The top 10 combat rifles

[Kurfürst]

With you tendency for name calling and childish, nationalistic arguements, you have earned your place on my ignore list, Glider.

Re your comment on the ammunition capacity. Are you really telling me that you wouldn't prefer to go into action with 10 rounds in your rifle instead of 5 rounds. Because if you are I would ask you to find anyone to support that view.

Oh I can find plenty. After all, everybody wanted Mausers. Persians wanted it. Yugos wanted it. The Swedes wanted it. The Yanks copied it. Should I go on how many countries choose it as their service weapon...? Hell even the French copied it and replaced the famous Lebel with a Mauser-action rifle, the MAS 36. All had 5-round capacity, as did the Mosin bolt action rifles (which are unrelated to the Mauser, and pretty clumsy, I own 3 of them. Still, they are sufficient weapons for a simple soldier.).

Nobody wanted the SMLEs, outside the British Empire that is, where there wasn`t that much of a choice.. It wasn`t a weapon of choice for most countries, the Mauser was. As a matter of fact, even the British wanted a 5-round magazine, as the Pattern 13 and 14 rifles, designed by Enfield engineers that were to replace the SMLEs reverted to a 5 round magazine.

On occasion, the Germans believed themselves to be under machine gun fire, such was the accuracy and rapidity of the rifle fire directed at them.

Funny the same story can be found in every British book... always without a source or any confirmation from the German side.

As the rate of fire achiavable with a Kar 98, I suggest you check the end of this youtube clip:

YouTube - A Mosin & A Mauser

Of course this type of firing is totally pointless for anyone who has some experience on the range - there`s no way to fire at this as accurately
I guess British obsession with this RoF thing was a result of their colonial wars, and certain Zulu chieftains habit of using British army officer skulls as teacups.

And of course the propaganda-value RoF price goes to the French - IIRC they managed to demonstrate - with a specially trained crew of course - that they could fire their famous M1897 75mm gun at something like 90 rounds/min. Totally useless and inpractical for anything else than propaganda purposes of course.

Re your comment about the British wanting the Walther version this was considered but disregarded as the Lee Enfield proved itself.

The British wanted the Mauser, not the Walther. I am not sure Walther was in business at all at the time.. The British wanted a Mauser 98 bolt system to be introduced and replacing the SMLE bolts, just before WW1, largely because the Mauser system is simply better, and more robust, also easier to manufacture. WW1 intervened, and altough the rifle was presented, the British army needed rifles, and lots of them. And after the war, they had a lot on stock, and besides, everybody was too bankrupt to even think of replacing all those millions of rifles and billions of rounds they had for them in storage.

If the Lee Enfield was so poor then why was the Sniper version in use until the 1980's remembering that the British always put a high premium on accuracy and sniper skills.

I guess because Britain was not in a good economical shape at the time, rather than the qualities of the rifle itself. Everyone else moved on by that time, or employed more modern bolt action designs. Most armies simply integrated a designated marksman of some kind for the infantry squad - the USSR for example with it`s famous SVD for example.

As for the SMLE, its not a poor rifle by any standard, it is just my impression that it is sorrounded in Britain, and to a lesser extent, in the Anglo-Saxon world with a sort of hype far in excess of its actual qualities. The Americans have something similiar towards the Springfield, but that`s just another Mauser 98, as are many of even todays modern hunting rifles.

[Soren]

Re your comment about the British wanting the Walther version this was considered but disregarded as the Lee Enfield proved itself.

Wrong, the Lee Enfield was retained because so many were in stock and because of insufficient funds and time to amass any new rifle.

If the Lee Enfield was so poor then why was the Sniper version in use until the 1980's remembering that the British always put a high premium on accuracy and sniper skills.

The .303 Enfield stopped being used in 1960 Glider, it wasn't used in the 80's. The 7.62x51 NATO L42A1 was used up until the 80's after which is was replaced by the L96.

[Glider]

Kurfurst
I have never called you a name, I have always supported my arguments with quotes and examples and where I have been unable to find a quote I have admitted it.
My only crime that I can think of, is to ask you to support your statements, something you have consistantly failed to do. This last posting is a good example.

[Glider]

Originally Posted by Soren

Wrong, the Lee Enfield was retained because so many were in stock and because of insufficient funds and time to amass any new rifle.

