Best WWII bolt action rifle

[barnbwt]

I cast my lot in for the K31; the best (and my only ) bolt rifle of the War I've handled lotsa Mausers (except VZ24's) and they just fit too loosely (I know they're supposed to/have to) when out of battery. The Swiss bolt rides on rails even when out of battery, so the mechanism is always nice and tight. I just wish the action could be rechambered easily (it'd be .308 in a heartbeat).

I know it's just a dumb mental block, but it's enough to keep me from plunking down for (another) obscure caliber. I think I ruined myself when I got a Rem 700, since the feel of cycling its bolt is so totally different from Mausers

TCB

PS: This really shoulda been a poll...

 

[leadcounsel]

While not really battle tested, the K31 hands down (assuming it would endure harsh conditions, which it was never tested in - but I see no reason why it wouldn't endure).

The weapon is fast (2 movements for the straightbolt, vs. 6 for a traditional bolt). It's accurage and has great sights and great trigger. Detachable box magazine, which was a step ahead for warefare, and decent capacity and a flat shooting round. Also not punishing to shoot, like the Mosin, K98, or Manlicher...

It's ergonimical, not too heavy, and a beautiful weapon too.

 

[Ignition Override]

PaulKersey3:
You will enjoy the so-called "Jungle Carbine". If you are very lucky you might spot an authentic, non-sport. example at a gun show. Two I've seen at shows in the last year and a half were in excellent or mint, and price tags, respectively, were about $550 a month ago (Gwinnett, GA)-$600 or $650 (Franklin, TN) in Feb '11.

You might be aware that some of the dark brown Malaysians can have deep barrel or chamber rust hidden under the handguard/stock.
One subtle detail on the #4/Mk.1 is that the wood contour around the very front of the trigger guard plate (by the screw) follows the exact metal contour, but on my #5s the wood does not match the metal contour.

On both my #5s (one came from Joesalter.com: very accurate descriptions), the wood has a bit of a figure 8 contour. Even my LE #4/#5 book by Charles Stratton does not seem to mention this.

 

[Jim Watson]

Best WW II bolt action rifle is an oxymoron.
The answer is the same as the best WW I bolt action, because the Great Powers were moving towards semiauto infantry rifles. We were the only ones that even got close to the transition and still used a lot of bolts. Germany and the USSR knew what they wanted, they just couldn't do it. England just kind of waved at the Pedersen in passing and stuck with the proven Lee derivatives. Italy and Japan were just kind of clueless.

 

[R.W.Dale]

While not really battle tested, the K31 hands down (assuming it would endure harsh conditions, which it was never tested in - but I see no reason why it wouldn't endure).
.

It wouldn't.

A k31 is fine target rifle for an army counting on never getting into a war where ammunition can be loaded and maintained in near surgical precision and the soldiers can go home and clean their guns at the end of the day.

However feed a k31 ammunition slightly out of spec or with any dirt or crud in the works and its shortcomings become glaringly evident.

That shortcoming is they lock up TIGHT

Lacking the camming mechanical advantage of a turnbolt on primary chambering and extraction the k31 is extremely intolerant of dirt or ammunition variables. A k31 is quite literally a semiautomatic without a powerful gas system to do the work. As far as how they work the Remington 7600 is the closest modern day equivalent to the k31 action.

For what its worth I've owned examples of every bolt gun that took part in Wwii (even the finns) with the exception of a carcano. Including Swedes and Swiss which DID NOT take part.

 

[morcey2]

Here's my list, in no particular order:

VZ-24/K98k/ 1898 mauser variants....
M91/30
M1903 + A3

They all have advantages/disadvantages .

But! Best WWII bolt-action battle rifle is definitely the SMLE. Sufficient power and accuracy, rugged, but wins hands down in rate of fire. I still need to get one. Or more.

Matt

 

[jrdolall]

I am not an expert on WWII weapons but if I had to choose the best BOLT ACTION for use by the average soldier I would have a couple of criteria.
1. Ease of use/repair. Training in WWII for many soldiers was not extensive as soldiers were being replaced and trained at amazing rates. By 1945 the Germans were sending children and old men(my age even)to fight. Rusians were trained as soon as they had a uniform.
2. Rate of fire. While we all like to talk about accuracy the fact is that MOST infantry soldiers were not going to be laying down and shooting at targets 500 yards away. They were shooting at soldiers either attacking their position or they were doing the attacking. In this scenario MOST soldiers want a gun that will let them shoot as much as possible until they can get to better cover or the enemy is dead or retreats. I am talking about the average infantry soldier here, not Vasili Zeitsev(sp). Reloading during an enemy attack or while attacking would have been a real bummer.
3. Dependability. While a bayonet or a 12 pound stick is better than nothing I would prefer a gun that could take the abuse of a battlefield without jamming or breaking. If someone opens fire at me with a MG while I am running across a muddy field then I will unashamedly dive into the closest piece of dirt available. Wil this gun fire with mud in the action?

I would personally want a gun that did not jam, was easy to maintain, was easy to shoot and reload and was as light as possible. Lugging around a 12 pound rifle that was 5 feet long had to be tiring. Which gun was the lightest weight?

Enfield would probably be my first choice because of the 10 round capacity.

 

[Esoxchaser]

Swedish M96 6.5 x 55.

 

[meanmrmustard]

It wouldn't.

A k31 is fine target rifle for an army counting on never getting into a war where ammunition can be loaded and maintained in near surgical precision and the soldiers can go home and clean their guns at the end of the day.

However feed a k31 ammunition slightly out of spec or with any dirt or crud in the works and its shortcomings become glaringly evident.

That shortcoming is they lock up TIGHT

Lacking the camming mechanical advantage of a turnbolt on primary chambering and extraction the k31 is extremely intolerant of dirt or ammunition variables. A k31 is quite literally a semiautomatic without a powerful gas system to do the work. As far as how they work the Remington 7600 is the closest modern day equivalent to the k31 action.

For what its worth I've owned examples of every bolt gun that took part in Wwii (even the finns) with the exception of a carcano. Including Swedes and Swiss which DID NOT take part.

I think 500,000 Swiss may have disagreed. But, then again, they may not have needed to dirty the rifles, being as accurate as they are. No need to get dirty when your target is shot to hell and dying'.

 

[Maverick223]

I think 500,000 Swiss may have disagreed.

Then they'd be wrong. It hasn't the camming force nor does it have the loose clearance found on most bolt actions and will, therefore, lock up tight if dirt enters the action. That isn't necessarily all bad though, as the same tight tolerances that make it sensitive to dirt also contributes to the excellent accuracy and the lack of camming (as a result of the straight-pull design) action make it much quicker to operate.

That said, I'll still take the SMLE with it's cavernous magazine and slick action...what it gives up in accuracy (a negligible point for all but the best trained army) it more than makes up for with superior rate of fire and reliability.

 

[351 WINCHESTER]

Amen on the SMLE.

 

[Jim Watson]

While I am sure one reason the Germans did not invade Switzerland was the sturdy defense for not very much gain, I would not want to put a K31 up against a Panzer and a Stuka.

 

[barnbwt]

Purely out of curiosity, has anyone ever actually gotten their K31 dirty and tested the action? I'm not obsessed with "non optimum" performance enough to dump sand in my rifles just for s***'s and giggles, but I guess it'd be good to know. The only camming strength issue I know of for sure is that full-length sizing is necessary to prevent undue stress on the action (it will still cycle, at least for a while, though)

I wouldn't dump sand in a K98 or SMLE I paid over twice as much for, either...or kick the bolt with my boot (Mosin Maneuver )

Pull-*grind*, push-*scrape*, turn-*shh-crunch*... no thank-you

TCB

*shudders*

 

[Billy Shears]

Billy, you made some really good points, especially about practical accuracy and useful cartridge power. Since both the SMLE and the Model 1917 cock-on-close, how do you figure the SMLE has a faster rate of fire?

John

Gosh, I missed this one. Oh well, better late than never...

You don't have to take my word for it. Get one of each and shoot them, and have someone time how long it takes you to fire of twenty or thirty rounds. You'll find the SMLE is still faster, as cock on closing is only part of the equation. The additional reasons are as follows:

1) The SMLE has a 60 degree bolt turn, as opposed to the M1917's 90 degrees. This saves a fraction of a second on the locking and unlocking of the bolt.
2) The SMLE has a shorter bolt travel, because the M1917, being a Mauser-type bolt action, with front locking lugs, adds a certain amount of length -- roughly an inch -- to the bolt throw. Basically, the bolt has to push the cartridge past a barrel extension with the locking lug recesses to chamber the cartridge. This adds another fraction of a second to working the bolt for each shot.
3) The SMLE has twice the magazine capacity. This means you have to stop and reload twice as often. At first this shouldn't seem like it makes much of a difference, because the SMLE's magazine is loaded with 5 round stripper clips -- same as the M1917 -- and it might seem like having to shove in two stripper clips to reload the SMLE would make up for the time you save on having ten rounds between reloads instead of five. But it still does makes a slight difference in favor of SMLE.

Anyway, these things, all taken together, allow the SMLE to have a slightly faster rate of fire even than the Pattern 14/M1917.

 

[meanmrmustard]

Then they'd be wrong. It hasn't the camming force nor does it have the loose clearance found on most bolt actions and will, therefore, lock up tight if dirt enters the action. That isn't necessarily all bad though, as the same tight tolerances that make it sensitive to dirt also contributes to the excellent accuracy and the lack of camming (as a result of the straight-pull design) action make it much quicker to operate.

That said, I'll still take the SMLE with it's cavernous magazine and slick action...what it gives up in accuracy (a negligible point for all but the best trained army) it more than makes up for with superior rate of fire and reliability.

To each there own I suppose. I'd like to see where there's a reliability issue with the K31, or where the Enfield has it bested in anything other than capacity.

 

[rodinal220]

Lee-Enfield No. 4 MKI*

 

[2DREZQ]

Several No III's & No. 1's have passed through my hands (I wish I had kept JUST ONE!), and they were FUN to shoot, especially with the Boer-war era ammo I had. But they are gone.

I still have my (sporterized) 1917. It's a very smooth action, and seems very ruggedly built.

Just for fun;

What's the WORST rifle of any type from WWII?

MY vote: Carcano, but I haven't tried them all.

 

[Billy Shears]

What's the WORST rifle of any type from WWII?

Probably the German G41. It used a gas trap muzzle and annular piston that never could be made to work reliably. The G43 was basically the same rifle with a more conventional piston, which worked well and resulted in a good rifle.

 

[HKGuns]

I have never shot one..... The enfield by most accounts was and remains the best of that era.