arisaka, 1903 Springfield etc.

A good reference for military bolt guns can be found in two classic books.

1. Bolt Action Rifles by Frank de Haas

2. Handbook for Shooters and Reloaders Vol. 1 by P.O. Ackley

When one consideres reliablilty, overal workmanship, accuracy , gas escape systems and easy of disassembly and repair I would rate the following military guns in this order.


1. 98 Mauser King of the Bolt guns both Military and Commercial right down to this very day. Nothing but nothing comes close to the design , safety , reliabilty, durability and workmanship and accuracy.


2. The Japanese Arisaka rifles come very close, with the early 6.5 models being very well made rifles.

3. The American 1917 Enfield

4, and 5. The British Enfields and the American 1903 Springfield
rifles.,Russian Mosins.

[BHP9]

1

[cratz2]

I'd have to throw in another vote of the S.M.L.E. Nice smooth action. Just about everyone I've ever pulled the trigger on has a nice trigger.

The 1903 series and the Mausers are also nice. Nagants are very good for the money esp the unissued Polish M44 Carbines.

That's the nice things about surplus rifles. Except for the 1903s you can afford one of each and a case of ammo for each and make up your own mind from experience. :D

[Okiecruffler]

My vote goes for the Mosins. Maybe it's because I shoot them more often, but I think they're faster. Yeah, yeah I know Enfields shoot 10 shots in 0.3 seconds. But that cocking on closing thing still feels weird to me.

[Wildalaska]

The criteria for a military rifle is that it goes bang every time you pull the trigger, that it can hit the target within the parameters set by the tactical doctrine of the military, that it is rugged and easily repairable.

That means the Enfield, the choice by the way of most experts in the field.

Thbat also means the AK too, sorry guys...

[jacks308]

Even though the cock on closing feels weird I like the Enfields . The 4 best then the 1 . As long as the barrel is close to what groove diameter is it works well with the modern or surplus ammo and accurate enough to keep me happy . Sights are good too .

Jack

[Dave Markowitz]

For military use, the No.4 Mk.I Lee-Enfield.

-Short action.
-Rear locking lugs make action shorter still.
-SMOOTH, fast action.
-10 shot magazine.
-Excellent battle sites.
-You can clean out the locking lug recesses with your shirt tail if need be.
-Accurate (let's not consider the worn out beaters, let's look at one in good shape).
-The loose chambers allow you to reliably deal with dirty ammo.
-Handles gas EXTREMELY well. You can have a complete case head separation in a No.4 and not know it until you open the bolt.
-Good safety design.
-.303 Mk.VII terminal ballistics are nasty, due to the aluminum or carboard tip inside the bullet jacket, which make the bullet longer than it would otherwise, resulting in rapid tumbling.

I've shot my No.4 Mk.I on the PANG pop-up course at Ft. Indiantown Gap out to 300M, against guys armed with M-1s, and I beat a bunch of them. And I shoot left-handed, too.

[Bostonterrier97]

Heh! Lee Enfield!

10 Round Detachable Magazine
Rear Apeture Sight
Short Throw, Fast Action
Rear Locking Lugs making it easier to keep clean
Oversize Chamber ensuring Reliability
Butt Trap for storing Cleaning Gear
Removable Bolt Head which can be replaced as Headspace changes.

[Badger Arms]

I submitted a poll along this line because I am too lazy to read these replies. I like statistics.

[jem375]

Did you guys forget about the Swede M96?.....this is possibly the most accurate military bolt action, then followed by the Enfield 303......although my Enfield will give my swede trouble out to 100-150 yards with 150 gr. bullets, but, after that it is all swede......

[jem375]

Did you guys forget about the Swede M96?.....this is possibly the most accurate military bolt action, then followed by the Enfield 303......although my Enfield will give my swede trouble out to 100-150 yards with 150 gr. bullets, but, after that it is all swede......:evil:

[jem375]

Did you guys forget about the Swede M96?.....this is possibly the most accurate military bolt action, then followed by the Enfield 303......although my Enfield will give my swede trouble out to 100-150 yards with 150 gr. bullets, but, after that it is all swede......:evil:

[jem375]

Did you guys forget about the Swede M96?.....this is possibly the most accurate military bolt action, then followed by the Enfield 303......although my Enfield will give my swede trouble out to 100-150 yards with 150 gr. bullets, but, after that it is all swede......:evil:

[swingset]

Tho I'm entirely partial to Commonwealth bolt actions (SMLE's primarily), I would have to put aside my beloved No4's and No1's in favor of a better service bolt action....

The Swiss Schmidt Rubin K-31.

