VIDEO: Finest Bolt Action Battle Rifle in History?

I've seen accounts that state that the most common Boer rifle was the 1893 Mauser, which had been purchased in numbers by the independent republics.

It was those rifles that gave the British a very hard time at..... damn ruhr name eludes me... Gerfontain?
 
Lots of Somethingfonteins in that part of the world . . .

Fair enough, I always thought the most common was the 1888 - but I haven't the faintest idea where I got that from to be honest. I know Boer generals purchased rifles in bulk from Germany, so I guess it might make more sense for them to purchase something more up to date than the 1888, particularly when other patterns were in constant production for other customers around the world.
 
Speaking of the Boer War:

My last year in HS I read a Fiction book about the war. It was about a kid that ran away from home and joined a Comando.

An old sargent took the kid under his wing and provided him a lot of advise.

A lot of that Advice I took with me to Vientam that next year and can't help but believe it got me through.

I'd sure like to read that book again but I have no ideal the name or aurthor.

Anyone have any idea of the book?
 
The big one that I was thinking of was the battle of Magersfontein. British units were shot to pieces by entrenched Boers.

My next door neighbor was South African who was descended from Boers who fought the British.
 
The guy in the second video was shouting blanks I think. I wish the guy in the first video was shooting standing, but he does show how rock solid the aim could be.

Those videos are a pretty good indication of the speed that could be achieved with the Enfield.

I'm sorry, but a Mauser or Springfield can't come close to that.
 
Last edited:
Yes, that second one looks like it might be an Ishapore in 7.62x51mm too.

Rifle in the first video was manufactured at ROF Fazakerley about 8 miles away from where I am sitting :-)

Mike - my great grand father was a cavalry trooper in the Boer War.

In about 15mins I am leaving to go to a football match (soccer), and the main home stand in the stadium is named ''The Kop'', for its steep, cliff like appearance being reminiscent of ''Spion Kop'' where a regiment largely composed of men from this region (what was then South Lancashire) was shot to pieces by the Boer Riflemen. They stopped their night advance on a false summit, only for the sun to come up to reveal they were under the guns of the men on the actual summit. It was named as a memorial.
 
I breezed through the posts and it would seem that most posts were caused by one or two experiences. You can get good ones and bad ones. I picked up a lot that were cut down to "Deer rifles" and kept them to sell to kids that could not afford much else. I noticed that when most of the forearm and other junk was removed, the rifles started to shoot rather well most of the time. Occasionally you would get a bad shooter, but that is pretty much with any surplus rifle. As far as the greatest bolt action battle rifle ever designed, you have to be kidding. All I can say about rapid fire is they must have dug through boxes of magazines to find enough to feed rapid fire. Somebody else mentioned that the British don't take change well and they are correct. I worked with the Brits and they certainly don't want to spend money on their over all army.
 
Well, plummer, pony up. Give us your opinion.

Tell us what YOU think the best bolt-action battle rifle is. And remember, you have to adequately explain your case with facts, historic examples, and hands-on experience, not just "well I say so, so it is!"

I've got fairly extensive hands on experience with all of the rifles being talked about, including quite a few of the different Marks of Lee-Metford and Lee-Enfield as well as various models of Mausers, Springfieds, M1917 Enfields, P1914 Enfields, Lebels, Betheriers, Moisin-Nagants, MAS 36s... the list goes on.

Were I going into battle, there's no question as to which one I'd choose if a bolt action is all that was available to me.


" All I can say about rapid fire is they must have dug through boxes of magazines to find enough to feed rapid fire."

Beg pardon?

You obviously don't really know much about the Lee-Enfield series of rifles, do you?

Of the many LE rifles I've fired over the years, ranging from 110+ year old Lee Metfords with the original magazine to basically new in the wrapper No. 4 Mk 2s, NONE have ever had magazine issues.
 
I agree with Mike on the mags, though my experience is not so extensive yet(only a few hundred rounds spread throughout a hand full of rifles) but of the several magazines I've seen used I have never once seen one prone to fail and it has been common practice in my family to bring 3 mags with you in the woods, one loaded with 123gr SSTs for varmints, one with surplus ball ammo and one with 180gr remington corelokts(only because that's what we have on hand currently for 303 hunting ammo).

none of those have any trouble feeding and the enfield wasn't even designed with two of those options in mind.
 
I went and checked just to make certain, and my No. 1 Mk III magazine is correctly serial numbered to the gun.

Mine is a 1949 Ishapore, probably one of the last of the guns made under British dominion.
 
;) LOL

The dog is a good sport and supervises the photography,,LOL. ;)

8eb86034.jpg


Cheers
..MJ..
 
I have had enough bad experiences with British bolt action magazines to call it a problem. I would be willing to bet the story about "Rapid fire" did not star pristine rifles and brand new magazines. As far as the best bolt military rifle, let the world decide. It is Mauser with no dispute. I actually like Arisakas better, but there is no argument. Very few foreign countries WANTED to buy or produce British bolt actions. The list of foreign countries that bought Mauser type bolt actions with no real affiliation to the original Mauser producing countries is quite large.
 
gun plummer, I would hardly call a bunch of rifles that have been sitting in storage and collectiong dust and rust for 7 decades are what you would call pristine. my own Savage MK1* is the most heavily pitted rifle I've ever seen and it's previous owner(my brother in law) deemed it nessessary to test fire it from 100 feet away behind cover due to the amount of rust and yet it and it's magazine run perfectly.

