Best Bolt Rifle of World War I

[Webleymkv]

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.

I did not say that the P14 was originally chambered for .276 Brit, but rather than it was originally designed for .276 Brit. Even though they are chambered for different cartridges, the P13, 14, and 17 are all the same basic design.

Actually, the P14 was not even the best of it's particular family to see combat in WWI. The P17 was, IMHO, a better rifle because the rimless 30-06 cartridge precludes the possibility of rimlock which can happen in a .303 British rifle if the magazine is loaded carelessly. Also, because the magazine depth was not changed from the P14, a P17's magazine will actually hold 6 cartridges rather than the P14's five.

 

[Scorch]

I'm leaning toward the 1911 Schmidt-Reuben

Good rifle, but the Swiss did not participate in The Great War. Nor the next one. Nor the previous one.

I think there were a few 30-40 Krags used in WWI

The primary reason for the M1917 was to completely arm troops with rifles chambered for the standard US service cartridge. They had the multiple-rifle supply issue during the Spanish-American War (45-70, 6mm Lee Navy, 30 US Army), and it created logistics hair-pulling. If we had sent troops to Europe with anything else, it most likely would have been chambered for 303 British or 8mm Lebel since the French and British wanted complete command control of the American Expeditionary Forces.

 

[GeauxTide]

1917 Enfield for me. 30-06 and 26" barrel.

 

[darkgael]

IIRC that comment about the three rifles mentioned earlier goes: "The Germans made the best hunting rifle, The Americans made the best target rifle. The British made the best battle rifle." It is a set of sentiments that I have always agreed with.

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

WildAK - always love your posts and agree with them more often than not but that statement is a classic example of a Hypothesis Contrary to Fact.

Pete

 

[LOUD]

I dont get the results of this pole. I own an enfieild and its just a bit better than junk and the mosin ( I also own one of those too) is so loose fitting and poorly finished it certainly IS junk. the German mauser is quite easily the best manufacterd rifle of the lot . Just my opinion....................LOUD

 

[grousebuster]

best WW1 rifle

My vote is for the '03 not 03A3 which weren't made until WW11.I have shot both versions of the Springfields and still shoot a pristine 03A3.Had a WW11 Maine Gunnery Sgt.using an 03 while I was at Pendelton that shot circles around us "boots" with our M1's.True some of the early 03s had brittle receivers and are questionable with modern hi power rounds but have never heard of a receiver letting loose during WW1.The Springfield action is derived from the Mauser and improved in my mind.The 03s again not 03A3 had forged and machined parts and are much slicker but not better in function than the later 03A3.I shoot the John Garand match with my 03A3 and hold my own agaist all comers even in rapid (timed) fire.Five round stripper clips and I can put out a nearly uninterupted stream of fire.I'm a 68 year old Marine.Not as lean,not as mean but still a Marine.Semper Fi .PS,one of my deer rifles is a sporterized P17 in '06 ok and accurate rifle.

 

[wogpotter]

OK I voted for Old SMELLIE.

"The larger capacity of the Lee Enfields gave them greater capacity but made them slower to load."

So it is, is it? hmmmmmm?

I don't hear of too many Mauser or Springfield "Mad Minutes" being documented so I'll have to contest that bit o' wisdom.

To fire 36 rounds rapidly with a Lee-Enfield:
Shoulder the rifle with the sling wrapped round the left forearm, do not drop the butt from the shoulder at any time. Pull the rifle back into the shoulder pocket with sling tension.

Trap the bolt handle knob between the curled 'trigger" finger & thumb. Point the index finger to the front with a slight curl. Done correctly the index finger pulls the trigger as the bolt handle cams down to lock. Work the bolt without removing the finger, or thumb from the bolt knob at any time (except to slam in another 5-round charger) till rifle is empty.

Mount the stock & look through the battle sight. Do not un-shoulder or drop from the firing position till empty.

Load 11 rounds, (10 in magazine 1 in chamber.)
Fire 6 rounds, leaving 5, load 1 X 5-round charger: leaves 10 rounds.
Fire 6 rounds, leaving 4, load 1 X 5-round charger: leaves 9 rounds.
Fire 6 rounds, leaving 3, load 1 X 5-round charger: leaves 8 rounds.
Fire 6 rounds, leaving 2, load 1 X 5-round charger: leaves 7 rounds.
Fire 6 rounds, leaving ,1 load 1 X 5-round charger: leaves 6 rounds.
Fire 6 (final) rounds leaving 36 bullets downrange & an empty rifle.

36 snap shooting aimed rounds in 1 minute all hitting a man-sized silhouette at 200yds with practice.

THAT'S how you do a mad minute!

 

[meatgrinder42]

Gew.98, I think it's just a beautiful rifle. I own a Gew. 98 and it's little brother the Kar98 and think they're both great, I prefer the Kar98 more just because it's not like swinging around a damn telephone pole at times. I've always liked the look of the German Mausers and I've owned a 1903, and SMLE and needless to say I wasn't wowed by either. They were both great rifles, don't get me wrong, but at kneel, bench, and standing they all seemed to be just as accurate as the next.

The only difference was the ability to crank rounds quickly out of the SMLE. Which though neat, I think defeats the purpose of a good bolt action, because I'd like to see someone crank out 10 rounds and put them all in a decent group at anything other than point blank.

All in all it just comes down to what you like, in my case the Mauser.

And to whoever said something along the lines of 'the 1903 because the Marines ripped **** up with it'. We could be given a chauchat and would still tear hell a new one even as it jams like crazy, we'd swing it like a club.

 

[Mike Irwin]

"WildAK - always love your posts and agree with them more often than not but that statement is a classic example of a Hypothesis Contrary to Fact."

Actually, it's not really contrary to fact. That scenario was examined in detail in a number of major studies post war.

Had von Moltke or von Kluck stuck to the plan that was originally laid out just as the war started, the German army very likely would have been able to smash through the corridor between the French and British armies left by Sir John French's dithering and refusal to act in concert with the French.

However, far greater blame goes to von Bulow, who acted like an old woman in advancing his armies in pursuit of Lanrezac's fleeing French forces.

Von Kluck was forced to slow his envelopment advance towards Paris (his front actually made it to within 13 miles) so as not to open a massive corridor between his and von Bulow's army, and also in response to increasingly strident demands that von Kluck move his army to support von Bulow's.

It was at that point that von Kluck abandoned entirely the Schlieffen Plan, and von Moltke's revisions to it, to close with von Bulow's army to both support it and close the gap created by von Bulow's dithering.

The plan COULD have been resurrected, except that that movement created an even bigger gap in the German army, into which a new French plunged and slammed into von Kluck's flank.

That movement opened the first battle of the Marne, robbed the entire western German front of momentum, and saved Paris, because the German high command ordered a general withdrawal way from Paris to positions behind the Ainse River, which became the general area of the front for the next 4 years.

Had von Kluck stuck with the von Schlieffen plan, it's very likely that he would have completed the western encirclement of Paris and could have easily blunted the new French army's eventual attack. Given the general retreat of Lanrezac's army in front of von Bulow, even moderate pressure could have kept the retreat moving backwards and would have allowed the German army to von Bulow's left (can't remember the commander) to continue it's wide sweep around Paris to the east.

At that point the Armies France had to the east were in even worse shape than those facing von Kluck or von Bulow.

The end result? Instead of Paris falling, Britain being tossed off the continent in disgrace, and the German flag flying over Western Europe, we got 4 years of trench warfare and an eventual German defeat.

 

[Scouse]

For me the SMLE is easily the best of those rifles with which to arm the infantryman.

The Springfield makes the best target rifle, the Mauser the best hunting and sporting arm, the Lee Enfield the best battle weapon.

Smooth and fast action, more than adequate accuracy, good ergonomics, tough and reliable, double the ammo capacity of the others. . . the Lee Enfield was the most suited to its job on the battlefield. The others are great rifles, but as a combat weapon in WWI, the SMLE was best.

 

[ronl]

As a battle rifle the Enfield wins hands down. Smoother operation, grreater capacity and good accuracy. I have owned them all and I would prefer the SMLE.

 

[Chris_B]

Hi guys

the question is not "which is the best battle rifle of the World Wars"

It is "Which is the best bolt rifle of WWI"

 

[youngunz4life]

I gotta go w/the mauser here just for the fact that they hit the nail on the head when they came out w/that rifle.

 

[EmptyHull]

I have shot the springfield and have handled the Enfield. I voted for the Springfield. Made in America wins hands down. Tim

 

[wogpotter]

The only difference was the ability to crank rounds quickly out of the SMLE. Which though neat, I think defeats the purpose of a good bolt action, because I'd like to see someone crank out 10 rounds and put them all in a decent group at anything other than point blank.

It can be done, it has been done, it will be done again as taught.

all hitting a man-sized silhouette at 200yds with practice.

But when you can do both rapid fire & slow accurate fire you have the best of both worlds.

See sig line for more info.

 

[Mike Irwin]

"I'd like to see someone crank out 10 rounds and put them all in a decent group at anything other than point blank."

Guy I worked with at American Rifleman could empty the magazine on his SMLE-type Lee Enfield in roughly 30 seconds and put all 10 shots into a 10 inch circle at 100 yards, and into center of mass on a man-sized silhouette at 250 yards.

Repeatedly.

In trained hands, the Lee Enfield is not appreciably slower at rapid aimed fire than the M1 Garand.


The core of the British Army in 1914 was generally regarded at that time to among the best, if not the best, riflemen in the world, and could, as demonstrated at the battle of Mons, crank out not just an incredible rate of fire, but an incredible rate of accurate, effective fire.

As those men were killed or wounded, that ability degraded in the British Army.

But, the Germans, French, and Russians also had the same problem -- as the pre-war professional core of the army was killed, the replacements were less well trained and didn't have literally years of familiarity with their weapons.

So, the relative advantage enjoyed by the British rifleman at the beginning of the war remained.

 

[meatgrinder42]

I stand corrected, I saw a youtube video of someone rapid firing a SMLE and getting a (measured) 11 inch group at 150 yards.

But I'm still going with the Mauser because I love mine and my ancestors would kick my stones into my stomach if I said anything else.

 

[Mike Irwin]

Well, my ancestors were mostly German, but they're dead, so I'll make my own choices.

 

[meatgrinder42]

Yeah you see I don't want to meet them in the afterlife knowing when I get to the gates I'll have a battery of Von Strahls with boots on waiting for their turn. lol

The Enfield is a great rifle no doubt about it, but the one I owned didn't impress me. The only thing I couldn't figure out was what was the little flip up peep sight on the side of the action for? Volley fire?

 

[Scorch]

The core of the British Army in 1914 was generally regarded at that time to among the best, if not the best, riflemen in the world,

When asked what he would do if the British army invaded Germany, Otto Von Bismark said "I would send some police to arrest them".

When the British retreated to Dunkirk in WW2, the Germans remarked that the British were showing them their fighting side (their buttocks).

Highly regarded? No. Good fighters? Maybe. Motivated and patriotic? No doubt. But not on topic, either way.

SMLE: good rifle? Maybe.
Mauser 98: good rifle? Absolutely.
British army- good army? Maybe.
German army- good army? Yes.
But all that had little to do with why Germany was forced to surrender.