Enfield vs Mauser old school throwdown

Mauser or Enfield?

  • Mauser

    Votes: 85 27.1%

  • No4 Mk1

    Votes: 229 72.9%
  • Total voters
    314
screwtape said:
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.
Click to expand...


Your rule of thumb is all very nice, but when dealing with British manufactured No4 rifles, just because the receiver is BSA manufacture coded, doesn't mean that anything other than the receiver was manufactured by BSA.

And 60 years on replacement parts abound. Partially because ALL small arms was inspected and rebuilt/repaired after the war.
 
I have actually seen far more issues with Savage and LB rifles than Brit ones. Many Savage made rifles have chunks broken out of the guide rail in the receiver, that the bolt head rides in. This is not really repairable, either, and some of the rifles with this defect looked like they had fired very few rounds. Also had one LB with the same defect. Other problems with LB rifles are malfunctioning safeties. On three or four that I went over, if you pulled the trigger with the safety on, the cocking piece would slip off the sear. Upon releasing the safety the striker would drop to half ####.

Probably my favourite No.4's are the Mk.2's, followed by the Maltby rifles, and M47C BSA ones. The wartime Fazakerly rifles are pretty crappy from my experience, and LB and Savage vary widely. LB rifles always look prettier, though.
 
9.3mauser said:
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.
Click to expand...

Ok, so, I have to ask, have you actually done this yourself before or is this as idea you came up with? Or am I to judge that by your name, you are referring to a sporting Mauser? I sat down this evening with not one, but nine different military M98 Mausers and could not get one to #### with your suggestion. In fact, every single Mauser I have dealt with, the firing pin spring that even with a cocking knob like on a Springfield of Lee Enfield would be damned near impossible.
 
mcpherson284 said:
Ok, so, I have to ask, have you actually done this yourself before or is this as idea you came up with? Or am I to judge that by your name, you are referring to a sporting Mauser? I sat down this evening with not one, but nine different military M98 Mausers and could not get one to #### with your suggestion. In fact, every single Mauser I have dealt with, the firing pin spring that even with a cocking knob like on a Springfield of Lee Enfield would be damned near impossible.
Click to expand...

Yes, I have done this myself, both with military Mausers and sporters. You insert a rim into the groove, get a good grip on the cartridge and pull back. On sporter Mausers that have a 2-position safety instead of the normal 3-position, this is the best way to disassemble the bolt.
 
mcpherson284 said:
Ok, so, I have to ask, have you actually done this yourself before or is this as idea you came up with? Or am I to judge that by your name, you are referring to a sporting Mauser? I sat down this evening with not one, but nine different military M98 Mausers and could not get one to #### with your suggestion. In fact, every single Mauser I have dealt with, the firing pin spring that even with a cocking knob like on a Springfield of Lee Enfield would be damned near impossible.
Click to expand...
I just tried this myself on several original WW2 k98k's. It was very easy to do.
 
Well, all the ones I tires had springs that were at least double the weight of a Springfield or even a Lee Enfield. While it may work, it is by no means realistic in a combat situation. A knob of sorts is a must.
 
So, as a further note, I posed this "cocking notch" on the back end of the Mauser's firing pin assembly to a few Mauser collectors I know. All of them laughed at this. the first point being made that, in the heat of combat, it is quicker to jack the dud out and jack a new round into the chamber. Second, the test of using the rim of a cartridge to recock the mauser is a test under the best circumstances, not a combat situation. Drop the rifle from your shoulder, check to see that the bolt is in fact firmly closed and that the firing pin assembly has traveled its full length, if it is determined that it is a possible dud, now fish out a 5 round stripper clip and slip ONE round out (I assume these 4 rounds on a stripper clip are now going back into the ammo pouch and not tossed on the ground... that is unless they get dropped because the enemy is trying to kill you), press the rim of the cartridge into the notch and keep constant pressure against the firing pin assembly and draw the firing pin assembly back to a point were it engages the trigger sear all without accidentally possibly letting the firing pin assembly launch forward and strike the primer yet again possibly causing it to go off in a direction that you really have no idea about because you are focused on recocking your mauser, while not getting hit or killed by enemy bullets, grenades, mortars, bombs, artillery, and the likes, while also trying not to drop your 4 round stripper clip?

I spent 2 hours going through 5 of the top books on Muasers, with 2 Mauser collectors, and none of the books come close to mentioning this notch in a manor suggesting it to be used as a recocking notch to be used with the rim of a cartridge on a 22 pound main spring.
 
Last edited:
In combat, you would not be dinking around with a cartridge rim trying to have another go at a dud. NOR would you be pulling on a cocking piece of a No.4. Possibly at the range, but not when people are shooting at you. With Mauser or Lee action, you can reload faster than re-cocking.
 
bushman79 said:
in combat, you would not be dinking around with a cartridge rim trying to have another go at a dud. Nor would you be pulling on a cocking piece of a no.4. Possibly at the range, but not when people are shooting at you. With mauser or lee action, you can reload faster than re-cocking.
Click to expand...

THANK YOU! You are bang spot on! "They are trying to kill me, and my gun went "Click" time to work the action and get another round in there" To do anything other than that means taking your eyes off the enemy and risking your life to save a Round that has already let you down once!
 
mcpherson284 said:
I spent 2 hours going through 5 of the top books on Muasers, with 2 Mauser collectors, and none of the books come close to mentioning this notch in a manor suggesting it to be used as a recocking notch to be used with the rim of a cartridge on a 22 pound main spring.
Click to expand...

I can't remember where I first read about that notch, but it was a credible source.

Secondly, I never claimed it was a good idea, simply that that is what is was FOR. Magazine cut-offs and volley sights were never used in combat either, but they were still part of the design of the Lee-Enfield. If you have a credible alternate explanation for the existance of that notch, I would like to hear it.
 
@9.3 Mauser - Sir, I believe that you are mistaken in your comment that volley sights were never used in combat. In the Second Boer War, there were numerous incident in which company volley fire was employed by British Troops using L-Es in action agains the Boers. Certainly, in the war previous to that - The Sudanes Campaign against the Mahdi - the use of long-ranging bunches of bullets directed from volley sights was common practice in the the Lee-whatever rifles of that time...

This is from Thunderbox - a well-known and respected co-writer on Gunboards.com and others...to whom my thanks -

Quote - 'The normal iron sights were supposed to reflect the individual soldier's ability to identify and aim at a human target (although 2,000 yards is pushing it it a bit for accurate aimed fire; I guess soldiers in those days were recruited from hawk-eyed country boys...). E.g. at the Battle of Omdurman, the British (but not native) infantry commenced effective aimed fire at about 1,600 yards (with the black powder MkII .303 round).

Over about 1,800 - 2,000 yards, it was recognised that soldiers could not be expected to deliver aimed fire at individual targets. The .303 round, however, in both black powder and cordite versions, was known to be lethal at ranges past 3,500 yards. Consequently, experiments were carried out in how to utilise this long-range part of the bullet's performance. The auxiliary or volley sight was conceived, with the idea that a large group of men - an infantry company or battalion - could be ordered to aim and fire at a body of enemy troops at visible feature on the ground, eg a building, hill or woodline. The resulting density of fire, even though not accurately aimed by individual shot, would have a "target effect". They actually tested it by using an infantry company to engage house-size targets at Hythe. I guess they basically marched the soldiers back in range increments, and then examines the target after each volley. It was ascertained that, although the round had a killing range of 3,500+ yards, the density of falling rounds was only really effective at 2,600 yards for black powder and 2,800 yards for cordite - the rounds became too dispersed at longer ranges to unduly bother an enemy. Hence the calibrated ranges on the volley sights.'
End Quote.

tac
 
Last edited:
By the time the Great War rolled around, volley sights & magazine cut-offs were used so seldom, the military felt they could do without them, and they were the first things to go when they needed to speed production.

Also keep in mind that not all firing is done in combat. There would have been an S.O.P. for dealing with misfires on the range, and I doubt that ejecting the round onto the ground was it. A few posts ago, a member mentioned how a "misfire" denotated on the ground beside him. Imagine that happening just as the bolt had been unlocked.

[video]http://s1311.photobucket.com/user/westleyrichards577/media/P4210005_zps50acb252.mp4.html[/video]
 
9.3mauser , I can tell you the in "Mauser Military Rifles of the World", "The Mauser Bolt Actions: M91 Through M98, A Shop Manual", "Backbone Of The Wehrmacht The German K98K Rifle 1934-1945" are 3 of the major back I dug into last nigh (sorry I can't remember the other two books names), and in those book there is no mention what so ever of this notch being used for recocking the gun. Like I pointed out before, this is a dangerous way to recock it as you are relying on an area of contact that is no larger than 1/8 of an inch to recock the gun, and the Cartridge rim can realistically easily slide over the firing pin assembly or roll out. If you are only half way back while trying to recock the gun, this could cause the dud round to now go off, in which case I hope you were paying as much attention to where the gun was pointing while you were trying to recock the gun.

