Enfield vs. Mauser

[Limeyfellow]

I would go with the Lee Enfield for the above stated reasons, but also add a few more...


It is far easier to field repair and deal with headspace issues for one by simply swapping over the bolt head. Sure some Mauser designs like the P14/M1917 and so on incorporated such features but then again it was the bastard crossbreed of an Enfield and Mauser to begin with.

Its sights are much more rugged than any but on the P14 for a bolt action. The K98 Mauser is much more delicate, and the Springfield 03 is positively fragile in comparison.

The No4 is so heavy because it has a heavy free floating barrel for accuracy. It can maintain the rate of faster fire without getting too hot.

The butt stock is easily replaced with different sizes to fit the rifle to different size people and doesn't require replacing the whole stock to do so like on almost every Mauser I ever seen or handled.



Of course its main disadvantage was the .303 rimmed cartridges that weren't replaced until the introduction of specialised rifles like the L9, L42, L39 and so on when they switched to the 7.62 mm NATO and a stronger alloy for the steel. With the rimmed cartridge it had a slight chance of causing some feed errors if not loaded on the stripper clip properly to feed into the magazine. It is a shame that WW1 stopped the introduction of the smaller .280 round in development, but the outbreak of war, Britain went with what they had in stock.

Of course I wouldn't turn down a Czech, Persian of Swedish Mauser either. They are all really nice examples of the Mauser action, but in the end for the purpose they were built, I would go with the Lee Enfield as it is the superior battle rifle in my opinion.

 

[DougW]

I like my Mausers. I LOVE my Enfields!

 

[52grain]

it's alive!!

I think that this got sorted this out in 1918 and then again in 1945.

 

[Hummer70]

Insofar as Mauser/Enfields go another thing to be considered is the number of times a case can be reloaded.
Military chambers by necessity have to be large so dirty ammo can be loaded in combat but for reloading this is a case killer.
Mausers are easier to change out barrels on and still come up with a system that will feed, fire, extract and eject.

On the Enfields you are severely limited on the other cartridges it can be used with and the fact the rear locking lugs allows for bolt flex which is a case killer.

Case life can be extended on 303 by minimal sizing which basically means you just run cases in die enough to barely bump the shoulder back.

On the P14 you can make it into a fine long range rifle by using a custom 303 reamer that cuts the chamber .454" diameter on the base and as the reamer is run in during chambering stop it when the bolt will snug close on a new unfired empty case.

This gives best of both worlds. The base doesn't expand but maybe .002" and the shoulder stays where it is allowing for multiple reloads.

 

[Ignition Override]

The Enfield #4's and #5's sights are much better.

On a practical level, surplus Czech and Yugo 8mm ammo has been about .25/round for the last year, maybe longer.
Reloading Prvi .303 cases several times each (neck-sizing only) keeps the Enfields quite active.
A reloaded case used from a #5 "Jungle Carbine" might not allow the bolt to quite close on the #4, and vice versa (umgekehrt).

Hummer 70 appears to have much more experience with this.

 

[~Boomslang~]

For what they are SMLE's are fine rifles. However, there is a reason that every country in the world has had some version of Paul Mausers rifle with their crest on the action. There is also a reason that The U.S. copied the design to make the 03 Springer. And winchester, and every other custom builder on the planet has done the same, and still is. Likewise, there is also a reason that the SMLE action is pretty much reserved to surplus rifles and a few attempts at sporters.

 

[txcookie]

For what they are SMLE's are fine rifles. However, there is a reason that every country in the world has had some version of Paul Mausers rifle with their crest on the action. There is also a reason that The U.S. copied the design to make the 03 Springer. And winchester, and every other custom builder on the planet has done the same, and still is. Likewise, there is also a reason that the SMLE action is pretty much reserved to surplus rifles and a few attempts at sporters.

agree

 

[prid93]

The enfield has its advantages which may make it a superior battle rifle...but I just love the german mauser.

