Best Bolt Rifle of World War I

Best Bolt Rifle of World War I

  • U.S. Springfield

    Votes: 47 24.6%

  • British Lee-Enfield

    Votes: 78 40.8%

  • German Mauser

    Votes: 50 26.2%

  • Russian Mosin-Nagant

    Votes: 7 3.7%

  • Other

    Votes: 9 4.7%
  • Total voters
    191
  • Poll closed .
I voted enfield as many have. My reasons are partly the same as everyone else large capacity and accurate. But its also a smooth action and a fast firing rifle. And for a bolt rifle depending on the user extremely fast.
 
I have to disagree, I own all the mentioned firearms, some I have numerous copies of. It is close between the US and British issued rifles, the enfield is smoother and holds more rounds, but my two 1917's are hands down more accurate. The US 1917 was issued in much greater number than the Springfield 1903 due mostly to it's ease of manufacture and the fact that our arsenals were already tooled up and making enfields for the brit's, a few design mod's to make sure people weren't sticking .303 in them and although a little heavy, one fine rifle was made to say the least.
 
Even though the 03A3 was the "offical" US weapon, I've seen statistics that show the 1917 as being actually used more.
Click to expand...

I think that the 1903A3 wasn't in production until the 1940s :)

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.
Click to expand...

Interesting points. I support your ability to have an opinion, but your basis for 'total rubbish' is open to debate, I believe. M1903s were fine target rifles, and while it is true that low serial numbers may have had heat treat issues- today resulting in the 'rule of thumb' about receivers below one million (or 800,000 depending on source used), this hardly is a 'feature' of the rifle, nor is it exactly commonplace. I'd be curious to learn of percentages of 'blow ups' on M1903s with receivers below 800,000. I wouldn't risk shooting one myself, but isn't it a curious twist of logic to call the M1903- a Mauser copy- which led to, in my opinion, an improvement over the original Mauser design- "rubbish", when it was so closely copied it led to lawsuits and monies forked over in damages? Wouldn't that therefore suggest that the original design was flawed in an intrinsic way? Since I can see no logical basis for feeling the original Mauser design was flawed (based on it's intended use, of course) then I cannot agree that the M1903 was therefore a flawed design. Then too, the 30-06 cartridge is incredibly popular even today. Over a century later, it is a viable and popular round, even when all these specialty cartridges exist. Even in the 1940s, the Germans used express cartridges in specially developed sniper/target Mausers that were superior to both the 8mm and the 30-06 in many ways. Does that make the 8mm Mauser cartridge a bad round? Not to my way of thinking. But, are you comparing modern commercial 30-06 to the round they were using in WWI, the M1906, and then contrasting that to the 8mm Mauser round of WWI? M1 ball is not M1906 is not M2 ball is not etc etc etc :) What real disadvantage does the slightly higher muzzle velocity confer upon the Mauser in WW1, in any case?

Then too, isn't the rifle that the M1903 actually emulated the 1893 Mauser, not the Mauser 1898?
 
The bit about not shooting the SMLE in the rain is rubbish. If the SMLE could not be fired safely in the rain, the Allies would have lost WWI. I don't shoot outdoors in wet weather, but I don't have to, either.

To the rifles - I own examples of all of these. All of them are fine weapons with individual advantages and disadvantages. The 1903 is quite accurate but there is the low-number heat treatment question (which is more a concern to modern collectors than it ever was to the services.) The Mauser couples an outstanding action with appalling sights. The Mosin is amazingly simple and reliable but (in longer infantry rifle form) a bit unhandy and the sights leave something to be desired. The SMLE holds twice the rounds of the others and doubles nicely as a war club but it's also quite heavy.

If I had to choose one for combat it would be the SMLE, but they all served long and well. I'm happy I own all of them.
 
I have read that the Mauser makes the best hunting rifle, Springfield makes the best target rifle, Enfield makes the best battle rifle. I do not remember where I read it, but having fired them all, I have to go with the Enfield because of its sights, mag capacity, ease and speed of operation and general ruggedness.
 
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 www.nra.org.uk and http://www.nra.org.uk/common/files/j...2010spring.pdf warning its members not to shoot any Lee Enfields of any mark in the rain. Apparently the rifle is not very structurally strong.
Click to expand...

