Lee enfield vs garand

[hiltstck]

Do you prefer the Lee Enfield (any variant) or the M1 Garand? This can refer to any situation you want, but I generally focus on SHTF and reloading. I just want to hear peoples' comparative opinions of the two.

(This is my first post. I couldn't find a thread specifically related to this question. If there is already one, I am sorry for the redundant thread.)

 

[Acera]

No.

Garand all the way.

 

[Nicky Santoro]

I'd take the Garand, of course. That being said, I've heard the comment, in comparing the Springfield, Mauser and Enfield, that America designed a rifle for targets, the Germans for hunting, and the English for war. My very limited experience with the three would support that statement. My one BIL has a P17 Enfield and the action is as slick as snot on a door knob.

 

[FlyinBryan]

i like the enfields, but i would trade one of our garands for 2 of them.

that being said, id like to have an enfield

 

[jdc1244]

Very different rifles, needless to say – both are desirable if possible; if not, I’d get the M1.

 

[22lr]

M1 hand down. More firepower, ammo is easier to find/reload and it reaks of Americanism. Garands rule the milsurp rifles world.

 

[theotherwaldo]

I like my five Enfields. Of course, I've only paid an average of $80 for each.

A lot of gun for the money. Admittedly, only one is perfectly pristine. Three have or had civilian scope mounts. One other is an all-out Bubba Special.

They're all fun to shoot.

And I couldn't get one Garand for what I paid for all five Enfields.

 

[Nugilum]

The only advantage an Enfield would have over a Garand is ammunition diversity.

The Garand needs .30-06 M2 loads (in it's original configuration, no modified gas plug) to prevent damage to the op-rod and cycle the action reliably.

The Enfield's a bolt action. You can feed it any grain slug and powder you want (within reason, of course).

That being said, I've already done the proper THR response for the OP... I have both.

 

[P.B.Walsh]

M1 Grand for sure!!

Welcome to The High Road!!

 

[Gelgoog]

neither...FN49 all the way!

I have lots of bolt guns...and as much as I like mausers..and even acknowledge the superiority of the enfield as a fighting bolt gun. Well out of the war milsurps the garand is still the superior option.

 

[chauncey]

Enfield is definately my second-favorite WWII-era rifle.

a Garand with an adjustable gas plug would be easier to find ammo for, than a 303 British. WalMart doesn't carry 303. MOST 30-06 is non-corrosive, and pretty cheap from CMP.

both are great rifles, the Enfields are a little more accurate. with my Savage Enfield, I've gotten three shots touching, at 100 yards! MOST inexpensive 303 is corrosive. non-corrosive 303 is available, but definately more expensive.

M39's are great, also, and cheap to feed. ALL inexpensive 7.62x54R is corrosive, but non-corrosive 7.62x54R is 1/2 the price of non-corrosive 303. very accurate.

 

[gripper]

I would LOVE an L41....much as I like the Garand,lets face it-the en bloc clip loading is ( to me,at least) neither as desirable as stripper clip loading or detachable magazines.pity they did not go theroute as the Johnson-would have been a 10 round magazine;coulda topped off with singles,Springfield strippers etc.
IIRC,wasn't thee an Australian firm making modern Lee Enfield #4's???in .308??

 

[Limeyfellow]

wasn't thee an Australian firm making modern Lee Enfield #4's???in .308??

Yes AIA still make them. Only a few got imported into the US. You can still get them in Canada and various other countries though. They have a really nice carbine version in 7.62x39. They did cost about $700-800 brand new, firing .308 win though, which was much more than the Lee Enfield back in the early 90s.

I still want an original L42a1 for my collection of Lee Enfield rifles. Not so easy to find though. I would take it over an M1 Garand pretty much anyday. An el cheapo bubbified, or bottom rack grade Lee Enfield, not so much.

