Kar 98k vs Lee Enfield No 4 MK 1

[Ugly Sauce]

He actually asked which military bolt action WWII rifle people wanted…”military”.
A Mauser action apparently makes a great hunting rifle, but for a military application: aperture sights, 10 round magazine, faster action…the ‘Mad Minute’.
I went to a school in England where we shot what we were told were SMLEs. They were No 4 rifles. The school team competed at places like Bisley were the range went many hundreds of yards, with iron sights. Pretty accurate.

I was jesting, with great sarcasm, in response to another post.

 

[wiscoaster]

He actually asked which military bolt action WWII rifle people wanted…”military”. A Mauser action apparently makes a great hunting rifle,....

To be fair, there were a whole heck of lot more military rifles that had Mauser actions and variants of same than there were military rifles that had Enfield actions.

 

[Danger Mouse]

They are both fun rifles. Lets assume condition is the same, both have good barrels, bolts headspace, all parts included, etc. Then, Mauser, and it does not matter what caliber.

There are several reasons. Mausers are easier on brass, Lee Enfields are horrible. War time Lee Enfield chambers vary considerably, shoulders are different and are huge. You have to segregate Lee Enfield brass by rifle. Bedding will be shot on both, but the Mauser is a lot easier to glass bed than a Lee Enfield. Even after bedding, the average Mauser will be more accurate, though the sights on the Lee Enfield are better. I like the aperture rear on a Lee Enfield No 4, some are better than others, but still better than a notch.

The titling L rear sight on a war baby.

View attachment 1081431

View attachment 1081432


In theory, the 300 yard side is zeroed with an attached bayonet. Without bayonet the zero is 400 yards, and the 600 yard side is without bayonet. I doubt anyone could remember that under shell or machine gun fire.

A much better rear sight, assuming the front sight blade height is correct. Based on the two American veterans I talked to, I doubt Canadian troops got enough time to sight their rifles further than 200 yards.

View attachment 1081433


the simple, straightforward typical Mauser

View attachment 1081434

View attachment 1081435

To a non mechanical enlisted person, this would have taken a month to explain how it actually worked!

View attachment 1081436

I am going to say, for a battle rifle, both are acceptable, the Lee Enfield, if you get the thing to shoot 4 MOA, that's good for a war time rifle. There was absolutely no consideration of target shooting during the early part of the war. War time standards were get it out the door, now! I have a unissued two groove Savage MK 1*. After bedding it shot a two inch group, but that may have been a statistical aberration. Before I bedded it, it would not hold on a 8 X 11 piece of paper at 100 yards, the foreend fell off when the stock was removed. I did center bed the thing, did not improve matters, it is a four MOA rifle at best.

If you have to have a Lee Enfield MK1, look for the Canadian versions. They are close to pre war fit and finish. They are the best of the WW2 era built rifles, but they are still war babies with the simplifying modifications which were incorporated during the war. The No 4 MKII's are the best built, glom on one if you can find it.

View attachment 1081437

I am going to say, even though a Mauser is capable of better accuracy, you still have to bed the actions. The worst have been the Yugo rebuilds and the Russian capture. Parts were all thrown in a bin and randomly pulled out and fitted together. However, all my Yugo's responded well except one. It was refinished to like new, new barrel, German K98 receiver. Barrel is not 0.323 interior, it is 0.327! Accuracy is slightly better than a musket. After bedding, testing, I finally slugged the barrel, and there it was. A large barrel.

I keep hearing this about enfields being hard on brass. Yet I'm up to 14 reloads on mine

 

[Mosin77]

This gets into a gray area with regard to intentions.

“Military” in 1942, vs. “Military use” in 2022, vs. which “military trim” rifle is easiest for civilian recreational shooting in 2022, vs. which one is the best platform for a civilian hunting rifle.

In the war the better rifle was probably the Enfield, but it’s rather a moot point anyway since you didn’t get your pick and anyway they were all outclassed by the Garand, carbine, and Jerry’s very plentiful mp40s, MG34s, etc.

Today they are all lousy unless you are guarding a warehouse somewhere and even then leave a lot to desire.

For any civilian use, I have to say the situation has gotten a lot less rosy than 10 years ago. In 2012 it still felt like there would always be plenty of surplus .303, .30-06, and 8mm. This meant recreational shooting was easily accessible and fun. The Mauser lends itself to making a pretty good hunting rifle. None of them are great target rifles by todays standards.

If you’re interested in them for their history and also interested in the question of which to buy for practical shooting fun (I think this is what most people actually mean to ask) the answer must simply be to get both. They’re both neat, different from one another, and can be very fun to shoot on the range.

But I’m also gravitating toward US arms just because in this country it still seems a lot easier to get noticeable amounts of good quality .30-06 vs the foreign calibers. If you discount the Mosin and 7.62x54r.

 

[Ugly Sauce]

However, the sun never sets on the British Empire.

I keep hearing this about enfields being hard on brass. Yet I'm up to 14 reloads on mine

Then there's that. The first No.4 I ever had had some case-head separations, but I used to load it hot, not knowing better. Don't think I've ever had a case head separation with any of the rifles I've had since. Of course, I'm always looking for any signs of it, and throw any out that are suspect. But yeah, I get plenty of reloads from my cases.

 

[22250Rem]

Didn't vote yet.... That's a tough call. Could we have a category titled "Undecided" ? I own and like both. They each have their good and not so good features.

 

[wiscoaster]

Didn't vote yet.... That's a tough call. Could we have a category titled "Undecided" ? I own and like both. They each have their good and not so good features.

No. The OP only wants you to pick one. That being said, you can ignore the OP and have both. Like me.

 

[Danger Mouse]

However, the sun never sets on the British Empire.


Then there's that. The first No.4 I ever had had some case-head separations, but I used to load it hot, not knowing better. Don't think I've ever had a case head separation with any of the rifles I've had since. Of course, I'm always looking for any signs of it, and throw any out that are suspect. But yeah, I get plenty of reloads from my cases.

To be fair, mine is postwar (1955) so better machining and tolerances than war time production

 

[Ignition Override]

Unless the sights on a 98K are much better than on a Yugo Mauser…then Enfield 4/1.

I’ve owned four 4/1s and a pair of number 5 “Jungle Carbines”. All have my favorite iron sights.

No way would I ignore guns with nice aperture sights for any different gun having the Y Mauser -style irons.

 

[Conelrad]

I've owned many Mauser-action rifles. They have all gone on.

My Enfields are still with me, and probably will be as long as I'm around.

Conelrad

 

[sourdough44]

We have both, will take care of them for the next owner, hopefully well down the road.

Our K98 is a little different being a ‘Norwegian surrender’. When the war was over, 100’s of thousands of K98’s stayed in Norway. In the early 50’s the military of Norway took a bunch & rebarreled them to 30-06. We have one of those, great shape.

https://www.milsurps.com/content.ph...06)-Mauser-Rifle-(Mfg-by-J.P.-Sauer-und-Sohn)

 

[Remington1911]

To add on I have both as well. I think I would lean to the Mauser. In fact if we added another flavor....Springfield 03, I think I would still go Mauser but that one is a little more difficult.

I can only base my views on dinging steel with them, I know both are on par with each other. The LE seems to be a little more porky, not fat just a bit chubby. The Springfield is a bit too slim and trim, it needs a little more meat on her bones. Mauser, is just thick enough to have something to grab onto, while not being too thick.

If we look at them from a MAN'S eye.....

Springfield is a gymnast.
Enfield is a weight lifter
Mauser is the track and field star.
Mosin, that old soviet coach well past her prime....grizzled old thing that was not bad in her day....but her day was a LONG time ago.

 

[mokin]

It was a toss up for me.

I voted No 4 Mk 1 because...

Rule 303!