Mausers, Enfields, Springfields still used by guerrilla...does it make sense??

[saturno_v]

This is what I heard...

But even for an irregular force on a shoestring budget..does it make sense??

The rounds fired by these rifles have long left the circuit of the regular military supply chain.

Maybe there is some local production capability for the 303 Enfield in the India/Pakistan area or in Africa....but what about the 8X57 JS or the 30-06??

Even if you can get your obsolete firearms for free, the cost of feeding them would be high....I cannot believe there are many surplus 8x57 or 30-06 rounds still lying around.

All of this especially in light of the enormous availability of Russian designed (and often Chinese or North Korean produced) weaponry and ammo (and still used by so many regular forces) at dirt cheap prices.....I mean if you can buy an AK-47 for $20 in the streets of Mogadishu why bother still using an old Mauser bolt action??

I still can understand the use of Mosin-Nagants given the widespread use and availability of the 7,62x54R round...

 

[DougW]

Accuracy out to 600+ yards that an AK could only dream of. The rifles were designed to fire (volley) out to 1500 yards. Powerful and potent. No one ever said a .303, 30.06, 8mm, or 7.62X54R would not be deadly at 300 yards.

 

[saturno_v]

Doug

You are right...but for long range work you still can use the dirt cheap Mosin or many obsolete .308 rebarreled Enfields or Mausers which use still very common military rounds.....but a Mauser in the 8x57 original chambering or a 30-06 rifle??

 

[kdf101]

If true, I would imagine it is a case of use what is available, not what you would prefer. Remember that, with the mauser and enfield at least, they were widely used and distributed by the colonial powers of the early 20th century. I would guess that due to that, availability in some areas is reasonable.

 

[fireside44]

I mean if you can buy an AK-47 for $20 in the streets of Mogadishu why bother still using an old Mauser bolt action??

Cause the vendor selling AK's also had excellent condition mausers for five bucks.

 

[WardenWolf]

You forget the Kyber Pass factories. They can manufacture lots of things that are otherwise hard to come by. Of course, they vary wildly in quality and safety, ranging from as-good-as-original to blowup-in-your-face.

 

[saturno_v]

You forget the Kyber Pass factories. They can manufacture lots of things that are otherwise hard to come by. Of course, they vary wildly in quality and safety, ranging from as-good-as-original to blowup-in-your-face.

Infact I said the the Enfield and the 303 round may be an exception....however, semi artisanal ammo cannot compete in cost with industrially made (in third world countries) equipment and supplies.

 

[wideym]

After WWII there was a glut of perfectly good bolt action rifles that were given, sold, or just plain stolen in many third world nations, along with millions if not billions of rounds for them. Even though the Communists gave or sold AKs to any country that asked, why throw away a perfectly good rifle?

These rifles were perfectly suited to give insurgents in a neigboring country, rural police forces, or troops who's loyalty is not assured enough to want to arm them with modern AKs and the like.

Even an insurgent would rather have a worn out mauser than a sharp stick.

 

[fireman 9731]

I have often wondered how much ammo ever actually goes through the guns... It wouldn't surprise me if most of them never fired more than a hundred rounds at most...

 

[John Parker]

Infact I said the the Enfield and the 303 round may be an exception....however, semi artisanal ammo cannot compete in cost with industrially made (in third world countries) equipment and supplies.

Yes, it can and does. The Khyber shops even make 7.62x39. Quality is variable. Making ammunition is what the young apprentices do while the 'gunsmith' makes and fixes weapons. They make and reload anything you can imagine.

 

[dogngun]

The 3 rifles you mention were the TOP bolt action battle rifles ever made, and the SMLE especially was the result of many decades of hard military use all over the world. Your rate of fire and capacity is low, but your accuracy and range is still outstanding, and any of these rifles in good condition with a good shooter would be something to deal with. They require more practice than the M-16 to "get good", but when you have mastered them , they are probably the most reliable rifles existing.

FWIW, I have an Ishapore Enfield 2A1 made in 1965 that is one of the smoothest rifles I have owned over the lase 45 years of shooting military rifles. Even my "sporter" rifle was once a Kar98 Mauser. I have owned all types of Enfields and Mausers, and several Springfields and a few 1917's - they are all great rifles.

Used by a good rifleman, any of them would be a tough opponent, but the state of maintainance and riflemanship in many of these organizations is not good. The rifles are still good - shooters not so hot.

mark

 

[saturno_v]

The 3 rifles you mention were the TOP bolt action battle rifles ever made, and the SMLE especially was the result of many decades of hard military use all over the world. Your rate of fire and capacity is low, but your accuracy and range is still outstanding, and any of these rifles in good condition with a good shooter would be something to deal with. They require more practice than the M-16 to "get good", but when you have mastered them , they are probably the most reliable rifles existing.

FWIW, I have an Ishapore Enfield 2A1 made in 1965 that is one of the smoothest rifles I have owned over the lase 45 years of shooting military rifles. Even my "sporter" rifle was once a Kar98 Mauser. I have owned all types of Enfields and Mausers, and several Springfields and a few 1917's - they are all great rifles.

Used by a good rifleman, any of them would be a tough opponent, but the state of maintainance and riflemanship in many of these organizations is not good. The rifles are still good - shooters not so hot.

The problem is not if they are good or effective rifles or not....they are....the issue is how to get 8x57 ammo in the middle of Congo....

 

[Mandolin]

Hey, a few years back there was the pictuie of the Ethiopian guy with an StG44, which uses a round that no one in the west has made in 60 years.

 

[nathan]

I heard that Saddam Hussein was buying all the surplus 8 mm he could get on during the years of embargo by UN. And most were blown up during the invasion .

 

[Cosmoline]

There's still a ton of surplus ammo out there leftover from the cold war and colonial days. And the situation is very different from one country to another. In much of Africa the guns are cheaper than the ammo. Shooting off your AK is not just a threat, but a display of your wealth (kind of like it is here LOL). But they seem to have no such supply problems in Iraq or Afghanistan.

 

[22-rimfire]

Freedom fighters use the rifles they have. I suspect they run out of ammo all the time. Not every group is so well organized and funded to be able to use AR's and AK's and so forth.

 

[kdf101]

I recall watching, on Animal Planet I think, a show not too long ago where some African nation was issuing old French MAS rifles to their game wardens, but no ammo. So they basically just carried the rifles as "show". I think many insurgent groups would be the same, rifles but no ammo.

 

[JWF III]

I mean if you can buy an AK-47 for $20 in the streets of Mogadishu why bother still using an old Mauser bolt action??

Because $20 is a month or three salary.

Wyman

 

[leadcounsel]

For arming a Guerilla hit and run or guard force on a shoe string budget it makes perfect sense. These rifles can be had for next to nothing in 3rd world countries... realistically these forces practice very little and the 'soldiers' and their weapons are considered expendable. The idea is that they could 'trade' their lives for one or two trained 1st World Soldiers in wars of attrition. "Supply" of ammo is not an issue. As guards they are effective because the populace is generally unarmed impoverished 3rd world folks who are no real threat to the armed guards.

Regarding the weapons themselves, if they've been properly stored and cared for they will last decades. I have many examples that function as well today as they did 70-90 years ago. Ammo is incredibly cheap and potent, particularly against lightly armored vehicles and foot Soldiers. And they have fair range, which is ideal for sniper-style Guerilla tactics. Single shot bolt action is irrelevant considering that their tactic is not to wage suppresive fire and assault warfare. The other point is that you don't want to have to supply your guerillas with fully automatic AKs and allow them to panic and burn through all of their ammo. Much more effective if you give each 10 rounds and tell them to use each effectively (knowing they will either be killed or retreat and possibly abandon their weapon/ammo anyway). It's hit and run warfare.

Our enemies know that our tactics make us vulnerable to guerilla style warfare - we stand out in the populace, we care for our wounded and civilian wounded, and we don't fire back until we can fix an enemy position.

So yes, these weapons are effective both in cost and use.

 

[Girodin]

http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/19/a-firsthand-look-at-firefights-in-marja/

 

[CornCod]

While it is better for a guerilla to be a good shot rather than a poor one, less skilled insurgents contribute to a war effort when they go up against a modern, Western army. A modern army can "win" every engagement and lose the conflict. A couple of guerillas take a few poorly aimed potshots at a Western occupier with old bolt-actions. The Western army responds with artillery, airstrikes, anti-tank missles and the like. By the time the engagement is over the Western army has spent a million bucks to kill or force the retreat of two yokels with 70 year-old rifles. Due to the cost factors, the possibly dead insurgents have, in effect, "won" the battle. Conventional notions of victory and defeat are quite different in Fourth Generation Warfare.

 

[ArmedBear]

Guerillas have never singlehandedly won wars, AFAIK. But they have been quite successful at times.

Consider the guerilla's objectives. What is he trying to do to the enemy?

Keep him busy and off-balance.

Cause the waste of resources, e.g. artillery as above but also human resources. Time and effort spent guarding against guerilla attacks can't be spent on offenses.

Maybe take out a meaningful target, on occasion, with some luck.

These objectives can be achieved with a Mosin, especially if the guerilla doesn't have a strong sense of self-preservation.

This has been the guerilla's way since the 18th Century, at least. The French and Indian War was often asymmetrical, already. The American Civil War saw significant guerilla action, despite its being thought of as the last war fought with Napoleonic tactics. Airplanes in WW I served a similar role.

 

[leadcounsel]

Factor in modern telecommunications, immediate uploadable videos and photos by anyone with a cellphone or internet connection and guerillas can immediately fix a conventional forces unit and also report to news agencies any attrocities or even perceived attrocities accidently or purposefully committed by the conventional force.

In the modern world of public opinion that is the real weapon.

So, guerillas frustrate and snipe at conventional forces, and as others mentioned above, keep them off balance and wasting men and resources and time fighting elusive forces dressed as civilians, and eventually the conventional force will make mistakes and kill innocent civilians causing an unpopular war.

This demonstrates how important the 2A is for Americans. Americans with hunting rifles COULD successfully repel a foreign or domestic tyrant military using known guerilla tactics.

 

[John Parker]

modern world of public opinion that is the real weapon.

Bingo. Insurgents don't win wars by winning battles. They do so by making the situation on the ground untenable to the occupying force.

And one of the way that happens is when the occupying force kills lots and lots of insurgents...and in doing so, loses the cooperation of the populace.

 

[Ignition Override]

In Peshawar, Pakistan, Michael Palin (former Monty Python comic) visited tiny businesses which copy various guns.
He and his camera crew walked down a tiny street/alleyway with numerous shops and watched the hand-made production.

This is probably the most unique location in his various travel DVDs.