Best bolt action military rifle...ever.

This should start a good brawl. Here are the rules:

1) "Pretty" counts for NOTHING!! Cosmetic beauty is NOT to be mentioned or considered.

2) Was it rugged and reliable? Did it "Possess the highest degree of mechanical reliability known to exist in a mechanism of its type?" ( Jeff Cooper quote. )

3) Was it accurate enough and powerful?

4) was it easy to use and train raw recruits on.?

5) Was it simple, easily to manufacture and also relatively inexpensive to build? This is a very important point.

6) It must have been actually IN a war. ( sorry, you Swiss lovers )

I will serve up as my entry...The Japanese Type 99 Arisaka. Yes, I know, some of you are regurgitating right now... but consider: It meets every single criteria... better than just about any other bolt action milsurp I can think of. It is enormously strong, powerful, accurate enough, able to stand abuse, easy to use and cheap to make.

I will place the No4Mk1 Enfield as second on my list. Those ten rounds in the mag are nice, but it takes twice as long to load it... And I still get an occasional rimlock.

And now for the icing on the cake...the one thing the Arisaka has that none of the others have, that chrome lined bore. In the era of tropic climates and corrosive primers, this feature gave the type 99 a big advantage over all of the others....

I stand ready to receive your arrows, hurled bricks and epithets...

 

And I see I left my choice off of my poll. Senility cometh. Oh, well, it was my first attempt at a poll

 

After finally acquiring a Mk4# 1*, I immediately thought this is a very thoughtful rifle. Reasonably powerful, and at least on my example, great sights and the 10 round thing, plus the changeable stock legnth is a bonus makes me # 1 this rifle.
#2, 03A3, just because. Stellar rifle.

 

Add Arisaka? Not my choice but, based on the questions, it seems an odd omission.

 

Arisaka
98 mauser

 

It's clearly the Mauser followed by the 1903 which infringed on the Mauser. Coming in 3rd and 4th are the Enfield and 1917. Use a coin flip to determine which one is better.

 

With the exception of this point, my vote goes to the Accuracy International Arctic Warfare and its subsequent variants, after a few early mass production teething issues were resolved.

 

The mas36 hands down.

It was realistically the last bolt action service rifle designed. It's unbelievably rugged, a concerted effort was made to get the parts count down, to a very low number, it has vastly superior aperture sights as opposed to tangent sights and it fires a cartridge closer to 7.62 NATO than any of the others

In my experience they're also on the very upper end of the milsurp accuracy scale

 

I’m a other, 96 Swede fan here.

 

I'm not into old stuff. This was issued to Canadian Rangers in 2017.

THE CANADIAN RANGERS T3x ARCTIC by Tikka (bcfirearmsacademy.ca)

 

Of all the ones I own and shot, the Swedish Mauser

 

The Type 99 did have an Achilles heel- the weak stock wrist area was prone to breakage. I have and have seen several that cracked in that area and exhibited improvised field fixes. The rear sight and safety ain't great designs either. I would rate the Arisaka as middle of the pack for military bolt rifles.

I own or have owned all the listed guns and for me its 1903A3 all the way. Best sights (especially with a front sight protector fitted), best safety, best trigger, good steel, relatively light and every example Ive fired was laser accurate- even with the 2-groove barrels.
I would even rate the A3 as superior to the Garand for all but CQB and the Carbine and submachine guns vastly trumped either rifle for that. (Flame suit on ).

 

Of these, the only one I have shot a lot is the 1917 I inherited from my grandfather, and I love it. I would love to collect and shoot the others, I have my eyes open for an 03-A3 right now.

 

Interesting. I have never heard of or seen one. With the upper and lower tangs re-enforcing the stock I would think the Arisaka would be strong in that area.

 

I’m partial to the Greek 1903Y in 6.5x54
Otherwise the MAS-36

 

Read requirement #6. Sweden has not ben a war since 1814 when they got into a squabble with Norway. Long before the Swedish Mausers were made.

 

A very good choice, but in my opinion the chrome bore of the 99 gives it a slight edge.

 

The M1917 (and predecessor P14) will not receive the respect it deserves. It's a Mauser 98 with better sights, heavier barrel and stock, and made with the might and efficiencey of the US industrial complex behind it. For good reason, more M17s were fielded in the first war than Springfields. The fact that it was rushed to service as a substitute standard to ease production speaks to that aspect of the question. Some parts interchangeability issues probably had more to do with Remington and Winchester not getting along than the design of the rifle.

All above except the Carcano served their countries well.

 

A significant number saw service in Finland vs the Russkies.

 

In any question that's "the best" and you are comparing tangent vs aperture sights rifles with tangent sights need not apply. Other features are irrelevant without that criteria met.

As evidenced by rifle development in the second half of the 20th century up until the widespread adoption of general issue optics

The original T99 was also loaded down with ornate pork (aa sights? Seriously) and a very heavy unwieldy long arm given the stature of the average Imperial soldier. Later war examples are among the worst firearms ever issued. The cartridge was a logistical nightmare that never even could get fully phased in before the wars end that ultimately did nothing the t38 6.5 round didn't do. In fact some anecdotal evidence shows it was actually less effective as an anti personnel round.

Also a chrome lined bore isn't a panacea against corrosion from poor maintenance in a wet environment

 

The Madson M47 in 30-06 was the last. It was used by Denmark and Colombia. Not that light, a horrible safety and a rear sight like an Arisaka,s, an aperture mounted ahead of the receiver. Only 6,000 were made.

 

I was gonna say the type 38 but a type 99 works too. A very interesting rifle to put into consideration is an FR8.

 

I stand corrected !

 

1917 for sure.

As fine a functional rifle as it was a bayonet stick, boat paddle, and club.

I’m going to ignore the criteria about efficiency if mass production. I don’t know if the 1917 fits with that or not but you can’t make a fight about what is best and then hamstring it with criteria that has nothing to do with that end point.

 

Without question 98 mauser shouldn't even have to be asked.