Enfield No.4 vs Mauser K-98K.... craftsmanship?

CanuckShooter

CanuckShooter

CGN frequent flyer
Rating - 100%
61   0   0
How would you guys compare an average Lee Enfield No.4 to an average German K-98K based on craftsmanship? I am mostly interested in quality of machining (fit and finish) of the steel.

I have owned a few nice Enfields (unissued '55 LB, etc..), and liked them, but didn't fall in love with them as I couldn't get past some of the rough maching, and crude finish. They are great guns, I am not disputing that at all, but the machining on the K-89K appears to be nicer. I could be wrong, as I am only going by pics I have seen... have never handled a K-89K in person :(

For the K-98K fans out there (and I know you are out there lol), feel free to share why you love the design so much over the Lee Enfield. Gush away :D
 
That's it?! No details? :D;)

I was looking for more of a "Oh K-98K, how do I love thee? Let me count the ways?" kind of response lol
 
Goin' fishin'....Sure, I'll bite.

A lot of the Mausers were beautifully built and finished and so were a lot of the Enfields, up to WWII. To what purpose I don't know, because all that trouble and expense isn't necessary in a service arm and didn't make them work any better than their design allowed, which can never be as well as a Lee Enfield, or a P14/M17 for that matter.

Nice to look at and handle the good ones, or make into a sporter? Sure, but they don't kill the enemy any better, or even as well.

I've never seen crude machining on a Long Branch, they were the best fitted and finished of all the No4s, excepting only the trials rifles produced at Enfield in the 1930s.

Plenty of crude, clunky K98s around from what I've seen. I just don't see how anyone could prefer one for a combat rifle: five round mag, heavy, awkward bolt, open sights...however, it's all what you're used to I guess.

Would be interesting to hear what the Germans thought of the Enfields, but then they don't often admit anyone can do anything better, :p so probably that's pointless.:D
 
Last edited:
Maybe I was just expecting more 'finish-wise' from a WW2 rifles than was realistic.

I guess crudely finished might not have been the right choice of words. Perhaps in comparison to modern bolt action rifles.

Why was it that the Mauser action is the one that apparently all modern bolt actions are based off of? Something to do with it being stronger due to the design of the bolt lugs?
 
Hard to say. I've seen crappy looking K98's, and crappy looking No.4's. As military rifles go, both are pretty good. The sling system on the K98 sucks. The No.4 balances better. Accuracy is pretty much the same, especially when shooting at the targets they were designed for. The No.4 has the edge for shooting bullseyes. The advantage of the No.4's ten round mag is mostly imaginary, since with five round chargers it takes twice as long to fill it. I could go on all night, but the point is, each rifle has it's good and bad points, but in the end, they're pretty much tied. The Mauser does make a better sporter, no question there.
 
CanuckShooter said:
Maybe I was just expecting more 'finish-wise' from a WW2 rifles than was realistic.

I guess crudely finished might not have been the right choice of words. Perhaps in comparison to modern bolt action rifles.

Why was it that the Mauser action is the one that apparently all modern bolt actions are based off of? Something to do with it being stronger due to the design of the bolt lugs?
Click to expand...

Probably so, Long Lees and Boer Mausers were pretty as could be, but by WWII there was a greater volume required and something had to give.

Modern commercial bolt rifles you mean? They are made on CNC machine tools with as little hand work as possible and the finishing methods used often didn't exist in WWII, or were not suitable for a service rifle.

Well, if it's a bolt you've got two choices, front locking or rear locking, so if Paul Mauser designed the front locker, I guess John Lee designed the rear locker. The rear locker is better for many practical reasons in a service rifle with a moderately powered cartridge, IMO.

Why did almost 'everyone' go for front-locking? It is easier to manufacture. Unfortunately it is not easier to maintain or clean. (non-removable bolt head = non-adjustable headspace etc.) So in the long run, the cost advantage of manufacture is more than offset by the cost of maintenance.

There aren't many brand new WWII rifles around to compare with either....
 
Canuckshooter I have a pretty mint 303 British Longbranch & my friend has a Mauser 98 pristine. the quality of manufacting to me is Enfield a 5 of 10, Mauser 10 of 10, function of action and chambers etc the mauser is a class of its own.Like sako versa's Savage
P1050882.jpg
P1050878.jpg

P1050750.jpg
IMG_1652.jpg
 
CanuckShooter said:
Maybe I was just expecting more 'finish-wise' from a WW2 rifles than was realistic.

I guess crudely finished might not have been the right choice of words. Perhaps in comparison to modern bolt action rifles.

Why was it that the Mauser action is the one that apparently all modern bolt actions are based off of? Something to do with it being stronger due to the design of the bolt lugs?
Click to expand...

It's tough to get the polishing JUST RIGHT when there are bombs landing on the same block as your rifle factory....
 
Now compare the Long Branch to a 1942 K98.

I had a 1935 No4 MkI and the fit and finish was very comparable to your 1935 K98.

The sun reflects nicely off that pretty, shiny metal and I'm sure the bolt closes like a vault door, but if we're going to war, I'd take the No4.

