By the end of the war, Mausers were being made as quickly as any Enfield ever was, though the quality was not what you might think of when Mauser 98 comes to mind. Think no bayou lug, welded stamped bands, pressed steel bottom metal, no guide rib on the bolt, stocks left rough unsanded, etc.
Enfield vs Mauser old school throwdown
- Thread starter davemccarthy707
- Start date
By the end of the war, Mausers were being made as quickly as any Enfield ever was, though the quality was not what you might think of when Mauser 98 comes to mind. Think no bayou lug, welded stamped bands, pressed steel bottom metal, no guide rib on the bolt, stocks left rough unsanded, etc.
I don't totally disagree, but it was also won by anti-submarine warfare, artillery, mechanized infantry using mounted weapons, and the atomic bomb
The infantry rifle had very little to do with it, though if the STG44 had been fielded earlier in numbers, that might not be the case.
fat tony
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
I wonder how many Aus 'Club rifles' made it to the front lines say in the Kokoda Track campaign sans scopes - I have heard they were pressed into service to some degree? - Would love to have a #1MKIII* 'club rifle' alas they don't grow on trees. The closest I got was a Trials rifle which very surprisingly made an appearance at a local gunshow some years back - had a 5a sight too - should have pounced on that like a man on Cialis on a drunken hottie.
Last edited:
The Lee does not have superior power for extracting dirty cases. I had a batch of HXP 75 (Greek) .303 that had rather "sticky" brass. I had to pound the bolt handle several times with my palm to open the bolt on two SMLE's and two No. 4's. The same ammo extracted flawlessly from my P-14 and my Ross (!) . Remember, the Mauser has a full 90 degree bolt lift, so even though you are partially cocking the action, you still have more mechanical advantage.
The Lee-Enfield was not inexpensive, and not simple to make or for armourers to maintain. Even the simplified SMLE, the Mk.III*, was still the most expensive battle rifle of all the major powers. The No. 4 simplified the design, but it still has more small parts than a Mauser. I still think that the SMLE was, and is, a better rifle than the No.4. The action is smoother, and more open on the left side. Lets dirt get pushed out easier. The bolt is easier to remove. The muzzle is protected better, which is really handy when going prone in a hurray, or carrying the rifle slung in the forest, etc. The butt doesn't work loose unless it shrinks drastically. Plus, the upper handguard does not creep forward and touch the front sight protector, which causes erratic shooting. Something I have seen on nearly EVERY No.4. The open sights on the SMLE are better for me when shooting in foggy conditions, close up, and in low light. (I admit, I can not use aperture sights as intended due to a non functioning right eye..) But seriously, even in stressful conditions, if you use open sights a lot, they line up as fast as the sights on a No.4. It is not like "experts" say, where you have to bounce your eyes all over the place. You focus on the front sight, and leave the rear blurry. Works just as well with a K98K as an SMLE.
We're having a bit of fun and maybe learning something in the process, that's all.
I was trying to stick to substantive points..."piss down the barrel"?
And what's the foresight protector on a Mauser 98 again?
One other advantage of the Lee Enfield: half ####. You can have a round in the chamber and if you pull the cocking piece back to half #### the trigger is disengaged, the bolt cannot be opened and the firing pin cannot touch the primer even if you strike the end of the cocking piece.
I've yet to see a Mauser you can put on half #### or recock without opening the bolt if you have a misfire. On the Mauser 96 you have that funny little checkered tab; you would need to have Vise-Grips for fingers in order to recock the rifle with that thing! And they cheerfully refer to it as a "cocking piece"? Weird.
And the fun continues!
It seems to me that many of the reliability issues with No. 4s that people report are really manufacturing quality control issues. What many people seem to forget is that, just as the Germans had the lower quality 'desperate last ditch' Volkssturm Mausers made in 1945 (and various pistols and other weapons made in factories with slave labourers who intentionally tried to sabotage them), the English also had similar 'last ditch' L.E. No. 4s.
In the case of the British, their 'last ditch' junk was made after the British Army lost most of its equipment at Dunkirk in 1940, when the country was desperately trying to re-equip in the face of an expected invasion. This period lasted until about the end of 1942. And during it, they made a sh!tload of Lee Enfields by subcontracting out manufacture of various parts to all sorts of little 'cottage industry' factories, many of which had never had anything to do with firearms manufacture before. And I used the word 'sh!tload' deliberately, because that's what a lot of those guns were: they cut every corner they could in manufacture and inspection, and so the overall quality control of said guns is ... dubious. Much like the quality of the first batches of Sten guns and Sten gun mags from the same period.
I remember reading about this in Capt. Shore's With British Snipers to the Reich. Capt. Shore was an RAF armourer who was also a trained sniper. He therefore ended up in charge of training both their snipers and also their general airfield security troops on the forward airbases during the Normandy campaign.
In one episode, he described doing range qualification with some new troops, and one of them complained that he couldn't see the front sight on his rifle. The captain assumed the guy was just incompetent, until he tried the rifle himself. What he found was that, after two shots, the rifle had heated up enough to allow the barrel to droop like a limp noodle. The soldier couldn't see the front sight because it had sunk below the horizon. On checking the rifle's markings, Capt. Shore found that it was one of the 'no-name' rifles marked 'ENGLAND' and had a date of manufacture somewhere between 1940 and 1943 (I don't remember what exactly), and commented in his memoir that this explained it as the heat treatment on many of those rifles' barrels was substandard.
My own rule of thumb for buying a No. 4 that I intend to shoot is that it has to be made by LongBranch, Savage or, if it's English, BSA. If it doesn't have one of those manufacturers names marked on it, I won't buy it to shoot.
I expect a lot of the people reporting problems with No. 4s were shooting ones made by someone other than those three makers.
And I also rather suspect that, if the Canadian Rangers had been issued Lee Enfield No.4 rifles marked 'England' and dated around 1942 rather than ones marked 'Longbranch', they wouldn't have happily carried them for nearly 70 years.
In the case of the British, their 'last ditch' junk was made after the British Army lost most of its equipment at Dunkirk in 1940, when the country was desperately trying to re-equip in the face of an expected invasion. This period lasted until about the end of 1942. And during it, they made a sh!tload of Lee Enfields by subcontracting out manufacture of various parts to all sorts of little 'cottage industry' factories, many of which had never had anything to do with firearms manufacture before. And I used the word 'sh!tload' deliberately, because that's what a lot of those guns were: they cut every corner they could in manufacture and inspection, and so the overall quality control of said guns is ... dubious. Much like the quality of the first batches of Sten guns and Sten gun mags from the same period.
I remember reading about this in Capt. Shore's With British Snipers to the Reich. Capt. Shore was an RAF armourer who was also a trained sniper. He therefore ended up in charge of training both their snipers and also their general airfield security troops on the forward airbases during the Normandy campaign.
In one episode, he described doing range qualification with some new troops, and one of them complained that he couldn't see the front sight on his rifle. The captain assumed the guy was just incompetent, until he tried the rifle himself. What he found was that, after two shots, the rifle had heated up enough to allow the barrel to droop like a limp noodle. The soldier couldn't see the front sight because it had sunk below the horizon. On checking the rifle's markings, Capt. Shore found that it was one of the 'no-name' rifles marked 'ENGLAND' and had a date of manufacture somewhere between 1940 and 1943 (I don't remember what exactly), and commented in his memoir that this explained it as the heat treatment on many of those rifles' barrels was substandard.
My own rule of thumb for buying a No. 4 that I intend to shoot is that it has to be made by LongBranch, Savage or, if it's English, BSA. If it doesn't have one of those manufacturers names marked on it, I won't buy it to shoot.
I expect a lot of the people reporting problems with No. 4s were shooting ones made by someone other than those three makers.
And I also rather suspect that, if the Canadian Rangers had been issued Lee Enfield No.4 rifles marked 'England' and dated around 1942 rather than ones marked 'Longbranch', they wouldn't have happily carried them for nearly 70 years.
You know that funny little groove on the right side of the Mauser 98 cocking piece, that nobody knows what it's for? It's for inserting the rim of a cartridge to re-#### the rifle in the event of a misfire.
MauserMike
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- SW Ontario
I think for many of the reasons cited, LE is the go to rifle.
However, in the real world where riflemen were supporting to machine guns, the question should be the Bren vs. the MG-42. No question which I would take there....
However, in the real world where riflemen were supporting to machine guns, the question should be the Bren vs. the MG-42. No question which I would take there....
quote And if the Brits were pumping out such POS last ditch rifles, why didn't they adopt the short cuts of the No4 Mk I*?
The original idea for altering the mag catch to the Mk1* deign was due to issues with manufacturing. The tooling was already set up for the Mk1s and by the time Savage and Long Branch converted, the Brits had resolved the mfg problems. They decided to stay with it rather than retool.
Ian Skennerton "The Lee Enfield" p234
The original idea for altering the mag catch to the Mk1* deign was due to issues with manufacturing. The tooling was already set up for the Mk1s and by the time Savage and Long Branch converted, the Brits had resolved the mfg problems. They decided to stay with it rather than retool.
Ian Skennerton "The Lee Enfield" p234
I have a 43 Long Branch, a 43 Savage, and a 43 Maltby, none of which I would describe as "last ditch", yet the Maltby, is the more complex to manufacture.
Besides, "England" was not a wartime stamping so the whole story of 42-43 Fazakerley and Maltby Lee Enfields being "'no-name' rifles marked 'ENGLAND' and had a date of manufacture somewhere between 1940 and 1943" is suspect.
I understand why the British didn't adopt the No 4 Mk I* standard, I even have Skennerton's book. I just question whether the British, " cut every corner they could in manufacture and inspection, and so the overall quality control of said guns is ... dubious. "
Besides, "England" was not a wartime stamping so the whole story of 42-43 Fazakerley and Maltby Lee Enfields being "'no-name' rifles marked 'ENGLAND' and had a date of manufacture somewhere between 1940 and 1943" is suspect.
I understand why the British didn't adopt the No 4 Mk I* standard, I even have Skennerton's book. I just question whether the British, " cut every corner they could in manufacture and inspection, and so the overall quality control of said guns is ... dubious. "
FWIW, my nearly unissued early 1943 BSA, lack of external polishing and remaining machining marks on the flats aside, is a really well fit piece (if not well finished) and will shoot the wings off a gnat. It also has the slabside cocking piece without a half-#### notch. It's a well made part with BSA proofs, but machining operations were omitted to speed manufacture. (it came to me still gooped in the factory grease with a small batch of similar un-issued rifles a few years back - supposedly they were in storage in Turkey since the war)
For that matter, all the kriegsmodell K98's I've had were perfectly serviceable, if ugly.
Respect to smellie, but the second-hand story he relayed sounds dubious to me. I have background in metals and materials, and what is being described is essentially impossible after only a couple shots. It would take dozens of rapid-fire rounds for any barrel to droop so much, even if the barrel were made of un-treated 1018 mild steel and the forestock fitted loosely enough to allow it to move that much. Reminds me of the BS gunshow stories of Stens being tossed through windows to clear rooms.
EDIT: Oops! It was not Smellie that posted that! Sorry!
For that matter, all the kriegsmodell K98's I've had were perfectly serviceable, if ugly.
Respect to smellie, but the second-hand story he relayed sounds dubious to me. I have background in metals and materials, and what is being described is essentially impossible after only a couple shots. It would take dozens of rapid-fire rounds for any barrel to droop so much, even if the barrel were made of un-treated 1018 mild steel and the forestock fitted loosely enough to allow it to move that much. Reminds me of the BS gunshow stories of Stens being tossed through windows to clear rooms.
EDIT: Oops! It was not Smellie that posted that! Sorry!
Last edited:
It had been about 15 years since I last read Captain Shore's memoir, so I did have some of the details wrong, but I believe I had the gist of it correct. Anyway, I dug up my copy and searched through it. Here's the passage I was thinking of. It's on page 152 of From British Snipers to the Reich:
There were other interesting comments scattered through the book as well.
Last edited:
I don't doubt you read that and accurately reproduced it, but I do doubt the validity of the author's anecdote
IT takes considerable heat for a barrel to visibly distort from firing - far more than 3 or 4 rounds.