 

[jpwilly]

The M1 Rifle "Garand" IMO is the better battle rifle. The 8 shot semi-auto is smoother and faster than even the quickest shooter with the Lee Enfield. The sights are better. The rifle hardly kicks when shooting the powerful 30-06 M2. The 30-06 is flatter shooting and harder hitting (the .303 Brit ain't nothing to mess with either). The Lee Enfield is arguably the best best "Bolt-action" battle rifle.

Ask yourself this. If it was go time and you could equip your army with either the Enfield or M1 Rifle, what one would you choose?

 

[Fosbery]

The Garand is simply a more technologically advanced rifle, designed almost 50 years after the original Lee-Metford design, and 30 years after the first Lee-Enfield.

For use in combat, I'd certainly take the Enfield over any other bolt action milsurp rifle. The Garand is a different breed of rifle, however. Semi-auto capability changes everything, and the sights are superior also. If my life depended on it, I'd take the Garand over the Enfield every time. It does have some disadvantages though. The Enfield is cheaper (then and now), easier to strip and clean, more reliable and lighter weight - and of course you get 2 extra rounds.

 

[achildofthesky]

Garand all the way...

 

[flyboy1788]

probobly a garand. I have an enfield and have shot Garands. But, I would choose the garand only if I could be assured of having Mil-spec m2 ball ammo. Bone stock garands seem to short stroke on lighter powered loads in my limited experience with garands.

 

[Sunray]

"...Garand needs .30-06 M2 loads..." No it doesn't. Designed to use .30 M1 ammo.
"...still get them in Canada..." Yep. $799Cdn. for a .308 Win No. 4. Supposedly no U.S. imports due to parts(rumoured to be the stocks) being made in Viet Nam.
I prefer the M1 over either model Lee-Enfield. Felt recoil is less. No chance of headspace issues either.

 

[Slamfire]

The No 4 Lee Enfield was the best of the battle bolt rifles. Not the best action, but the best rifle.

As a battle rifle, a Garand is a quantum leap ahead of any bolt rifle. Sorry.

 

[MrFox]

What makes the Garand's sights better than the Enfield's?

IMHO, this is kind of apples and oranges.

I see this more of a Garand vs. G43 vs. SVT40 vs. Hakim vs. whatever else you can think of.

Or. Enfield vs k98 vs 03A3 vs Arisaka vs Carcano vs Mosin.

Maybe it's just me.

 

[Rshooter]

I have to agree with MrFox that this is apples and oranges.

I love my Garand and would choose it over my Enfield.

For bolt action I would go Enfield all the way.

 

[theotherwaldo]

Me too, Mr. Fox.

Anyway, I thought the thread was about which rifle I preferred, not which one I would carry into modern warfare.

Any Garand that I wound up with would get wrapped up and locked up. Enfields, on the other hand, get slung behind the truck seat or slid into the Yamaha's gun-scabbard.

 

[lefteyedom]

If I don't have the US ARMY supply system backing me up then I would go for the Enfield, In one of its short barrel flavors. Maybe a 308 since ammo would be easier to come by.

 

[9mmepiphany]

i've never cared for the Garrand since high school and have been enchanted by the Enfield #4

especiallly in a situation as you've layed out, the advantages of the Enfield include
1. larger mag capacity...10 vs. 8
2. ability to top off...and stripper clips too
3. superior open sights...just flip that ladder up
4. fastest bolt action used in battle

if ammo availability is a concern, AIA does offer one in 7.62x51mm and with a teak stock too...or you could hunt down a L42a1.

the Enfield had a much longer service live than the Garrand...after all it armed the British Empire until it was supplanted by the "rifle that armed the Free World": the FAL

 

[Fosbery]

There are also a few Enfield L8 rifles knocking around, which are No.4 rifles of various marks converted to 7.62mm NATO by the British military. And of course the Ishapore 2A and 2A1 which is like a 7.62mm NATO SMLE. You could bubba an Ishy to put optics or better iron sights on it.

There's also the Armalon AL42 which is a 5.56mm NATO Enfield.