 

[Wheeler44]

In order of preference......Lee Enfield..US Rifle 1917...Springfield '03a3 (better sights) and then Mauser...
Action, Magazine and sights..Show me someone put 20 well aimed rounds down range faster with any other bolt action..

W44

 

[Ignition Override]

Can some of you guys shoot with the Mauser's original iron sights about as accurately as you can with a Lee-Enfield #4/#5 or earlier type?
For me, trying to use the Yugo 48A's barely visible sights is frustrating, although ammo is cheap, but the 'groups' do not compare to the Enfield's or Garand's.

If you can shoot equally well with both types, from only a practical standpoint, would you now choose either rifle (for hobby shooting) based mostly upon 2010 ammo prices or reloading costs?

 

[madcratebuilder]

Can some of you guys shoot with the Mauser's original iron sights about as accurately as you can with a Lee-Enfield #4/#5 or earlier type?
For me, trying to use the Yugo 48A's barely visible sights is frustrating, although ammo is cheap, but the 'groups' do not compare to the Enfield's or Garand's.

If you can shoot equally well with both types, from only a practical standpoint, would you now choose either rifle (for hobby shooting) based mostly upon 2010 ammo prices or reloading costs?

I find a rifle with a rear peep, No 4 Enfield, M1, M1A, or AR easier to acquirer the sight picture. Plus the longer sight radius is a plus.

The Mausers barrel mounted rear sight is one of it's few weak points.

 

[BrocLuno]

Ah, but once it's done its duty, the Mauser makes the better custom gun platform. So there is a lovely 22-250 heavy barrel built on an exquisitely finished action in my safe. I wouldn't try that with an Enfield.

OTOH, I have two P1917 actions awaiting rebuild to sporter and tacticool. There are very good Enfields out there. But, I voted for the Mauser because of repurpose capability

 

[Robert]

Die zombie thread!

 

[leatherneck448]

I picked the mauser,
one, because i own one, and don't own an enfield
two, because i think the 8mm cartridge is far superior to the .303 british
(hangfire issues w/ the cordite propellant in the radway green ammo they used back in the day)
And three, I Think that the mauser is much more user friendly for people actually going into combat. My mauser runs like a brick, and doesn't ever quit. The only problems ive ever had with mine have been ammo, not the gun. As with the enfield, Ive found they're more accurate, but have been more finicky than my mauser or mosin for that matter.

 

[Pony Express]

I voted mauser...tougher action and it just fits my frame better. believe it or not I actually prefer the sights as well.

 

[supergoat343]

The Enfield, like most bolt actions at the time were actually designed off of the Mauser. Mauser fires a more powerful round(assuming 8mm and not 7mm-08), but the enfield has greater capacity and in my opinion, faster rate of fire.I also like the Enfield's sights WAAAAAAY more than the Mauser's.
Id go with the Enfield because it is enough gun to shoot accurately at the needed range and my Long Branch No 4MK1 shoots better than my M1916.
Love them both though

 

[group17]

mauser and I own both

 

[XxWINxX94]

I own both but chose Enfield.

The Enfield has double the capacity, better sights, and in my opinion is a more durable rifle. Assuming were talking about the No. 4 Mk I, the full wood stock makes the gun somewhat heavy, however, its also like a shield to the metal components.

The only negatives about the Enfield is the affordibility of ammunition, weight, and not as valueble.
The K98 Mauser is also a great rifle. I find them more interesting from a historical & collectors perspective, but I shoot my K98 often because 8mm is generally affordable.

 

[Jeff F]

I voted for the Enfield, I shoot them better then Mausers. If I ever had spin one around to use as a club I would much rather have a Mauser in my hands.

The Enfield, like most bolt actions at the time were actually designed off of the Mauser

The No1 and No4 Enfield have nothing in common with the Mauser design. Now the P14 and P17 Enfield rifles do.

 

[Nushif]

This was a hard choice ... let me elaborate.