Fast, easy action (arguably faster than the No1 Enfield).
Accurate as can be (nearly every one I've own or seen shot is incredibly accurate for a milsurp).
Superb triggers (probably the best on any service bolt spare snipers).
Easy, rugged and fast to strip and clean.
Great ammo (the GP-11 is the best milsurp out there, even handloaders have a hard time beating it).
Easy to accurize or tune with modest skills.

Nothing better in the field, IMHO. Too bad it wasn't battle tested in Europe, I think more people would be believers had it repelled Hitler.

[GrantLee63]

The K-31 hands down! Regarding speed of operation, check out this link:

http://pub125.ezboard.com/fcollectorguns35625frm1.showMessage?topicID=5163.topic

[jem375]

sorry guys, have no idea why the triple post..............but, the swede M96 has been known as the most accurate military bolt action around for a long time....very few military bolts will even come close to it........:banghead:

[jem375]

sorry guys, have no idea why the triple post..............but, the swede M96 has been known as the most accurate military bolt action around for a long time....very few military bolts will even come close to it........:banghead:

[jem375]

sorry about the triple post, guys.............The Swede M96 has been known as the most accurate military bolt action rifle for many years..............very few other military bolts can touch it for accuracy........that long,long, bullet helps a lot...........

[Mike Irwin]

There was a saying after WW I, that I believe Julian Hatcher recounted in his Notebook...

The Germans had the best hunting rifle, the Americans the best target rifle, and the British the best battle rifle.

The Arisaka action may be strong, but it's rough, clunky, and ergonomically it stinks.

The Carcano and Lebel actions? (Where did the barfy icon go?)

The Moisin Nagant? Solid and workable.

The Schmidt-Rubin actions are nice, but lack primary extraction if you have a sticky case. More than once I had to stand on the bolt handle of my 1911 to get it open.

The Swedish Mausers? Thoroughly under appreciated until recently.

If I were going into battle with a bolt action rifle, though?

A Lee-Enfield, hands down.

[Freedom in theSkies]

The No. 4 Mk1 is truly a great rifle. The ease of field stripping and inherent accuracy are testament. The Inuit Rangers in Canada`s arctic region are still issued with èm. It might just be due to the exellence of the design and the performance in very harsh conditions.

[fallingblock]

If you can get one of the postwar #4MK2's, they are everything a bolt-action battle rifle should be:)

With the benefits of peacetime manufacture included.

[BHP9]

I was suprised by all of the people who chose the British Enfield but I suppose I should not have been. Lee-Enfields have always been low in price and a lot of people own them. People tend to like what they are familiar with and shy away from what they are not familiar with.

The best hint is the number of nations that adopted the 98 Mauser. It was by far the most prolific military rifle of the last century and for many good reasons.

For people who have large military collections and are well read and familiar with all the military rifles the Mauser is considered the standard by which all other military bolt actions are judged.

Early pre-war guns and South American contract guns had workmanship that was as smooth as glass, outstanding accuracy that beat the British Enfields without even half trying and a gas escape system that is unbeaten even to this day compared to all the competition. Ease of disassembly also beat the British Enfield.

Both guns were reliable but the Enfield failed in the accuracy department and also in the safety and strength department as compared to the Mauser.

Its extractor was adequate but way inferior to the massive Mauser extractor that actually bites in deeper when a case is stuck. The Mauser extractor will not slip off of a stuck case but I have seen Enfield extractors slip off.

For those interested in the technical aspect of military rifles read the following books.

1.Handbook for Shooters and Reloaders by P.O. Ackley.

2. Bolt Action Rifles by Frank de Haas.


For those who mentioned the Swiss K31, it was a superbly accurate gun, had a great trigger pull and out of this world workmanship but failed as a military rifle.

Its action was lacking in the caming power needed to remove a stuck case and it was suseptable to stoppages when contaiminated with debrie because of the open track in the bolt.

The most suprising thing about the straight pull action is that it is awkward to operate and travels way to far to the rear resulting in a weapon that is actually slower to operate than the 98 Mauser.

The rifles firing pin will even fall if the action is not closed all the way and although most of the time it will not fire out of battery it could if one encountered a sensistive primer or if one had a K31 that mechanically was well worn.

The bolt handle was mounted on a very thin piece of weak sheet metal and I have seen many of them with bent handles after they had been dropped putting the gun out of commission

[MP-44]

Any experts of the opinion that the No. 4 could have been improved by being chambered for different round ( 6.5 swede, 7mm mauser or? ...) or was there not much to be gained?

[Art Eatman]

There's a reason so many custom rifles were built on Mauser 98 actions brought back from WW II. And, not only was it a good platform, it was readily made aesthetically pleasing with just a little work on the bolt.

