I am sure you can and so can many others. In a WW2 Scenario it is much better to have an aperture. 1 less thing to do while operating the rifle. Just my 2 cents.
Enfield vs Mauser old school throwdown
- Thread starter davemccarthy707
- Start date
I am sure you can and so can many others. In a WW2 Scenario it is much better to have an aperture. 1 less thing to do while operating the rifle. Just my 2 cents.
fair point on the bolt,
the trigger pull on almost any combat rifle sucks, and it is pretty difficult to do it any harm on an enfield in particular me thinks
any sight is too slow to adjust in a firefight, hence the later 300/600 model, ethical kill shots like hunting dont happen on the battlefield and a soldiers worth of elevation is a long ways
i only notice the butt issue in winter/summer, remember we are dealing with 7 decades of wood shrinkage now
ten round mag is faster even if your only loading 5 rounds because a full clip will go in if you have anywhere from 0-5 round left, with a mauser you have to be empty
the logic behind making the rifle armourer only is to prevent guys from losing or damaging parts they shouldnt mess with, as happened with the FN-C1 combo tool. i dont agree with it, but that is the point
its also important that you see a broader selection of enfields in canada than mausers, and are therefore more likley to see the worst ones, and the ones with the most bubba care
I respect the Mauser, I Love and would depend on the Enfield when/where ever. No1 MkIII, No 4 MkI all the way
Industrial bases strategic doctrine logistical capacity yadda yadda...
At the range, I can always print tighter groups with my Mausers than I can with any of my Enfields(P-14, M1917), or Lee-Enfields(No.1MkIII, No.4Mk1, No.5Mk1).
In combat, I would hope to never know which works best for me, but I would pick the P-14.
To me it is the best of both worlds.
In combat, I would hope to never know which works best for me, but I would pick the P-14.
To me it is the best of both worlds.
Have to disagree. In WW1 the Germans did tests with the Kar98a and the Gew98. The Gew bolt took less force to operate and worked much better in slippery or dirty conditions. The switch to a bent bolt had more to do with the rifle being slung across the back during trench raids. The LOSS in manipulation performance was deemed acceptable for this reason, to prevent it from snagging on barbed wire or bruising the soldier's back.
The Enfield's bolt is nowhere near as strong, but it's strong enough and markedly faster to manipulate. A non-bubbe, non-restored Enfield from the factory, tuned by builders who knew what they were doing, is a very, very reliable rifle.
1) I do not consider this a fault. When in Gegetown, I can tell you the majority of rifles put in for repair were because troops tried to clean something in the field
Frankly, if the bolt gets wet on campaign, it will work until the battle is over. If it breaks later or rusts, plenty of time then to get the unit armorer to replace a spring - or even the whole bolt. Compared ot the Mauser bolt, there are very few points of egress for debris, mud, etc. on the enfield bolt. The mauser has to be taken apart easily - it fouls easy in the first place.2) When have you ever had a non-functional rifle due ot a blow to the trigger guard? Short of artilery shrapnel, unlikely to happen - you likely would not survive it anyhow. That being said, a non-issue with the No.4Mk1/3 or /2 rifle or the No.4Mk2.
3) The battle sights were for battle. The fine sights for target shooting. In practise, far more guns had the quick-adjust rear sight or the 2-position flip, both superior the the K98k sight.
4) ??? Hardly. Maybe on a POS sporter, but I've never seen one work loose on an original. Impossible on a proper No.1, on a No.4 it's unlikely with the lock washer in place. Never seen one loosen to the point it would not do its job.
5) Right... go watch the video of the Lee vs. the Mauser above. It matters.
6) WHAT??? Have you ever actually owned a Lee Enfield?
7) WHAT??? OK, I'll bite. What are you using to remove the lock screws and action screws? Telekinesis and faith in the Fuhrer?
I MUCH prefer the fit, finish and shooting experience of the K98k over the Lee Enfield. It's a much better shooting rifle, it's better made (pre-43, anyhow), feel better in-hand, and is all-round a joy at the RANGE. In a muddy hell, I'll take a No.4, thanks.
I agree with all your points but we are talking about speed & its bloody hard to work a straight bolt while keeping it in firing position. We could put the whole question to bed with a range trip. Anyone up to the challenge?
There's a Milsurp Shoot at EOSC coming up May 4th. Andy's organizing it. We could have teams. Bigger samples and all... In fact, though, the scores from the Mad Minutes (60 seconds, 100 yard offhand, as many rounds as you can fire) at those pretty much prove the point already: aside from airborneboi69, who insists on coming out with his 1919, the top scorers are pretty much all Lee Enfields, Garands, and SKSes.
