Best bolt action military rifle...ever.

[rbernie]

No4MkII - the epitome of a battle rifle. You can clean trench mud from any part of the action and get it back in service (can't do that with forward locking lugs), controlled-round-feed, decent sights, 10rd magazine, decent powered cartridge suitable for use under wartime conditions (big rim, tapered case), and headspace adjustable in the field. They don't make 'em like that any more.

Oh, and yeah - cock on close, which we all know to be superior.

 

[tark]

Oh, and yeah - cock on close, which we all know to be superior.

You got THAT right!!! Myself and herrwalther agree!!

 

[FL-NC]

Speaking from personal experience, the M24 sniper weapons system- the only bolt action military rifle I ever used in a war. See what I did there?

 

[Vern Humphrey]

I'm gonna have to argue with this statement.

While the .30-06, in general, is a pretty powerful and versatile cartridge, the Caliber .30, Ball, M1906 and Caliber .30 Ball, M2 cartridges are not all that hard to beat. The antiquated French 8mm balle D and British .303, Mk VII can both out range the M1906 in the machine gun, which is why Caliber .30 Ball, M1 was introduced, however, M1 Ball never saw combat as a standard round as it was replaced by M2 Ball, which is ballistically pretty much the same as M1906 Ball (40 fps faster, 2 grains heavier). M2 AP isn't all that bad, but even it is inferior to the German 7.9mm Patrone s.S. with its 196 grain boat-tail bullet, and .303 Mk 8 with its 174 grain boat-tail bullet.

The .30-06 cartridge could have been the equal or the better of these cartridges, but it military loadings were always on the light side, hamstringing it's performance.

The .30-06 was tuned down at the request of the National Guard -- the M1 Ball round required an extended backfall distance that many National Guard ranges could not accommodate.

 

[tark]

Ross Mk III and M10

I have a Ross Mk. III. It is the most accurate bolt action milsurp I have ever owned. A finely adjustable aperture sight mounted at the rear of the receiver and a full 36" sighting radius are major plusses. Thirty years ago, when I could see better, the rifle would shoot M.O.A. out to 200 yards. My K-31 can't keep up with it.

 

[BLACKHAWKNJ]

The Ross failed because its action couldn't take the muck and mud of Flanders and there was the problem with the bolt that could be inserted incorrectly and the rifle would fire without the bolt locked in place.
It was said of Sir Charles Ross that he spent a lot of time tinkering with his designs but never bothered to perfect them.

 

[tark]

The Ross failed because its action couldn't take the muck and mud of Flanders and there was the problem with the bolt that could be inserted incorrectly and the rifle would fire without the bolt locked in place.
It was said of Sir Charles Ross that he spent a lot of time tinkering with his designs but never bothered to perfect them.

Your last sentence is correct, your first one is not entirely correct. I have a Mk III Ross. When I got it it had no finish remaining, but it had a pristine bore. ( Go figure ) I decided to refinish it but I did a little experiment first. I decided to give it the mud & sand test. It held up as well as any Mauser of Enfield.

The reason the Mk IIIs failed was because the left rear lug was deformed by banging against the bolt stop. Eventually it would bind up in the receiver. The frustrated soldier started beating on the bolt handle and that only made things worse. The incorrectly assembled bolt problem is greatly over-hyped. One had to take the bolt apart to do this. Something soldiers in the field weren't supposed to do. Further, an incorrectly assembled bolt was (is) almost impossible to insert in the receiver. And if you do get it in, it moved very stiffly, evidence right there that something was wrong. Yes, things will get ugly if you do fire the gun this way, but the bolt stop will keep the bolt from giving you a lobotomy. Your thumb, however will not fare so well if it it draped over the top of the pistol grip.

The Ross Mk III was a deeply flawed design that could have been brilliant...with some field testing before it was put into service. It was astoundingly accurate and it had wonderful sights. However, it had too many minuses to be put on the list.

 

[lysanderxiii]

There are a few reports of SMLEs failing to work due to mud.

That should tell you something about the mud they encountered . . .

 

[S.Crockett]

None of these old 5-shot Mil bolts can beat a well-greased M1 Garand.

 

[trekker73]

No4MkII - the epitome of a battle rifle. You can clean trench mud from any part of the action and get it back in service (can't do that with forward locking lugs), controlled-round-feed, decent sights, 10rd magazine, decent powered cartridge suitable for use under wartime conditions (big rim, tapered case), and headspace adjustable in the field. They don't make 'em like that any more.

My grandfather and great grandfather, Australian and Scottish respectively felt the same way about Lee Enfields in two wars. They also used them for outback shooting during peacetime, one through the depression, the other professional culling in that country in the 50's

 

[rbernie]

There are a few reports of SMLEs failing to work due to mud.

That should tell you something about the mud they encountered . . .

Priorities were certainly different 100 years ago. Given the cost of manufacturing complex things (relative to the cost of living), things were often (not always) designed for longevity and serviceability as much as functionality. Now that we have petawatts of electricity and relatively inexpensive machining stations, things can be designed to optimize function even if it sacrifices some longevity or serviceability in the process. We can just make and bring more.

 

[Ignition Override]

Well, being one of the Thousands of Keyboard Warriors on (various) internet gun forums, I certainly can't begin to answer the OP's question about choosing the Best.

This New Zealand sniper at the ferocious, mostly uphill battle to take the huge complex at Monte Cassino might be happy with his Enfield?
--- I have no idea---, but have always found this photo interesting, whether during actual sniping, or just posing for a camera (finger is not on the trigger).

 

[tark]

None of these old 5-shot Mil bolts can beat a well-greased M1 Garand.

Quite a few of them can, for accuracy, at least.

 

[Kawamax]

I am just going to put this out there: from https://www.thehistorypress.co.uk/articles/weaponry-in-world-war-i/

A bolt action weapon that fired a .303 calibre round it weighed 8.62lbs was 44 ½ in. long and had a ten-round magazine. Sights were set out to 2,000 yards. The ‘sword’ bayonet fitted to the SMLE had a formidable 17in. blade; the theory behind this was that it gave a foot soldier sufficient reach to be able to bayonet a mounted soldier. A soldier could actually load eleven rounds if he had one in the breach, or ‘up the spout’, and this gave him a significant advantage over German soldiers whose Gewehr ’98 had a five-round magazine. In the hands of a trained soldier the British Short Magazine Lee–Enfield was easily capable of 15rpm (rounds per minute) of accurate fire.

Rifles
However in the 1930s, a Small Arms School Corps Warrant Officer managed a rate of 37rpm. Reliable and extremely accurate, the SMLE is regarded by most authorities as the finest rifle of the First World War.

Granted this is a UK site. Still, 10+1 rounds, very good sights, and fast reload stripper clips made a very good combination…. And yes, I am completely unbiased, as I only have two SMLEs.

 

[BLACKHAWKNJ]

The story is at the Battle of Mons, August 23, 1914 the men of the BEF fired their SMLEs so fast and accurately that the Germans thought they were facing machine guns.

 

[gwpercle]

deleted post

 

[Kawamax]

The story is at the Battle of Mons, August 23, 1914 the men of the BEF fired their SMLEs so fast and accurately that the Germans thought they were facing machine guns.

Thank you. I was looking for that reference earlier but couldn’t find it. Here is another excerpt from: https://www.britishbattles.com/first-world-war/battle-of-mons/

The rude shock of the Boer War in South Africa between 1899 and 1901 caused the British Army to remodel its training to emphasise the importance of small arms marksmanship and weapon handling. Regular musketry courses brought skills to a level where British infantrymen were capable of firing up to 20 or 30 rounds a minute of accurate rifle fire, the standard being 12 rounds a minute. This rate of fire was to give the Germans a shock in the opening battles of the Great War and create the impression that the British were armed with many more machine guns than they actually possessed. Opening volleys at this rate were referred to as the ‘mad minute’.

 

[tark]

My "other" choice - 1911 Schmidt-Ruben K11 - short rifle in 7.5 Swiss ... it's a Tack Driver !
The Swiss know how to make rifles !
Gary

Again, the K-31, magnificent as it is, does not qualify for consideration in this poll. Read rule #6 in my original post.

 

[gwpercle]

deleted post

 

[gwpercle]

deleted post

 

[tark]

Post deleted

 

[tark]

post deleted

 

[Mars5l]

French Mas 36 would almost be a contender as well. Simple to use and make. In fact they made them too dummy proof with the sights that were locked in from the armory.

 

[lysanderxiii]

. . . In fact they made them too dummy proof with the sights that were locked in from the armory.

Most military rifles had the sights "locked from the armory". . .

The entire Lee-Enfield series, all the Mausers, Mosin-Nagants, Mannlichers, AKs . . . in fact, only the US feels the need to allow troops to adjust the sights at their leisure.

 

[Mosin77]

Mas 36,

Most military rifles had the sights "locked from the armory". . .

The entire Lee-Enfield series, all the Mausers, Mosin-Nagants, Mannlichers, AKs . . . in fact, only the US feels the need to allow troops to adjust the sights at their leisure.

The SMLE had adjustable sights until wartime production expediency made them go away.

The particularly vexing thing about the Mas36 sights are that the adjustment is made with removable inserts that are only available from an armorer as fitted to an individual rifle. 70 years on, this supply is difficult to source which might really make things difficult if you have to disassemble the rifle for some reason. Enfields and others can be dismounted from their stock if necessary and adjusted (also if necessary) more readily. This doesn’t really effect the system as-issued but it’s a very relevant factor in civilian ownership decades down the road without the benefit of an army supply system.

This is also a big factor (IMO) in why the Mannlichers and Carcanos are historically unpopular with civilian shooters. They’re not bad guns, but anything that won’t function without a separate proprietary clip that’s easily lost or damaged is not going to be anyone’s first choice. The Garand is only exempt from this because it’s something like a national hero, and also clips have been historically produced in such numbers that they’ve never been hard to come by in the US.

I note nobody in this thread has gone to bat for the Mannlicher (either Dutch or Austrian style) or the Berthier. (Looks like there are a couple of votes for the Carcano -Ian McCollum fans, perhaps?)