it has also already been brought up that the enfield was a product of the british royal armory, not a openly traded company. how many countries went to springfield armory looking to buy a 1903? oh wait, now I remember, springfield was the national armory and did not sell arms to other nations.

mauser was not however. not only that but this whole argument becomes rather vague, there are 3 distinct versions of the enfield rifle, the NO1, NO4 and NO5 carbine while on the other hand it seems like a new Mauser was released every 2 years like clock work since they opened up shop.

which mauser is the greatest without contest? everybody had mausers because every time a nation bought the latest and greatest mauser product they sold off the cheaper ones to poorer nations that couldn't afford the latest and greatest but were happy enough to buy last years cutting edge.

that is like saying that Glock is without contest, the greatest handgun of the 20th century because it is the most prolifically used handgun in the world by police and military or the AK47 is the greatest assault rifle ever built because more than 2 thirds of third world countries, rebellions and don't forget the now defunct USSR, all use/d them. mausers may have been heavily fielded around the world and they were not bad rifles by any stretch but greatest without contest? I don't think so.
 
What nonsense. I was in Germany watching a British crew switch out a main gun on a tank. They had to pull the tube out through the back of the turret. More than a days work there. The lead man actually said to me "We are the only ones to have that set up". He was actually proud of it. I just answered " I'll bet." A U.S. 60 series tank tube change takes 1/2 an hour. An experienced crew, 15 minutes. It takes the British a couple wars to improve on a rifle? It is just a mind set they have. Who tried to copy them? Some Afgahns using old re-rod and railroad spikes. I seem to remember the '03 having some royalty problems with Paul Mauser. The Arisaka has some definite Mauser qualities. The MAS 36 leans toward the SMLE, but is so bizarre I would rate it as a distinctive design. I would rate the MAS 36 way stronger than a British bolt action anyway.
I can only think that the people up set over down grading the British bolt action are hardcore collectors and shooters, not to be swayed by facts or logic.
 
OK, what the hell does a tank main gun have to do with this thread?

Absolutely nothing, so that's a complete non sequitor.

The reason no one copied the Lee Enfield is because the British government held the titles and patents on ALL of the technology associated with it.

Only the United States Army was stupid enough to think that it could use foreign patents any way it saw fit, and with no repercussions, and that's why the Mausers successfully sued the United States and won damages.

tahunua's commends about how the Mauser was marketed around the world are spot on. Mauser was a private company and could sell their rifles as they wished.

The British government had no interest in doing that, and thus did not.

Mauser, on the other hand, provided very lucrative package deals to nations who purchased its guns, not unlike Glock today.

The package deal was primarly that Mauser would provide rifles for testing and evaluation in the cartridge of the nation's choice. If the cartridge OR rifle was not up to the nations desires, Mauser would, largely on their own dime, alter or redevelop the gun and/or cartridge to meet that nation's specifications.

Mauser would then either manufacture the rifles for that nation, or would help that nation set up a home arsenal to manufacture rifles and cartridges under license.

Mauser was, in many ways, the Burger King of the armaments industry.

That doesn't, however, make their rifles the better combat weapons, it simply makes them prolific.

Regarding the Arisaka, you have GOT to be kidding.

Really all it had going for it was the inherent strength of the action and the fact that the Japanese were intelligent enough to copy the cock on closing feature.

They weren't, however, intelligent enough to copy the turned down bolt handle of later Mausers, meaning that of all of the bolt action rifles used in World War II the Arisaka had, by far, the slowest rate of fire and most awkward manipulation.

I can get 10 rounds down range with my 1903A3 in the time it takes me to get five rounds and five more reloaded with my Type 38.

The safety mechanism on the Arisaka is also a joke. The Japanese would have been better off going the French route and simply eliminating the safety. Instead, they chose a ludicrously complicated means of safing the rifle.

Regarding your experience with British rifles and their magazines, I would say that, of the feeding problems I've witnessed over the years, about 99% of them have been because they operator had no clue how to load rimmed cartridges into the magazine to prevent rimlock.

I'm seeing a lot of naysaing on your part that is long on opinion, but very, very short on reasoned argument and with no real facts in evidence at all, so it's rather curious that you're claiming the people who are supporting the Lee Enfield as the best bolt-action battle rifle are doing so simply out of collectors enthusiasm.

You should actually go back through and try READING this thread and absorbing the facts that have been presented, instead of glossing over them in your rush to deliver profound, "factually" based arguments such as "As far as the greatest bolt action battle rifle ever designed, you have to be kidding," and some blather about the barrel on a British tank. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
;)

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, you need to let them have it and get out to the range. Let the shooting prove the point.:cool: Chill and take a walk on the beach.

..MJ..

4a98a382.jpg
 
Last edited:
If I may get off the rifle part and discuss the methods:

Yesterday I attended a Mouse Gun Match, pistol and rifle designed for speed more then accuracy (not my ideal, but I didn't run the match).

I was the only one shooting a bolt gun, and if I may brag a bit, I was pretty quick with my CZ 452. Not competitive with the 10/22s and such, but I did all right for a bolt gun.

Anyway, we got to taking about rapid fire with a bolt gun and the British method (mentioned in earlier post) of using thumb and trigger finger on the bolt and the middle finger on the trigger.

I wasn't a fan of this idea, shoot I have enough problems with trigger control using my trigger finger.

Anyway, one guy, using my CZ decides to try it. First time he ever tried this method.

I was quite impressed. I think it might warrant a little investigation and practice. Looks like one could get a bit faster with this method.

I'll give it a shot and see what happens. I figure the worst thing that could happen is I'd waste some 22 shells.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top