What was the crappiest bolt action rifle during WWII?

I am going to base it on only rifles that served in WWII and only looking at the 'best' of there group (i.e. late war K98's or Arisakas etc.) as that truly compares the rifles. I also am only going to compare rifles I have actually used.

Mosin Nagant- 5rds rimmed not the best as it is a rimmed cartiage, the whole interrupter doesn't work to well for me either (on 4 different Mosins) so it doesn't cancel out the disadvantage, the bolt is also not the best design but can be mass produced easily, its fairly accurate, and goes boom everytime.

Carcano- I prefer the Mannlicher clips to the stripper clip (charger) I feel it is just a better design. 6rds magazine capacity, very little recoil, relitavely accurate. Where they went wrong was the M38 which had a fixed sight instead of a adjustable one.

Steyr M95 (all variants)- I love these little things so I am a bit biased but its loading method (Mannlicher clips) takes out the disadvantage from having rimmed ammo, fast action, but they were sighted in way to high and in the Carbine/Short rifle configuration the recoil can be brutal. It is also more difficult to disassemble and maintain as the magazine well has a open bottom and there is no way the average trooper is disassembling that bolt in the field.

Lee Enfield (No. 1 Mk. 3 and No. 4 Mk. 1) 10rd magazine which is a advantage but after the initial burst it isn't as effective I feel, rimmed ammo which is a disadvantage as there is nothing to prevent rimlock if you load it improperly. Accurate, fast action. It might not be the strongest action but it doesn't have to be as it gets the job done. A fair bit of people consider the No. 4 Mk. 1 sights to be very good, I can't use aperture sights to save my life but I do love the No. 1 Mk. 3s.

1903 Springfield- Ok design, not too fast action though. Some of the rifles are dangerous to shoot (early numbered ones) but I will take that out of the discussion as we are only looking at the best of them. Fairly accurate, rugged, gets the job done but not the quickest to manufacture.

K98- Ok design again (consider the K98, Vz 24, 1903 etc. to be about the same) not the fastest action but fairly accurate. The action is very strong though.
Norwegian Krags- Slow to load, fast to shoot, accurate but weak action design, good caliber though. For some reason I can't bring myself to enjoy the M98 design though, it just seems so boring to me.

Arisakas- Best bolt design of the war by far (super easy to disassemble and maintain), #### on closing which makes it a fairly fast action, for the T38 the round used is a disadvantage as it can get mini-rimlock from it. But they are a fairly accurate, strong action. T38 is a pretty long rifle considering it is being used in the Jungle, but the Type 99 addressed these faults. Overall I feel the Type 99 (early ones) is probably the best bolt action used by anyone during the war.

The crappiest bolt action for me during WWII overall would have to be the Norwegian Krag, I wouldn't take it to combat period. All the others I don't have a issue using (unless it is the late war Arisakas or K98s) but the Krag was significantly outdated by WWII and it showed.
 
I found the mosin bolt poor... Wasn't till I put a bent handle that it made the bolt action feel decent.

Its more of a slap open design. Kinda like working a land rover defender shifter. Nothing smooth about it.
 
Fact is most European nations fielded a bolt action rifle of some sort or another for regular issue to their armies, period. Most were just slight alterations from WWI era technology, hopefully built with newer materials. A charger of some kind speeded up the reloading process, but really, all required a turning bolt.

End of story.
 
Russia had one rifle that was fine for sniping but if you got in a real fire fight and had to fire a lot of rounds for along time in -20 c or colder it would jam up and the bolt would bind in the chamber I think the Mosin even had issues will this in mid and late war productions.

I go know I love the feel of you LE 4mk1 and mk2 and they have went bang every time I needed one to...
 
All I know is that the Enfield, K98, Mosin Nagant and K31 are all damn fine serviceable and accurate (enough) rifles. The others I don't have enough personal experience with to comment, though I'm sure they all go bang. Love the K31, though as commented, not really a 'battle rifle' of the Second World War. Though I'm sure the Germans (or anyone else) would have felt differently had they decided to march over the Swiss border. The Enfield is probably my favorite out of the others, I prefer the SMLE version to the No.4 though. The smelly just seems to be the perfect handling rifle, IMO anyways. Of the rest, the Mosin will have to take my bottom pick, not that I don't like it...I think the stubby bolt handle is a bit of an impediment when faced with a cartridge that doesn't want to go in and I've seen (and own) some Nagants that have possibly the worst trigger pull in history. Thankfully it's easy to tune up with a file, Dremel and some shims made from a beer can (no shortage here :)), but I don't think the average conscript had those things at his disposal. It's still a rugged as hell gun though...I don't think it could be called crappy.
All in all, at the start of the war none of the major powers were sending their soldiers off to war with an unserviceable rifle. By the end though, the losing side was churning out 'last ditch' armaments and emptying decades old armouries to get the old men and young boys out into the field. The English went through an 'anything that goes boom' phase during Dunkirk and the Battle of Britain too. Since you include the K31 I guess straight pulls are kosher, and I'll leave off mentioning that the Ross and Steyr M95 both saw use in WWII as well..
 
CanadianAR said:
I will concede that the 10 round mag capacity is an advantage in the heat of battle but after your initial 10 round "burst"
you need to reload it via 2 stripper clips, and the mauser loads 10 rounds in 2 clips, so no further advantage in my opinion.

The K31 does not count. It mays well have been built on the moon, would have seen the same amount of ww2 usage.
Click to expand...

The other advantage is the speed at which the Enfield action could be racked. I simply can't do it as fast on the K98, YMMV.
 
RobertMcC said:
I found the mosin bolt poor... Wasn't till I put a bent handle that it made the bolt action feel decent.

Its more of a slap open design. Kinda like working a land rover defender shifter. Nothing smooth about it.
Click to expand...
The mosin bolt can vary. Two of mine are like butter the other two are more clunky. The two better mosin bolts actually sound different to the ear when cycling. Love em.
 
Mosins have been around for just about 120 years and are still in regular military use in many hell holes around the world.

I'm pretty sure they will be around for another 50 years or so.Not bad for "crappy" design and workmanship.

7.62x54R is of the same vintage and it will solder on for quite a bit longer than rifle it was made for.Maybe rimmed design isn't a problem?
 
In "Hatcher's Notebook" he talks about trying to blow up an Arisaka. He regarded it as one of the strongest, if not THE strongest bolt action rifle in service.
 
Hatcher's Notebook should be required reading for any member of the RFC. :) What takes away from the otherwise stellar quality of his book is his habitual badmouthing of anything British/Commonwealth. Two examples of his inappropriate badmouthing are: his opinions of the rifling system of the M-1917 rifle and his opinions on the Owen submachinegun.

My opinions on Col. Hatchers opinions are very minor though. He probably forgot more about 20th century small arms than I will ever know.
 
Last edited:
any of them that were in service for a good period of time would be OK bolts ... i've seen enough enfield sloppy beaten up garbage that you couldn't give me one ... shot several over the years that seriously couldn't hit a fence post at 25yards, and it provided much amusement !!

but that being said, i've also seen several enfields that were in fine shape and were reported to shoot very well

i think the sad state we see these milsurps in post war is unfair to what they once were .....

- and winning a war has nothing to do with the bolt action used, but rather how much money and human lives they want to throw away to win ...... give me a massive amount of gold bullion and a large supply of soldiers and i'll win any war with what ever crappy bolt
 
Anyone else willing to make the argument for the pre-A3 Springfield? Excessive recoil (relative to everyone else's except the M95 carbines) and a sights that are almost impossible to use in anything but ideal conditions.
 
Interesting thread. I only have limited experience on these firearms but I must say that the LE and K98 are both fine rifles. The K98's are very reliable, accurate, and an attractive firearm (not that it would matter in combat). The action is a little slower on the k98's but it is definitely more rugged than the LE's. However, when it comes down to it I would want an enfield in combat for its slight advantages in speed and mag size. I just find the LE bolt to be silky smooth if taken care of properly... and providing there are no rim lock issues.

Crappiest - I have yet to experience a truly brutal bolt action from WW2 but I'm relatively new to collecting/shooting.
 
Nyles said:
Anyone else willing to make the argument for the pre-A3 Springfield? Excessive recoil (relative to everyone else's except the M95 carbines) and a sights that are almost impossible to use in anything but ideal conditions.
Click to expand...

I'd get behind that before I said the Arisaka or even the Carcano was bad.

@fraserdw - I would say that the Mannlicher charger was more of a disadvantage than an advantage, for sure, but it wasn't that bad IMO. And, I believe the fixed rear sight was only on a few of the shorter models? The full-sized ones were adjustable, no? Not trying to argue, I genuinely don't know.
 
Nyles said:
Anyone else willing to make the argument for the pre-A3 Springfield? Excessive recoil (relative to everyone else's except the M95 carbines) and a sights that are almost impossible to use in anything but ideal conditions.
Click to expand...

I don't know about that friend. Read this story from WWI that I gleaned off of CMP dot org:

Alfred V. Houde Jr. also notes the effectiveness of the M1903 with Marines in France:

On 4 June, 1918, in the first major battle for Marines during the war, the Germans advanced through a wheat field in front of Belleau Wood. Marine riflemen stopped the Germans as far out as 800 yards with aimed rifle fire. (emphasis added) On that day, the skill of the Marines and accuracy of the M1903 Springfield became legendary. (houde 2004:11)

This was long long before that 03-A3 made it's debute.

Who knows? Maybe a few M1917s were present too?
USMC held dearly onto their beloved Springfields until WWII Guadacanal. Then they literally stole M1 Garands from the US Army GIs also present on that beachhead.

A nation of riflemen.
 
Last edited:
Canada used the M1917 in WWII - reportedly about 80,000 were ordered from Uncle Sam, & they were put to good use (not for front line combatants though). I also heard it through the grapevine that about 30,000 of the Canadian M1917s were subsequently sold to Denmark. Denmark has their own version of the Northern Rangers called the Sirius Patrol. For bear defence, the long arm they are issued is the M1917 with the the rear sight ears ground off - the receiver ring has a leaf sight dovetailed into it. The Sirius patrol M1917's are otherwise unmodified. Their sidearm is a Glock in 10mm.

I would not feel undergunned with an M1917 in da boosh - 6 shots of 30-06, very low recoil on par with an M1 rifle, what is not to like?

I very much like the Mauser, they are among the iconic bolt action rifles of the 20th century, and quite versatile.

I find the #1 MKIII* is great, but the bedding in a rifle in military trim has 22 points! :eek: I would say the Mauser design is the most practical of them all. The .303 design, in company with a lot of the rifles and cartridges of other nations date back to roughly the same era.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom