Enfield vs. Mauser
- Thread starter Combat-wombat
- Start date
- Status
nemesis
Member
Put me down for any of the Lee Enfield No. 4 variants. While the SMLE may be one of the worlds great rifles, it really is not comparable to the No. 4. The No. 4 is technically superior and better looking to boot!
My Korean era Long Branch has the C Mk 4 Bren pattern 6 groove barrel and is the rackmate to my pre-ban "canuckized" Aussie L1A1. (rotary disc "snow" sight, C1A1 top cover and new C1A1 furniture, sling and hardware)
Don't use any lubricant and turn the gas up one to two clicks. On a CBA rifle (inch pattern), pivot the trigger guard back into the grip and you can use your winter gloves.
My Korean era Long Branch has the C Mk 4 Bren pattern 6 groove barrel and is the rackmate to my pre-ban "canuckized" Aussie L1A1. (rotary disc "snow" sight, C1A1 top cover and new C1A1 furniture, sling and hardware)
Don't use any lubricant and turn the gas up one to two clicks. On a CBA rifle (inch pattern), pivot the trigger guard back into the grip and you can use your winter gloves.
HI
Gabe asked how important was rapid fire anyway after MG's came into it??
I believe on of thr first large scale engagments of WW1 was of a british regiment walking to the lines when the report came in of enemy troops moving in the field at 700 yards.
The CO gave to order to fire and the RSM conducted to shoot with the order of:
form into lines
Set sights to 700 yards( gave them a direction)
"10 rounds rapid fire"
Comence!
Take a lot of machine guns to make up that volume of fire.
later
P
Gabe asked how important was rapid fire anyway after MG's came into it??
I believe on of thr first large scale engagments of WW1 was of a british regiment walking to the lines when the report came in of enemy troops moving in the field at 700 yards.
The CO gave to order to fire and the RSM conducted to shoot with the order of:
form into lines
Set sights to 700 yards( gave them a direction)
"10 rounds rapid fire"
Comence!
Take a lot of machine guns to make up that volume of fire.
later
P
"But once machineguns are in the equation, how important was rapid rifle fire?"
Well, that is a question we are still asking ourselves. Today, we have more than just machine guns: today we have air support and gadgets that didn't even exist in comic books in 1918. Back in WW1, for the most part, machine guns were big/heavy/water cooled machine guns mounted on tri-pods which were basically set up and left in place. They couldn't manuver with those machine guns. They couldn't set up an ambush as we think of it today with one.
Today we have a whole variety of machine guns available to an infantry company, yet we still think rapid and full auto rifle fire is important. There is no substitute for accurate and rapid rifle fire. With every conflict fought, someone says the days of the infantryman are over. The rifle doesn't play any significant role in modern conflict. Yet, it all boils down to a man with a rifle in the end. Look at Iraq in 2004. We have air power that couldn't have even been drempt of in 1918. We have every gadget that has ever been conceived over there. But, the fighting is taking place primarily just like it did in WW1. Men with rifles are shooting at other men with rifles. Men with machine guns are shooting at other men with machine guns. Men with explosives are trying to blow up other men with explosives set off by booby trap or comand detonation. The more things change, the more they stay the same.
"There ain't many things in life that can't be fixed with a thousand dollars and a thirty ought six"
Well, that is a question we are still asking ourselves. Today, we have more than just machine guns: today we have air support and gadgets that didn't even exist in comic books in 1918. Back in WW1, for the most part, machine guns were big/heavy/water cooled machine guns mounted on tri-pods which were basically set up and left in place. They couldn't manuver with those machine guns. They couldn't set up an ambush as we think of it today with one.
Today we have a whole variety of machine guns available to an infantry company, yet we still think rapid and full auto rifle fire is important. There is no substitute for accurate and rapid rifle fire. With every conflict fought, someone says the days of the infantryman are over. The rifle doesn't play any significant role in modern conflict. Yet, it all boils down to a man with a rifle in the end. Look at Iraq in 2004. We have air power that couldn't have even been drempt of in 1918. We have every gadget that has ever been conceived over there. But, the fighting is taking place primarily just like it did in WW1. Men with rifles are shooting at other men with rifles. Men with machine guns are shooting at other men with machine guns. Men with explosives are trying to blow up other men with explosives set off by booby trap or comand detonation. The more things change, the more they stay the same.
"There ain't many things in life that can't be fixed with a thousand dollars and a thirty ought six"
Four to six Vickers guns can equal the firepower of a regiment. Maybe twelve at the most.
And in World War One, the Lewis gun (26 pounds, 47 round drum) was the light portable machine gun of choice.
The BAR almost made it in time, or squeaked in at the last month or two of the war if I remember right.
The crappy Chauchat was also portable, just not reliable.
The Germans generally just had the heavy Maxims, but they made up for that in WW2 with a vengeance.
And in World War One, the Lewis gun (26 pounds, 47 round drum) was the light portable machine gun of choice.
The BAR almost made it in time, or squeaked in at the last month or two of the war if I remember right.
The crappy Chauchat was also portable, just not reliable.
The Germans generally just had the heavy Maxims, but they made up for that in WW2 with a vengeance.
Andrew Wyatt
Member
"The mauser large ring action and the construction of the bolt to pass escaped gases all seem to make the mauser a safer action. "
that's false. the enfield handles gas much better than the mauser because it vents gas ahead of the bolt head through holes provided for the purpose. I've had rounds split at the necks and all kinds of nasty things with my number4mk1 and WWII era paki ammo and i noticed nothing amiss untill i looked at the empty cases on the ground.
that's false. the enfield handles gas much better than the mauser because it vents gas ahead of the bolt head through holes provided for the purpose. I've had rounds split at the necks and all kinds of nasty things with my number4mk1 and WWII era paki ammo and i noticed nothing amiss untill i looked at the empty cases on the ground.
Sleeping Dog
Member
I like my Swede Mauser, more accurate than my SMLE and kicks less.
The only time I'd prefer the SMLE is if I was hunting bigger animals, like moose.
Regards.
The only time I'd prefer the SMLE is if I was hunting bigger animals, like moose.
Regards.
I voted Mauser...
The Enfeild has got to win the prize for #1 ugly bolt action however
I just don't like how it 'feels'... I guess it's just not shaped right for me. I also don't like the 2 peice stock, and I don't like how it cocks on closing instead of opening like the mauser (the mauser 98s anyway, the 95s were like the enfeild)
So Mauser got my vote...
But I have to say that I think the most interesting/coolest bolt action was the Krag
The Enfeild has got to win the prize for #1 ugly bolt action however
I just don't like how it 'feels'... I guess it's just not shaped right for me. I also don't like the 2 peice stock, and I don't like how it cocks on closing instead of opening like the mauser (the mauser 98s anyway, the 95s were like the enfeild)
So Mauser got my vote...
But I have to say that I think the most interesting/coolest bolt action was the Krag
corncob
Member
I hate to ask a stupid question, but...
what is all this about venting gas? You are talking about in case of a double charge or case failure? How, exactly, does this work? (I'm genuinely curious. Feel free to be as verbose and long-winded as necessary.)
what is all this about venting gas? You are talking about in case of a double charge or case failure? How, exactly, does this work? (I'm genuinely curious. Feel free to be as verbose and long-winded as necessary.)
Cosmoline
Member
As rifles became more potent during the 1890's, more gas venting systems were incorporated into their design. These could include cuts in the bolt face, channels inside the stock, etc. The idea was to keep gas from a ruptured primer or case from blasting back through the bolt body and into the eye of the shooter. I had some gas blowback in my old Argie '91 when I cranked pressure too high and busted a primer. But I've never had the problem with a '98. So the system must work.
Feanaro
Member
Sometimes a cartridge will fail in such a manner(Punched primer, way too hot, etc) that the gasses attempt to blast backwards. There were various things done to the bolt and/or the receiver to keep this from hitting the shooter. For example, on my Yugoslavian M48A, there are two large holes on the forward bottom of the bolt. This sends the hot gasses down through the magazine(Often blowing it off the rifle, though it usually isn't broken. YMMV) instead of into your face.
mondocomputerman
Member
Not that it matters that much I guess, but what does the comparison look like between the different cartridges? What is the difference between the energy of the bullets at the muzzle and at range, and the drop of the bullet at range?
CaptainCrossman
Member
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2009
- Messages
- 62
old thread worth reviving...
The Enfield was stronger and finished higher than the Mauser in blow up tests performed back in the 1948, comparing the Springfield, Mauser, Enfield- they finished in that order, the Enfield being the strongest, Springfield the weakest.
(FWIW, the then-new Remington model 721/722, was still going strong long after the above 3 already blew up- and this later became the model 700)
the Enfield also had a better factory iron sight, and would take the long magnum caliber conversions easier, because it was a longer action- converting a Mauser to long belted magnum requires grinding away much of the feed ramp, weakening the action.
The Enfield cock on closing feature is a negative trait, along with the fact it's a heavy, somewhat homely looking rifle.
The Enfield is prone to ejector spring breakage- ask me how I know, just ordered a new ejector for mine today.
But I like my Enfield anyway, it's a good knock around deer rifle, and loaner rifle. The safety on an Enfield is way easier to work than a Mauser.
The Enfield was stronger and finished higher than the Mauser in blow up tests performed back in the 1948, comparing the Springfield, Mauser, Enfield- they finished in that order, the Enfield being the strongest, Springfield the weakest.
(FWIW, the then-new Remington model 721/722, was still going strong long after the above 3 already blew up- and this later became the model 700)
the Enfield also had a better factory iron sight, and would take the long magnum caliber conversions easier, because it was a longer action- converting a Mauser to long belted magnum requires grinding away much of the feed ramp, weakening the action.
The Enfield cock on closing feature is a negative trait, along with the fact it's a heavy, somewhat homely looking rifle.
The Enfield is prone to ejector spring breakage- ask me how I know, just ordered a new ejector for mine today.
But I like my Enfield anyway, it's a good knock around deer rifle, and loaner rifle. The safety on an Enfield is way easier to work than a Mauser.
briansmithwins
Member
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2005
- Messages
- 4,631
As issued I'd take a No.1 or No.4 Enfield every day of the week over a Mauser for one reason alone: sights.
I had a miserable time with my Mauser. The pyramid front sight combined with a tiny V notch rear made accurate, fast shooting all but impossible. Guys that complain about the AK-47 and it's 'miserable' sights have never apparently fired a stock Mauser. BSW
I had a miserable time with my Mauser. The pyramid front sight combined with a tiny V notch rear made accurate, fast shooting all but impossible. Guys that complain about the AK-47 and it's 'miserable' sights have never apparently fired a stock Mauser. BSW
Mr_Pale_Horse
Member
Being an Anglo-phile growing up, I wanted my first gun to be an SMLE. But being an engineer (I got into shooting late in life) I decided to study the designs of various guns before I started collecting/shooting.
That changed the order of things. I bought a mint 1895 Chilean Mauser in 7x57. Some years later I started buying various SMLE/P14.
The elegant Mauser design was designed by a single brilliant mind, Paul Mauser. The SMLE shows all the hallmarks of design by committee.
That changed the order of things. I bought a mint 1895 Chilean Mauser in 7x57. Some years later I started buying various SMLE/P14.
The elegant Mauser design was designed by a single brilliant mind, Paul Mauser. The SMLE shows all the hallmarks of design by committee.
lonegunman
Member
I think the Enfield is a better battle rifle. It is faster to cycle, holds twice the ammo and is tough as nails. I've shot and owned both of them and they are both great rifles. Mauser workmanship and wood fit was almost always better and many of them are works of art. Enfields are nearly always stove blacked with railroad ties for stocks.
You have to respect both of them in the hands of trained soldiers. The Germans were not pining away for Enfields and the Brits were not begging for Mausers.
You have to respect both of them in the hands of trained soldiers. The Germans were not pining away for Enfields and the Brits were not begging for Mausers.
throdgrain
Member
Wise words.
I like both but my first choice would be the Kraut rifle K 98. I have two in excelllent conditon, both captured or surrendered to the Yugoslavians. The third one i gave it to my brother. WIth Igman 196 gr SP it was grouping 1.5 inch group at 100 yds, on sandbag rest.
Much as I love the Mauser, for a military bolt gun, the Enfield wins for all the reasons already stated (sights, magazine, etc).
My personal favorite, already named above, the is Krag, in the original 6.5x55. The action is slick and fast, the rifle is supremely accurate and the action is more than strong enough for this cartridge.
Certainly the importance of the rifle waned as the machinegun became more prevalent - so much so that the Germans stayed with the bolt gun since they viewed rifleman as ammo bearers for the real killer - the MG. It took MOUT operations to convince the Germans to adopt an automatic weapon, and they created the StG.
My personal favorite, already named above, the is Krag, in the original 6.5x55. The action is slick and fast, the rifle is supremely accurate and the action is more than strong enough for this cartridge.
Certainly the importance of the rifle waned as the machinegun became more prevalent - so much so that the Germans stayed with the bolt gun since they viewed rifleman as ammo bearers for the real killer - the MG. It took MOUT operations to convince the Germans to adopt an automatic weapon, and they created the StG.
mordechaianiliewicz
Member
I voted Enfield... but Cosmoline took the words out of my mouth.... or the words off my fingers....
- Status