Last edited:
1) I do not consider this a fault. When in Gegetown, I can tell you the majority of rifles put in for repair were because troops tried to clean something in the field
2) When have you ever had a non-functional rifle due ot a blow to the trigger guard? Short of artilery shrapnel, unlikely to happen - you likely would not survive it anyhow. That being said, a non-issue with the No.4Mk1/3 or /2 rifle or the No.4Mk2.
3) The battle sights were for battle. The fine sights for target shooting. In practise, far more guns had the quick-adjust rear sight or the 2-position flip, both superior the the K98k sight.
4) ??? Hardly. Maybe on a POS sporter, but I've never seen one work loose on an original. Impossible on a proper No.1, on a No.4 it's unlikely with the lock washer in place. Never seen one loosen to the point it would not do its job.
5) Right... go watch the video of the Lee vs. the Mauser above. It matters.
6) WHAT??? Have you ever actually owned a Lee Enfield?
7) WHAT??? OK, I'll bite. What are you using to remove the lock screws and action screws? Telekinesis and faith in the Fuhrer?
I MUCH prefer the fit, finish and shooting experience of the K98k over the Lee Enfield. It's a much better shooting rifle, it's better made (pre-43, anyhow), feel better in-hand, and is all-round a joy at the RANGE. In a muddy hell, I'll take a No.4, thanks.
Ok. There have been a lot of fun and interesting arguments put forth in this thread so I'm going to play along with this too.
1) I do consider that a fault. Having a bolt that is easily taken down and cleaned is a huge advantage to me. Taking down a mauser bolt is a simple and quick operation for most people given a small amount of training. Does the mauser bolt foul easier? I kind of doubt that. Sure it has some large openings for mud/dirt to get in but these openings also allow the crud to get out easily. Look at the AK 47 for example. Nothing is tight fitting or built to high standards. Stuff gets in, stuff gets out. No matter what you're using, in battle conditions stuff is going to get dirty. Being able to clean it myself is important.
2) I agree the blow to the trigger guard affecting trigger pull is probably a non issue. It would take a pretty hard blow to either trigger guard to possibly render the trigger useless or affect its pull.
3)Yes, the No4 sight system is superior. No argument from me there. I often think that if the k98k would have been made with a rear receiver bridge mounted aperture sight system it would have been a vast improvement. My point with the mauser sighting system is that it can be used effectively and accurately enough for battle conditions. Hundreds of militaries in hundreds of countries over the course of a hundred plus years have used sighting systems very similiar to the mauser on all sorts of guns effectively.
4) I've personally seen several No4's with loose buttstocks. Is this a problem with the design? Could be bubba or someone never tightened it down properly? Could it be due to wood shrinkage over time? I've also seen mausers that were loose in the stock. If the trigger guard screws on a mauser are loose they are a lot easier to tighten up. Of course the detents for the locking screws may not line up and then your off to the armourer any way.
5) Rate of fire with the No4 would be faster. How much would depend to some extent on the training of the guy using either one of them. I think the rate of fire from a mauser can be pretty fast with some practice and training. Fast enough for me.
6)Either design can be sticky to cycle at times. Depends on a lot of factors.
7)Not to sure what you're after here. I don't see why you couldn't easily dismantle the k98k with one screwdriver. I've done it lots of times. Sure you may mar the slots on the screws if you don't use the proper size for each one but it can be done in a pinch. Swiss army knife flat screwdriver blade has worked for me when I'm in the bush.
Kind of far to go for me but I may be able to make it. Are you guys shooting at fig 11 targets? Mind you, shooting scores from people old enough to be relegated to "In the rear with the gear" duty in a combat situation doesn't really mean much. When I was 20 my eyes were good enough to shoot a buzzard off a crap wagon at 1000yrds with open sights.
fat tony
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
both of these rifles mentioned really suck - you have to learn about files, micrometers, and all that #### to get any mod fabbing done to them. Get an SKS slap on a tapco stock, clamp on top cover scope base, some 5/150 duckbill magazines and you are ready for anything. Don't bother with a trigger job or bedding as it's 'only an sks'. 
Your right, the mauser sucked so bad the brits wanted one of their own.
Google the Boer war and Spanish American war and you will see differently.
It can be theorized that if WW1 had not happen or had been delayed, the Lee Enfield would have been replaced by the P14 or something similar.
The Americans had their 1903 and P17, both Mauser style derivatives before and during WW1.
I'll open up old wounds with some salt with this statement but have you noticed a large number of newly made hunting rifles are built on the Mauser 98 style action to this day ? I have yet to see a newly made rifle built using the Enfield design.
Don't get me wrong, I love my SMLE and she is one quick rifle at the range.
Last edited:
