VIDEO: Finest Bolt Action Battle Rifle in History?

I think we are mixing tactics with rifles.

WWI was a different war then what we had in WWII. A good example would be comparing the M1903 with the 1903A3. In WWI you needed to put rounds on enemy trenches that may be 2000 yards away. The M1903 would do that, the M1903A3 wouldn't have been able to (accurately), that's not because the 1903 was more accurate then the 1903a3. It was the sights. The sights for the '03 were good to somewhere between 24-2500 yards (depending on the sight model) where as the 'A3s sights are only good to 800 or so yards.

The German loss of WWI had nothing to do with the accuracy of the M1903 (actually the M1917), it was because everyone was running out of soldiers and equipment, you throw in another 2 mil or so troops on either side, you'll see that side winning.

Tactics and Rifle differences show up quite well in Vietnam. You hear that it took X amount of rounds per EKIA and many blame the M16a1 and the soldiers shooting the rifle. That's not the case. In SE Asia a huge majority of fire fights was one jungle tree line firing at another jungle tree line. We very seldom saw who we were shooting at. It was about fire power, or who could put the most round into the adversary's tree line. Fire power ruled the day, not accuracy of rifles and rifle shooters.

When targets were seen the M16a1 and the shooter of the M16a1 could more then hold their own.

You can't say what rifle is best based on the tactics of a war.
 
"With arsenal ammo, the .303 SMLE's were more accurate at the longer ranges than the M1903, M1917 and M1 rifles."

Uhm.... I have to say that is one thing that I actually doubt.
 
RC20 - Firstly, I do not believe the OP claimed that the Lee Enfield was the most technically accurate rifle of the war, he appears to be talking about the fact that to fire another rifle as quickly as the SMLE one would almost certainly sacrifice accuracy much more than with the SMLE.

The point is, it has been explained how what you claim did not happen, exactly did happen, repeatedly, in 1914.

The technical capabilities of the Lee Enfield, combined with the training of the riflemen were instrumental in allowing the British infantry to hold recently occupied ground, unentrenched or in shallow scrapes, often under artillery fire and against overwhelming odds. In similar situations against the French in 1914, there were plenty of times when the German attack broke through. I am not talking about attacks against prepared positions protected by presighted artillery and machine guns and wire obstacles - thin lines of riflemen with little support turning attacks with what should be decisive numerical advantage, with nothing more than rifle fire.

It is easy to overemphasise this, and it has been romanticised and the SMLE mythologised by some, but the fact remains, a substantially higher rate of fire is possible with the Lee Enfield than any other rifle on the Western Front. That might not matter so much when you have an army largely incapable of utilising its full potential, like the British from 1915 - but when battles are won largely by infantry fire, like many of them in 1914, it matters.

If it was ''incompetently utilised'', as you put it, what does that have to do with the technical capabilities of the rifle? Not much, I would suggest.

None of this would have happened without the obsessive musketry training of the British Army 1906-1914 - but the speed of the Lee Enfield was crucial too, it was instrumental to battlefield success.

On another point, if I were an allied infantryman who had just occupied a piece of German line, now under heavy bombardment preparatory to the customary German counterattack, I would prefer myself and my companions to have ten rounds ready rather than five. The SMLE was best suited to rapid fire which won battles in the opening months of the war, but it was also best suited to small unit trench warfare, which is what characterised most infantry engagements of the war NOT set piece over the top attacks. Not decisive perhaps, but given the choice, which would you take?

Heck, it is even possible, though unverifiable, that the battles in 1914 would have gone as they did regardless of the British Army's rifle, doesn't change the fact that on the basis of its combination of durability, rate of fire and magazine capacity with more than adequate accuracy STILL made the SMLE a superior rifle for the conditions of the WW1 battlefield.

Also, with respect, to claim that the USA "came in and won WW1 and WW2" betrays a distinct lack of understanding of both wars. Not to do down the contribution of US forces in any way, I just feel that statement is a massive oversimplification and exaggeration and reflects the national myths that every nation creates about wars. The British have them too, and they are just as ridiculous.

The Mosin did fine in a different war, a war won by factories and production numbers and 20million dead Soviets - not the adequacy of the Mosin or the fact that a platoon's worth of M1 Garands could compete with the MG42.

Montgomery's tactics were nothing like those of WW1, actually. Montgomery had a reputation for being overly cautious - not something that characterised WW1 British generalship. He might not have been a brilliant general by any means (he has been mythologised by some of my countrymen who fall for the national war myths mentioned earlier), but he was no Haig.

By WW2 the bolt action battle rifle was clearly outdated, its heyday were the couple of generations before. The fact that the M1 Garand is a better battlefield weapon would be pretty obvious to most people. Doesn't change the fact that the Lee Enfield was the best of that outdated bunch.

Like Kraigwy says, arguing about the best battle rifle based on remarks about the tactics common to all combatants in that war makes little sense.
 
I don't think the 1903A3 sight's are too great either.
Click to expand...

I disagree, having owned both a 1903 and a 1903A3 I will say that the sights on the A3 are night and day differences and would take the apertures any day of the week over V notch tower sights. I love the enfield action, it is the rifle that got me into the VIMBAR world. I prefer it's action to any of the other WWI/WWII era rifles but the huge variances in manufacture leaves the playing field to large for them.

you can grab 100 springfield rifles, remove the stocks, throw the actions in a pile and the stocks in another, you can then proceed to fit almost any one of those actions to any one of those stocks, this is not a feat that can be accomplished with enfields. there are probably more variants of the NO4 enfield than there are of the ford F series pickup trucks. this is probably why other rifles like the K98 or 1903 are held in much higher esteem than the venerable enfield.
 
Mike Irwin, read the link in my post that explains why the SMLE's were so accurate at the longer ranges. Click on the "PDF" link in the "View the Book" window on the page's left side.

Same thing can happen at short ranges; check out the following:

http://www.varmintal.com/apres.htm

The M14NM competition service rifles did this to a lesser degree due to the gas port's location about mid point in the barrel. One of the service teams learned this testing these rifles for accuracy shooting bullets through chronographs.
 
I'm well familiar with the concepts of barrel harmonics, and precession and their effects on short and long-range accuracy.

There's another, somewhat more practics, way of examining the abilities of the 1903 vs. the Lee Enfield at long-range...

The results of the various Palma and other matches held between the United States and Commonwealth countries in the first half of the 20th century.

The United States won 6 of the 7 Palma matches held when the US teams were shooting 1903s vs Lee Enfields.

Generally, other international long-range matches also saw US shooters holding a significant competitive edge over their Commonwealth opponents.

Additionally, that article is from 1901.

Kind of hard to say that the Lee Enfield is categorically more accurate than the M1917 or the M1903 at long range when: A) those rifles hadn't even been designed/adopted when that article was written, nor had "modern" bullets been developed for either rifle.
 
The primary reason there is so much variation with the Lee-Enfield family of rifles is the same reason there's so much variation with the AK-47 family of rifles...

They were made by a significant number of manufacturers in a variety of nations.

From the British Government at Matlby, Enfield, and Fazakerly to Birmingham Small Arms (a private company) to Savage Arms in the United States to commonwealth arsenals in Canada, Australia, South Africa, and India.

The M1917 and the M1903 rifles were made by three and two manufacturer's, respectively, and two of the three makers of M1917s were, IIRC, simply different plants owned and operated by Remington Arms.


"this is probably why other rifles like the K98 or 1903 are held in much higher esteem than the venerable enfield."

I would say that that is probably the farthest thing from the truth...

How many different flavors of Mauser are there? Quite a few more than the Enfield, truth be told, and yet that doesn't seem to drag the gun down.

I'd say that, at least in the United States, the primacy of the 1903 and, by extension the Masuer, is simply one of somewhat brainless homerism fueled by a combination of patriotism and a distinct lack of knowledge and experience...

"Iffin it whuz made in the Unittid Stits itzda best evurh! Evvrithin' else sucks pond whuttur!

The Mouser? Ittin what was the granpappy offinda 1903, so itz OK, to, boy howdy!"

Ok, that was a little over the top, but damn it's close to some of the homerism that you can encounter at some of the ranges I've been at over the years.

Shooting foreign rifles and driving a Japanese car?

