I submit the Enfield is the Ultimate SHTF rifle!

[SMLE]

OK, now my MY 2 cents worth of free opinion.
If you're talking BOLT ACTION only, there is simply NOTHING better than the Lee Enfield. No other bolt gun has the combination of features that the LE embodies. The MNs may have a slight edge in accuracy, but their bolts SUCK. I like MNs, I used to collect them and had nearly every variant except the snipers, but as far as Infantry battle rifles, the Lee Enfield leaves them in the dust.
The Mausers, even with turned down bolt handles max out in ROF about where the LE starts. So what if the Mauser is "stronger", we're not talking about custom magnum sporters here. The "issue" of feeding rimmed cases has been proved moot in two world wars and more "small wars" than I care to list. The SMLE took 22 years to refine, it went on to serve 60 years in frontline service( and is STILL in service in some places). The Mauser took 37 years to 'refine' and was being traded off to 2nd line units and cut up for scrap after barely 47 years active service. The 1903, '03A3 and 1917 are just Mausers wearing different makeup. The '03 has a fragile, user UNfriendly rear sight. If you don't have perfect vision, I defy you to use the peep sight. The 1917 and '03A3 do have better rear sights, but they're still slow and have less capacity than the LE. Also, with the MNs and all the Mausers and variants, you have to break your stock weld to work the bolt. You don't with an LE. You also have ot break your weld to work the bolt on a K31 and in speed trials, the LE is still the faster rifle. Here is your benchmark; 38 aimed shots in 60 seconds all placed in 12" at 300 yards from a prone position with issue sights and no sling for support. Reloading RIMMED cartridges with stripper clips.

There is some validity to the logistic argument against .303 Brit. but just get an Ishapore 2A1 and that is solved. Now I have 2500 - 3000 rounds of SA mil-surp .303 on hand as well as some Greek and British. I'm not too worried about that issue.

Vern said:

Why not let the enemy vote? After all, these are the people who went up against the battle rifles.

Why copy a bolt action when you're already making bolt actions? While the Lee Enfield would be a step up from the Mausers, the M1 is two steps up. But again, I'm talking BOLT actions ONLY.

As I said, this is my 2 cents, YMMV.

 

[SMLE]

Vern if the M1 was as good as the Enfield the British would have used it

Actually the Brits DID use a few M1s but only a FEW.

 

[SMLE]

If the British knew bupkis about guns, we'd be singing "God Save the Queen" right now.

Considering that the Colonial Armies were armed with muskets based on British patterns (until they were replaced by French patterns) we did pretty good. And of course the 1855 Springfield was a copy of the 1853 Enfield including bore dia. rifling, rate of turn, depth of grooves, progressive depth rifling etc. And the 1917 Rifle was just our version of a Brit. version of a Mauser.

The intestinal and genital fortitude of the grunts in the firing line was what made the difference.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Quote:
------------------------------------
Actually the Brits DID use a few M1s but only a FEW.
------------------------------------

Which they immediately dropped and jumped back in horror, "OOOOOH, OOOOOH! It reloaded ITSELF!"

 

[SMLE]

Which they immediately dropped and jumped back in horror, "OOOOOH, OOOOOH! It reloaded ITSELF!"

Good one. If Wellington had had his way, the Brits would've stormed ashore at Normandy with Brown Bess on their shoulders.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

Quote:
------------------------------------
Good one. If Wellington had had his way, the Brits would've stormed ashore at Normandy with Brown Bess on their shoulders.
------------------------------------

And led by officers who purchased their commissions.

(The British Army used to sell commissions. Once you bought a commission, it was your property and you could sell it when you were ready to buy a higher rank. When an attempt was made to end this practice, the Duke of Wellington strongly opposed it -- promoting officers by merit would let the wrong sort in, you know.)

 

[Jaeger]

Which they immediately dropped and jumped back in horror, "OOOOOH, OOOOOH! It reloaded ITSELF!"

Wanker!