Your comment of "A few posts ago, a member mentioned how a "misfire" detonated on the ground beside him. Imagine that happening just as the bolt had been unlocked. " Yes, I TOTALLY AGREE, I hear, understand and acknowledge this, so please don't get me wrong on this. There have been many circumstances "On the firing line" on a shooting range, where people have THOUGHT the round has gone off, sometimes it is actually a part charge, a hang fire, misfire, or even a dud.
I, ONCE and that was the only major kick in my backside I needed to make the point, . This was in a batch of 8x57 military ammo I had managed to get together, a whooping total of 8 rounds. the first 2 went bang, #3 click one tw bang.... ok, #4 bang, then , the last 4 rounds in a row where they didn't go bang. Rounds 5-7, I waited the full recommended 60 seconds and they didn't go bang. #8. well that little bugger waited 6 seconds to go off, and I had already made the judgement that it was the same as the last 3 rounds and my hand had JUST reached the bolt knob as it when off. Thanks my story.
I know of one guy, that between the wife, the daughter and the phone ringing, he got distracted and missed a powder charge in a 45-70. Down the road on the firing line, he turned his Marlin 45-70 lever gun into a Donald Duck Special. The Barrel pealed 3/4 of the way back and NO ONE WAS HURT! (Go buy a lotto ticket and go home and kiss your wife and daughter, then straight to the JD) The round with no powder had traveled 1/2-3/4 the way up the barrel, so when he levered in the next round, it chambers. The second (time wise here) the next round went off and engaged the rifling, there was a pressurization air pocket and well, ka-boom! No one got hurt, thats what counts.

Transfer this over to the heat of combat, I highly doubt anyone in the heat of combat ever noticed that the chambered round didn't go bang. The round would just get jacked out and a fresh one jacked in. If that round went off in mid air or even on the ground, at the time or probably for the rest of earths history, it will be chalked up to the enemy lobbing some explosive over.
 
9.3mauser said:
I can't remember where I first read about that notch, but it was a credible source.

Secondly, I never claimed it was a good idea, simply that that is what is was FOR. Magazine cut-offs and volley sights were never used in combat either, but they were still part of the design of the Lee-Enfield. If you have a credible alternate explanation for the existance of that notch, I would like to hear it.
Click to expand...

I was curious about this, so I dug into the various reference books I had around, including John Walter's The German Service Rifle. I didn't find any reference to using the notch on the Mauser 98 cocking piece as a place to slot a cartridge rim to re-#### on a misfire.

However, in Small Arms of the World, I did find a few references to interesting 'tricks of the trade' used by soldiers with various military rifles to assist in field stripping and other tasks.

For example, with the American Enfield P-17 - a Mauser action that cocked on closing, possession of a penny was apparently crucial for the soldier. It was used in two different places:

First, during arms inspections, the penny was inserted into the top rear of the empty magazine to hold down the follower so that the bolt hold-open didn't engage. This allowed the soldier to shove the bolt smartly and showily home after the rifle was inspected by the reviewing officer, instead of standing like a prat fumbling with the magazine follower with one hand while closing the bolt with the other.

The second use for the penny was as a replacement for the piece of string that otherwise had to be used to draw the sear back to allow the cocking piece to be turned so the bolt and bolt sleeve could be separated. The quick and dirty 'army way' was to insert a penny between the cocking piece and bolt body, then slam the bolt home with the safety catch on, allowing the pieces to then be separated.

Could the notch on the Mauser cocking piece have been for a similar purpose? All later Mausers have the hole in the butt with the washer for use in disassembling the bolt and removing the firing pin. However, I don't believe the very first models did. Might the notch have been intended for use with a coin or cartridge rim, not to re-#### after firing a dud cartridge, but for assistance in disassembly before the more effective 'washer in the buttstock' system was invented? Of course, once you had the notch already there for one purpose, there would have been nothing to prevent ingenious shooters from finding other uses for it
 
Last edited:
So, after much communication with a friend in the German military and having access to some very interesting records, I have information as to the notch on the back right hand side of the firing pin assembly.

So, how many of us have taken apart a Mauser bolt for cleaning and accidentally, because of not knowing, kicked the firing pin assembly into the "Fired" position? It's a real pain to recock and flip the safety on. Well, that little notch IS in fact to take the rim of an 8x57 cartridge, but not to recock the firing pin after it goes "Click" on a live round, but to recock the firing pin if you accidentally kick it in to the fired position while the bolt is out of the gun.

Simply hold the bolt body in your left hand, with the bolt handle pointed down, draw the firing pin back by inserting the rim of an 8x57 cartridge in to the notch. Once the firing pin is drawn back far enough, the safety with flop over freely.
 
To reply to the original question which would I rather go into combat with a No4 Mk1 or a K98k: No4 Mk1 hands down!
Receiver peep and a ten shot magazine in combat is far more important than the better strength of the Mauser action.
My view is purely based on the value as a Combat rifle with no hint of nationalism

The gentleman on the extreme left is my paternal Grandfather.
 
Interestingly several rifles, incl the M1903 Springfield and the Lee-Enfields were designed to allow the soldier to re-#### and fire the action w/o opening/closing the bolt in the event of a misfire. The M1 Garand can also be re-cocked by swinging down the trigger guard. In the age of the FN and more recent rifles the misfire drill was simply to immediately re-#### the action to extract the misfired round and continue firing.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom