Military Bolt Action Poll: Best One?

[Badger Arms]

Please justify your actions by what your criteria are. For instance, smoothness, accuracy, power, range, weight, ergonomics, lust, cost, simplicity, strength, aftermarket options, military history, firepower, etc.

My vote, I think the the Enfield 1917 was the best military bolt action of all time. It was plenty accurate, rugged, and powerful to get the job when and where it needed to be done. It was strong, cheap, and plentiful. I feel that it was the best of any of the Mauser pattern rifles.

And I'll list them in the order in which they appear in Frank de Haas' Bolt Action Rifles, 3rd edition. Wow, mine comes first!

 

[Andrew Wyatt]

I have to agree with you that the 1917 was the best of the mauser pattern rifles. It and the 1903a3 had decent sights.

I'm fond of the number4Mk1 because of the good sights, good trigger (at least on mine), quick bolt and the ability to top up the gun with stripper clips instead of running it dry.

The pattern 14, m1917, and 03a3 don;t have the last feature, and their bolts aren't quite as fast, and the 1917 and 03a3 don't cock on closing, but they're all much better weapon than the notch sight mausers, enfields,mosins,arasakas (which only are advantageous if you shoot proof loads regularly) mannlichers and lebels

 

[jem375]

Why didn't you put the Swede M96 in the poll???? it is the most accurate military bolt action rifle anyway..........

 

[Keith]

I find it hard to believe that anyone would choose an Enfield over a Mauser 98.

The Enfield is a plenty good rifle, but having owned several examples of both types, there's just no comparison. The Mauser action is much slicker, faster and smoother than an Enfield. The Mauser rifles themselves are more accurate. Even the ammo it was chambered for is better - 8mm Mauser vs .303 British.

Has anyone heard of a fine custom rifle maker building on an Enfield action? Some of the most expensive rifles on the planet started out as military issue Mauser actions.

The only other rifle on the list that comes close is the 1903 Springfield, but there are so many of them out there that escaped with improper heat treating and other QC issues, that it becomes difficult to rate them.

I really like the Enfield and since you can pick them up cheap (and in the short configuration), they make a fine all-around rifle with plenty of utility. The same could be said for any of the rifles on the list - they were all designed to take a beating and keep working. They are all accurate enough to do most anything you ask of them.

But once you get familiar with the slick Mauser action, all of the others pale in comparison.

My two cents...

Keith

 

[cratz2]

I don't know... Mausers are nice but any of the SMLEs with the rear peep sight are pretty darn good as well. The Enfield's cock on closing takes some getting used to (and I am not yet) but their action is plenty slick, has great sights (on peep models), quick to reload, and very good triggers on all that I have tried is too much to argue against. Nice handy rifles, effective out to any reasonable battle distance.

I vote of the various versions of SMLEs while acknowledging the great Mauser design and it's influence. Current price of rifles shouldn't enter into the equation of 'best battle rifle' in my opinion. And I've shot some very respecatble groups with the .303 and .308 Enfields. And remember, the Ishapore 2As were SMLEs chambered in 7.62 NATO.

 

[Badger Arms]

I didn't include the Sweede because it wasn't made in that great a quantity and it was basically an direct decendant of the Mauser 98. That and I was only able to list 12 options. In truth, the Carcano was a joke although it was made in significant quantity to make one question WHY!!!???

Now, as to the popularity of the Enfield... I think that I'd have to agree on many counts. That's a close second for me. What makes the 1917 a winner for me is what also makes the Enfield a winner. It has peep sights that are well protected, a smooth action, and a good degree of battle accuracy. What makes the Enfield iffy for me is that it isn't as strong an action. That's nit-picking, but I think it's a good nit to pick.

As for the Mauser... Sure it's strong, more inherintly accurate, and more refined but the that doesn't mean that these are what are important on the battlefield. I think that the magazine capacity of the No4 combined with the sights make it a much more viable battle rifle.

Whoa!!! Kieth, did you say that the Mauser was slicker and faster than the No4...??? !!!!! I completely disagree. I can almost guarantee at least 25% more shots on target per minute with the Enfield. Capacity, rapidity of bolt movement, short bolt travel, etc.