Soren
My posting was based on the following two quotes

The common thinking of the period was to issue the long rifle for infantry and the carbine for cavalry, artillery and other such troops. The Brits decided to replace this variety of sizes with one, "intermediate" size, that will fit all niches. This "one size fits all" rifle was called ".303 caliber, Rifle, Short, Magazine, Lee-Enfield, Mark 1", or, in short SMLE Mk.I, where "short" referred to the length of the rifle. This rifle passed some improvements during the following pre-WW1 years, finalizing in the 1907 as a SMLE Mk.III. Development and introduction into service of this rifle was accompanied with constant complaints of some "theorists", which stated that this rifle would be no good neither for infantry, nor for cavalry, so RSAF was set do design another rifle, patterned after the German Mauser, which also should be more suitable for mass production, than the SMLE. This rifle finally appeared in 1914 as an ".303 caliber Enfield Pattern 1914 rifle", or simply a P-14. With the outbreak of the Great war British troops were still armed with the "poor" SMLE Mk.III rifles, which soon turned far from any "poor", giving some hard time to the Germans. In fact, the SMLE Mk.III was a really good rifle, quite accurate, reliable and suitable for rapid and accurate firing. British soldiers were rigorously trained for both individual and volley fire marksmanship, and were routinely capable of firing 30 aimed shots per minute, which was quite a rate of fire for any non-automatic rifle. There were times when advancing Germans were impressed that they were under the machine gun fire, when Tommie used their salvo-firing techniques. During the war time the basic Mk.III design was slightly simplified to better suit the mass production needs, with omission of "volley" sights and magazine cutoffs, and with some production shortcuts.


As it turned out, there was never any question of the P-14 replacing the Lee-Enfield. Far from it. The superiority of the Lee was now firmly entrenched, and the Bisley-like refinements of the P-14 left the British soldiery profoundly under-whelmed. They were primarily used for training and general rear echelon work, although some P-14’s saw considerable front line work as sniper rifles. Here their enhanced accuracy potential could be effectively utilised, and the P-14 was highly regarded in this role.

The .303 Enfield stopped being used in 1960 Glider, it wasn't used in the 80's. The 7.62x51 NATO L42A1 was used up until the 80's after which is was replaced by the L96.

You are correct re the calibre in use but the basic weapon was the Lee Enfield and in my defence, I did say the Sniper Version as a general statement. This was in production until around 1985 as the L42A1 a remarkable length of service.

[parsifal]

I thought it might be useful to look over the shoulder, and see what some other internet sites are saying. My search was on the basis of “best bolt Action in WWII” and I was staggered to find the number of entries under that parameter. There were a number of discussion forums, and one poll that I found. Opinion is sharply divided about which was the best. The consistent front runners were the Enfield and the Mauser, although there were quite a few who support the Russian Moisin Nagant, for a number of reasons.

The poll that I found, concluded that the enfield was the best rifle, being voted by 46% of those polled. The Mauser came in second, with about 37%. There sample size was 142, which IMO is pretty reasonable.

Its clear to me that there are those who are never going to accept the views of the majority, no matter what. The prejudices are simply too strong to break down.. That’s okay, people are entitled to their opinion. But IMO the Enfield is a superior military weapon to the Mauser. Guess I am one of the prejudiced as well…….

Here are the links to three of the sites that I found. I looked at a lot of sites, incidentally, and tried to take a representative sample of what I found,

The only thing this “mini survey” shows, is that opinion is very divided on this subject. It has made me realize that it is dangerous, and erroneous to make alleged irrefutable claims about either rifle. It seems that just about anything is refutable

Favorite WWII Bolt-Action rifle - Page 10 - Armchair General and HistoryNet >> The Best Forums in History

Best Military Bolt action of all time? - The Firearms Forum.Com

http://www.gunslot.com/blog/guns-top...ll-time-w-pics

[Glider]

Kurfurst
Well you gave a reply which is good. Taking your points one at a time

Ammunition
Well if you want to go in with half the ammo thats your funeral

Rate of Fire
Be fair I did give you 4 different quotes from different sources and all you can do is say they came from the same story. Not impressive
No doubt that the Mauser is a good weapon but you have to stop twice as many times to reload so the number of shots will drop.

Pattern 13/14
I covered that with two quotes from diffferent sources in my reply to Soren. Can you supply a quote to support your statement

Long Life in Front Line
To blame it on the cost is a poor statement which I would be interested to see, if you can support it.

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Originally Posted by Soren

Adler, like I said: how the heck are you gonna tell that from a picture ??

I have pictures of German soldiers running around with US M1 carbines. Why ? Because they were low on ammo ofcourse and so they'd happily grab an enemy weapon in order to be able to defend themselves. Got pictures of Germans carrying Sten guns as-well, a weapon which wasn't exactly known as a prize winner.

The point however is that Soldiers from all sides took and used each other's weapons, sometimes because they prefered the other weapon but most oftenly because they had no more amo for their own and there always was plenty of enemy ammo around.

The point is the picture is no evidence.

I agree with you that the K98 is a great weapon. I enjoy shooting it from time to time but fact is that the Gerand had advantages over it too.

[parsifal]

One of the discussion boards I posted raises a point, which I think will bring a smile to this rather dour discussion. Basically the Mauser as the main sidearm of nations has not won, or helped to win a single war for its owners, whereas the enfield has won every major conflict that it was a part of. Havent checked the veracity of these claims, and it was a very tongue in cheek statement, but it kinda makes you think for a minute.....does that mean that for the greatest poll, ie the ones that matter, ie the two world wars, that the enfield is leading 2-0 over the mauser????

[Soren]

Glider,

The SMLE was only retained because:

A.) There wasn't enough time to acquire the new weapon (Vickers were only capable of building a handful)
B.) A lack of sufficient funds
C.) The Enfield proved, despite its deficiencies, that it could still fulfill the its role to a satisfactory degree.

Now regarding the RoF of Enfield and Mauser, well Kurfurst brings up some very good points. The primary difference between the M98 action and Enfield action however is that the Enfield is slightly quicker to operate, but we're talking milliseconds here, and the time is quickly gained back when the Enfield has to reload which takes over twice as long as it does for the Mauser.

Another thing about the Enfield action is that it isn't nearly as safe as the M98 action, and it'll blow your head to bits if don't clean it properly. The M98 action never blows up, and it makes sure that excessisve gasses are vented away. Nomatter what you do to the M98 action it wont blow up in your face, heck welding the barrel shut and the action still easily holds solid.

Thus Glider, the M98 is better suited for firing ammo of varying degrees in quality, while this can be bloody unsafe with the Enfield.

[Soren]

Originally Posted by parsifal

One of the discussion boards I posted raises a point, which I think will bring a smile to this rather dour discussion. Basically the Mauser as the main sidearm of nations has not won, or helped to win a single war for its owners, whereas the enfield has won every major conflict that it was a part of. Havent checked the veracity of these claims, and it was a very tongue in cheek statement, but it kinda makes you think for a minute.....does that mean that for the greatest poll, ie the ones that matter, ie the two world wars, that the enfield is leading 2-0 over the mauser????

So let me get this straight, you're boiling entire wars down to which rifle the various nations were issuing ??? This is as stupid as when people claim, "The Allies won the war so everything they made was better!"

Fact is that the Mauser is the better rifle, the mass production of the rifle up until this day prooves that point more than anything. Nearly every hunting rifle today is of the Mauser 98 design, now if that doesn't say something then what does ??

[Glider]

Originally Posted by Soren

Glider,

The SMLE was only retained because:

A.) There wasn't enough time to acquire the new weapon (Vickers were only capable of building a handful)
B.) A lack of sufficient funds
C.) The Enfield proved, despite its deficiencies, that it could still fulfill the its role to a satisfactory degree.

Now regarding the RoF of Enfield and Mauser, well Kurfurst brings up some very good points. The primary difference between the M98 action and Enfield action however is that the Enfield is slightly quicker to operate, but we're talking milliseconds here, and the time is quickly gained back when the Enfield has to reload which takes over twice as long as it does for the Mauser.

Re the P14 I stand by the statements that I found if you can find any that support your position then that is fine.
Re the ROF can you or Kurfurst find any statement that supports your position that the K98 had a faster ROF remembering that the K98 has to reload twice as often?

