Best bolt action military rifle...ever.

[adcoch1]

I say 1917. And that's after shooting everything on the list. The 1917 in good condition is arguably the most robust bolt action fielded by any military. Maybe too heavy for some, but it shoots amazing, it's almost impossible to break it, and it's one heck of a bayonet handle. Probably could pry a jeep out of the mud with it and then hit a 600 yard target with it.

The second on the list is the Enfield no.4 mk1. Just something about that gun that screams durability yet it isn't too heavy. All the ones I've shot have been plenty accurate, and it holds plenty of ammo. Try a mad minute with the whole list, and I bet the no4mk1 is your new favorite.

My favorite milsurp I've owned though was a 1895 Mauser sporter...

 

[tark]

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.

Ease of manufacture is neither irrelevant nor an unfair criteria. And it has everything to do with the end point. If two countries are in a war against one another, the country with the simpler, easier to make weapon at a lower cost, will have advantage.

 

[tark]

Oh, I'm not knocking you or the gun. I just got a kick out of you prefacing everything with a warning not to factor in appearance, and then producing the ugliest rifle ever made.

I have seen late war K-98 Mausers every bit as ugly as the worst looking Arisaka type 99 ever made. And explain to me what "ugliest" has to do with a rifle's ability to do its job. Is "ugly" equated with less deadly? I don't think so.

 

[hawg]

I chose the 98 Mauser followed by the 03 Springfield. 3rd would be the 1917 Enfield. I've owned all of them listed except for a Mosin. Those I've never wanted. I still have a 98, a G 33/40 and an 03 Springfield. That said I do not like military bolt actions in their original configuration. None of mine are in military dress. Oh yeah, my name is "Bubba".

 

[Mac Attack]

Swiss K31

 

[MachIVshooter]

Ease of manufacture is neither irrelevant nor an unfair criteria. And it has everything to do with the end point. If two countries are in a war against one another, the country with the simpler, easier to make weapon at a lower cost, will have advantage.

That's only the case if it results in an issue supplying troops with weapons. If the nation with the more complex, more difficult to manufacture and more expensive superior weapon can arm all of it's soldiers with them, then it has the advantage.

 

[lysanderxiii]

That's only the case if it results in an issue supplying troops with weapons. If the nation with the more complex, more difficult to manufacture and more expensive superior weapon can arm all of it's soldiers with them, then it has the advantage.

Case in point: United States of America versus the Empire of Japan.

The country with the simpler, easier to make weapon at a lower cost*, did not see an advantage.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
* Cost as calculated by man-hours per item.

 

[P89DCSS]

The US manufactured 3x 1917 vs 1903s? This tells me that the 1917 is a better bolt action military rifle than the 1903. Otherwise we wouldn't have made so few 1903s vs 1917. I wonder what the reason is for the 3x more 1917?

 

[Robert]

Let's not drift off into the weeds, remember this is a thread about what rifle you think is best. Not who has/had the best military industrial complex.

 

[GooseGestapo]

After reading all the responses, I still have to go with the P17.
I truly didn’t appreciate it until I bought one from the CMP, and got to compare it directly against my Mausers, O3A3, Enfield #4Mk1, and Mosin Nagant.
The P17
#1. Makes the best bayonet pike. An important consideration in WWI.
#2. Makes the best bludgeon for butt stroking an enemy. Probably the reason for the busted stock Type 99’s.
#3. Has the excellent guarded aperture sights. (But no windage adjustment)
#4. The 26” barrel gets more from the already most powerful cartridge fielded.
#5. Highly accurate due to heavy barrel and quality construction.
#6. Built in massive quantities, 3 factories, 28day spin up.
#7. Still in military service with the Danish Sirius Arctic Patrol.

My 1943 Remington O3A3 is slightly more accurate than the P17, and has benefit of being 2lbs lighter. But, the P17 is just all the way around a more robust weapon.

But #2 (and a close call!) is the #4Mk1.... accurate enough! powerful enough!, great sights, superb handling and balance. Edge in fire power (10shot magazine), and robust enough. Easily field replaced or repaired butt stock.

In 1944, my dad only qualified with the M1 Thompson SMG. He didn’t get inducted until Dec ‘43 due to eye sight. When he reached England, he was issued a Thompson with case, 10mags, and ammo. 27lbs I’m told. He went to the flight line on base and found first airborne troop, with an 03A3 who would swap. Allegedly, he carried the rifle throughout the war in both European and Pacific theaters with 10rds in two stripper clips. He was an MP, who mostly did traffic control, and prisoner escort. Claimed the rifle was never loaded...
When questioned by an uncle why the 03A3 and not an M1 carbine he replied; officers carried Carbines and the 03A3 was a better club...

