Limeyfellow
Member
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.
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.