Enfield or Garand

Status
Not open for further replies.
GBExpat said:
What is not clear from this is that the Lee-Enfield only needs one magazine. If you want to speed up loading of that installed-in-the-rifle magazine, get some milsurp .303 chargers (a.k.a., stripperclips).

Anyone that uses/carries multiple magazines for reloading their Lee-Enfield is a rare (and, perhaps, ignorant) bird.
Click to expand...

Not really, but thanks for the non-THR compliment.

Magazines for the Lee-Enfield are often missing, have damaged feeding lips, and are ultimately expendable items. The cost and difficulty of getting new, unissued, magazines to replace an old one is now around $50-60 dollars and up. Even used and worn ones are bringing $35-40 dollars now and many used rifle parts websites no longer have them in regular stock. Garand clips were a dollar or two the last I checked and repros are still being produced. If a Garand clip gets damaged, then throw away. A Lee Enfield magazine, not so much.

Pro-Mags replacement magazines for the No. 1 and No. 4 are not very good and will subtract value from a rifle with one. Sarco has recently introduced replacement magazines that I have not used nor have any opinion about. The rimmed nature of the .303 requires good quality magazines to avoid things like rimlock and feeding issues. It is a fact, that those are getting scarce. Unless you know what to look for or the person kindly allows you to put something like snap caps in a Lee-Enfield's magazine, you will not necessarily know that the magazine needs to be replaced absent obvious damage to the feed lips.

There is a reason that British soldiers were issued a spare magazine. If the original magazine gets damaged, then you have a single shot rifle absent another good one. For better or worse, Mausers nor Garands have that issue.
 
boom boom said:
1917 Rifles and their P14 counterparts are a whole nother kettle of fish are are Mauser variants rather than the Lee-Enfield type of action. These are probably the most rugged Mauser variants every available as an issued rifle and are ridiculously overbuilt for the British .303 round.
Click to expand...
+1 on this. I think the M1917 and M1093A3 are the best all around Milsurp for the beginner. Good metallurgy, low maintainance, and ability to fire modern, easy-to-find ammo.
 
GBExpat said:
Like this:
Click to expand...
That's right.

The style of clip illustrated is the Mark II. Mark III's have 5 round holes on each side, and Mark IV's have 4 holes (on some, all are round, but on most, the hole on the spring end is elongated ).

It's not clear why the Italians opted to make Mark III chargers when the Mark IV's were already around for a long time. The Mark III chargers are clearly inferior.

One good thing the Italians did in connection with their postwar-issued Enfields was to make "patrol pouches" for the Pattern 37 web gear, that had 3 pockets each instead of just 2. That meant that the ammo load, for soldiers equipped with the patrol pouches, increased from 40 rounds to 60 rounds. (The British preferred the large, rectangular "universal" pouches that could hold Bren magazines, grenades, etc., as well as bandoleers of rounds on stripper clips. The Bren gun was the base of fire in a British infantry squad, and most soldiers carried extra magazines for the Bren gun.)
 
GBExpat said:
Anyone that uses/carries multiple magazines for reloading their Lee-Enfield is a rare (and, perhaps, ignorant) bird.
Click to expand...

boom boom said:
Not really, but thanks for the non-THR compliment.
Click to expand...

NIGHTLORD40K said:
That was uncalled for, GB. Boom Boom may be rare, but he is certainly not ignorant.:fire:
Click to expand...

???

Oh Good Grief !

Ignorant: lacking knowledge, information, or awareness about something in particular.

There are many Enfield n00bs who erroneously think that you are supposed to use Enfield mags like you use, say, AR15 mags.

Referring to them as being ignorant of that is not pejorative in nature, it is simply stating a fact, guys.
 
The magazine on the SMLE is the same idea as on the M14/M1A. To be left in the rifle and recharged with rounds from a stripper clip.
 
GBExpat said:
???

Oh Good Grief !

Ignorant: lacking knowledge, information, or awareness about something in particular.

There are many Enfield n00bs who erroneously think that you are supposed to use Enfield mags like you use, say, AR15 mags.

Referring to them as being ignorant of that is not pejorative in nature, it is simply stating a fact, guys.
Click to expand...

GBExpat, I am bemused. :scrutiny:

The English have a great reputation, deservedly so, about subtlety in their speech and I am making perhaps an unwarranted assumption that your origin is English rather than Scottish, Irish, or Welsh. I hope that in the interest of comity, that any misattribution of your ancestry in the following post will not raise your ire, nor provoke the dreaded curse of Great Britain, "Good Grief" , which can have so many unfortunate connotations. Unfortunately, the great subtlety of the English is also the cause of much misunderstanding in intercultural communications as witnessed in the present case. On the other hand, Americans have the reputation of bluntness causing us to respond before fully analyzing the majesty of imprecision in the language employed in the communication.

Characterizing someone as ignorant is indeed negative without sufficient evidence to support it. Now, if a disinterested observer wants to determine with geometric precision whether the word 'ignorant' is pejorative, which would indicate contempt or disapproval, we should analyze the usage within the context used to determine whether your usage of the term ignorant is pejorative in the specific case listed above. This requires a careful examination of the words in English slang, so to speak. Two definitions of the term 'bird' appear repeatedly upon perusal of the interweb. Bird, apparently in the most common usage in English slang, which according to the vast majesty of the interwebs, can either refer to a woman or less commonly doing time in a jail. Thus, deconstructing your sentence scientifically, " . . . a rare (and, perhaps ignorant) bird." would read upon further analysis to say. . . a rare (meaning unusual or atypical), (and, perhaps ignorant (lacking of knowledge)) bird (woman as the context does not indicate use as a term in jail or prison). "

However, in your defense, it must be said, "Anyone" may or may not refer to the OP as the subject of your description because of the lack of precision in your post. As the OP is not feeling female today nor particularly ignorant of the facts involved in dispute and feeling well done instead of rare, the OP cannot hold your imprecision against you. Thus, this inquiry holds the original indictment of "non-THR" compliment using the Scottish verdict of "Not Proven" milord.

In other words, no harm, no foul.
:)
 
boom boom said:
GBExpat, I am bemused. :scrutiny:

The English have a great reputation, deservedly so, about subtlety in their speech and I am making perhaps an unwarranted assumption that your origin is English rather than Scottish, Irish, or Welsh. I hope that in the interest of comity, that any misattribution of your ancestry in the following post will not raise your ire, nor provoke the dreaded curse of Great Britain, "Good Grief" , which can have so many unfortunate connotations. Unfortunately, the great subtlety of the English is also the cause of much misunderstanding in intercultural communications as witnessed in the present case. On the other hand, Americans have the reputation of bluntness causing us to respond before fully analyzing the majesty of imprecision in the language employed in the communication.

Characterizing someone as ignorant is indeed negative without sufficient evidence to support it. Now, if a disinterested observer wants to determine with geometric precision whether the word 'ignorant' is pejorative, which would indicate contempt or disapproval, we should analyze the usage within the context used to determine whether your usage of the term ignorant is pejorative in the specific case listed above. This requires a careful examination of the words in English slang, so to speak. Two definitions of the term 'bird' appear repeatedly upon perusal of the interweb. Bird, apparently in the most common usage in English slang, which according to the vast majesty of the interwebs, can either refer to a woman or less commonly doing time in a jail. Thus, deconstructing your sentence scientifically, " . . . a rare (and, perhaps ignorant) bird." would read upon further analysis to say. . . a rare (meaning unusual or atypical), (and, perhaps ignorant (lacking of knowledge)) bird (woman as the context does not indicate use as a term in jail or prison). "

However, in your defense, it must be said, "Anyone" may or may not refer to the OP as the subject of your description because of the lack of precision in your post. As the OP is not feeling female today nor particularly ignorant of the facts involved in dispute and feeling well done instead of rare, the OP cannot hold your imprecision against you. Thus, this inquiry holds the original indictment of "non-THR" compliment using the Scottish verdict of "Not Proven" milord.

In other words, no harm, no foul.
:)
Click to expand...
Bully good show, old sport!
 
That read like a House of Commons debate transcript! Good show, lads!

As the owner of two Garands ( One in standard issue, but not 100% stock, shape and one that is polished, blued and shiny for parade or Honor Guard use) and a #4 "US Property" Lee-Enfield, you can't go wrong with either one...

Stay safe!
 
Last edited:
I grew up shooting Lee-Enfields ... loads and loads of Lee-Enfields ... and really enjoyed the experience, so that was the main reason why I bought one. I didn't grow up shooting Garands and that's probably the reason that I don't own one. I've shot a Garand in a service rifle match and enjoyed the experience, but not enough to buy one. I would buy another Lee-Enfield though ... they really are superb examples of bolt action battle rifles with so much history behind them.

Out if interest, did the Garand evolve much over its lifetime or was it pretty much squared away from day one?
 
mainecoon said:
I want to get a vintage rifle and am trying to decide between an Enfield or a Garand. I'm also not sure which is the "best" caliber to get for an Enfield - I just like the look of the wood. Any suggestions?
Click to expand...

