You answered your own question.
They weren't built to win beauty contests. Looks don't matter on a battle rifle.
Last edited:
Enfield No.4 vs Mauser K-98K.... craftsmanship?
- Thread starter CanuckShooter
- Start date
You answered your own question.
They weren't built to win beauty contests. Looks don't matter on a battle rifle.
Mauser better rifle design, just look at how much it was/is copied to this day, also stronger.
But i have to admit if I was a WW2 soldier I would have preferred #4, Faster action, better sights, and 10 rd capacity.
And I think Mausers were better built.
But i have to admit if I was a WW2 soldier I would have preferred #4, Faster action, better sights, and 10 rd capacity.
And I think Mausers were better built.
- Location
- Tucson, Arizona
First sentence in skill at arms handbook
"Your rifle is given you to kill the enemy"
Not one damm thing about how pretty it looks.
"Your rifle is given you to kill the enemy"
Not one damm thing about how pretty it looks.
The prime time for these rifles doing any major killing is long over. They did their job, and some better then others. Now for civilian ownership, finding a quality/fit/ feel, and historical signifigance of these fine rifle's is of greater importance.
The LE did win. But the Mauser sure as hell put up a good fight. That's why the're called WAR TROPHY'S! ......and not everything is fair in life!
The LE did win. But the Mauser sure as hell put up a good fight. That's why the're called WAR TROPHY'S! ......and not everything is fair in life!
My 2 cents
Both German Mauser and British Enfield wartime manufactures have poorer manufacture tolerances and poorer quality materials. Try to remember that each side was bombing the crappola out of each other's industrial wings and factorys had to make production numbers under some pretty terrible conditions. There are exceptions to this argument but not too many. Its difficult to pay attention to detail when half your factory is ashes. This is most prevalent to late war german mausers though.
Any enfield made in Canada or the USA during the war is of higher quality both in craftsmanship and materials. After-all they didn't have to worry about bombs falling on their heads while working on their milling machines.
South American contract mausers shouldn't really be a part of this conversation unless you want to open the scope of the question to all years of manufacture.
Both German Mauser and British Enfield wartime manufactures have poorer manufacture tolerances and poorer quality materials. Try to remember that each side was bombing the crappola out of each other's industrial wings and factorys had to make production numbers under some pretty terrible conditions. There are exceptions to this argument but not too many. Its difficult to pay attention to detail when half your factory is ashes. This is most prevalent to late war german mausers though.
Any enfield made in Canada or the USA during the war is of higher quality both in craftsmanship and materials. After-all they didn't have to worry about bombs falling on their heads while working on their milling machines.
South American contract mausers shouldn't really be a part of this conversation unless you want to open the scope of the question to all years of manufacture.
Last edited:
ChubbsMcGee
Regular
- Location
- Great White North
K98, I own one and my brother and friend owns the Enfields. The Mauser in my opinion is a much cleaner and advanced gun for it's time, which has lad to many other mfg's taking notes from it's bolt design. It has one of the best safeties that I have seen, and if you have one that's in good shape or redone makes a beautiful rifle! like others have said, you have junk with any old Milsurp rifle, but when you have a good one, hang one to it!!
I would pick a Kar98k over an Enfield No.4 Mk 1. of comparable quality any day of the week because I am from German descent and I can't help it.
Don't quote me on this, but I think the Kar98k was made to better quality standards for field conditions then the No.4 Mk 1s.
Don't quote me on this, but I think the Kar98k was made to better quality standards for field conditions then the No.4 Mk 1s.
The Germans had a tendency to over-manufacture their war materiels. Whether it was rifles, tanks, or radar sets. For a nation at total war they wasted untold man hours and treasure on fit and finish that was well beyond that needed for the tool's purpose.
Can't argue with German efficiency, can you ?
That is simply not allowed.
Can't argue with German efficiency, can you ?
It's not efficiency, it's inefficiency to expend production capacity on cosmetics or design features that do not contribute to the utility of the product. (In wartime at least)
The only nation that consistently strikes the right balance between cost, quality, innovation and performance is Japan IMO.
Which is why they now make the watches, cameras and optics, for example, that Germany used to make, or most of them.
Uhh,,, the Brits Lee Enfield replaced a large number of mausers when a number of those folks became colonies...