 

[P95Carry]

I reaffirmed my love for Enfield yesterday .... put 100 or so rounds thru my Jungle and near as much thru my Turk Mauser (OK, it ain't a K98). When it comes to speed and smoothness, Enfield wins hands down... even did better at 600 yds too.

I have yet to use a Mauser where unlocking the bolt is easy ... it always seems to need an upward hard shove ... then when bolt is pulled back it feels sloppy. OTOH the Enfield, unlocks easy - bolt comes back like on rails and a solid shove forward with palm of hand does the trick.

I am leaving M1 out of this equation .... just comparing the two bolt styles. Maybe, just maybe ... the Mauser extractor is that bit stronger.

 

[goon]

Having never fired a Mauser, I can't really comment on the shooting characteristics of them.
I can say that between the Enfield and my M-39, I have to go with the Finn. For me, it is that one rifle. It just has exactly the right weight, balance, and fit for me. The round it fires is powerful and the rifle itself is accurate. I will admit that the bolt on the Enfield is quicker, but the bolt on my M-39 feels like it is sliding on ball-bearings.
For pure war, the Enfield may very well be superior (Although the Finns showed what Mosin-Nagants in the hands of warriors are capable of). But as the world stands now, it is doubtful that any of the classic bolt actions will ever a real war again.
As for shooting, hunting, and SHTF use, it all turns mostly into a matter of personal preferences.

 

[355sigfan]

dare ya to prove otherwise...

Battle proven reliability!
Fast rate of fire!
Long range capability!
Fast reloading with clips!
Hard hitting!
Tough and rugged! In fact I dare say the toughesst!
Accurate!
End QUOTE


A bolt action for SHTF ha ha ha ha.

Battle proven yes just over 50 years ago. The brown Bess was battle proven also big deal.

Fast rate of fire compared to what a muzzle loader. Its so slow compared to a good semi auto its funny.

Long range capability. So what a AR10 and M1A have long range capabilities. The military went away from long range rounds for a reason. Most people don't fight at 800 yards.

Faster reloading. Its not as fast as I can pop a new mag in my M4, M1a or AR10.

Tough and rugged so what so are a lot of other rifles. Its an interesting relic for a collection and thats about it.
Pat

 

[BigG]

James Paris Lee was an American. Remington made some of his designs before olde Englande adopted the American designed rifle that became the SMELLY.

And I agree the British don't know bupkis about guns - with rare exceptions.

 

[goon]

bolt action for SHTF ha ha ha ha.

Battle proven yes just over 50 years ago. The brown Bess was battle proven also big deal.

Fast rate of fire compared to what a muzzle loader. Its so slow compared to a good semi auto its funny.

Long range capability. So what a AR10 and M1A have long range capabilities. The military went away from long range rounds for a reason. Most people don't fight at 800 yards.

Faster reloading. Its not as fast as I can pop a new mag in my M4, M1a or AR10.

Tough and rugged so what so are a lot of other rifles. Its an interesting relic for a collection and thats about it.
Pat



In order:

Action doesn't matter all that much. If a man is good enough with his bolt action to hit you with the first shot, he doesn't need to empty half a mag at you.

The AK has also been around for a long time. So has the 1911 and the M2HB. Just because they are old doesn't make them useless.
Would you just let some guy shoot at you with a BAR? It's OK, right? Because it is old?

As for rate of fire, when compared with a fullpower semi-auto, a practiced bolt action shooter can shoot very fast. Plenty fast enough anyhow.

Long range sniping is preferable to closing and grabbing them by the belt buckle in some scenarios.

Reloading - yes, it is easier and quicker to slap in another mag. What happens whey you run out of mags? Are you really likely to put them back in your mag pouch while you are getting shot at? If you lose all your mags, your AR-10 turns into a single shot. Compare that with a gun that uses strippers. You lose all the stripper clips. and your gun is still completely useable with loose ammo.
IMO, the military went away from long range rounds because they couldn't make the average soldier into a good enough marksman to use the full capability of those rifles. We civilian shooters can become as proficient as our bank accounts will allow.
And it isn't just the range, it is also the accuracy. I like knowing that if I can see something, my rifle will hit it.
Also, since you don't see the need for long range shooting, why do you have the AR-10 and the M-1A? You don't need those powerful rifles, because people don't fight at 800 yards, right?