I own a few of both. Not bragging, that is just what I do as a hobby, collect WW1 & WW2 firearms.
The Garand not only will be the best $ investment it is easy to reload, accurate, & [ in my opinion ] the best
looking battle rifle ever made. Not only is it American made it also saved the British Enfield from being a
captured weapon by the German Mauser troops.
But if you decide on an Enfield let me point you to a version made in India, I have one
made in 1967, in 308 nato caliber & it is more accurate then any 303 I own. Also it is
better looking & works just like the British version. I am looking at it but can't find
much except = RIFLE 762mm 2A1 R.F.I. 1967
 
Last edited:
Both are really cool rifles, but I would go with a Garand. Check out the CMP and see what you can find... I got mine from them a few years ago, so I don't know what you'll be able to find right now. Love the cartridge too. haha 30.06 really hits like a hammer to me because I mostly shoot 5.56.
 
ACES&8S said:
I own a few of both. Not bragging, that is just what I do as a hobby, collect WW1 & WW2 firearms.
The Garand not only will be the best $ investment it is easy to reload, accurate, & [ in my opinion ] the best
looking battle rifle ever made. Not only is it American made it also saved the British Enfield from being a
captured weapon by the German Mauser troops.
But if you decide on an Enfield let me point you to a version made in India, I have one
made in 1967, in 308 nato caliber & it is more accurate then any 303 I own. Also it is
better looking & works just like the British version. I am looking at it but can't find
much except = RIFLE 762mm 2A1 R.F.I. 1967
Click to expand...

You mean one of these
 

Attachments

  • IMG_20170823_171213_849.jpg
    IMG_20170823_171213_849.jpg
    140 KB · Views: 11
MCMXI said:
I grew up shooting Lee-Enfields ... loads and loads of Lee-Enfields ... and really enjoyed the experience, so that was the main reason why I bought one. I didn't grow up shooting Garands and that's probably the reason that I don't own one. I've shot a Garand in a service rifle match and enjoyed the experience, but not enough to buy one. I would buy another Lee-Enfield though ... they really are superb examples of bolt action battle rifles with so much history behind them.

Out if interest, did the Garand evolve much over its lifetime or was it pretty much squared away from day one?
Click to expand...

js8588 said:
Or an M1917 Enfield...
Click to expand...

I grew up shooting a Lee-Enfield and 1903A. Garands have never interested me much. When I buy a firearm the resale or investment value doesn’t come in to play, I don’t even think about it and could care less.

If I were to purchase any military firearm today it would be a 1917 Enfield. Don’t know why but they are what I like the best.
 
cdb1 said:
I grew up shooting a Lee-Enfield and 1903A. Garands have never interested me much. When I buy a firearm the resale or investment value doesn’t come in to play, I don’t even think about it and could care less.

If I were to purchase any military firearm today it would be a 1917 Enfield. Don’t know why but they are what I like the best.
Click to expand...

This thread has me about commited to buying one. I don't own a 30-06 & I probably should.
 
MCMXI said:
Out if interest, did the Garand evolve much over its lifetime or was it pretty much squared away from day one?
Click to expand...
The very earliest ones used a Gas Trap annular piston- but this was soon scrapped in favor of a more conventional design. Many one-off prototypes of various features were tried on the M1 platform by Army Ordnance, but the production version remained almost unchanged throughout with only very minor shortcuts such as the stamped trigger guard replacing the milled version, some differences in wood, the relief-cut in the op-rod to prevent stress cracks, etcetera.

Unless you want get into minutiae, there is little to differentiate one Garand from another.

Now M1 Carbines, on the other hand, are a WHOLE 'nother story! :what::D
 
P5 Guy said:
The magazine on the SMLE is the same idea as on the M14/M1A. To be left in the rifle and recharged with rounds from a stripper clip.
Click to expand...
Not really. M14's were carried with a complement of magazines. They would be changed routinely. M14 magazines could reloaded with clips on the rifle, or, using an adapter, off the rifle.

SMLE magazines were considered an integral part of the gun (some were even stamped with the gun's serial number). Not so with M14 magazines. M14 magazines are analogous to M16 magazines, except that they have the additional capability of being reloaded on the gun (unless the gun has a scope mount).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

C
  • Locked
Lee Enfield VS M1 Garand?
2
Replies
40
Views
7K
mljdeckard
mljdeckard
H
  • Locked
My new rifles!
Replies
1
Views
445
Kind of Blued
K
C
  • Locked
Which Enfield?
2
Replies
25
Views
1K
Gun Wielding Maniac
G
J
  • Locked
Which to buy...
Replies
10
Views
595
Cuda
C
M
  • Locked
Tanker Enfield
Replies
16
Views
3K
Mumbles_45
M
Back
Top