Best Bolt Rifle of World War I
- Thread starter EdInk
- Start date
mapsjanhere
New member
Why do you mention the Mauser twice in the choices?
William Gilmore
Inactive
The Lee Enfield was a great rifle with a smooth action and large capacity, but the best rifle was undoubtedly the Springfield M1903. In the hands of the Marines the German forces were treated to a display of marksmanship unprecedented in the history of warfare. When the German troops attacked, they were scythed down like wheat starting at 800 yards by the entrenched Marines. The killing only stopped when the German troops fell back to their original positions. EVERY Marine was expected to be able to hit a man sized target at 1,000 yards. And they did.
The Mauser was a fine rifle, the Enfield was a fine rifle. The Springfield was a superior rifle.
The Mauser was a fine rifle, the Enfield was a fine rifle. The Springfield was a superior rifle.
mwells72774
New member
granted this is OPINION, I'm going to have to go with the Springfield. Owned at least one of each.
Mike Irwin
Staff
"When the German troops attacked, they were scythed down like wheat starting at 800 yards by the entrenched Marines."
You need to read about the British-German interaction at the Battle of Mons.
You need to read about the British-German interaction at the Battle of Mons.
Sweet Shooter
New member
My vote is for Enfield because it's a proper British rifle.
Also I've seen generally better wood on the LE's than other historical arms, it's more beautifuller.
-SS-
Also I've seen generally better wood on the LE's than other historical arms, it's more beautifuller.
-SS-
William Gilmore
Inactive
Mike, I didn't say that the Enfield was not a fine rifle, the Battle at Mons was at a much shorter range than Beleau (sp?) wood, and the Enfield's rapid rate of fire was so effective the Germans thought the Brits were using machine guns. But, as a typical American, I prize long range accuracy as the mark of a rifle's quality. I've owned several '03s and I like 'em.
The Gewehr 98. The American copy is total rubbish. 8mm mauser produces more muzzle energy than .30-06 according to S&B, plus theirs did not have heat treating problems.
I love the Mosin but at this point it is unrefined, too long and such. In WWII I would vote Mosin all the way. The Soviets won the war, without them we would've nuked half of Europe. Then WWIV would be fought with sticks and stones.
I love the Mosin but at this point it is unrefined, too long and such. In WWII I would vote Mosin all the way. The Soviets won the war, without them we would've nuked half of Europe. Then WWIV would be fought with sticks and stones.
Come and take it.
New member
british enfield had the best sights and the quickest cycling and a high magazine capacity for the time.
Wildalaska
Moderator
I think before we have threads like this we need to have history lessons.
WildatleastirwinknowsitAlaska ™©2002-2011
PS: Enfield. Firepower, accuracy, reliability. Dont confuse cosmetics, looks or usefulness as a hunting rifle with "best".
WildatleastirwinknowsitAlaska ™©2002-2011
PS: Enfield. Firepower, accuracy, reliability. Dont confuse cosmetics, looks or usefulness as a hunting rifle with "best".
My vote is for the Mauser. For 50+ years for most armies of the world, it was the rifle to own. It was copied, plagiarized, imitated multiple times (US M1903 Springfield, Arisaka, Enfield Pattern 14, US M1917, etc). Mausers were available in numerous configurations and in many degrees of finish, from 1871 black powder cartridge rifles that dominated the battelefield for a decade, the 1893 that you could hand to any peasant conscript and expect it to perform well, the 1895, the 1894, and 1896 Mausers that were essentially an improved 1893 Mauser, the Gewehr 1898 that was respected on the battlefields of the world for 20 years due to its ruggedness and accuracy, to the 1949 Persian Mauser that was made of modern steels with a fine finish on both the wood and the metal. These rifles were still standard issue for many armies well into the era of autoloading weapons.
Not that the others were not good rifles, just that the Mauser design stood head and shoulders above the others. The larger capacity of the Lee Enfields gave them greater capacity but made them slower to load. The Mosin Nagant was somewhat crude but could be relied on to perform well in any conditions. The Springfield was the sweetheart of many WW1 fans, but the US M1917 did the yeoman's duty for the US in WW1.
And of course, the "also rans" of WW1 had battle rifles as well. The French had the Berthier and older Lebel rifles, Italians had the 1891 Mannlicher-Carcano, Austria-Hungary, Greece, and the Dutch had the M95 Steyr, Turkey had both 1893 and 1898 pattern Mauser rifles of varying designation and sources, Serbia armed its troops with Mauser 1895 pattern rifles, Albania was armed with Steyr M90, Martini-Henry, and Winchester 1873 rifles. Many nations, many rifles. It's not as easy as Germany/Great Britain/USA.
Not that the others were not good rifles, just that the Mauser design stood head and shoulders above the others. The larger capacity of the Lee Enfields gave them greater capacity but made them slower to load. The Mosin Nagant was somewhat crude but could be relied on to perform well in any conditions. The Springfield was the sweetheart of many WW1 fans, but the US M1917 did the yeoman's duty for the US in WW1.
And of course, the "also rans" of WW1 had battle rifles as well. The French had the Berthier and older Lebel rifles, Italians had the 1891 Mannlicher-Carcano, Austria-Hungary, Greece, and the Dutch had the M95 Steyr, Turkey had both 1893 and 1898 pattern Mauser rifles of varying designation and sources, Serbia armed its troops with Mauser 1895 pattern rifles, Albania was armed with Steyr M90, Martini-Henry, and Winchester 1873 rifles. Many nations, many rifles. It's not as easy as Germany/Great Britain/USA.
Mike Irwin
Staff
"The American copy is total rubbish. 8mm mauser produces more muzzle energy than .30-06 according to S&B, plus theirs did not have heat treating problems."
Neither of those two points make the Springfield "rubbish," any more than the K98k's use by the Nazi regime makes it an instrument of profound evil good only for killing Jews and Russians.
The simple fact is that a few dozen or hundred footpounds of energy produced by the CARTRIDGE being fired from the gun is, in reality, absolutely meaningless.
2,700 foot pounds of energy isn't going to kill you much, if any deader, than, say, 2610 fpe.
And, given that the brittle receiver issue was a MANUFACTURING problem, and not a design issue inherent to the gun itself?
That would be like trying to claim that late war K98ks were trash because of manufacturing and supply issues caused by the Allies winning the war and because of those issues unrelated to the gun's design the entire Mauser design is cheap chicken chunks is... well... silly.
Neither of those two points make the Springfield "rubbish," any more than the K98k's use by the Nazi regime makes it an instrument of profound evil good only for killing Jews and Russians.
The simple fact is that a few dozen or hundred footpounds of energy produced by the CARTRIDGE being fired from the gun is, in reality, absolutely meaningless.
2,700 foot pounds of energy isn't going to kill you much, if any deader, than, say, 2610 fpe.
And, given that the brittle receiver issue was a MANUFACTURING problem, and not a design issue inherent to the gun itself?
That would be like trying to claim that late war K98ks were trash because of manufacturing and supply issues caused by the Allies winning the war and because of those issues unrelated to the gun's design the entire Mauser design is cheap chicken chunks is... well... silly.
Mike Irwin
Staff
"The larger capacity of the Lee Enfields gave them greater capacity but made them slower to load."
Slower to load, but double the capacity and a far higher effective sustained firing rate. That's what made the Germans think they were facing massed British machine guns at the Battle of Mons in 1914. German field officers simply couldn't believe it when they found out that instead of 40 or more machine guns per division, the British were at that point issuing TWO machine guns per division, and at Mons, most of the British divisions didn't even have them sited or ready to fire when the battle began.
"These rifles were still standard issue for many armies well into the era of autoloading weapons."
So.... the Mauser is a perfectly adequate weapon if your nation is too poor to arm its troops with modern weapons?
The Lee Enfield also remained standard issue with quite a few nations (not all of them poor), well into the autoloading era.
Slower to load, but double the capacity and a far higher effective sustained firing rate. That's what made the Germans think they were facing massed British machine guns at the Battle of Mons in 1914. German field officers simply couldn't believe it when they found out that instead of 40 or more machine guns per division, the British were at that point issuing TWO machine guns per division, and at Mons, most of the British divisions didn't even have them sited or ready to fire when the battle began.
"These rifles were still standard issue for many armies well into the era of autoloading weapons."
So.... the Mauser is a perfectly adequate weapon if your nation is too poor to arm its troops with modern weapons?
The Lee Enfield also remained standard issue with quite a few nations (not all of them poor), well into the autoloading era.
Wildalaska
Moderator
I wouldnt call the French, nor their rifles, "also rans" (and that coming from me, and y'all know how I feel about the French). The rifles perfomred as well as the Mausers in the muck and the mire.
Brave soldiers, bad generals. Look up Colonel Driant.
WildletsdohandgunsnextAlaska ™©2002-2011
The SMLE was the best battle bolt rifle of WW1. Period.
If you read Captain Herbert McBride's http://genforum.genealogy.com/mcbride/messages/2969.html books and his articles in the American Rifleman, he thought the SMLE was a better military rifle than the "beloved" Springfield rifle.
While both were short and handy, the SMLE had better combat sights. Based on John George's experiences in WW2, http://www.amazon.com/Shots-fired-anger-riflemans-Guadalcanal/dp/093599842X the 03 was constantly breaking parts. The SMLE was developed into a very reliable mechanical item.
The one thing I do not understand, as there has been no analysis submitted just warnings, is why the British NRA in their Spring 2010 Journal http://www.nra.org.uk/common/asp/general/downloads.asp?site=NRA&category=14 warning its members not to shoot any Lee Enfields of any mark in the rain. Apparently the rifle is not very structurally strong.
While the Mauser has the stronger and better engineered action, a GEW 98 is too long, the lange sights are awful, and it only holds five rounds. The pistol grip stock is a better stock than either the 03 or SMLE stock for shooting.
A ten round magazine is always better than a five round magazine for a combat weapon.
The American Rifleman of the twenties published an article which was a British NRA comparison between the SMLE and the 03. The Brits of course preferred their rifle, preferred their nosecap for bayonet fighting, preferred the "light and easy bolt" of the SMLE to the "heavy" bolt of the 03. I have not found the 03 bolt to be all that heavy and think the primary purpose of a rifle is for shooting not for use as a pig sticker. They were 100% correct in describing the 03 sights as poor sights for target shooting and combat.
It is my considered opinion that the 8 mm round was a better combat round than either the rimmed 303 British or the 30-06.
If you read Captain Herbert McBride's http://genforum.genealogy.com/mcbride/messages/2969.html books and his articles in the American Rifleman, he thought the SMLE was a better military rifle than the "beloved" Springfield rifle.
While both were short and handy, the SMLE had better combat sights. Based on John George's experiences in WW2, http://www.amazon.com/Shots-fired-anger-riflemans-Guadalcanal/dp/093599842X the 03 was constantly breaking parts. The SMLE was developed into a very reliable mechanical item.
The one thing I do not understand, as there has been no analysis submitted just warnings, is why the British NRA in their Spring 2010 Journal http://www.nra.org.uk/common/asp/general/downloads.asp?site=NRA&category=14 warning its members not to shoot any Lee Enfields of any mark in the rain. Apparently the rifle is not very structurally strong.
While the Mauser has the stronger and better engineered action, a GEW 98 is too long, the lange sights are awful, and it only holds five rounds. The pistol grip stock is a better stock than either the 03 or SMLE stock for shooting.
A ten round magazine is always better than a five round magazine for a combat weapon.
The American Rifleman of the twenties published an article which was a British NRA comparison between the SMLE and the 03. The Brits of course preferred their rifle, preferred their nosecap for bayonet fighting, preferred the "light and easy bolt" of the SMLE to the "heavy" bolt of the 03. I have not found the 03 bolt to be all that heavy and think the primary purpose of a rifle is for shooting not for use as a pig sticker. They were 100% correct in describing the 03 sights as poor sights for target shooting and combat.
It is my considered opinion that the 8 mm round was a better combat round than either the rimmed 303 British or the 30-06.
Last edited: