1895 Mauser and Mk1 Magazine Lee-En
- Thread starter cyclone
- Start date
General Ben Viljoen had the following to say about the Lee Metford vs Mauser while he was a POW in 1902:
Translated the coles notes are;
In my experience the Mauser is the better rifle for the purpose of war fighting as well as for target shooting.
The reason for this preference in short is, that the Mauser is a very accurate weapon. And If one was to get into a fight the Lee Metford can’t easily be reloaded once the magazine is empty, one only has time to load the rounds one at a time/ one by one. (Single shot).
The Mauser on the other hand although the magazine only takes 5 can be loaded rapidly once empty (stripper clips)
His other complaint regarding the Mauser is that the stock is “too straight” in other words he wishes that they had a pistol grip.
Like those found on the sporting Mauser and Lee Metford.
He also talks about wanting a place for a oil can such as can be found in the Lee Metford.
Translated the coles notes are;
In my experience the Mauser is the better rifle for the purpose of war fighting as well as for target shooting.
The reason for this preference in short is, that the Mauser is a very accurate weapon. And If one was to get into a fight the Lee Metford can’t easily be reloaded once the magazine is empty, one only has time to load the rounds one at a time/ one by one. (Single shot).
The Mauser on the other hand although the magazine only takes 5 can be loaded rapidly once empty (stripper clips)
His other complaint regarding the Mauser is that the stock is “too straight” in other words he wishes that they had a pistol grip.
Like those found on the sporting Mauser and Lee Metford.
He also talks about wanting a place for a oil can such as can be found in the Lee Metford.
To add tho that, I own both and agree with the General.
The Mauser is a very accurate weapon, well made, fast to reload and chambered in a fantastic cartridge.
(Some say the best ever ��
And he’s right, it could have been made more comfortable if it had a pistol grip.
The Lee Metford on the other hand is not all that accurate, kind of clunky and has that absolute dog of a cartridge.
That was going to be replaced with a 7mm but then WW1 intervened.
And we were stuck with it for another 50 years.
The Mauser is a very accurate weapon, well made, fast to reload and chambered in a fantastic cartridge.
(Some say the best ever ��
And he’s right, it could have been made more comfortable if it had a pistol grip.
The Lee Metford on the other hand is not all that accurate, kind of clunky and has that absolute dog of a cartridge.
That was going to be replaced with a 7mm but then WW1 intervened.
And we were stuck with it for another 50 years.
yeah, hate that dog of a cartridge - it took the Americans about 40 years to clone it
Which one is that?
dgradinaru
CGN frequent flyer
- Location
- British Columbia
Great video and content, but i do feel and see based off of his video's that he has more experience on the lee rifles compared to the Mauser. That in it's self gives the Lee-Enfield shooter the advantage going into this comparison. I'm sure a shooter with more Mauser training and experience would handle the challenge/comparison better than seen in the video. None the less the video was very enjoyable to watch.
308 Win - 7.62x51.
Not really, the 7,62 fired a 147gr bullet at 2800fps from a very efficient case design.
Actually quite similar to a modern 7mm Mauser loading.
The 303 mark VII fired a 174gr bullet at 2500fps.
And that from an old poorly designed case when compared to all the x57 Mauser cases.
You’re right it matured well, and it was a good battle rifle.
But the Mauser was just a tiny bit better
You’re right it matured well, and it was a good battle rifle.
But the Mauser was just a tiny bit better
Half the capacity, a slower action, substandard irons and no real advantage in Accuracy ( against No. 4... Mk3 with that pencil bbl...not so much). Given the choice in WW2... I'd take a Lee Enfield any time above a Mauser or M/N 91/30. Springfield at least had better irons.
Snoxall...mad minute... nothing else needs to be said IMO
7.62 mm NATO, XM118LR - 175 grain bullet 2550 fps. Fielded for the first time in 1965
303 British Mk VII Ball - 174 grain bullet 2440 fps. Fielded for the first time in 1910
Yup, it's a dog - a dog that buries things, lots of things.
PS, I was incorrect - it took them 55 years to duplicate it.
Last edited:
Lousy, inconvenient safety on the Mauser, and more or less still to this day. Patt. 13/14 got the safety the Mauser should have had.
Mauser had no half-#### feature, no way to #### the rifle without opening the bolt, and no removable mag.
Yes, at the time the Mauser had stripper clips and the Lee Enfield did not. One reason Ross put the Harris Lever on his rifles. Check it out.
7mm Mauser was a better round in some ways and probably inspired Ross to develop his .280 cartridge, which the War Office tried to beat with their .276 design.
The next war turned out to be very different, but Sam Hughes carried a long Lee Enfield around South Africa and saw no reason why a long Ross rifle should be a problem in France! Lessons everyone thought they were learning turned out to be less relevant than expected.
The War Office pushed ahead with a compromise between the Lee Enfield carbine and the long Lee Enfield. The rifle was largely scorned when it appeared, but it just so happened to be a very good fit for the trench warfare that hardly anyone had expected.
Mauser had no half-#### feature, no way to #### the rifle without opening the bolt, and no removable mag.
Yes, at the time the Mauser had stripper clips and the Lee Enfield did not. One reason Ross put the Harris Lever on his rifles. Check it out.
7mm Mauser was a better round in some ways and probably inspired Ross to develop his .280 cartridge, which the War Office tried to beat with their .276 design.
The next war turned out to be very different, but Sam Hughes carried a long Lee Enfield around South Africa and saw no reason why a long Ross rifle should be a problem in France! Lessons everyone thought they were learning turned out to be less relevant than expected.
The War Office pushed ahead with a compromise between the Lee Enfield carbine and the long Lee Enfield. The rifle was largely scorned when it appeared, but it just so happened to be a very good fit for the trench warfare that hardly anyone had expected.
No confusion at all, the 303 (that "dog cartridge") is ballistically very similar to 7.62x51 NATO in it's M118LR loading, which no one, ever, has described as a dog. The only people who believe that the 303 is a lower powered alternative to pretty much anything are American companies, who rather infamously load older cartridges to significantly lower levels than everyone else on the advice of liability lawyers. I've seen the 303 compared to 30-40 Krag in the US, it isn't.
Exactly, but also truly early loads were black powder, no one is suggesting downloading to those pressures, are they? Anyone who feels that 303 is under powered can come out with me and we'll shoot some genuine Mk 7 Ball from my LEC 1.