Another thing about the Enfield action is that it isn't nearly as safe as the M98 action, and it'll blow your head to bits if don't clean it properly. The M98 action never blows up, and it makes sure that excessisve gasses are vented away. Nomatter what you do to the M98 action it wont blow up in your face, heck welding the barrel shut and the action still easily holds solid.

This is totally new to me. I have a number of books on the weapon, have checked a number of sites and spoken to people who own them but none of them mention the Lee Enfield having any tendancy to blow up in your face. Again can I ask for anything that supports this statement?

Thus Glider, the M98 is better suited for firing ammo of varying degrees in quality, while this can be bloody unsafe with the Enfield.

Again I must differ on this. German snipers had access to special batches of ammunition which was of a higher quality than normal ammo to ensure accuracy. British Snipers used normal issue ammo. The only precaution taken by the British took was to ensure that all the ammo they used came from the same batch.

Interestingly there was one problem with the British ammo (who says I am not fair) that hasn't been mentioned. The quality of the powder was pretty low and very corrosive, so you did have to be careful about how you cleaned the barrel after firing it. Boiling water being the only sure method. A friend of mine bought a Lee Enfield that looked spotless on the outside, absolutely as new and he was delighted with it. Then he checked it, got it stripped and cleaned by an gun smith and found to his horror that the barrel was in a poor state. He shoots it at up to 300 yards but anything more and its not up to it. The general view was that it had only fired a few rounds to test it, then it was quickly cleaned and stored. However, it was enough to do the damage over the 20 years that it was stored.

[parsifal]

Why are we discussing effective ranges of 800-1000yds for open sights. These were theoretically possible, but generally quite unrealistic ranges for nearly all standard Infantryman. It was far more common for rifle combats at ranges of 150 to 300 metres. this was the main reasoning for the reduced power rounds for assault rifles. It was found to be quite unnecessary to use the higher power rounds, because soldiers could not shoot that far effectively. Volley fire and sniper fire were the only really effective ways of reaching out to that range. As far as I know only the british used volley fire, and that was only during the opening stages of WWI.

IMO we should analyse effective ranges, not theoretical ranges, and the principal constraint for effective range was the training of the soldier, not so much the quality of the weapon.

[Juha]

There seems to be some confusion here. Military rifles for mass armies and hunting rifles are built for slightly different use.
Military rifle of course has to have reasonable performance and must be reliable, easy to handle and accept a certain amount of mishandling without malfunctioning. Besides it must be easy to mass-product and reasonably priced.
But ROF is clearly more important than range, ordinary conscript soldier could not be counted to hit a moving target constantly at 500m range. Probably not even standing target. Sniping is a different matter. But more bullets he could fire at attacking enemy at shorter distance the better, of course within reasonable limits and within limit of supply organization to supply more ammo.

Now I read in 70s, probably on Purnell’s book on infantry weapons, that bolt of SMLE allowed shorter movement of handle than that of Kar 98k and because of that had higher rof and easier use from hip. True or not, I haven’t checked that from other sources and had not used either bolt. My only knowledge on bolt action rifles is from Finnish military rifle, which was a modification of Russian/Soviet rifle, Mosin?. With it the rather long movement of the bolt handle would have reduced the ROF in aimed fire.

juha

[parsifal]

Soren

Your point says that is is a good hunting rifle, thats all. I am just reporting what other posts are saying. You should take your grievances up with the author.

Another post that i read said that with regard to the big three BAs,

1) The US produced a target rifle
2) The Germans produced a sporting rifle
3) The British produced a combat rifle

I am not suggesting that the german defeat, or the British victory were entirely due to one factor, or one weapon system. What this rather light hearted comment made by another, and reported by me is saying, is that the rifles contributed to those respective outcomes.

The important things for you to take away from my post is really quite simple.

1) Your dour approach to this issue is in stark contrast to the way other forums are handling this issue. In the end you are achieving little, because your reputation is preceding you. Nobody really wants to talk to you about anything, because you refuse to listen and are not talking to people, you are lecturing, often when it is obvious that you do not have the knowledge to do that

2) There is a wide divergence of opinion regarding which rifle was superior

3) The war ended more than 60 years ago, and our discussions are not going to change the outcome one bit. The purpose of these discussions are to exchange information, and enjoy the experience, not walk into the forum with jackboots already on

[parsifal]

Juha

Exactly, could not agree more