Rugged is a prime consideration for me. Things get banged around when they are used hard and you need something that will stand up to that. Most any military weapon, even the M-16, will take quite a bit of abuse and keep working. That is why I prefer them over similiar sporting arms. If you get a stuck casing in a Mosin-Nagant, you can beat the bolt handle with a hammer to get it open, and not harm the gun at all doing it. Can you confidently do that with most new sporting arms?

Insult our battle rifles all you want, but they put people in the ground 50 years ago and they still would today if need be.

 

[fds5116]

wildalaska wildcat

WildAlaska & Biff,
At one time I was contemplating a .303 based wildcat; it looked as if I could blow out the case straight and make a .444 marlin clone. While not a 45-70, it would have a lot of performance for the furries. Make a switch barrel for that and you're good to go.

Too much time on my hands...

 

[Andrew Wyatt]

Most people don't fight at 800 yards.

SOme people do shoot at things bigger than a human, or at humans farther away than .223 reach easily.


Sometimes people fight when its windy.

It's pretty obvious you've seen a boltgun being shot by someone with skill.

 

[SMLE]

355sigfan said:

Battle proven yes just over 50 years ago.

There some fresh graves in the US and GB that are the result of "poorly trained and equiped irregulars" who were using Lee Enfields. US and Brit troops in Iraq and Afganistan have captured plenty of LEs and taken fire from them as well. There is also a case that was documented in Soldier of Fortune magazine where a US Marine used an captured LE to wipe out an Iraqi mortar crew. He was quoted saying "When you shoot them with a .303, they stay shot!"

I also second what Goon said too.

 

[355sigfan]

Action doesn't matter all that much. If a man is good enough with his bolt action to hit you with the first shot, he doesn't need to empty half a mag at you.
END QUOTE

Actually it matters quite a bit. Maybe not in a long range firefight. But thats seldom the case. Most engagments are of a CQB affair. At close quarters a bolt is simply too slow. They are ok as sniper rifles where one shot is usually enough. But as a close quarters battle weapon its not enough.

SNIP
There some fresh graves in the US and GB that are the result of "poorly trained and equiped irregulars" who were using Lee Enfields.
END QUOTE

I would hazard to quess that there are far more graves of the enfield armed soldires than their are of our M4 armed soldiers.

As for losing magazines. Your not likely to lose your last mag if you have any tactical training at all. You always feel for a new mag before doing a speed load. If your out your screwed either way.

As far as the AK47 and 1911. The 1911 has evolved with the times and its still one of the easiests pistols to shoot accurately under speed. This is because of its short trigger reset, low bore axis and overall good ergonomics. Its also a reliable design if built right. The AK is a cheap easily produced weapon that works ok for poorly trained troops. So it remains popular. The bolt action battle rifle has been obsolete for a long time.
If you want more power than a 223 offers try a good 308 semi auto or the new 6.8. For my needs as a leo the 223 is perfect. I bet its just fine for most as well. It is lacking in long range stopping power I admit. I think the military would be better off with the new 6.8 mm.

Pat

 

[ilcylic]

Not to knock the .303, but if we're talking WWI bolt guns, why not the 1903?

I rather like mine. But it's got a lot of work into it.

-Ogre

 

[Feanaro]

Actually it matters quite a bit. Maybe not in a long range firefight. But thats seldom the case. Most engagments are of a CQB affair. At close quarters a bolt is simply too slow. They are ok as sniper rifles where one shot is usually enough. But as a close quarters battle weapon its not enough.

All rifles have a weakness. AR type rifles are well suited to close-medium range because of their low recoil and high capacity. But those low recoiling cartridges aren't well suited to longers ranges. MBRs have hefty enough rounds for medium-long(ish) ranges but recoil makes them less suited to CQB, though it can be done. Bolt actions are good for medium-long(er) range work but are slow and unwieldy in CQB. Play to your strengths and the enemies' weaknesses.

 

[goon]

I guess it all depends on what your SHTF is.
As for me, I don't envision being attacked by huge mobs of thugs. The firepower advantage of a semi-auto just isn't a huge deal to me. I do own two, an AK and a FAL, but neither works as well for me as my Mosin Nagant. The AK is very fast handling and utterly reliable, but at 200 yards I am mostly just making noise. The FAL is more effective at that range and more powerful, but it seems to be overly complex for what it does. For a military arm with an unlimited supply chain supporting it, it would do just fine. But I have had trouble with mine already and that is enough to make me question it. I just prefer a simpler weapon with fewer things to go wrong with it.
I figure that if I ever do find myself hip deep in a SHTF situation, I am going to run... until I am 400 or so yards away. Then I am gonna turn around and the people chasing me had better get behind something solid. They will need it.
CQB is not for me under any circumstances. I have no illusions that engaging a superior force up close and personal would result in anything other than me getting killed and the enemy getting my Mosin Nagant.

Dying is something everyone has to face, but they ain't taking my rifle.

 

[ken B]

I figure that if I ever do find myself hip deep in a SHTF situation, I am going to run... until I am 400 or so yards away. Then I am gonna turn around and the people chasing me had better get behind something solid.

hehe if I ran 400 yards, I'd have to keep that front sight from floating 4 inches up and 6 inches down while I'm sucking wind!

SHTF in a bolt action, won't the Ishapore be better? Same nappy trigger, but runs 7.62 and a bit more common here....still use the strippers, battle sights..etc...

I'd have to go 7.62 in a semi and opt for the FAL varients or L1A1....semi auto battle rifle so CQB isn't tooooo outrageous, and heavier .30 for longer range, though the accuracy may not be there...

better yet! Get the wife armed with the M4 .223, kids rock out with .22 or such, and Dad can rock on long range with the old MBR. if money wasn't an option...

but man those old Enfields look so cool.... Jaeger , I've read and reread your article on your 'burned-out' JC, I found a Savage chopped up bad and attempting my own version for the last month or so....awaiting the parts no from the bead blaster and refinishing!

Ken B
North Texas

 

[SMLE]

Not to knock the .303, but if we're talking WWI bolt guns, why not the 1903?

Re-read my first post on this thread, I lumped the '03 in with all the other Mausers.


355Sigfan:

I would hazard to quess that there are far more graves of the enfield armed soldiers than their are of our M4 armed soldiers.

True, but the point I was making is that an 100 year old rifle can be used to kill you just as dead as the latest and greatest plastic fantastic ubertactical wonder gun. The fight would have ended the same even if OUR guys were packing LEs and Lewis guns. Leaving all else in place, give today's US troops the same small arms their ancestors carried in WWI, and they'd still kick @$$ on anything out there.

And while you're trying to get the sand out of that M4, the LE armed guy even has a better club than you do. Plus his rounds will punch through cover that the M4/M16/M249 can't. "Newer" dosen't always = "better" and "old" don't = "useless".

 

[rbernie]

All of which is moot. Putting aside WildlivinginfantasylandAlaska's fictitious and completely rigged scenario - in any likely SHTF (and not TEOTWAWKI)scenario, the SKS will be king.

 

[Andrew Wyatt]

in pat's defense, he's a LE trainer, and his idea of SHTF is a swat call or something similar, with CQB in buildings and such.


That said, a jungle carbine or number4mk1 based scout is approximately the same size/weight as an m4, and has a lot more punch, and is about as fast as a pump shotgun when wielded by a trained individual.

 

[P95Carry]

Slightly OT but - hoping we'll hear something from Marty soon Andrew.

 

[Andrew Wyatt]

I'm holding out a faint hope that i hear something from tristar before the end of the year.


if i'd have known it would have taken this long, i wouldn't have done the group buy.