The only warning I saw was not to shoot a No 4 as converted to 7.62x51 in the rain. Did I miss something? This is a substantially heavier loading than it was designed for and is treading on its safety margins. The rear locking SMLE and No 4 are not as strong as the various Mausers and deriviatives.

Any road, a wet cartridge/chamber increases bolt thrust. British proof test is done with oiled cartridges to maximize the stress... once.

An article I read back in the 1970s said that since it is difficult to do ANYTHING in England without doing it in the rain, and since the wet gun/ammo affects not only bolt thrust but also barrel vibrations and thus zero; a number of target shooters had taken to "shooting wet." If it wasn't raining, they dipped their cartridges in a can of water on their firing point for consistency in zero across all weathers. Apparently they were getting away with it in .303, the article said that reports of broken actions were unconfirmed. But it might be more than a converted No 4 could handle.
 
I voted mauser because that is what my personal opinion is and it will never change. I will admit that the enfield might be seen as better to some due to the capacity but that cold be looked upon differently as it take longer to reload 10 rounds in an enfield v.s. 5 in a Mauser. But there will always be disputes and disagreements.
 
The M1917/P14 was the best bolt action service rifle ever made. It was superior to the Mauser and Lee-enfield. Fact is the brits would have replaced their enfields with the P14 had the war not occurred.

It was also numerically the main service arm of the American Expeditionary forces in WW1 unlike the M1903 which so often steals its credit. The only reason it was not adopted after the war by the US is due to the lobbying of certain shooting groups, particularly the NRA.

It pretty much shares the best features of the mauser and the enfield while having the best battle sights of any service bolt action. It is also the most ruggedly built rifle I have seen.
 
Enfield gets my vote.

I believe it was and still is the fastest massed produced bolt action (sure there are faster customs that are faster).
British Army—Sergeant Instructor Snoxall—who placed 38 rounds into a 12-inch-wide (300 mm) target at 300 yards (270 m) in one minute. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee-Enfield)

But the Mosin probably was the most effective due to cost and still had the same GENERAL effect as any bolt gun.

To me the Enfield is the one that stands out from a shooters perspective and the Mosin from economic stand point.
 
I have had a enfield and still have a springfield and other than the enfield's magazine I prefer the 1903. Some of that might be because Im an American. I just like it better.
 
Fact is the brits would have replaced their enfields with the P14 had the war not occurred.
Click to expand...

Yet the Enfield remained in service until the 50s, while the P14 is a footnote.

WildcantheclasstellmewhyAlaska ™©2002-2011
 
"The only reason it was not adopted after the war by the US is due to the lobbying of certain shooting groups, particularly the NRA."

That's incorrect.

The primary decision as to why the 1903 Springfield was retained, and the 1917 was relegated to secondary status, was one of economics.

Government arsenals were set up to manufacture and maintain the 1903. All 1917s were made by commercial companies, NOT Government arsenals.

Immediately after the war, and despite lobbying by John Pershing, Congress began absolutely GUTTING the American military infrastructure.

Adopting the 1917 over the 1903 would have required re-equipping Springfield and Rock Island to manufacture and maintain the 1917 at significant cost with money that simply was no longer there and was not going to be appropriated at any point in the near (or far, as it turned out) future.

The military had no choice but to maintain the 1903 as the primary combat weapon. The alternative was to shutter Springfield and Rock Island and purchase rifles and parts from Winchester and Remington, something that the military at that time both could not do due to budgetary cuts and would not do because it was wedded to controlling production of the primary military firearm.
 
Springfield

If I remember right the Germans had a fit because our guys where killing them at 800 to 1000 yds. They felt that was unfair and ungentlemanly of them and that they should be brought up on charges. I may be wrong but pretty sure about it.
 
id have to go with the springfield. amongst all other reasons the 30-06 is still an extremely popular cartridge today.

being a lefty the mosin's bolt would be the easiest for me to work out of the choices but the springfield still my favorite and id love to own one in the future if i got the chance to pick one up
 
"If I remember right the Germans had a fit because our guys where killing them at 800 to 1000 yds. They felt that was unfair and ungentlemanly of them and that they should be brought up on charges."

Never heard that before, and it would be pretty damned silly for the Germans to claim, considering that their rifles had sights graduated to at least 1,200 meters and the core of their regular army was well trained in their use at long ranges.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top