I am a German pretty much fresh off the beat, so my first impulse was to say MAUSER! 8MM! and leave it at that ... but when the chips are down ... I do own an Enfield. And not a Mauser.

8( That almost made me feel schmutzig.

 

[forestdavegump]

huh

6 to one half a dozen the other? I like both. Mauser probably more better for strength lots of manufactures copy those.

 

[wlewisiii]

There is no doubt in my mind that Paul Mauser's child was the better rifle. Put it in 7mm for the best battle rifle

 

[SeekHer]

History Channel needs to study up on their history. Look up a place called Belleau Wood.

Wow, USEF 1903s vs. their parent the Mauser K98-k.

Remember that Springfield Armoury was paying royalties/licensing fees to MauserWerks for all the items they used on their 1903s and had to do so even during the war years until America entered the war...MauserWerks took Springfield and the US Government to court and won for all the back royalties owed them.

 

[bigedp51]

1950 No.4 Mk.2 center bedded for target work and the worlds best beer.



1916 No.1 Mk.3 overhauled in 1953, the Australian Elle McPherson in a wet bathing suit and a Koala bear target.
(for joking with the Australians)

[image deleted]

Brand new unissued 1950 Canadian Long Branch No.4 Mk.1*



I love my Enfields and the only problem I have with them is barrel overheating when firing long bursts.



And 95% of all Enfield books and manuals you see on the internet today were donated by yours truly.







And even the Dutch prefered the Enfield rifle over the German Mauser.





The Enfield rifle was used in two world wars to shoot round holes in square heads.

bigedp51 AKA Ed Horton

 

[SeekHer]

Had WWI not interfered with procurement plans, the British Army would've replaced the Lee-Enfield with the Enfield P-14, which was more Mauser like than SMLE like - five round internal mag, front locking two lug Mauser action etc.

The Mauser was a more robust weapon with the stronger action and more durable one piece stock. The rimless amunitions Mauser rifles used were perfectly suited for the machinegun revolution afoot. If I were arming a pre-WWI army this would be the rifle I'd choose.

The reason the SMLE was so fast to fire was the rear locking mechanism and position of the bolt handle allowed the shooter to work the bolt with the thumb and forefinger, and shoot with the middlefinger. This took much practice and it was tiring. The British troops developed a stamina for rapid fire through hard training. But once machineguns are in the equation, how important was rapid rifle fire?

The advantages of the SMLE is only useful if you have a highly trained professional army. Being as WWI required quickly trained mass conscriptions the SMLE's usefulness is negated. After one year on the Western front the professional British Army was all but wiped out.

No they wouldn't have--they had absolutely no intention of changing calibres or rifles, war or no war...They got the US to make them for the British Army because they couldn't supply enough of their own.

The Mauser is not a more robust action, it is a far more precise action which is why it gummed up during the cold months and while not as bad as the Ross Rifle for jamming on a piece of dust they did and would over dirt...The Nazi forces in Russia hated their Mausers because they froze up.

Rimless ammo is not a detriment to military rifles for one major factor--you can pry a stuck cartridge out much easier and that's what sold the Commonwealth Forces on the rifle and calibre...Remember that lots of the first machine guns used rimmed cartridges--Maxim (the first) was in .303 as were the Lewis and Vickers, The French Hotchkiss and the Chauchat in 8x50Rmm Lebel and the Russian Maxim in 7.52x54Rmm.

The Commonwealth soldiers were never, ever, trained to use the middle finger for firing and against machine guns rapid fire is the MOST important thing--make them keep there heads down--called suppression fire!

Do you not think that the Germany didn't have a conscript army during both wars? It is far easier to learn to shoot with a sloppy action as opposed to a very tight one--also why the Mosin-Nagant is considered to be a conscript army rifle but that's not quite true as Russia did have and still has a mandatory two year military service...World War One was as much a surprise to Germany as it was to Britain and the Commonwealth and all had recruiting drives.