Enfield vs. Mauser

I voted Mauser because it took Enfield + GARAND to beat a Mauser...

The question is "for what". The Mauser is far superior as a general rifle platform because it can be turned into virtually anything and is incredibly strong. But I'd say the SMLE is superior as a battle rifle because of its higher capacity and faster action.

What cosmoline said.

Enfield just because I'm partial to the action in SMLEs over Mausers.

Enfield, for the reasons Cosmoline enumerated.

I've got examples of both and they are both fine rifles.

Enfield

I have shot both and if I was in WWII I would prefer the crude but still pretty accurate Enfield. 10 rounds beats 5 when you drop your stripper clips.

Mauser for me

I prefer the Mauser action. The Lee-Enfield is faster and holds more cartridges but I think the Mauser design is superior in the reliability department. And it points and carries better, for me.

9mmepiphany........ taking a line from The 13th Warrior. "I can't lift this!" (reply) "Grow stronger!"


The Lee-Enfield is barely a pound heavier than a stock M16A2 and it's actually LIGHTER than an M4 carbine with all the crap on it (scope, laser designator, Surefire)... those are around 12lbs.

The M4 is a bit shorter but just as heavy. The Lee-Enfield is my preferred rifle, especially if you know how to work the action from the shoulder properly. I would be fine with a Mauser, but I prefer the Lee-Enfield.

The length can be a bit much for house clearing etc but in the field, the length is no big deal.

Had WWI not interfered with procurement plans, the British Army would've replaced the Lee-Enfield with the Enfield P-14, which was more Mauser like than SMLE like - five round internal mag, front locking two lug Mauser action etc.

The Mauser was a more robust weapon with the stronger action and more durable one piece stock. The rimless amunitions Mauser rifles used were perfectly suited for the machinegun revolution afoot. If I were arming a pre-WWI army this would be the rifle I'd choose.

The reason the SMLE was so fast to fire was the rear locking mechanism and position of the bolt handle allowed the shooter to work the bolt with the thumb and forefinger, and shoot with the middlefinger. This took much practice and it was tiring. The British troops developed a stamina for rapid fire through hard training. But once machineguns are in the equation, how important was rapid rifle fire?

The advantages of the SMLE is only useful if you have a highly trained professional army. Being as WWI required quickly trained mass conscriptions the SMLE's usefulness is negated. After one year on the Western front the professional British Army was all but wiped out.

The old saw was that the Germans had the best hunting rifle (98 Mauser), that the Americans had the best target rifle (M1903) , and the Brits had the best battle rifle (SMLE).

The Lee Enfield has a shorter bolt throw with less turn-down, locking lug recesses that were much easier to keep clean, smoother action, and a 10 round magazine. The "Old Contempibles" of early WWI gave the Germans hell with their musketry skills, combining accuracy with rapid fire. Accuracy was always "sufficient" and often better.

The biggest complaints I have about the Lee Enfield are the low-comb and strangely pistol-gripped butt stock and the rimmed case of the .303. I have stock specimens of the WWII L-E #1 Mk III* (1917 mfd.) and a pristine #4 Mk. 2 (1954). Also have a couple #4s with aftermarket fiberglas stocks and light sporterizing which make very good utility rifles.

Strangely enough the .303 could easily have been made a "rimless" ctg but was not due to sheer bloody-mindedness of the technical people. When loading it, either with individual ctgs. or with stripper clips you have to watch so the top ctg 's rim goes in front of the preceding one.

However the Brits liked it well enough to stay with it from about 1888 to 1957, which is a long time.

If I had to make do with one of those fiberglas stocked #4s to hunt moose or grab and run it would do just fine. Upon initial acquaintance the L-Es seem crude but make more sense the longer you actually use one.

The Inuit 'Canadian Rangers" way up north still use #4s to this day. The FAL C-1s couldn't handle the extreme cold.

Enfield, hands down.

I own both, and as a combat rifle, I would take the Enfield without hesitation. It has a faster rate of fire, higher capacity, less recoil, comparable accuracy, and VASTLY better sights.

Enfield vs.Mauser

Gents;

As one who was trained by the Canadian Army on both the #4 Enfield, AND the C1/C1A1 (FAL) rifle on its initial introduction in the late'50s/early '60s, I have a few comments.

The #4 Rifle does NOT require a highly-trained, professional army to operate it effectively. The Army Cadet system in Canada trained lads from 14 to 18 years of age to use the #4 and the Bren light machine gun. As an example of the degree of skill these kids acquired rapidly, one of the standard tests of ability was this:

Standing "at ease" on the firing point with the EMPTY #4 rifle in hand, on the command "FIRE" the shooter went to prone, loaded the rifle with two chargers (10 rounds) and fired a certain minimum score to qualify....in 45 seconds! Very few of us failed to qualify on the first attempt.

Those who think a bolt handle is to be "grasped", by however many fingers in whatever position, have no real idea about the most-efficient operation of a bolt-action rifle. The knob is simply cupped by the hand on the rear movement, and pushed by the ball of the thumb on the forward movement. The movements are carried out as a SINGLE motion, not forward-stop-down, or up-stop-back, but rather a single flowing movement without hesitation. The Enfield design really lends itself to this technique, which is why the rate of fire can be very high indeed.

Using the middle finger on the trigger goes against all the training the soldier receives, and is simply NEVER used as an official technique.

The Rangers operating in the Canadian Arctic (I lived there for decades) are GIVEN a #4 each year because of the incredible abuse these people give the rifles (i.e.: the rifles are written-off by the government, not to be accounted for). Also, since the regular forces don't use the obsolete #4, they're CHEAP SURPLUS. The C1A1 operates just fine in super-cold conditions if the shooter knows how to prepare the rifle. BTDT.

The rimmed .303 cartridge certainly isn't a great AID in loading and firing the rifle, but training makes the rimmed case a non-factor. The Brits were very glad, eventually, that the Lee Enfield was their rifle through WW I. That extended to the .303 cartridge, as well, as it continued in service until 1957. IT WORKS, just like the rifle! One advantage of the rimmed cartridge is that the CHAMBER can be made very loose, since headspacing is accomplished by the rim. This allows chambering of dirty ammo and generally aids in reliable function under horrible conditions. (They weren't worried about us latter-day handloaders, for sure!)

Weight in a military rifle is there for several reasons, and attempts at severe lightening usually fail in use. First, DURABILITY in use and function needs a certain amount of steel just to make sure the parts are strong enough to keep functioning for long periods, with extreme heat, dirt and other factors included. Also, the service rifle can be used under duress for many strange eventualities...as a pry bar, as a climbing aid...or as a vicious club to kill another human. Try these with an M-16!!!!

The Lee-Enfield buttstock attachment is STRONGER than a Mauser's. I have never seen a LE with a butt stock broken at the socket, but I've seen plenty of Mausers snapped-off at the "wrist".

Mausers make beautiful sporters, besides being an excellent service rifle. Enfields....well, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but they'll never be as pretty as a well-done Mauser sporter. As a fighting rifle though, I'd take a #4 .303 rifle over a shipload of Mausers, any day.

Regards from BruceB

Being completely un-patriotic I vote for the Enfield (especially the No.4) as the better rifle.

Enfield pros:
- better = faster + more precise sights that obscure far less of the target
- faster action
- twice the capacity

BruceB, welcome to THR! Excellent first post!

And yes, I voted for the Lee-Enfield. It's the original high capacity bolt action assault rifle.

Well, I shoot Mauser K98k, Czech VZ-24, and Lee Enfield. I like them all. Here's another angle nobody mentioned. The .303 British cartridge doesn't kick as hard as 8x57Mauser and the two types of rifles seem to be of comparable weight, while it seems the Czech rifle has a better stock fit for me which translates to less fealt recoil. Nobody mentioned deer hunting, but I read an article a while back who's author is of the opinion that any cartridge that makes a lightweight rifle kick harder is doing the deer a big favor by making the shooter flinch and miss. (IMO, that's either a big favor or a grave disservice depending on where the shooter missed to.) Now, apply that to a SHTF one shot one kill situation. So, while I like Mauser types, I'm kinda leaning towards the Lee Enfield for this question. Besides, the Enfield action is a mite quieter to operate should you find you don't have to shoot.

BruceB, I happen to own a FAL-pattern (though metric, not inch) rifle.

What's the best way to prep it for cold weather use? I live in a place that gets pretty cold and a lot of snow.

I chose Mauser becuase my Enfield kicks the dog crap out of me each I shoot it.

Love 'em both, prefer the Enfield for myself. Much faster bolt throw thanks to cock-on-closing, twice the mag capacity of the Mauser, and far superior sights, at least in the No.4 iterations of the Enfield.

I own several of each.
The Mausers really don't do a whole lot for me.
If we are talking about WWII era weapons (K98 vs. No.4 Mk1), IMO the Enfield has it all over the Mauser for the reasons already stated: the sights are vastly superior, the magazine capacity is greater, the ergonomics are much better. In addition, the Enfield had a couple other cool little features like a number of front sight blades that could be changed out to ensure the rifle would zero. It also featured numbered bolt heads so a bolt could be pretty much instantly correctly headspaced into a rifle simply by unscrewing the bolt head and screwing on another one.
I am no expert with the Enfield but If you are interested in what an expert can do with an Enfield, do a web serch for The Lord Roberts match aka "The Mad Minute". This is a drill/match fired at 300 yards from the prone position. The object is to see how many hits you can make on a 24" bull in one minute. Like all great shooting matches this is a blend of speed AND accuracy. "The record in the mad minute was set in 1914 at the British School of Musketry by Sgt Instructor Snoxall. 38 hits inside the 4 ring at 300 yds within the minute. Scores of 34 to 35 were "not uncommon". That is really impressive. He fired 38 (or more) shots in one minute , reloaded three times, AND hit a 24" bull 38 times in one minute.

Another interesting thing about the Enfield is that it is still commonly found in combat TODAY. We have seen many pictures and video of people in Afganistan for example, using Enfields. The fact that these rifles are still working after who knows how many years in the field is a very strong recomendation.

Tough question.
The Enfield has the advantage of higher capacity mag (as long as the mag is not damaged or lost).
The short cycle of the Enfield is an advantage for quicker firing but I sure have to get used to cock on closing.
The sights of the #4 are also better although they seem more fragile.
However, it is tough to beat 8mm for a cartridge.
The mauser large ring action and the construction of the bolt to pass escaped gases all seem to make the mauser a safer action. It is just a perception as I have never heard of an Enfield having a problem.

I have both and enjoy shooting both. Both seem to be similar in accuracy.

If I had my druthers though, I would be using a Finnish M39.