Best Bolt Rifle of World War I

[Wildalaska]

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.

Keep in mind also that the Germans were far more advanced in sniping than the allies.

In WWI, Other than in rifles and handguns (the minor part of military life), the Germans had the best army, best training, best tactics, best artillery, best aviation, and best (overall) Generalship.

But for the US entering the war, and two errors in strategy, the Germans would have won.

WildilovethatperiodofhistoryAlaska ™©2002-2011

 

[Scribe]

The Germans did have a fit about American small arms in the First World War, but it was nothing to do with rifle shooting. The Germans were appalled when the American infantry were issued, on a limited scale, with pump action shotguns for close quarter fighting and in particular, for use when attacking enemy trenches. As I understand it the Germans stated officially they would execute any enemy soldier captured with a shotgun. The Americans then riposted with a promise to carry out some counter atrocity if the Germans ever held good on their threat.
The Germans recanted and things reverted to business as usual.

 

[Mike Irwin]

"The Americans then riposted with a promise to carry out some counter atrocity if the Germans ever held good on their threat."

That had to do with the Mauser saw-back bayonet.

 

[Come and take it.]

In WW1 the British were the best trained marksmen overall period. They had extensive training in rapid aimed fire. A handful of Americans were the best shots of all. Alvin York was a crackshot.

The Germans advantage was their training in moving their machine guns and setting them back up quickly, also their liberal use of water cooled machine guns (machine guns per battalion several times more than comparable british battalion) and also a liberal use of ammunition expenditure to decimate infantry area targets at ranges beyond 2000 meters (water cooled guns have a phenomenal rate of sustained fire so long as they have water in the jacket), and most importantly night infiltration tactics (something the allies, especially the British, considered lowhanded).

 

[Scorch]

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

WildcantheclasstellmewhyAlaska

Oooooh! Oooooh! Me! Me!

At the close of The Great War (aka The War To End All Wars), there was a great pacifist movement in Europe, where many countries had lost much of two generations of their men. In England, the military took a back seat, since many claimed there would not be any more wars in the foreseeable future (war had become too horrific and diplomacy would be used to settle disputes from then on).

Differing reports, but somewhere around 3% of total population of European nations died. About 25% of all European men between 18 and 45 died during the war (injured/crippled was about the same), and then there were the civilian casualties associated with the war. Total, about 17 million deaths from a population of right around 1 billion people. Admittedly, many were due to disease and other causes not related to battlefield casualties, but the bloodshed was horrific.

 

[Mike Irwin]

Yes, the bloodshed was horrific for the British.

But the economic toll taken by the war was also horrific.

For many years after the war the British simply didn't have the economic capacity to do a lot in the military arena, including replacing the primary infantry weapon.

The economic issue is one of the primary reasons why the British agreed in the 1920s and 1930s to Naval parity with the United States (Washington and London Naval Reduction Conferences), which was an absolutely unprecedented move for Britain. Prior to the war, the British Navy was maintained at a strength well in excess of the combined strength of the next two navies combined.

The naval arms race that started in the late 1890s, and which really kicked off with Germany's continuing emergence as an international power, simply couldn't be repeated.

 

[Sweet Shooter]

Okay so while we are off topic, I want to object to this perpetual ridiculous notion that:

@Wildalaska But for the US entering the war, and two errors in strategy, the Germans would have won.

Simply, a reluctant America came to the game late in both world wars after allies had already sacrificed and ruined lives, livelihoods, cultures and economies on massive scales. Once again it is the proverbial pickle jar lid syndrome. It's much easier for those with clean hands to get the lid to turn at the eleventh hour.

And yes, the British were generally the better trained riflemen, faster, more mobile and more accurate.
-SS-

 

[Mike Irwin]

Both the Germans and European allies recognized that the entry of the United States into the war would be critical.

The Germans might have had the better training and generalship, but that still didn't stop themselves from beating their armies, and their economy, to the point of exhaustion.

By spring and summer 1917, prior to any effective US involvement in the war, the German economy was starting to go south in a BIG way.

The 1916 harvest was, and the 1917 havest would prove to be, very disappointed and incapable of meeting German civilian and military needs.

Compounding that was the British coastal blockage that was quite effectively strangling Germany.

The German late summer offenses of 1917 and especially the spring 1918 western-front wide offensive was recognized to be Germany's last, best chance to win the war before the United States would throw a decisive economic and military advantage the allies way in 1919.

In the 1918 Spring offensive, the German Army in April came VERY close to staging the breakthrough that could have won it the war in the west.

"after allies had already sacrificed and ruined lives, livelihoods, cultures and economies on massive scales."

Whose fault was that? Certainly not America's.

World War I could have been handily prevented. World War II likely never would have happened had World War I been prevented, or had the Allies handled the peace process differently in 1919.

Simple fact of the matter is, though, that from virtually the outset of the War in 1914, American economic might had been denied to the Germans was doing a lot to prop up the Allied war effort.

 

[chack]

The M1917 (often incorrectly called an Enfield) had virtually all of the best features fro the best rifles of WWI. It was the rifle that the brits chose to replace the Lee Enfield prior to WW1. Like Alvin York, I think it is the best combat rifle of WW1.

The reason rear sights were graduated to such extreme ranges was so that large numbers of soldiers could fire volleys at area targets in what was essentially indirect fire.

 

[dahermit]

I would prefer to carry a 1903 Springfield as a soldier because of its light weight, smooth action, and accuracy. However, if were in a trench and was required to fire it many times in short order, I would prefer to have a 1917 Enfield because of the additional weight to absorb recoil.

 

[Mike Irwin]

"volleys at area targets in what was essentially indirect fire."

Exactly.

Early Lee Enfields even had a special volley fire sighting system on them that would fire the gun when the trigger was depressed and the muzzle elevated to a preset angle maching the range.

 

[Gelgoog]

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

And yet the question was "what was the best bolt rifle of ww1", which the P14 clearly was. Both the US and the Brits agreed it was a better rifle. The enfield is a fine rifle ( I have a number of them) but the P14/M1917 is a BETTER rifle.

 

[Mike Irwin]

At its very heart, what is the true purpose of an infantry rifle?

Is it to be a target rifle?

Is it to be a substitute for a heavy machine gun?

Is it to be the handle on a bayonette?

Is it to be a hunting rifle after the war?

The answer to all of the above is no.

Its true purpose is to be a combat weapon for the individual soldier.

And at that task, the Lee-Enfield TRULY excelled in a manner far and beyond any other rifle fielded by the allies or the central powers.

It was more than accurate enough.

It had a reserve of firepower that the other rifles didn't have.

It had the fastest and smoothest operation of any rifle in the conflict.

It was extremely sturdy.

It held up very well in wet muddy trenches and in the middle eastern desert.

As far as I'm concerned, the Lee-Enfield was simply the best bolt action combat rifle of all time. Nothing else comes even remotely close.

 

[Webleymkv]

I vote for the Lee-Enfield. Enfields incorporate all the best features of other contemporary battle rifles.

1. The .303 cartridge is more than adequate for the task it was designed for as were most of the major military cartridges of the time (the difference in terminal performance between .303 British, 30-06, 7.92x57 Mauser, and 7.62x54R are negligable, particularly when limited to military FMJ ammo).

2. The rifle, while not the most accurate, was more than accurate enough for the task at hand. Also the sacrifice in accuracy was made in order to increase battlefield reliability: the chambers were intentionally cut a bit large in order to compensate for dirty or corroded ammunition (headspacing on the cartridge rim allowed this).

3. The sights on the No. 1 Mk. III are precise, yet well protected (much better protected than those of the '03 Springfield).

4. The nose-cap bayonet mount (an important feature when engaging in close-quarter combat with a bolt-action rifle) allowed for a strong mounting system that did not change the rifle's POI (a common problem for barrel-mounted bayonets).

5. Interchangeable bolt heads and buttstocks allowed an armorer to quickly and easily adjust headspace and length of pull in the field without the need for special tools.

6. The 10-round capacity was the highest of any of its contemporaries. While slightly slower to fully reload, a five-round SMLE charger is no slower to use than those of a Mauser, Mosin, or Springfield and will give you the same capacity as any of them.

The the reasons for the Brits wanting to replace the SMLE No. 1 Mk. III with the P14 really have little to do with the No. 1 Mk. III itself. The British had experienced difficulties during the Boer War similar to those that we experienced during the Spanish-American War: their rifles did not have the capability to be reloaded with stripper-clips. While the Long Lee-Enfields still had twice the capacity of a Boer's M95 Mauser, it had to be reloaded with single cartridges (spare magazines were not generally issued) which was a huge disadvantage to the Mauser stripper clips. This gave the Lee-Enfield series a negative stigma in Britain and public opinion favored replacing it until the updated No. 1 Mk. III proved itself during the Great War.

Also, the P14 was not originally designed for .303 British but rather a 276 caliber cartridge. While I've not seen much data on it, I suspect that it was a significantly higher pressure cartridge than .303. While the rear-locking system and metallurgy of the time was adequate for the .303 British cartridge, I suspect that a significantly higher pressure round would necessitate a frontal-locking action such as that of the P14. When the Brits chose not to change cartridges (it's not a good idea to change such things in the middle of a war), the advantage of the P14 was largely negated.

 

[Wildalaska]

The Germans might have had the better training and generalship, but that still didn't stop themselves from beating their armies, and their economy, to the point of exhaustion

That leads to the mistake issue. If Von Moltke hadnt been a nervous Nellie, or Von Kluck overeager, France and Britian would have been crushed in 1914. Even so, if Von Falkenheyn hadnt curbed the Crown Prince's desire to attack down both banks of the Meuse at Verdun, the French indeed would have been bled white, instead of both armies having been bled white

For many years after the war the British simply didn't have the economic capacity to do a lot in the military arena, including replacing the primary infantry weapon.

Especially when that weapon was relatively inexpensive to build.

As far as I'm concerned, the Lee-Enfield was simply the best bolt action combat rifle of all time. Nothing else comes even remotely close.

Again, correct. Indeed, I would go so far to say that the Smelly was the best infantry rifle ever made until the filelding of the M14, FAL, AK and M16. Better (o sacrilege) than the Garand

WilditrulybelievethatforalltheobviousreasonsAlaska ™©2002-2011

 

[chack]

The P13 was designed for the new .276 brit round pre WWI. When the war started in 1914 they modified the design of the P13 and renamed it the P14. The P14 was never chambered for anything but .303.

 

[Geezerbiker]

I'm leaning toward the 1911 Schmidt-Reuben but next to that I'd take a M1917...

Tony

 

[armsmaster270]

I think there were a few 30-40 Krags used in WWI If I am right I vote for them.

 

[Romeo 33 Delta]

Now ... this may be drifting the thread a bit, but when folks start talking about the origins of the P-14 (No 3 Mark I) ... I can't control myself. As you can see from the attached, the P-13 rifle and it's .276 Enfield RL-18000C cartridge has been a passion of mine for more than a few years.

The pictures are of my original P-13 Troop Trials Rifle, my P-13M clone and ammo I made from 8 X 68S RWS brass. Next post will have some more information and pics.

OOOOPS ... the cartridge dimensional drawing I wanted to post is too large. It was made by Dave Davison at CH4D on his comparator from an original round which I got with the rifle. Sorry ... it was neat!

 

[Mike Irwin]

At best, Krags were only used for training purposes stateside during the War.