I make certain I have my 1911 with me. When they see that they get all misty eyed and start talking about what a true chosen of God was John Moses, and how every other firearm ever designed stole from his ideas, even ones that were designed before he was born... Gives me time to make a hasty retreat. :)
 
tahunua001 brought up a good point regarding service rifles, that being parts interchangeable, that is a critical aspect when you have to deal with logistics during war time.

Americans always see to insist on parts interchangeability, some times causing production delays, such with trying to standardize the M1917 while also trying to produce enough for the troops who were on the ships heading to Europe.

Some times that creates sloppy but reliable guns which also can still be quite accurate as in the case of the M1911, M1917, 1903s and on to our present M9 and M16 series.

As to accuracy I'm of the opinion there has never been a bolt action military rifle as accurate as the M1903/M1903a3. But saying that you can't compare the the 220 gr. RN bullet for the Krag and or the pre-1906 M1903 ammo with the M1 ball with the 172 grn bolt tail sp bullets, or even the M2 152 gr bullet.

It's strange that with all the great post 1903 Springfield actions out there the Army still uses the Mann Device built on 1903 Springfield actions, to test todays 308 ammo.

In "The Book of the Garand" by Maj Gen Julian Hatcher, Hatcher relays informant ion about Post WWII rifle test, competition shooting, of the M1903 and the M1 Garand, just about in every event the Springfield out shot the M-1.

This is not to say the Springfield is a better "battle rifle" then the Garand, but does indicate the Springfield is not lacking in the accuracy department, even considering the better sights on the Garand compared to the Springfield, even the M1903a3, which has 4 MOA windage adjustments compared to the Garands 1 MOA windage adjustments.
 
"parts interchangeable, that is a critical aspect when you have to deal with logistics during war time."

Actually, it wasn't as critical an issue for the British as it's made out to be...

First, for the British, having enough rifles was a critical issue. They had lost nearly half a million rifles in France. Many of those were the older No. 1 Mk IIIs, which were not interchangeable with the No. 4 Mk I.

Given the choice between having rifles in hand, but which had some differences in parts, vs not having rifles in hand while waiting for the contractee (Savage Arms and Long Branch in Canada, primarily) to change their tooling to give 100% compatability, they wisely took the "we'll deal with slight incompatability issues" approach.

The fact that other Commonwealth troops had No. 1 Mk IIIs wasn't an issue, because they supplied their own spares.


Regarding sights on the 1903 vs M1 Garand...

US forces used relatively few 1903 style rifles during WW II (those with the original 1903 ladder/tangent sights). Most 1903s fielded in combat were the 1903A3 variants produced by Remington and Smith Corona, which had the considerably better receiver peep sight.

That peep sight compared very favorably with the sight on the M1 Garand regarding accuracy ability, durability, but it wasn't as easy to adjust quickly.
 
RC20...

"Back to the ops original statement about the Lee Enfield being the fines fastest most accurate bolt action battle rifle."

Considering that the original poster NEVER said that in those terms (other than the fastest bolt action), just whose post were you reading?
 
I also do not see where it was said that it was the most accurate.

he did say that it was fired the most accurately WHILE shooting at high speed.

this however would have very little to do with the rifles and everything to do with the man behind the rifle. British soldiers were trained in the techniques described in earlier posts to fire sequentially down a line and instantly chamber a new round without removing the butt stock from the shoulder so depending on the range of the target and which of the half dozen sights where on your rifle you had a good chance of keeping a good sight picture where as the Mauser's and Springfield's long throw usually required you to un-shoulder the rifle to cycle the bolt. so far the only rifle I've seen that had a bolt throw short enough to rack from the shoulder was the mosin nagant but the crude design and even more crude manufacture of them would have certainly been a hindrance and with the straight bolt handle you would lose your sight picture anyway.

the Enfield was not the most accurate rifle from a rest and the cock on close may be hard for many that shoot primarily Mauser actions to grow accustomed to but for the job that the Brits wanted it to do, it fit their needs perfectly and substituting any other rifle in it's place would probably have resulted in disaster. the Enfield was the first VIMBAR I ever shot and yes, the bolt kind of tripped me up but it only took a couple magazines to grow accustomed to it and when I started shooting cock on open actions I required much more practice to get used to, heck I almost passed on buying my first Springfield because I thought something may be wrong with it when I dry fired it.

the enfield was just different, that does not make it better or worse than any other WWII era bolt action.
 
"this however would have very little to do with the rifles and everything to do with the man behind the rifle."

It would have a LOT to do with the rifle as the design plays into it by allowing both high operating speed AND allowing for minimal disturbance of aim while operating the action.

If you have to regain not only your sight picture but also your position on the rifle because you had to shift while cycling the action, your going to give up accuracy, speed, or both.

That's not going to benefit just a trained rifleman, either. It's going to benefit anyone who has been shown the fundamentals of firing the gun.
 
"In WWI you needed to put rounds on enemy trenches that may be 2000 yards away. The M1903 would do that, the M1903A3 wouldn't have been able to (accurately), that's not because the 1903 was more accurate then the 1903a3. It was the sights. The sights for the '03 were good to somewhere between 24-2500 yards (depending on the sight model) where as the 'A3s sights are only good to 800 or so yards."

Kraig,

Putting fire on the trenches in WW I wasn't done with rifles and volley fire sights. It was done with machine guns and artillery.

Volley fire as a concept was for long-distance fire against clustered groups of infantry.

The entire concept of volley fire had been born in the middle to late 1800s, and it, as a concept and as a practice, DIED in the trenches of the Western Front.

One of the first modifications the British made to the SMLE during the war (but after the armies started digging it) was dropping the long-range volley sights.

The also stopped teaching recruits how to volley fire as a unit.

I may be wrong, but I don't think, even in the early days of the war, that long range indirect volley fire was used once.

At Mons it was long-range direct fire.
 
I agree, many guns of WWI used holdover technology of the previous century.

things like the magazine disconnect on the 1903 springfield and french lebels and volley sights were all concepts that were thought of and deemed necessary at the dawn of repeating rifles when common combat tactics were to find a large open field, line up in rows and march straight at your enemy.

in the later years of the american civil war the more prevalent use of trench warfare ended the age of lining up and marching straight at your enemies and firing volleys. however military minds never gave up the same mentalities that they obtained when they began fighting the civil war, which is why things like volley sights and mag disconnects were desired on the 1903s.
 
Last edited:
"in the later years of the american civil war the more prevalent use of trench warfare ended the age of lining up and marching straight at your enemies and firing volleys."

It should have, but realistically it really didn't.

The same crap was going on in the Russo-Japanese War of 190something.

And trench warfare as it was practiced in World War I?

Over the top! Dress your lines! Proceed at the brisk march!

The insanity simply continued unabated on both sides until the Germans started putting together special infiltration teams near the end of the war, adn the British were forced to counter. That's when those 17th centurhys tactics FINALLY started to die...

But no one ever gave the Japanese the message.

Despite being on the bitter end of Russian rifle and machine gun fire while assaulting fixed positions, the Japanese STILL employed the Banzai charge right to the end of the war in the Pacific.

And, let's not even talk about the Russians and their human wave tactics...
 
And, let's not even talk about the Russians and their human wave tactics...
Click to expand...

In Soviet Russia, there is no 1 you, there is 1.5 million yous. there is only .5 million them so as long as a third of you kill a single fascist before you die then Soviet Russia wins.

any questions?
 
That's basically it. Soviet tactics at many points in the war broke down to essentially "run in that direction, don't stop until you die or until you get to Berlin."

That's one thing that Enemy at the Gate actually got right - the forlorn hope charges into emplaced, supported German positions.

The rest of it, of course, was largely crap.
 
"With arsenal ammo, the .303 SMLE's were more accurate at the longer ranges than the M1903, M1917 and M1 rifles."

Uhm.... I have to say that is one thing that I actually doubt.
Click to expand...

I agree. I think someone is plain with science and to disprove it would take a nuclear physicist with a degree (or actually doing 9it)

If a bullet is going off kilter at 100 yards it isn't going to get better at 1000.

Ah doctor, the patient tis ding of cancer but if we wait a while he will get better. Hmmmm
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top