Substance over form.
 
Ummmm 1935 No4????? I think you're mistaken as the No4 wasn't accepted until 1939. And I don't think any were produced before '41 (perhaps late '40). The alternative would be the No1 mkVI trials rifle that was the basis for the No4, but I can't see anyone owning an exceptionally rare and valuable trials rifle in this day and age and not knowing it. More likely you mean a No.1 MKIII* or even mkIII. I agree the No1 rifles were more elegant than the No4s.
 
Last edited:
Well, I like my K98K far more for handling then the my No.4 or Mark 1. Less bulky, and easier to come to the shoulder.

I don't like how the bayonet is not supported at the tang of the K98K, and only on the bayonet channel. Seems to me, that if it was used for it's intened purpose, the bayonet might "break off" it's mount on the rifle.

When comparing to a Lee Enfield No4 bayonet, or spike or what ever you want to call that poor excuse for a pig sticker.....I'll take the German version anyday. At least the Mark 1 had a knife style, even if it was so long!
 
Here's my $.02 worth.

1) Depends which make of K98k and what year of production.
2) Depends what year of No.4 and what maker.

Probably the nicest ever made No.4 was the 1941 Longbranch Mk1. Probably the nicest ever finish K98k was the pre-1939 Mauser Oberndorf made K98k.

Fit and finish? Probably about equal though the Mausers usually had nicer wood and slightly better blueing in "as new" condition.

In any event, it's academic because if you can fins either in "as new" condition it will cost FAR more than you are willing to pay ;)
 
Because of the bolt turn on the K98, is it difficult to mount a scope? It heard the iron sights aren't very accurate on RC's so a scope would be a good idea.
 
The Germans built a hunting rifle (Gew and K-98)

The Americans built a target rifle (03 Springfield)

The Brits built rifles to rule the world and win wars.
 
dak0ta said:
Because of the bolt turn on the K98, is it difficult to mount a scope? It heard the iron sights aren't very accurate on RC's so a scope would be a good idea.
Click to expand...

Yes, it has to be a high scope mount unless it is an offset mount (like the Short Side Rail or Long Side Rail mounts) due to the bolt.

I don't think there is a problem with K98 sights, they are plenty accurate. Some guys like them, some don't. I prefer the Mauser leaf/tangent sight for target shooting over aperature peep sights. That said, the peep sights are way better for quick target aquisition and therefore I would think, better battle sights probably.
 
I, too, like the Mauser rear sight. I find the open sight easier to use when the target is partially obscured by fog or smoke. It is faster to adjust for different ranges than the No.4's aperture sight. The barleycorn front sight makes it easier to hit targets at longer ranges. The only problem I've ever found with the Mauser rear sight is that it's liable to damage with no protector wings. (Like on a Mk.III) You often find them with excessive side-to-side play.
 
If the question is revised to a comparison between a nice early SMLE MkIII and a K98k, I'd have to go with the SMLE MkIII - they were beautifully made before 1915.
 
Gary D said:
Ummmm 1935 No4????? I think you're mistaken as the No4 wasn't accepted until 1939. And I don't think any were produced before '41 (perhaps late '40). The alternative would be the No1 mkVI trials rifle that was the basis for the No4, but I can't see anyone owning an exceptionally rare and valuable trials rifle in this day and age and not knowing it. More likely you mean a No.1 MKIII* or even mkIII. I agree the No1 rifles were more elegant than the No4s.
Click to expand...

Production of the No1 MkVI ended in 1930/31.

Production of the No4 MkI began in 1930/31

Production of the variant of the No4 MkI that I owned occurred in 1935. There were 57 made according to Skennerton. That is why the date 1935 appeared on the butt socket, under the Royal Cypher and the serial number.

The No4 MkI rifles built between 1931 and 35 are generally referred to as "Trials" rifles, as they were built for troop trials of the new design, as was the No1 MkVI. The 'normal' No4 MkI Trials rifles were dated 1931 or 1933.

Most of them (1402 IRRC) were converted to No4MkI(T) in 1940/41 at RSAF Enfield.
 
Fit and Finish are only one aspect you need to look at ,the more important one is tolerances. Up until about 1941 the K98's were built to very fine tolerances,fit and finish including stock fit ,after 41 the quality began to slide although the finish still looked good.By the beginning of 44 the finish turned to crap ,and the bolt's got very sloppy,they started using pressed steel parts to replace milled ones and as the bombing took it's toll more and more tool marks appeared ,by the end of 44 they were making critical shortcuts such as deleting the anti bind rib on the bolt ,simplified sights and screwing the stock bands on with wood screws.

The Pom's on the other hand had fairly consistent quality control through out the war ,there were wartime expedient parts used but the tolerances and finish didn't change much ,having said that their standards of finish in 1940 were lower than Germany's .

I remember my first Lee Enfield ,it was a Sparkbrook 1902 I think, I was used to the German finish and when I pulled to Enfield down for inspection and cleaning I was very disappointed with the internal finish on the trigger parts,but, it was good where it needed to be good , everywhere else was pretty ordinary .
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom