.303 Enfield

[Art Eatman]

The consensus over the last four or so years of posts about the Enfields is that they generally run about two MOA to three MOA with iron sights. They do a general best of half that with scopes, although one MOA is not as common as 1.5 MOA. Group size with military-style iron sights has little to do with the inherent accuracy of any rifle of whatever sort.

Given the number of guns and the amount of ammo fired by the various posters at TFL, the issue of a gas-vent port seems irrelevant. It's even less of an issue with quality ammo or intelligently-done reloads.

Since nobody is going to be using one as a "Sniper Rifle", the issue of likes and dislikes on the part of military personnel during WW I and WW II is also irrelevant.

, Art

 

[Bostonterrier97]

BHP9 - Funny that you mentioned McBride's (or "Mac" as his comrades commonly referred to him) book. I just finished reading it.

On the Enfield. McBride actually praised the Enfield as being a fine intermediate range battle rifle. His greatest objection to it (this was the No.1 Mk.III SMLE by the way..) was that it didn't have rear Apeture Sight like the Ross Mk. III did.

This failing of the Enfield was rectified on, the No.1 Mk. V trials rifle and later on the No.4 Mk.1 Rifle.

McBride mentioned that the balance of the Enfield was superb. And unlike the Ross, the Enfield did NOT jam when dirty on under rapid fire conditions.

McBride mostly considered the Ross Rifle to be too unweildy. He did mostly use the Ross Rifle for Sniping. But he also did some sniping (as a Guest Shooter) with some Brits using an SMLE but the range was at 1000 yards and it was too far for him to be effective.

Most of McBride's sniping was done at a range of around 400 yards, where he and his spotter (a young Quebecois by the name of Bouchard) would set up behind their own lines and would shoot over their lines into the German placements..usually at an Angle so as not to give away their position.

No where in the Book do I recall McBride mentioning that he sniped with a P14 Enfield.

He did have some rather nasty things to say about the 1903 Springfield. His highest praise for sniping rifles went towards a Mauser or Steyr Mannlicher Carbine (am guessing on this rifle because McBride wasn't too clear on its identification) that he had captured from a German Sniper (former hunter or "Jaeger"). From McBride's description this rifle appeared to have about a 20-22 inch barrel, topped with a low power scope.

 

[Bostonterrier97]

Australian Sniper: Billy Sing. Used the No.1 Mk.III for all of his sniping exploits on Gallipoli.

Like Simo Haya who sniped during the Russo Finnish War, Billy Sing used the Iron Sights on his Rifle, instead of using a scope.

Also you mentioned that - "Its safety is awkward and difficult to use if one wishes to get it off in a hurry. Contrast this to the lightening quick 98's safety. There just is no comparison."

I must take exception to this remark. The Enfield's Safety is easily engaged or disengaged by the shooters right thumb. Just a quick upwards flick with the right thumb in order to disengage the safety, without breaking the grip of either hand.

However the safety on the Mauser, prevents the shooter from doing this. Instead the shooter must break their grip on the rifle in order to move the safety. Hardly "lightening fast".

And of course in your own words-"If you were well educated in regards to the history and developement of the military bolt action rifle this debate of the Enfield v/s the Mauser would have not been necessary"

This is only too true...

 

[Tamara]

...and, of course, comparing WWI Mauser, Springfield and Enfield sniper rifles is kinda apples and oranges, since the Mauser sniper rifles were hand-selected for accuracy and matched with factory-fitted scopes while the WWI-era Allied "sniper" rifles were pretty much just any old Enfield or Springfield grabbed at random. The earliest British snipers were literally handed a scope to mount to their issue Enfield without even being given any instructions for zeroing the sight.

 

[Mike Irwin]

"I have seen plenty of Enfields walk shots as they heated up."

Obviously you've never seen the same thing out of Mausers or Springfields, either, but I have. Plenty of times. Mainly that's not a question of the barrel, but of the stock impinging on the barrel, and can happen with any rifle.


"Accuracy wise the Enfield is not even in the same ball park as a well built Mauser."

So, by that statement, you're comparing a line Enfield to a hand built ("well built") Mauser?

Of course not, as the Germans specifically selected their sniping rifles.

Until just prior to WW II, the British didn't pay any attention to sniping, had no true training for it, and it wasn't until 1940, I believe, that they set in motion a program for No. 4 Mk Is to be selected from the line, tested for accuracy, and those showing the most promise sent to Holland & Holland, Rigby, or Evans for rework.

At battlefield sniping distances of the kind that one would expect to find in Europe, the No. 4 Mk I (T) more than held its own.

I also take umbrage at your suggestion that a line Mauser, using military quality ammunition, is a sub 1" gun. It's not. The occasional one may be, but certainly it's not a common thing.

You also toss in the qualifier about match ammo. Well duh. If you take time to develop the ammo for the gun it's going to shoot a lot better. That's true for any rifle, INCLUDING an Enfield.

As for the relative merits of the safety on the Mauser vs. the Enfield, you can't operate the Mauser safety without taking your hand from the wrist. With the Enfield, the safety was designed to be EASILY operated by the right thumb without having to take the hand away from the stock wrist. From that standpoint alone the Enfield safety is superior.

"If you were well educated in regards to the history and developement of the military bolt action rifle this debate of the Enfield v/s the Mauser would have not been necessary."

Not at all sure what you mean by this (other than indulging in the attempt for a snotty little bite) since I AM rather more than passingly familiar with the development and adoption of rifles in both Britain and Germany from the 1860s onwards.

Both rifles have much to recommend them, both rifles have shortcomings.

If I, however, were to have to go into combat, and given the choice of the major bolt rifles of WW I and WW II, my first choice, hands down, no questions asked, would be a No. 4 Mk I, followed by a No. 1, Mk III. Then, and only then, would I start to consider the other, lesser, battle rifles.

Ultimately, this entire exercise remains, a question about the relative accuracy merits of the Enfield vs. other bolt action rifles.

You seem to believe that the Enfield won't shoot groups of under 8 feet at 10 yards, while a run of the mill Springfield or Mauser will shoot one hole groups out to a few hundred miles.

Quite frankly, the truth of the matter is a lot closer to the center than you would ever care to realize, or possibly admit.

 

[T.Stahl]

Accuracy wise the Enfield is not even in the same ball park as a well built Mauser.

Time: last Saturday
Place: my brother's club
Occasion: annual service rifle championships
Participants: >20 shooters with mainly K98s and M96s and my brother with the only Enfield
Result: Brother makes third place, shooting an Enfield No.4 for the second time in his life.

 

[P95Carry]

From all comments (and I am still anj Enfield fan) .... it does seem the most sensible thing is, to keep in mind the limitations, such as they are. Some of the points raised as ''anti'' are in part at least ones I can go along with but, I never expect extremes of performance outa mine ..... am just very well satisfied with what they can do.



Small point .... damned if my memory is good enough to reliably recall the old maxim for clip loading .......

''Three up - two down'' ...... or was it the opposite?? I load my mags one round at a time and always try to follow this, such that topmost round strips off with rim ''ahead'' of next. That one tho will of course be ''behind'' the rim of the one below!! Very rarely tho have I had any probs at all feeding from mag.

 

[cratz2]

Yeah, I like the Lee Enfields the best of the surplus rifles but those Schmidt Rubins have got to be about the most accurate, esp if we're limited to iron sights. Even the 'not really a Schmidt- Rubin' K31s.

 

[cratz2]

If I, however, were to have to go into combat, and given the choice of the major bolt rifles of WW I and WW II, my first choice, hands down, no questions asked, would be a No. 4 Mk I...

I would absolutely agree with that statement.

 

[BHP9]

He did have some rather nasty things to say about the 1903 Springfield. His highest praise for sniping rifles went towards a Mauser or Steyr Mannlicher Carbine (am guessing on this rifle because McBride wasn't too clear on its identification) that he had captured from a German Sniper (former hunter or "Jaeger"). From McBride's description this rifle appeared to have about a 20-22 inch barrel, topped with a low power scope.

My point exactly. Mcbride lived with a rifle in his hand and his views are not be dismissed with a wild wave of the hand. When one uses a rifle under adverse conditions and demanding conditions the worth of the mechanical device manifests itself and if it has an ugly head or two to rear the head sooner or later gazes upon the hapless user.

I think that the Enfield was a very rugged reliable rifle but to compare it to the accuracy ,strength, gas venting system or takedown of the Mauser 98 is to show a lack of understanding of the basic mechanical workings and history of the rifles in question.


I myself own several Enfields and my favorite is the dashing 'Jungle Carbine". My own example was made post war in 1946 under peace time conditions. Although the workmanship is very good it in no way compares to peace time 98 Mausers.
Its chamber is actually not as large as many of the Enfields I have encountered but it is still way larger than any Mauser chamber I have ever owned. As a matter of fact one side of the chamber is actually a little egg shaped which is readily apparent when one looks at the right side of any of the fired cases after they come out of the chamber. Once again the workmanship was not anywhere near that of a good "Contract Mauser" or peace time made Mauser or even most war time Mausers made by famous manufactures like the Belgian, Czech or German made guns.

Accuracy with this piece with match grade ammo and a 9 power telescopic sight is about 1 1/2 inches on a good day with groups typically stringing as the barrel heats up.

If you look at the pictures that Snow Dog posted you will see what type of groups I am speaking of and you will immediately see the stringing that I speak of that is so typical of Enfield type rifles. You won't find this from a well made 98 Mauser rifle.

I think to compare the Mauser to the Enfield is simply quite ludicrous. The Enfield was a working machine to be sure but simply not even in the same ball park as the well desiged and well thought out 98 Mauser.

I think the collector prices reflect my thinking beyond a shadow of a doubt. Mausers that I paid only $150 dollars not so long ago now bring anwhere from $500 to as high as $2,300.00. Enfields that I bought for around $75.00 can today still be purchased for not too much more than that. As a matter of fact I just bought a Savage U.S. military contract gun 6 months ago and the owner could not get $200.00 out of it despite the fact that it was brand new and unfired. I waited until the gun show was about to close and bought it for $150.00. I think the resale prices of the Enfield weapons being and always being very low as compared to the 98 Mausers says it all. People only pay big bucks for weapons that are very famous for their quality and design.

 

[BHP9]

...and, of course, comparing WWI Mauser, Springfield and Enfield sniper rifles is kinda apples and oranges, since the Mauser sniper rifles were hand-selected for accuracy and matched with factory-fitted scopes while the WWI-era Allied "sniper" rifles were pretty much just any old Enfield or Springfield grabbed at random. The earliest British snipers were literally handed a scope to mount to their issue Enfield without even being given any instructions for zeroing the sight.

Absolutely not true. German rifles were built to such high standards that it was not necessary to select them for accuracy. Although it is true that these rifles were indeed test fired as all Mauser rifles were wether they were snipers or just run of the mill battle rifles. In no case did they shoot batches of Mauser rifles and then select the best for snipers rifles. They had scopes attached to them and were test fired and if nothing was amiss they were passed on inspection. Although there were many manufactures for the 98 Mauser this is the general way that most of them were made. No one can say for sure that if at some time on some day at some arsenal someone did indeed take it upon himself to hand select a few weapons it was not and never was a general practice to waiste thousands of rounds of ammo looking for the most super accurate rifle to build up into a sniper. Its not even done that way today. It was not cost effective way back then when the price for everything was so much cheaper and it certainly is not practical to do it that way today either.

War condition time constraints also would never have allowed such antics even if desired. When men were in desperate need of sniper rifles worring about 1/8 inch accuracy difference would have been the height of sheer nonsense.

 

[Andrew Wyatt]

If the weapon is scoped or a person has 20/20 eysight shooting 1 inch groups with military ammo is no big deal and it is possible to do this consistantly.

the pure mechanical accuracy is almost useless when you cannot use it to its full advantage because of an inferior sighting system or trigger. my number4 mk1 has better sights and trigger than any of my four mausers, (model 98's, all) and as a consequence, I don't have to fight the rifle nearly as much to place hits on the ten inch steel places we use during our fighting rifle matches.

The Mauser design was so well thought out that the barrel is stepped which prevents it from walking its shots as the barrel warms up.

Gunpowder does not work in fits and spurts. a contoured barrel is preferable to a stepped profile, because it is lighter. the reason the germans made stepped barrels is because they're easier to manufacture. in a world of compromise, mauser did.

I have seen plenty of Enfields walk shots as they heated up. Accuracy wise the Enfield is not even in the same ball park as a well built Mauser.

it's funny you mention that. my enfield is the most accurate milsurp i own, and i'm a young, spry lad of 20, with good eyesight and trigger control.

Its gas escape system is inferior.

That is utter bovine fecal material. the gas escape system of the Enfield is greatly superior to that of the mauser, because any escaping gas is blocked by the bolt head a redirected out two rather large holes in the sides of the reciever directly behind the chamber. the rather "open" reciever aids the escape of gas, as well. I can show you some cases from some brit cordite ammo of WWII vintage that had splits halfway up the case after firing. ( i did not notice anything amiss untill i opened the bolt)

Its take down is inferior.

i'm going to assume you mean "dissassembly for cleaning" on this. again, you're completely wrong. the removal of the bolt for cleaning is just as fast and easy if you understand how to do the two step process.

Its safety is awkward and difficult to use if one wishes to get it off in a hurry. Contrast this to the lightening quick 98's safety. There just is no comparison.

you're right. there is no comparison between the vastly quicker and more convenient enfield safety and the quite out of the way mauser one.

The Enfields rimmed cartridge can and does cause feeding problems if the rounds are not loaded properly in the magazine and anyone who denies this just has not ever loaded on of these weapons under stress.

I've had rimlock a grand total of one time since i've had the rifle. I've had extraction problems quite a few more times with my mausers. Having the promary extraction of a case and the cocking of the striker in the stme part of the bolt stroke is just stupid, in my opinion.

 

[BHP9]

"Accuracy wise the Enfield is not even in the same ball park as a well built Mauser."

So, by that statement, you're comparing a line Enfield to a hand built ("well built") Mauser

No I am comparing the run of the mill Mauser to the run of the mill Enfield. Anyone who has owned enough of these rifles will attest to the fact that the Mauser beats out the Enfield in the accuracy department by a good mile and a half.

Not at all sure what you mean by this (other than indulging in the attempt for a snotty little bite) since I AM rather more than passingly familiar with the development and adoption of rifles in both Britain and Germany from the 1860s onwards.

You certainly have a double standard Mike. I was merely responding to the poster that insulted me by telling me to get my nose out of books and actually shoot Enfields. This remark seems to be OK with you but when I responded to it, suddenly it is not viewed as quite cricket.

Both rifles have much to recommend them, both rifles have shortcomings.

True enough but when both are compared the Enfield has a lot more and I have named many of them.

QUOTE]As for the relative merits of the safety on the Mauser vs. the Enfield, you can't operate the Mauser safety without taking your hand from the wrist. With the Enfield, the safety was designed to be EASILY operated by the right thumb without having to take the hand away from the stock wrist. From that standpoint alone the Enfield safety is superior. [/QUOTE]

Perhaps your thumb is long enough to do this but mine certainly is not. I must also shift my grip and lift my hand off the stock to flick off the safety.

True enough but when both are compared the Enfield has a lot more and I have named many of them.

 

[BHP9]

That is utter bovine fecal material. the gas escape system of the Enfield is greatly superior to that of the mauser, because any escaping gas is blocked by the bolt head a redirected out two rather large holes in the sides of the reciever directly behind the chamber. the rather "open" reciever aids the escape of gas, as well. I can show you some cases from some brit cordite ammo of WWII vintage that had splits halfway up the case after firing. ( i did not notice anything amiss untill i opened the bolt)

Every major Gun writer than ever lived has disagreed with you. If you ever experiece a total case failure with the Enfield it in no way protects you like the 98 Mauser does. The 98 was designed this way from the ground up to protect shooters from catastophic failure while the Enfield was not.

I Suggest you go back and read the excellent artical by Rick Jamison of "Shooting Times" that explains in very clear terms the complete inner design of the 98 Mauser. Then after reading this read "The Bolt Action Rifle" by Frank De Hass in which he gives a run down on the gas systems of both guns. Again there is no comparison. The Mauser is the superior design.

 

[Andrew Wyatt]

a gun rag writer can say a mauser has a better hangling of gas from a ruptured case untill he's blue in the face, but that does not change the design of the rifle to reflect what they say. I'm intimately familiar with the design of both the enfield and the mauser, and I much prefer the enfield for my bolt action milsurp needs.

 

[Mike Irwin]

"Anyone who has owned enough of these rifles will attest to the fact that the Mauser beats out the Enfield in the accuracy department by a good mile and a half."

Let's see, 3 Springfields, 2 Mausers, and recently purchased my first Enfield.

More importantly, though, I've fired, extensively, at least a dozen of each .

I don't think anyone is disagreeing with you that the Enfield will shoot larger groups than a Sprinfield or a Mauser. What people ARE disagreeing with you on, though, is your categorization of the Enfield. Comments such as "beat it by a mile and a half" are indicative of this.

First off, please define "mile and a half."

Just what does that mean?

Do the many 2" groups I've shot with Enfields qualify as a "Mile and a half," while the many 1.75" groups I've shot with Springfields and Mausers qualify as tack driving accuracy?

Does my mileage vary when I throw in the many groups that I've shot with Enfields that have been tighter than those I've fired with Mausers & Springfields?

There are more than just a few people here with extensive experience with these rifles, and none of us seem to have any problems keeping all of our shots on paper plates at 100 meters with our Enfields, yet your messages seem to indicate that that is simply impossible...

"You certainly have a double standard Mike. I was merely responding to the poster that insulted me by telling me to get my nose out of books and actually shoot Enfields. This remark seems to be OK with you but when I responded to it, suddenly it is not viewed as quite cricket."

I didn't see the other comment, so I'll say this. Both of you stick a sock in your snotties if you can't play nice.


"True enough but when both are compared the Enfield has a lot more and I have named many of them."

Uhm... No, you've named many of what YOU consider to be short comings. There's a difference.

"Rimlock"

As the cartridges were loaded into strippers at the munitions factories, with the 3 down/2 up rim stacked features, stoppages due to rimlock were virtually unknown.

Rimlock was much more a danger in the days when the magazines had to be loaded by hand.

But, in those days, the magazines were to be held in reserve and the guns used as single-loading rifles for aimed vollyfire.

 

[nemesis]

BHP9 says.......

I think the collector prices reflect my thinking beyond a shadow of a doubt. Mausers that I paid only $150 dollars not so long ago now bring anwhere from $500 to as high as $2,300.00. Enfields that I bought for around $75.00 can today still be purchased for not too much more than that.

The above statement appears at odds with some of the Enfields currently offered for sale

BSA/H&H No.4Mk.1T, 1944, matching No.32Mk.3 telescope, w/lens covers, restocked in service with Canadian walnut, V.Good cond., $2395.00

Enfield L42A1, 1971, matching L1A1 telescope, w/chest, telescope case, lens covers, user handbook, and cleaning kit, V.Good cond., $2995.00

I always find it quite amusing when "experts" substitute personal emotions for real world logic. There is no point in attempting to interject fact into a discussion with a person who rejects anything contrary to his precarious personal opinion.

 

[ShaiVong]

How do i know if I find a "98" mauser? I found a 'spanish' mauser for $170. Where can i find out more about the different rifles based upon their SN's?

 

[Mike Irwin]

Not to mention that the attempt to affix the intrinsic value (not monetary) of an old gun by simple price alone means absolutely nothing at all, but is more a reflection of supply and demand.

For example, over the past couple of years I've seen excellent quality, used S&W Model 10s going for under $200.

In the same time I've also seen excellent quality used Taurus .38 Spls., the Taurus equiv. of the Model 10, for about the same price, or even more.

Why?

Because the used firearms market continues to be glutted with used Smith & Wesson revolvers of certain models, which serves to drive prices down.

Simple supply and demand, meaning that you can get an excellent handgun for an uncommonly low price.

Much the same is true of Enfields.

About 10 years ago when the large supply of No. 4 Mk IIs from Fazakerly came in prices on those dropped to well below $200 in the Northern Virginia area. Wish I had bought one of them then, as they're tough to find now and the last one I saw had a price of nearly $400.

When the United States finished beating Germany in WW II, and stripped her of arms, the vast majority of the Mausers came in then, and were avilable at exceptional prices, even for those times.

Being a victor, the British and their allies got to keep their Enfields, and used them well after WW II, meaning that fewer came into the country until these nations started surplusing them out recently. Since then large numbers have come into the country, pushing prices down.

The same is true with other rifles.

10 years ago I could have bought a Soviet SVT 40 for about $200. I've seen a couple at shows in the past year for pushing $500.

The Swiss K31. 10 years ago, if you could find one, they were bringing a couple hundred or more.

These days? I'm going to buy the next one I see at under $125.

 

[swingset]

BHP9

It's obvious you dislike Enfields tremendously. You will not let up. Your ranting on them and defensive language are silly and one dimensional. Also, you're wrong.

The anecdotal evidence is against you, the opinion of great gunsmiths and shooters are against you, and the lessons of history are against you. A few slanted, biased writers cry foul of the gun and it's a bad egg? Not hardly. Worse has been said of the M16 variants, yet they continue to win matches and wars. Your opinion is like, well, you know the addage.

The Enfield is a strong, reliable and accurate action that has withstood the test of time. Sorry to rain on your parade.

 

[cratz2]

In my best BHP9 voice... 'It sucks because I don't like it! I mean, I've never shot one, but I'm pretty sure I hate 'em'.

Why don't you go bug the people on milsurpshooter.net They like guys that verbally trash guns that are 2MOA or 3 MOA after a few decades over there.

 

[John G]

I gotta say, this thread was a real wake-up call for me. I need to get my Enfields out this weekend! There's top hats to burn!

 

[Mike Irwin]

Well, John, you can burn those top hats with your Enfield as long as the muzzle's touching them.

If you pull back even an inch, you'll miss because the Enfield is so dreadfully inaccurate.

 

[Lone Star]

Winchester and Federal make good 180 grain .303 ammo for hunting. I especially like the shape of the Winchester bullet.

Lone Star

 

[BHP9]

I think the collector prices reflect my thinking beyond a shadow of a doubt. Mausers that I paid only $150 dollars not so long ago now bring anwhere from $500 to as high as $2,300.00. Enfields that I bought for around $75.00 can today still be purchased for not too much more than that.

The above statement appears at odds with some of the Enfields currently offered for sale

BSA/H&H No.4Mk.1T, 1944, matching No.32Mk.3 telescope, w/lens covers, restocked in service with Canadian walnut, V.Good cond., $2395.00

Now you are playing games which do not reflect reality at all. I was speaking of the bulk of military collecting in regards to Mausers v/s Enfields. The weaponsyou quoted were snipers and those examples are very rare model snipers.

What I posted to begin with was very valid. The Average price of the average WWII Mauser or Contract Mauser has gone up dramatically while the average price of the standard grade Enfields (all of them from WWI thru WWII has remained relatively low over the last 40 years.

Now then,why was I able to buy an unfired run of the mill WWII Enfield for the paltry sum of $150 and if I had wanted to buy an unfired Mauser from this same period as made in Germany during WWII I would have paid a way higher price. Contract Mausers are often even more expensive.

The facts are that in the collecting field the Mauser is and always has been the better investment. None , I repeat none of the run of the mill Enfield battle rifles sold yesterday or sell today for anywhere near what a good Mauser will bring. Even the rare sniper versions of the Enfield that you quoted in your post are much harder to sell for higher dollars than the Mausers are. Anyone can ask any ridiculous price that they wish for a sniper but when the big bucks change hands its almost always for the Mauser. Few collectors I know whould pay anywhere near some of the prices you quoted for sniper Enfields but these same people will readily pay that much and more for German snipers because of the great demand for them.

I have never had a problem getting money out of a good Mauser but any advanced or even beginning collector will tell you that selling an Enfield for big bucks is an entirely different ball game. Unless the weapon happens to be extremely rare you can forget ever seeing your investment grow by the leaps and bounds that Mauser collectors enjoy.

My current Enfield collection is worth very little at yesterdays prices and todays prices.

My current Mauser collection is astronomically higher in value.

A trip to any big gun show will tell anyone, even the raw begining collector what is selling for high dollars and what is selling at bargan basement prices and military guns like Enfields and Mosins have always been at the bottom of the low dollar list.

For example try comparing a German Mauser made in 1939 or 1940 to the price of an Enfield or Mosin made in the same year. There is no comparison in price. Any real military rifle collector will tell you that, providing that he can keep his composure long enough to get the words out.