 

[P89DCSS]

Let's not drift off into the weeds, remember this is a thread about what rifle you think is best. Not who has/had the best military industrial complex.

When discussing "best" with regards to military equipment in combat I thought it was important to consider manufactuablity, logistics, repairability in the field and robustness. But ok.

 

[mavracer]

Best bolt action might be the Mauser and by extension the 03 Springfield. But IMHO the best military rifle goes to the SMLE.

 

[tark]

It is true that the Japanese chromium plated the bores of the Type 99s, however, they were forced to do this due the very poor quality steel available for barrels. US testing of these barrels during the war showed that without the chromium plating, the barrels would have had very short lives, 2,000 to 3,000 tops. With the bore plated Aberdeen figured the rifles could just barely US minimum service life.

The fact that the machine guns, both ground and aircraft, did not get chromium plated barrels, but have better alloyed steel, shows that the chromium plating is not really all that and a bag of chips. And I don't think it gives the Type 99 any kind of "edge". It is also very thin, 0.00005", and no i did not put in too many zeros.

So...Let me see if I have this right. The Japanese made the receivers of the type 99s out of strong, high quality steel but the barrels out of junk steel? Since the type 99 is probably ( almost certainly ) the strongest action here I assume the receiver wasn't made from low quality steel. And then they used junk steel for the barrels? But wait! They had plenty of high quality steel for machine gun barrels!

But let's say everything Aberdeen says is true. And I am quite sure that it is. The Japanese really did use a lower quality steel for the barrels, and chrome plated them for a longer barrel life. That's a stroke of genius, if you ask me. It was a less expensive way to manufacture the gun. And that cheap steel in no way lessens the ability of the rifle to do its job. And it turns out that the chrome plating had the added, unexpected benefit of protecting the bore from rust and corrosion, at least to a limited degree. It does make sense that machine gun barrels be of higher quality, look at the abuse they take.

 

[Pat Riot]

Out of all the guns on the list I owned a 1917 and a Lee Enfield No. 4 Mk 1, but have fired all the other except a Carcano.

I chose the Enfield. I like the way it worked and the way it felt and the operation of the action when firing it. The mechanics were simple as well.

 

[BLACKHAWKNJ]

3X more M1917s were produced because Eddystone, Remington and Winchester were producing P-14s for the British, since the P-14 had originally been designed for a rimless round rechambering it in 30/06 was not that great a challenge. Springfield and Rock Island had no "jump" capacity. There is the oft told story of the low number M1903s with their brittle receivers due to new hires lacking the "eye" of the old timers, though many of the problem receivers had been manufactured long before 1917.
Could it be the Japanese used a lower grade of steel for barrels because their Ordnance Department saw the barrel as a replaceable part ?

 

[BreechFace]

So...Let me see if I have this right. The Japanese made the receivers of the type 99s out of strong, high quality steel but the barrels out of junk steel? Since the type 99 is probably ( almost certainly ) the strongest action here I assume the receiver wasn't made from low quality steel. And then they used junk steel for the barrels? But wait! They had plenty of high quality steel for machine gun barrels!

But let's say everything Aberdeen says is true. And I am quite sure that it is. The Japanese really did use a lower quality steel for the barrels, and chrome plated them for a longer barrel life. That's a stroke of genius, if you ask me. It was a less expensive way to manufacture the gun. And that cheap steel in no way lessens the ability of the rifle to do its job. And it turns out that the chrome plating had the added, unexpected benefit of protecting the bore from rust and corrosion, at least to a limited degree. It does make sense that machine gun barrels be of higher quality, look at the abuse they take.

Well said Tark, it is well known that the metallurgy of the Arisaka's was very good and there is a lot who think it is one of the strongest actions made. I think your assessment on utilizing the chrome line to allow for cost cutting on cheaper barrel steel is probably a reality.

 

[Mosin77]

I’m gonna go with the Mosin this time. My opinion might be different tomorrow, but….

1. firepower: it’s chambered for 7.62x54r, a round adopted in 1891 and still in service today, which is in the .308/.30-06 class ballistically.

2. Reliability and strength: these things fought in 2 world wars in some of the harshest conditions imaginable. Their firing mechanisms work reliably in the most bitter cold, something which can’t be said for their Mauser adversaries. Mechanical reliability seems on par with the other rifles of the era. That is to say, certainly not as good as a modern AR or SKS, but generally foolproof.

3. Accuracy is very good. 1moa is not unheard of. Even a well-worn example can be a great shooter. Some members of the family have upgraded sights as well so there’s something for everyone.