 

[Freedom in theSkies]

The No. 4 Mk1 is truly a great rifle. The ease of field stripping and inherent accuracy are testament. The Inuit Rangers in Canada`s arctic region are still issued with èm. It might just be due to the exellence of the design and the performance in very harsh conditions.

 

[Keith]

Badger,

I doubt very much you'd win for speed and accuracy against a good Mauser action. That's why they are the action of choice for custom rifle bulders.

Also, the Swede is not a "direct descendant" of the Mauser 98. It's a descendant of the 93/95 with a cock-on-closing type of action simalur to the LE.

Keith

 

[Andrew Wyatt]

the Mauser design has its advantages, but in STOCK, military configuration, the number4 mk1 is a fantastically better rifle (better in this case is defined by its handling characteristics, practical accuracy and rapidity of fire)

The mauser has several design flaws from an ergonomics perspective, the bolt handle is in front of the trigger, the action cocks on opening (which means you're flat out SOL if you have a sticky case) and the stroke is long.

the pattern 14 enfield solved the first two flaws, with its dogleg bolt and cock on closing action, and the 1917 has a much more versitile round than the 8mm mauser.

The enfield number4 mk 1 has better sights than a 98 mauser, in many cases, a better trigger, twice the magazine capacity, and a much shorter throw. I think the nod goes to the enfield for better rifle in a stock configuration.

 

[Mike Irwin]

Keith,

The reason the Mauser action is the choice for custom rifle builders isn't speed of operation, it's the construction of the action.

For speed, sorry, but the layout and design of the Lee Enfield action makes it faster in operation than a Mauser.

Add to that the little "trick" that involved holding the bolt head with either two or three fingers and pulling the trigger with the pinky or ring finger, a stock tactic for speed shooting in the British Army.

It's unbelievable how quickly someone who knows how to operate a bolt action can operate an Enfield.

20 aimed shots in a minute aren't undoable, and upwards 40 "area" shots are also doable with an L-E.

The cock-on-closing stroke of the L-E is also a BIG player in this, and immensely helps with speed shooting.

I've got a No. 1 Mk III, a Springfield 1903-A3, and had a Mauser.

I know my way around a bolt action, and there's no way that I can approach the speed of my No. 1 with either my Springfield or the Mauser I had.

There's a good reason why military small-arms people such as Julian Hatcher considered the Lee Enfield to be the fastest bolt action in the world -- because it was.

 

[Keith]

>>>>For speed, sorry, but the layout and design of the Lee Enfield action makes it faster in operation than a Mauser.<<<<

Mike,

You're wrong.

Doubtless, you CAN slap the bolt open and closed more quickly on the LE, but you can not do so without completely losing your sight picture! That is going to cost you much more time than 1/10th of a second longer it will take you to cycle the bolt.

I've owned both types of rifles and shot them extensively, so I'm not just talking out my behind here.

Instead of debating it here, I'd suggest you actually try it at the range. Take a silhouette target out to the range and place it at 150 yards then time your shots and count the holes in the target. I'm certain the Mauser will win if you're any kind of rifleman at all. With the Mauser you don't have to break your stock weld for each shot. What I mean is, anybody you see taking their cheek off the stock and cycling the action (with a Mauser) doesn't know what they are doing. A good rifleman can remain locked on target and fire over and over again.

You simply can't do that with the LE. The force required to cycle the action breaks your stock-weld or moves the barrel well off target.

The speed of cycling the action means nothing if you have to re-acquire your target each time. In the REAL WORLD, the Mauser is the faster action.

I'm not bashing the LE. I think it's a great rifle in many ways. I just think the Mauser beats it in most categories.


Keith

 

[Mike Irwin]

Keith,

Well, you're incorrect. Employing the British military hold you can maintain a MUCH more accurate sight picture than you can with any Mauser-style action.

But it comes down to this...

When the gun recoils, you're going to lose your sight picture anyway.

"I'd suggest you try it at the range..."

Uh, hello, Keith?

"I know my way around a bolt action, and there's no way that I can approach the speed of my No. 1 with either my Springfield or the Mauser I had."

Been there, done that, seen others who are FAR better versed than I with both actions experience the same thing.

You don't have to break your stock weld with a L-E, either. If you are, you're doing something WRONG. I don't know why you think the force of operating a L-E would somehow force your cheek off the stock or the barrel out of alignment.

