It was Game of the Year in 2002! Learn your history son!!
I keed, I keed.
It was game of the year though...
...and both guns are in the game.
I must be an old fogey then.
Enfield vs Mauser old school throwdown
- Thread starter davemccarthy707
- Start date
I must be an old fogey then.
True the sights are nowhere near as good as the apertures of a Garand or Lee, but as leafs go they are not that bad. They just take practice and I have found it really helps to see the sights if you use a bright target. Using a near mint rifle with match ammo helps in the accuracy dept as well.
Here is a nice 5 shot group shot at 300 meters (is it funny that I shot an SS soldier target with a Jewish 98k?
)
If its sunny tomorrow (fingers crossed) I will do the cgn milsurp challenge with this exact rifle and ammo combination on Sunday morning.
All true; however, the lee enfield is a superior battle rifle, the requirements for a hunting rifle are vastly different and as such the Mauser pattern actions make great hunting rifles. In my humble opinion they are not as good in the role of a battle rifle as a Lee enfield pattern rifle for a variety of reasons. Those reasons in short, better sight system on Enfield, easier to access breech for cleaning, faster bolt, shorter bolt length so view on iron sights can be maintained while operating bolt ( can acquire next target while operating bolt ), larger magazine, and the bolt handle position relative to trigger allows firing of rifle without letting go of bolt.
( None of these really matter worth a damn when you're hunting a moose or a coyote though )
To those saying we were going to get American weaponry; we were going to adopt the EM2 rifle that was being developed by the British. It is a bullpup rifle in .280 british with 30 round magazines, optics, and select fire made in 1947. Canada and the UK were gung ho on it until it basically got scrapped because of Nato standardizing on the 7.62x51 as well as a party change in the UK. I like to think of the EM2 as the UK's Avro Arro. Had the US not been so stuck in the idea of a 'real powerful mans cartridge' the M16 may have never been invented.... ( seriously though, the .280 Brit is still a powerful round )
Kayser Sose
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Southern Van Isle
YES. That's exactly what we mean ...no wait
What role did the rate of manufacture play? The mausers had more precision and milled components. Enfields have a much more simplistic construction, which helped with field armorers repairs, putting them back into service. I'm not sure the numbers of total produced enfield vs mausers.
I guess the comparison I'm try to make is the Sherman tank vs tiger/panzers. Sherman number eventually just overwhelmed the germans.
But I'll take an enfield any day!
I guess the comparison I'm try to make is the Sherman tank vs tiger/panzers. Sherman number eventually just overwhelmed the germans.
But I'll take an enfield any day!
What he said!
Don't give him any ideas. He has no valid info to add.
If you need a shorter or longer butt on your K98, what do you do? Put on a new stock?
When you're firing many rounds in a hurry, do you put a wet rag over the barrel to damp down the heat haze?
When you come to pick up that rifle to run forwards or backwards, does it come with a glove so you don't burn your hand on the exposed barrel?
If you bash your front sight on something is there anything to protect the blade?
Can you carry a pull through and oil bottle in the Mauser?
I had a pristine laminated stock BCD42 K98. What a lump of metal that thing was. Heavy, awkward, minimal sights, I was not impressed.
The Mauser 96s are fine rifles though the safety is next to useless like all Mauser safeties (Except the P14, which also fixed the handguard and sight problems)
I'm sure some commercial 98s are beautifully slick, but they're still #### on opening for some reason unknown to me; another point the P14 fixed.
The other aspects like the mag, sights, cost of manufacture, etc. have already been mentioned.
As for maintenance, if you're going to take a 98 bolt apart you'd better know what you're doing, and don't point it in the wrong direction if you don't!
The Lee Enfield has some weaknesses, but as a battle rifle it is by far the better choice IMO.
The Germans issued captured rifles to front line troops in WWI and perhaps WWII, so they obviously thought it was good enough.
When you're firing many rounds in a hurry, do you put a wet rag over the barrel to damp down the heat haze?
When you come to pick up that rifle to run forwards or backwards, does it come with a glove so you don't burn your hand on the exposed barrel?
If you bash your front sight on something is there anything to protect the blade?
Can you carry a pull through and oil bottle in the Mauser?
I had a pristine laminated stock BCD42 K98. What a lump of metal that thing was. Heavy, awkward, minimal sights, I was not impressed.
The Mauser 96s are fine rifles though the safety is next to useless like all Mauser safeties (Except the P14, which also fixed the handguard and sight problems)
I'm sure some commercial 98s are beautifully slick, but they're still #### on opening for some reason unknown to me; another point the P14 fixed.
The other aspects like the mag, sights, cost of manufacture, etc. have already been mentioned.
As for maintenance, if you're going to take a 98 bolt apart you'd better know what you're doing, and don't point it in the wrong direction if you don't!
The Lee Enfield has some weaknesses, but as a battle rifle it is by far the better choice IMO.
The Germans issued captured rifles to front line troops in WWI and perhaps WWII, so they obviously thought it was good enough.
Folks we can be here all day going back & forth and accomplish nothing. Both are time tested designs with their strengths and weaknesses. BTW, wwII was decided by air power & industrial capacity not rifle design. I might add that with the massive numerical superiority the allies enjoyed after mid 1943, we still had a very thin time of it indeed defeating the Germans.
The rifle used was inconsequential to the defeat of Germany. In the west by late 1944, 91 Allied Divisions, some with Lee Enfields, faced 65 German divisions.
In the East, 560 Soviet divisions, with 5 shot bolt actions I might add, faced 235 German divisions.
Is anyone seriously arguing that it came down to " #### on close, peep sights, cleaning kits, and butt stock adjustability?
In the East, 560 Soviet divisions, with 5 shot bolt actions I might add, faced 235 German divisions.
Is anyone seriously arguing that it came down to " #### on close, peep sights, cleaning kits, and butt stock adjustability?
You're forgetting that the Aussies love their Lee Enfields so much they are still making them. AIA. The sporterized one in 7.62x39 looks kinda badass. I believe the Rangers had looked at these rifles in .308 to finally replace their aging No.4's.
We argue because it's fun...duh!
It's like rooting for your sports team.
I find the #### on closing makes more of a difference than most folks think. The bolt opens faster and with superior power to extract dirty cases.
The effect req'd to #### on closing is somewhat lessened by the forward momentum on the bolt.
I've always thought of the LE as the AK-47 of the WW1 era. Inexpensive, handy and tough with an unsurpassed rate of fire from an average waddie.
It's like rooting for your sports team.
I find the #### on closing makes more of a difference than most folks think. The bolt opens faster and with superior power to extract dirty cases.
The effect req'd to #### on closing is somewhat lessened by the forward momentum on the bolt.
I've always thought of the LE as the AK-47 of the WW1 era. Inexpensive, handy and tough with an unsurpassed rate of fire from an average waddie.