A drawback to the Lee-Enfield is the cartridge. It just doesn't have the "Oomph" of either the .30-'06 or the 8mm Mauser.

Art

[RON in PA]

One more for the #4 rifle, especially in its final form, the peacetime manufactured #4mk2.

To the Mauser lovers: Remember we are talking battle rifles here, not sporters. As one who has had a few case head separations in a #4, gas handling is excellent, you don't know it happened until you open the bolt. Mausers are better for reloaders.

Yes, Mausers were adapted by most of the world's armies for a couple of reasons. For one Mauser (DWM) was a commercial establishment with a large sales force while the Enfield was a product of a government arsenal (as were most bolt actions of that era). Also at the time Germans were considered the emmenent military and their advisors were all over the world teaching the goose step (esp. China, Turkey and South America).

[Mike Irwin]

"The best hint is the number of nations that adopted the 98 Mauser. It was by far the most prolific military rifle of the last century and for many good reasons."

That's actually sort of misleading phrased like that.

The "level playing field" didn't exist between the Mauser and the Lee-Enfield.

The Mauser was introduced and manufactured by a private company, Mauserwerke, which supplied rifles to the Germany military and other nations of the world on a contract basis. They were in the business to sell as many rifles as possible to as many customers as possible.

Mauser had much the same status that Smith & Wesson did when S&W was selling revolvers to the German, Japanese, and Russian militaries in the 1800s.

The Lee-Enfield, on the other hand, was property of the state, made by state-owned arsenals in Britain and the Commonwealth or by manufacturers contracted to make the rifle. There was no pressure to increase sales by selling to every possible nation. The only pressure was to make enough rifles to arm the British Army and Commonwealth troops.

Unlike the Mauser rifle, the Lee-Enfield was never shopped around the world.

[Mike Irwin]

Art:

"A drawback to the Lee-Enfield is the cartridge. It just doesn't have the "Oomph" of either the .30-'06 or the 8mm Mauser."

One question...

Did it really NEED to have the power of those rounds?

Apparently not, as most nations with the full-power .30-cal.+- rounds started looking at reduced power rounds in the years after WW I.

Most of that power was simply wasted on contemporary battlefields of the time.

BH:

"Both guns were reliable but the Enfield failed in the accuracy department and also in the safety and strength department as compared to the Mauser."

Valid points, but one needs to judge them critically again to see whether that really makes one better or worse.

The Enfield "failed" in the accuracy department because a higher emphasis was put on reliability and smoothness of operation. The British were probably the first to appreciate the fact that you don't need a laser beam out to 2000 meters to make a good battle rifle.

In practical terms, the Lee-Enfield really gives up nothing to the Mauser, Springfield, etc., in the field of combat accuracy.

And, if you take into account different sights, some of the peep-sight equipped L-Es may be MORE accurate than the Mausers with the leaf sight. Leaf sights that far away from the eye stink for accuracy shooting.

I'm not sure why you consider the L-Es to be a failure in the safety and strength categories, though. They were perfectly safe and strong for use with the issue military cartridge. I've seen far more blown Mauser actions than I have L-E actions due to people rechambering older small-rings for high intensity cartridges, but precious few blown or damaged Mauser or L-E actions when used with military-type ammo.

I've never had a stuck case with either a Mauser or a L-E, so I'll have to take your word on that, but I can only say that the L-E extractor was pretty much unchanged over nearly 70 years, so it must have worked.


I'm surprised, though, that no one has mentioned the one true drawback of the L-Es.

The rimmed cartridge. If not loaded into the magazine properly, rimlock. Luckily, though, that was a rare condition.


MP-44:

I'm not sure that there would have been much gained. Just prior to WW I the British were looking at replacing the L-E with a modified Mauser design (yes, yes, I know! :)) firing a 7mm caliber rimless round, but the outbreak of war made that impossible.

That rifle, however, did form the basis for the US Model 1917 rifle, though.

[Wildalaska]

Hey the way to judge is by looking out who won the wars...the guys with the Enfields or the guys with the Mausers..:)

Case closed.

[Mike Irwin]

Uh...

Well, the Americans and Japanese in WW I were fielding Mauser-based rifles, and they won.

In WW II the Americans still fielded some Mauser-based rifles, but this time the Japanese were on the other side.

Looks to be as clear as mud. :)

Unless you're German. And then life just couldn't suck any worse. :D

[Art Eatman]

Mike, sorry for thinking the point was obvious. Gunsmiths of the post WW II period had the choice of most any action ever made, by anybody, anywhere. They chose what they thought was the best combination of strength, reliability and smoothness. And, for me, it's hard to argue against the Mauser on those points. A question might be why these qualities are not important in a battle rifle...

As far as ammo, I'm biased toward "reasonably" flat shooting, avoiding magnum .30s. I guess that's why I choose the '06 over the 8mm Mauser. Same for either over the .303 British. As far as battlefield condidtions, a bit more power might turn some enemy's cover into merely concealment...

As far as why who won which war, that's been obvious since the War of Yankee Aggression: That country with the most factories which remain intact.

:), Art

[Mike Irwin]

And just a teeny tiny bit more power than that might turn an enemy tank into a perforated death-trap, Art. :D

I think to the largest degree that's really a non-sequitor, though.

The basic rifle rounds used by the major European combatants had more than enough power to deal with any logical battlefield condition.

I'm sure there were times when everyone wished for a more powerful round, just as they probably wished for a round that kicked less, or wished that they had artillery support...

[BHP9]

Yes, Mausers were adapted by most of the world's armies for a couple of reasons. For one Mauser (DWM) was a commercial establishment with a large sales force while the Enfield was a product of a government arsenal (as were most bolt actions of that era). Also at the time Germans were considered the emmenent military and their advisors were all over the world teaching the goose step (esp. China, Turkey and South America).

The Lee-Enfield, on the other hand, was property of the state, made by state-owned arsenals in Britain and the Commonwealth or by manufacturers contracted to make the rifle. There was no pressure to increase sales by selling to every possible nation. The only pressure was to make enough rifles to arm the British Army and Commonwealth troops

Both Mike and Ron make a good point that is very valid But, the worlds armorers study and copy the best of the best and the Japanese copied the 98 mauser not the Enfield. Many nations also produced their own Mausers and did not buy them from Germany, they did not produce the Enfield.

Another example is the nations that either produced or copied or made a lot of modifications to the world famous AK 47. Very few did this to the AR15. Another example of Nations copying or modifying and using the best of the best. 98 Mauser in the bolt guns and AK in the auto's.

[Mike Irwin]

BH9,

The Japanese adopted the Arisaka on a Mauser action largely because at that time Japan was patterning their Army on German concepts, tactics, and equipment.

Mauser also, IIRC, supplied technical assistance and possibly machinery to the Japanese to get the Tokyo arsenal set up to manufacture the rifles.

But, that certainly wasn't a guarantee that the Japanese would pick "the best of the best." Hell, look which machine guns they chose to copy... French Hotchkiss designs, which while servicable, certainly can't be considered to be the best.

The Japanese did the much the same with their Navy -- patterned it after western principles, in this case Britain's.

Part of the reason why so many small nations did adopt Mauser designs, even if they manufactured them themselves, was that Mauser was very accommodating with technical help and equipment.

I don't think the AK-47 example is really quite valid, either.

Those nations that manufactured the AK-47 were, for the most part, Soviet puppets or otherwise Communist regimes. Soviet Warsaw Pact doctrine heavily discouraged the use of home grown weapons.

Those Soviet-friendly, but non-Communist, nations that adopted the AK-47, but which didn't manufacture it, such as Egypt, Iraq, Peru, Syria, and others, didn't do so because they thought it was the best. They did so largely because the Soviets were totally and complete profligate in giving them away.

Quite literally, if you could fog a mirror and could say "I Love Lenin!" in any language, you got a crate of AK-47s.

In other words, why pay the United States for what you can get for free from the Soviet Union?

[fallingblock]

of "Best Military Bolt Action", You folks praising the military Mausers try and rapid-fire a muddy M98 from the shoulder and then try the same with an Enfield. Sure the Mauser has a stronger action and makes a nice sporter, but it is not the Enfield's better as a battle rifle.:D

[cratz2]

So we could nomnate the Ishapore 2A chambered in 7.62 NATO to make up for the defencies of the .303 ammo and keep the virtues of the Enfield design.

I think an SMLE in handloaded pressure 6.5x55, 7x57 or even 257 Roberts +P AI would be excellent! But rechambering/boltfacing for these cartridges would be preventative. Guess the .303 and the .308 will have to suffice for the time being.

[BHP9]

Those nations that manufactured the AK-47 were, for the most part, Soviet puppets or otherwise Communist regimes. Soviet Warsaw Pact doctrine heavily discouraged the use of home grown weapons.

I think that I would have to both agree and disagree with you on this one.

When Israel was looking for the best of the best they tested every battle rifle known and they came to the conclusion that a modification of the Ak47 would be the rifle for them and so was born the Iraeli Galil.

The Swiss did the same thing and made a modification to the basic AK rifle and came up with the Sig530 rifle.

If you look at the Belgium FNC it also was also nothing more than a modification of the AK system.

I would have to say again the best weapons are the ones that are copied or modified and then used by the majority of the nations of the world.