Think about this... The Mauser-style cock on opening stroke requires significantly MORE force directed at right angles to the barrel's axis than the L-E's cocking stroke, in which the force required to cock the gun is linear to the barrel's axis. From a simple physics standpoint the L-E's action is more conducive to maintaining an accurate sight picture.

Again, I refer you to Julian Hatcher's comments.

 

[Keith]

>>>>When the gun recoils, you're going to lose your sight picture anyway. "I'd suggest you try it at the range..."

Uh, hello, Keith? <<<<<

The Mauser comes up an inch or two and falls back to target because you don't have to break your stock weld. You can't really do that with an LE because you're pushing the barrel down past the target, or worse, to the left of target as you close the bolt. Try it.


>>>>Think about this... The Mauser-style cock on opening stroke requires significantly MORE force directed at right angles to the barrel's axis than the L-E's cocking stroke, <<<<

I can cock my Mauser with my little finger, it requires that little force!

Anyway, I suggest you actually TRY the test I suggested. You can debate this to death, but only actually shooting the guns in an objective fashion will reveal the truth.

And I don't care what Hatcher said on the matter. I've shot both rifle styles extensively and can make my own judgement on their speed and accuracy. If Hatcher was correct, then every real rifleman on the planet would be using an LE style action in their rifle. Examine the choices of people who actually depend on their rifles to make a living or to keep themselves alive - professional hunters and snipers. Look at people who build the finest rifles in the world, rifles that can command any price asked and can be manufactured from any materials. Again, the overwhelming choice is the Mauser!
Hatcher can argue the LE all he wants, but when the real pro wants a rifle, he chooses a Mauser.

Keith

 

[Selfdfenz]

Well, with the Sweds left off the poll (and the Italian Carc on it) just how serious are we to take it?
S-

One vote for the Sweds..... in exile.

 

[Andrew Wyatt]

The Mauser comes up an inch or two and falls back to target because you don't have to break your stock weld. You can't really do that with an LE because you're pushing the barrel down past the target, or worse, to the left of target as you close the bolt. Try it.

Either your support hand is made out of spaghetti or you're not doing it right. Even when I shoot the enfield right handed, I still have no problems chambering a round without losing my cheek weld (and I'm a somewhat overweight computer geek).


the Mauser bolt is ahead of the trigger, as well, which means your hand has to reach forward, grasp the bolt, pull it to the rear and return it (as opposed to the LE's Reach back and pull the bolt to the rear method) , in additon to the fact that it requires a goodly amount of force just to open it.


When a rifleman needs a rifle, he picks a MODIFIED mauser. (usually one modified to correct the grevious deficiencies of the stock weapon, like poor sights, heavy bolt lift and the fact that you have to run it utterly dry to top it up with stripper clips)Mausers in anything other than stock Model 98 or 98K condition are not in the perview of this thread, anyway.

 

[Weaps]

I voted for the Enfield 1917 because I have one! Plus it is just a very good, tough, accurate rifle with really neat sights. Have the bayonet as well, sucker is as tall as me with it on the front. We're talking the Pattern 14 Enfield manufactured by Remington, Eddystone, and Winchester, right? My understanding is that those rifles actually fought in WWI. My rifle has a Remington receiver, but has parts from all three manufacturers!

I find that I prefer the cock on closing, plus it will use .30-06 stripper clips if I can find any. Used to have some but got misplaced with various moves. Mine is proudly displayed on my home office wall when I don't take it to the range.

As for the other rifles, well I'm sure there will be enough pros, cons, opinions, lies, and even some truths.

 

[cracked butt]

another write in vote for the swedish mauser.

 

[cratz2]

I doubt very much you'd win for speed and accuracy against a good Mauser action. That's why they are the action of choice for custom rifle bulders.

I think the reason so many builders of fine custom rifles use the Mauser action is due to it's strangth more than it's speed.

What's the record of shots on target with a military Mauser? I know what it is with an Enfield.

 

[Art Eatman]

In one of the last international rifle competitions before WW II, the Americans were amazed that the Limeys with the Enfields could shoot the rapid-fire course as fast as could our guys with Garands.