4. I don’t know if the Mosin was really inexpensive. Many deride it as such but I’ve also heard that it was more expensive to produce than a Mauser. I submit that it was “cheap enough” since the cash-strapped Russian Imperial government chose to adopt it, produced millions, and even more were produced in some very straitened circumstances by the Soviets and by their clients after WWII.

5. Aesthetics count for nothing per the rules but ergonomics should count for something and I find the Mosin to fit me very well. If you asked me if I’d like to shoot 200 rounds of 7.62x54r or 100 rounds of 30-06 from a bolt gun, I’d take the Mosin instantly without a second thought.

 

[jdsingleshot]

I've watched a video of the making of the Springfield 03. Bewildering series of forging, machining and heat treating operations, not mention specialized tooling, fixtures and jigs. Mauser was not far behind. Dehaas had a lot of respect for the Carcano.

 

[MEHavey]

It's clearly the Mauser followed by the 1903 which infringed on the Mauser

True, the Springfield did infringe on Paul Mauser's now absolutely timeless design (to give the devil his due....)
But from a total design, Springfield's sights made it far & away the better-evolved system.

 

[tark]

Swiss K31

Not qualified. Read the rules in my OP.

 

[tark]

Case in point: United States of America versus the Empire of Japan.

The country with the simpler, easier to make weapon at a lower cost*, did not see an advantage.

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
* Cost as calculated by man-hours per item.

True. I probably should have said: "all things being equal"

 

[BreechFace]

Not qualified. Read the rules in my OP.

What about the French MAS 36?

They are sweet and a very handy size to them.

 

[Mauser fan]

I must say the 1893 Mauser without it we wouldn't have the other models 1894, 1895, 1896 that led to improvements of the design then ultimately the development of the 1898 Mauser which is considered by most authorities of the subject to be the grand daddy of the modern sporing rifle.

My second choice is the type 99 Arisaka which is nothing more than an improved 1893 with the cock on close feature and less parts are required to function. I almost forgot and is considered to be the strongest of them all. Less the last ditch models.

 

[Remington1911]

The OP's choice is a good one on the type 99. Some of the choices on here are not popular. The poster that brought up the MAS36 however I am going to go with. I own one and it is claw hammer simple.

That is my vote.

 

[lysanderxiii]

So...Let me see if I have this right. The Japanese made the receivers of the type 99s out of strong, high quality steel but the barrels out of junk steel? Since the type 99 is probably ( almost certainly ) the strongest action here I assume the receiver wasn't made from low quality steel. And then they used junk steel for the barrels? But wait! They had plenty of high quality steel for machine gun barrels!

But let's say everything Aberdeen says is true. And I am quite sure that it is. The Japanese really did use a lower quality steel for the barrels, and chrome plated them for a longer barrel life. That's a stroke of genius, if you ask me. It was a less expensive way to manufacture the gun. And that cheap steel in no way lessens the ability of the rifle to do its job. And it turns out that the chrome plating had the added, unexpected benefit of protecting the bore from rust and corrosion, at least to a limited degree. It does make sense that machine gun barrels be of higher quality, look at the abuse they take.

First off, the alloying elements that make a good hard wearing barrel are not the same as those than make a strong receiver.

Second, metallurgical analysis of Japanese rifles show that they are made from plain carbon steel, with a tiny bit of manganese and a healthy dose of tungsten and/or chromium. This is more than adequate to make a very strong receiver. But, crap as a barrel steel.

The element that make a good barrel alloy are nickel, manganese, molybdenum, and vanadium. In WW2 nobody used vanadium, but the US did make some good barrels out of 4150, the Japanese did not have large amounts of nickel, manganese or molybdenum, they did have access to chromium and tungsten, neither of these two alone make for a good barrel.

Machine gun barrels take a far greater pounding than a bolt action rifle barrel, due to the heat from rapid fire*, so which is smarter, use the small amounts of manganese or molybdenum you do have to make a smaller amount of machine gun barrels, and use a work-around to make serviceable rifle barrels in the millions, or to try and spread your limited supply of manganese or molybdenum in to all barrel by reducing the percent in the alloy? (Just remember, if the alloy percent is too low, it may as well not be there.)

And yes, chromium plating was viewed by the Army as a genius way to make, if not a silk purse out of a sow's ear, a perfectly serviceable wallet out of a sow's ear. Prior to this, the Army had only considered chromium plating the bore of large guns (artillery) worthwhile. Afterwards, they seriously investigated chromium plating first machine gun barrels, and then all small arms barrels.

_ _ _ _ _ _
* So, why didn't they chromium plate the machine gun barrel? It would have been a waste of chromium. The thin chromium layer would not have stood up to the heat. Modern chromium plating is ten times thicker that what the Japanese were able to deposit.