While I personally don't really care for cock-on-closing, there's no doubt that trained folks are much faster with it than their counterparts with Mauser-type critters.

A large part of the reason for Weatherby's locking-lug style was to reduce cycle time; 60 degrees of turn vs. 90.

Art

 

[Badger Arms]

Keith, I have to agree with Mike and Art on this one. Understand that this is no strike against the Mauser 98 as that is a fine weapon also. I'd tend to agree with the speed and cheek weld comments. I have done exactly what you suggested Mike do, I compared the two rifles side-by-side with an assistant and a 10" gong placed at 100 paces (about 100 meters). While Only about 80% of the shots were hitting with the Mauser, I got almost all of the shots to hit with the peep sights of the Enfield and I was able to fire faster, MUCH faster with the Enfield. One of the major reasons was that I didn't have to stop to reload as often with the Mauser. The other reason was that that darn bolt practically worked itself.

Also, the Swede is not a "direct descendant" of the Mauser 98. It's a descendant of the 93/95 with a cock-on-closing type of action simalur to the LE.

I meant to say ancestor. The M96 differed from the M94 from which it was decended in the following areas as described by de Haas:

1: Deeper stripper clip notch in left wall of receiver.
2: Guide rib on bolt
3: More gas escape holes

The Mauser 98 included yet larger gas relief holes, a similar sized stripper clip thumb notch, and a nearly identical guide rib IIRC. I don't own the Swedish Mauser. Therefore, for all intents and purposes, the Swede is an evolutionary model that culminated in the Mauser 98.

Why should all you Swede fans be miffed? Perhaps it is because the Swede represented a very well made and well thought-out modification that eventually made it's way into the 98. Because the Swedish Mausers were ALL well-made, well fitted, accurate, and basically fine rifles, one could probably make the case that it should be included. I could have also added the K98, 98/40, CZ-24, Turkish Mauser, etc. but I consider them all to be variants of the Mauser 98. Similarly, I think that a product, the Mauser 98, that includes all of the same features and adds a few more improvements should encompas the whole family.

 

[Badger Arms]

Kieth... Just noticed where you were. If you want to meet this summer at Birchwood, we can have a shoot-out and settle this for good.

 

[cracked butt]

The Mauser 98 included yet larger gas relief holes, a similar sized stripper clip thumb notch, and a nearly identical guide rib IIRC. I don't own the Swedish Mauser. Therefore, for all intents and purposes, the Swede is an evolutionary model that culminated in the Mauser 98.

Not to split hairs but, there are alot more similiaritieis between categories such as the two categories of '03 springfields and the 2 categories of Mosins than there are between 96 and 98 mausers.

The bolt on the 96 is similar to that of the 98 except that it cocks on closing. Even with that disadvantage, these rifles are so well made that they are alot smoother than most mauser 98's I've seen. The sights are alot finer and easier to align than those on 98's and 96's are far more accurate.

 

[geekay]

Keith is obviously an angler and a good one at that,

he has been getting bites ever since his first cast from the bank. He uses plenty of paddock berlie to get the fish on the rise and then in with the lure. Just as well he isn't in a boat because then he would be "trolling".

 

[Keith]

Badger,

I'd love to meet you and do a little shooting at Birchwood on my next trip to the mainland. I'll bring my old Mauser!

Keith

 

[Mike Irwin]

Jesus Christ, Keith, can't you READ?

How many times do I have to say that I've shot BOTH the Mauser AND the Lee-Enfield in the conditions in which I describe?

Many times?

Let me say that again.

How many times do I have to say that I've shot BOTH the Mauser AND the Lee-Enfield in the conditions in which I describe?

Do I need to say it a THIRD time? Are you going to understand that I've shot both guns in the situations that I describe? And I'm not the only one?

Last night, just to humor you, I pulled my Lee-Enfield out of the rack.

No loss of cheek weld, NO rotational movement of the kind that you try to acribe to the closing movement.

Then I pulled my Springfield 1903-A3 out. I could keep the cheek weld, LOTS of rotational force on the bolt opening, and slower bolt throw.

Whatever, Keith.

I suppose the only reason why German commanders in WW I thought they were under fire from massed Brtish machine guns is because the Enfield couldn't be fired very rapidly or accurately.