better rifle

[Hansie Bloeckmann]

If I were a sniper, I would easily go with the Springfield for the accuracy.

If I were a sniper, I would easily go with the Springfield for the accuracy.

Agree 100%-- Alvin York used his "as issue" 1903 Springfield in WW1 very effectively--

 

[The Basket]

Did he? Not a1917?
I think the P14 of 1917 Enfield is better than both.

 

[Hansie Bloeckmann]

Did he? Not a1917?
I think the P14 of 1917 Enfield is better than both.

I am only going by what I saw in the B&W movie-starring Gary Cooper as Sgt. York-- that showed him firing a 1903 Springfield. In his tour overseas in WW1, it is possible that he carried another BA rifle in .30-gov't-06 caliber than the 1903. So you raise a good point indeed. Hansie

 

[The Basket]

Hollywood? At least the gun sounds right and it wasn't an Uzi or phased plasma rifle in the 40 watt range.
But it may have been the Enfield 1917 which was more numerous and an excellent rifle. One source even said P14 which I doubt muchly. In Americana the American 1903 is more patriotic than a British designed rifle. In 30 cal so the story goes he had a 1903.

 

[*SkyChimp*]

I remember a saying among mil-surplus collectors: The Enfield was the best battle rifle, the Springfield was the best target rifle, and the Mauser was the best hunting rifle.

 

[Ivan1GFP]

I am only going by what I saw in the B&W movie-starring Gary Cooper as Sgt. York-- that showed him firing a 1903 Springfield. In his tour overseas in WW1, it is possible that he carried another BA rifle in .30-gov't-06 caliber than the 1903. So you raise a good point indeed. Hansie

Hello Gentlemen,
Regarding what Sgt. Alvin York actually carried, perhaps this story will make things more clear.
Sgt. York: American Rifleman, American Hero

Regarding the choice between SMLE, M1903 Springfield...... and I suppose the M1891 Mosin Nagant and the M1917 Enfield,
I like them all for different reasons. Each has its strengths and weaknesses.
From personal experience, the M1917 is one of the most accurate rifles I have ever shot. The others might do as well, but my sample size is not that large. Although I have shot the P14 in .303, I have never actually tested one for accuracy off the bench. Maybe there is a difference and maybe there is not.
Properly tuned, there is no noticeable difference between the M1903 and SMLE (Actually a No.1 Mk.III* was what I tested).
My test subject for the Mosin Nagant was actually a Finnish M27, so perhaps that is also not a fair representative, but any of these three quite excellent for accuracy.
The Mosin Nagant has much worse handling and bolt operation but the other three are pretty comparable.
The M1917 is also quite a lot heavier than the rest.
Do not use a later model M1903A3 or a gun past the 1.2 million serials to judge the Springfield. The metallurgy is different and the bolt operation is not nearly as slick as earlier guns.
My belief is that a properly tuned SMLE or No.1 Mk.III is potentially a very accurate rifle but most of them do not come properly tuned.
This may be surprising because of how thin the barrel is but the British did their homework and there are a few extra strange pieces in place that seem to dampen the vibrations pretty well.

- Ivan.

 

[The Basket]

In the American army in 1918....so if you dont like your rifle you can just ask for another one? Really?
Of course, he may have 'found' a 1903 and used that.
It would be beneficial for propgoanda purposes to use the American rifle rather than the British rifle even if the American rifle was as American as lederhosen and sauerkraut.

 

[Hansie Bloeckmann]

In the American army in 1918....so if you dont like your rifle you can just ask for another one? Really?
Of course, he may have 'found' a 1903 and used that.
It would be beneficial for propgoanda purposes to use the American rifle rather than the British rifle even if the American rifle was as American as lederhosen and sauerkraut.

Does the lederhosen und saurkraut refer to the lawsuit Mauser am Necker/ Obendorf won against the Springfield Armory for patent/design infringement on their superb Mauser 98 BA design. Later copied by WRA with firstly the M54, then later revised in the great M70 (at least until 1964)..

 

[Hansie Bloeckmann]

I remember a saying among mil-surplus collectors: The Enfield was the best battle rifle, the Springfield was the best target rifle, and the Mauser was the best hunting rifle.

Does this mean the Springfield is the best rifle for shooting at stationary targets at various yardage in range, std. size bullseye- But the Mauser would be a better rifle for hunting afield??- At possibly moving targets over varying yardage and terrain? I

I would think that any field stocked accurate CF rifle - Not a Match Target rifle (like my Win M75- in .22LR) target accurate rifle (trigger, sights, barrel weight) would also be a fine hunting rifle. And whether a standing animal within effective killing range of the caliber being used, or an a moving animal- if the shooter is skilled enough to make a clean killing shot, and NOT a wound that allows the game animal to escape and die a long and lingering death--

 

[Ivan1GFP]

Gentlemen,
I do not know much about the story. I just pointed you to a reference that I believe is probably accurate.
As for choice of riles, one is a German design and one is a British design. Both were manufactured in United States.
US Military doesn't seem to have a big problem any more with such things if you consider that the M9 Pistol is Italian, the M249 Squad Automatic is Belgian FN Minimi, the M11 Pistol is a German SIG.

For that matter, the Pattern 14 was also based on the M1898 Mauser, wasn't it? It sure looks like it.

I believe the point of making a distinction between target rifle and hunting rifle is that the sights do not need to be so fine on a hunting gun. At the time this statement was made, it was probably true, but these days, it is hard to find a hunting rifle that is not equipped with a telescopic sight.

My own opinion is that from a useability standpoint, there is nothing lost in going from a Mauser 98 to a '03 Springfield. If you like fine adjustable sights, you have them on the Springfield. If you want a regular battle sight, you have that as well.

The Mauser has better gas handling / safety if a cartridge case ruptures (the cone breech on the Springfield does not give as good support apparently), and the firing pin is more robust. This is the typical explanation, but I have no experience or even know of someone with experience of these failures.
Low number '03s are supposedly dangerous because of potential catastrophic receiver failures, but there are lots of discussions as to why and whether they were ALL dangerous or whether the faulty ones were very few and have already failed.

- Ivan.

 

[The Basket]

My first reaction to the idea that a soldier doesnt like his issued rifle so asks for another rifle would usually result in that soldier been told to fornicate with a close relative and to place the rifle up a body cavity using a broom. Bayonet permitting.
Indeed the P13/P14/M1917 is a copy of a Mauser. Model 1895? The one the Boers had in 7mm.
Funny if the Germans got hold of both new American rifles to evaluate.
Hans...pass the lawsuit.

 

[Shortround6]

I believe the story about the 3 rifles is that the Mausers of the time feed a a bit better and the extractor worked a bit better, nothing to do with power of the cartridges. The Mauser was thought to be more reliable in the field, hunting back then didn't often use magnum rifles or the dependiable expanding bullets we have today so fast follow up shots were considered essential, especially against animals that might try to eat you when provoked. Books/stories about African hunting (or bear hunting in America) were popular.
Not sure if the Springfield really had what they called controlled feeding, A mauser was supposed to work even if held upside down, I have never tried it.
The British Enfield (NOT the p-13 series) had the large magazine capacity and also had the rear locking lugs and was easier to clean the action, this story dates back to the 1920s and tales of dirt/mud getting into the locking lug recesses and preventing the bolt from closing were common at the time, how truthful they were I have no idea.

 

[Ivan1GFP]

I believe the story about the 3 rifles is that the Mausers of the time feed a a bit better and the extractor worked a bit better, nothing to do with power of the cartridges. The Mauser was thought to be more reliable in the field, hunting back then didn't often use magnum rifles or the dependiable expanding bullets we have today so fast follow up shots were considered essential, especially against animals that might try to eat you when provoked.

Hello Gentlemen,
I don't believe there is really anything to choose between the M1903 and the Kar.98 in terms of reliability or in terms of handling.
The Kar.98 that I have shot the most is a slightly shorter action (about the same as the Yugoslav version) but I don't think that would make a difference. It also feels slightly lighter than the Springfield.
In THEORY, the Springfield should feed more reliably because of its cone breech design but also loses some gas handling safety because of the same feature and because of something in its bolt design which I can't remember.
I believe some folks may not like it as much because it is definitely a bit more complicated with the magazine cutoff and much more fragile sights, but for most purposes, the two are basically twins.
My own preference is for the M1903 but that is just because I have more experience with it.

The reason why controlled round feeding is such a cool thing is because with the more modern push feed guns, it is possible to nearly close the bolt to chamber a round and if the bolt is cycled before the extractor has snapped over the case rim it will not pull out the round that was just chambered. If in the excitement of something dangerous bearing down on your position, you decide to try to cycle another round, it will not chamber because there is already a round in the chamber. The resulting jam if it is just a result of operator stupidity is not hard to clear, but will take a few seconds.
Now if the chamber is dirty or round is stuck in the chamber for some reason, you generally have a much bigger problem.
The typical little spring steel extractors that are set into the bolt face are probably not as strong (I have never tested this) as the Mauser style claw extractor.

The M1903 has the same claw extractor and controlled feed as the Mauser 98 as does the M1917 Enfield.
Where the real difference lies is in the ejectors.
The M1903 uses a rocking / pivoting ejector so that there does not need to be a large slot cut into the bolt face if I remember correctly.
The M1917 does something pretty similar but instead of a rocking ejector, the sheet metal ejector has a strip peeled off the outside and bent to act as a leaf spring to push it into the path of the case coming out of the chamber. This little leaf spring is fragile.

My own opinion is that the rear locking lugs, while they are easier to clean and allow for a shorter bolt throw are a trade off.
The penalty is that more of the receiver and bolt are under stress and need to be heavier construction and will bend and vibrate more when firing. While the No.4 and later Lee Enfield has a fairly heavy body (receiver), the earlier No.1 Mk.III is much more lightly built in this area.

I believe the functions even when dirty feature has little to nothing to do with the Lee Enfield action design.
The .303 British cartridge headspaces on the case rim and typically has a LOT of radial clearance in the chamber.
Even then, the headspace tends to run on the long side from the guns I have tested with gauges (quite a few at gun shows and shops).
They are in spec, but on the long side.
If you check a brand new case against a fired case, it can be seen that typically the case shoulder is moved forward by a significant amount and also expanded radially even more because of the taper of the chamber and the longer than needed headspace.
This all means that there is a significant built in clearance for fouling and dirt which I mostly due to cartridge design and chambering.

- Ivan.

 

[Hansie Bloeckmann]

Hello Gentlemen,
I don't believe there is really anything to choose between the M1903 and the Kar.98 in terms of reliability or in terms of handling.
The Kar.98 that I have shot the most is a slightly shorter action (about the same as the Yugoslav version) but I don't think that would make a difference. It also feels slightly lighter than the Springfield.
In THEORY, the Springfield should feed more reliably because of its cone breech design but also loses some gas handling safety because of the same feature and because of something in its bolt design which I can't remember.
I believe some folks may not like it as much because it is definitely a bit more complicated with the magazine cutoff and much more fragile sights, but for most purposes, the two are basically twins.
My own preference is for the M1903 but that is just because I have more experience with it.

The reason why controlled round feeding is such a cool thing is because with the more modern push feed guns, it is possible to nearly close the bolt to chamber a round and if the bolt is cycled before the extractor has snapped over the case rim it will not pull out the round that was just chambered. If in the excitement of something dangerous bearing down on your position, you decide to try to cycle another round, it will not chamber because there is already a round in the chamber. The resulting jam if it is just a result of operator stupidity is not hard to clear, but will take a few seconds.
Now if the chamber is dirty or round is stuck in the chamber for some reason, you generally have a much bigger problem.
The typical little spring steel extractors that are set into the bolt face are probably not as strong (I have never tested this) as the Mauser style claw extractor.

The M1903 has the same claw extractor and controlled feed as the Mauser 98 as does the M1917 Enfield.
Where the real difference lies is in the ejectors.
The M1903 uses a rocking / pivoting ejector so that there does not need to be a large slot cut into the bolt face if I remember correctly.
The M1917 does something pretty similar but instead of a rocking ejector, the sheet metal ejector has a strip peeled off the outside and bent to act as a leaf spring to push it into the path of the case coming out of the chamber. This little leaf spring is fragile.

My own opinion is that the rear locking lugs, while they are easier to clean and allow for a shorter bolt throw are a trade off.
The penalty is that more of the receiver and bolt are under stress and need to be heavier construction and will bend and vibrate more when firing. While the No.4 and later Lee Enfield has a fairly heavy body (receiver), the earlier No.1 Mk.III is much more lightly built in this area.

I believe the functions even when dirty feature has little to nothing to do with the Lee Enfield action design.
The .303 British cartridge headspaces on the case rim and typically has a LOT of radial clearance in the chamber.
Even then, the headspace tends to run on the long side from the guns I have tested with gauges (quite a few at gun shows and shops).
They are in spec, but on the long side.
If you check a brand new case against a fired case, it can be seen that typically the case shoulder is moved forward by a significant amount and also expanded radially even more because of the taper of the chamber and the longer than needed headspace.
This all means that there is a significant built in clearance for fouling and dirt which I mostly due to cartridge design and chambering.

- Ivan.

Very well presented. I have two custom BA rifles- my 30-06 was built on a 1903-A3 Remington, with a tapered full length barrel(sans front sight) and Buehler 3-way safety-replacing the 3 way "paddle wing" and Buehler 2 pc. ring mounts-- Timney trigger, custom wood with cheek-piece. My .35 Whelan was built on a M98, with some of the same options as my 30-06, including the Timney tr

Hello Gentlemen,
I don't believe there is really anything to choose between the M1903 and the Kar.98 in terms of reliability or in terms of handling.
The Kar.98 that I have shot the most is a slightly shorter action (about the same as the Yugoslav version) but I don't think that would make a difference. It also feels slightly lighter than the Springfield.
In THEORY, the Springfield should feed more reliably because of its cone breech design but also loses some gas handling safety because of the same feature and because of something in its bolt design which I can't remember.
I believe some folks may not like it as much because it is definitely a bit more complicated with the magazine cutoff and much more fragile sights, but for most purposes, the two are basically twins.
My own preference is for the M1903 but that is just because I have more experience with it.

The reason why controlled round feeding is such a cool thing is because with the more modern push feed guns, it is possible to nearly close the bolt to chamber a round and if the bolt is cycled before the extractor has snapped over the case rim it will not pull out the round that was just chambered. If in the excitement of something dangerous bearing down on your position, you decide to try to cycle another round, it will not chamber because there is already a round in the chamber. The resulting jam if it is just a result of operator stupidity is not hard to clear, but will take a few seconds.
Now if the chamber is dirty or round is stuck in the chamber for some reason, you generally have a much bigger problem.
The typical little spring steel extractors that are set into the bolt face are probably not as strong (I have never tested this) as the Mauser style claw extractor.

The M1903 has the same claw extractor and controlled feed as the Mauser 98 as does the M1917 Enfield.
Where the real difference lies is in the ejectors.
The M1903 uses a rocking / pivoting ejector so that there does not need to be a large slot cut into the bolt face if I remember correctly.
The M1917 does something pretty similar but instead of a rocking ejector, the sheet metal ejector has a strip peeled off the outside and bent to act as a leaf spring to push it into the path of the case coming out of the chamber. This little leaf spring is fragile.

My own opinion is that the rear locking lugs, while they are easier to clean and allow for a shorter bolt throw are a trade off.
The penalty is that more of the receiver and bolt are under stress and need to be heavier construction and will bend and vibrate more when firing. While the No.4 and later Lee Enfield has a fairly heavy body (receiver), the earlier No.1 Mk.III is much more lightly built in this area.

I believe the functions even when dirty feature has little to nothing to do with the Lee Enfield action design.
The .303 British cartridge headspaces on the case rim and typically has a LOT of radial clearance in the chamber.
Even then, the headspace tends to run on the long side from the guns I have tested with gauges (quite a few at gun shows and shops).
They are in spec, but on the long side.
If you check a brand new case against a fired case, it can be seen that typically the case shoulder is moved forward by a significant amount and also expanded radially even more because of the taper of the chamber and the longer than needed headspace.
This all means that there is a significant built in clearance for fouling and dirt which I mostly due to cartridge design and chambering.

- Ivan.

Hello Gentlemen,
I don't believe there is really anything to choose between the M1903 and the Kar.98 in terms of reliability or in terms of handling.
The Kar.98 that I have shot the most is a slightly shorter action (about the same as the Yugoslav version) but I don't think that would make a difference. It also feels slightly lighter than the Springfield.
In THEORY, the Springfield should feed more reliably because of its cone breech design but also loses some gas handling safety because of the same feature and because of something in its bolt design which I can't remember.
I believe some folks may not like it as much because it is definitely a bit more complicated with the magazine cutoff and much more fragile sights, but for most purposes, the two are basically twins.
My own preference is for the M1903 but that is just because I have more experience with it.

The reason why controlled round feeding is such a cool thing is because with the more modern push feed guns, it is possible to nearly close the bolt to chamber a round and if the bolt is cycled before the extractor has snapped over the case rim it will not pull out the round that was just chambered. If in the excitement of something dangerous bearing down on your position, you decide to try to cycle another round, it will not chamber because there is already a round in the chamber. The resulting jam if it is just a result of operator stupidity is not hard to clear, but will take a few seconds.
Now if the chamber is dirty or round is stuck in the chamber for some reason, you generally have a much bigger problem.
The typical little spring steel extractors that are set into the bolt face are probably not as strong (I have never tested this) as the Mauser style claw extractor.

The M1903 has the same claw extractor and controlled feed as the Mauser 98 as does the M1917 Enfield.
Where the real difference lies is in the ejectors.
The M1903 uses a rocking / pivoting ejector so that there does not need to be a large slot cut into the bolt face if I remember correctly.
The M1917 does something pretty similar but instead of a rocking ejector, the sheet metal ejector has a strip peeled off the outside and bent to act as a leaf spring to push it into the path of the case coming out of the chamber. This little leaf spring is fragile.

My own opinion is that the rear locking lugs, while they are easier to clean and allow for a shorter bolt throw are a trade off.
The penalty is that more of the receiver and bolt are under stress and need to be heavier construction and will bend and vibrate more when firing. While the No.4 and later Lee Enfield has a fairly heavy body (receiver), the earlier No.1 Mk.III is much more lightly built in this area.

I believe the functions even when dirty feature has little to nothing to do with the Lee Enfield action design.
The .303 British cartridge headspaces on the case rim and typically has a LOT of radial clearance in the chamber.
Even then, the headspace tends to run on the long side from the guns I have tested with gauges (quite a few at gun shows and shops).
They are in spec, but on the long side.
If you check a brand new case against a fired case, it can be seen that typically the case shoulder is moved forward by a significant amount and also expanded radially even more because of the taper of the chamber and the longer than needed headspace.
This all means that there is a significant built in clearance for fouling and dirt which I mostly due to cartridge design and chambering.

- Ivan.

I

Hello Gentlemen,
I don't believe there is really anything to choose between the M1903 and the Kar.98 in terms of reliability or in terms of handling.
The Kar.98 that I have shot the most is a slightly shorter action (about the same as the Yugoslav version) but I don't think that would make a difference. It also feels slightly lighter than the Springfield.
In THEORY, the Springfield should feed more reliably because of its cone breech design but also loses some gas handling safety because of the same feature and because of something in its bolt design which I can't remember.
I believe some folks may not like it as much because it is definitely a bit more complicated with the magazine cutoff and much more fragile sights, but for most purposes, the two are basically twins.
My own preference is for the M1903 but that is just because I have more experience with it.

The reason why controlled round feeding is such a cool thing is because with the more modern push feed guns, it is possible to nearly close the bolt to chamber a round and if the bolt is cycled before the extractor has snapped over the case rim it will not pull out the round that was just chambered. If in the excitement of something dangerous bearing down on your position, you decide to try to cycle another round, it will not chamber because there is already a round in the chamber. The resulting jam if it is just a result of operator stupidity is not hard to clear, but will take a few seconds.
Now if the chamber is dirty or round is stuck in the chamber for some reason, you generally have a much bigger problem.
The typical little spring steel extractors that are set into the bolt face are probably not as strong (I have never tested this) as the Mauser style claw extractor.

The M1903 has the same claw extractor and controlled feed as the Mauser 98 as does the M1917 Enfield.
Where the real difference lies is in the ejectors.
The M1903 uses a rocking / pivoting ejector so that there does not need to be a large slot cut into the bolt face if I remember correctly.
The M1917 does something pretty similar but instead of a rocking ejector, the sheet metal ejector has a strip peeled off the outside and bent to act as a leaf spring to push it into the path of the case coming out of the chamber. This little leaf spring is fragile.

My own opinion is that the rear locking lugs, while they are easier to clean and allow for a shorter bolt throw are a trade off.
The penalty is that more of the receiver and bolt are under stress and need to be heavier construction and will bend and vibrate more when firing. While the No.4 and later Lee Enfield has a fairly heavy body (receiver), the earlier No.1 Mk.III is much more lightly built in this area.

I believe the functions even when dirty feature has little to nothing to do with the Lee Enfield action design.
The .303 British cartridge headspaces on the case rim and typically has a LOT of radial clearance in the chamber.
Even then, the headspace tends to run on the long side from the guns I have tested with gauges (quite a few at gun shows and shops).
They are in spec, but on the long side.
If you check a brand new case against a fired case, it can be seen that typically the case shoulder is moved forward by a significant amount and also expanded radially even more because of the taper of the chamber and the longer than needed headspace.
This all means that there is a significant built in clearance for fouling and dirt which I mostly due to cartridge design and chambering.

- Ivan.

 

[Hansie Bloeckmann]

Ooops- I was "cut-off" by my own keypad, in answering the post about BA military rifles. I was recently at a hunting expo, with some PWH guides from differing parts of Africa. I learned a great deal from our conversations, even though I most likely won't hunt there. Both gentlemen recommended Swift A-frame bullets for dangerous game, assuming they are available in your caliber of choice. In many areas, a .375 H&H is about "minimum", with most guides favoring the .416 Rigby. Interesting that both the .416 and the .375 came out aprox. 1912.. still used today, albiet with more modern primers, powders and bullet designs- They also told me that controlled feed M98 Mauser design has "stood the test of time", and other BA rifles, especially the pricey Blaser- are a challenge to operate under the stress of a wounded animal charging. They also did not recommend muzzle brakes, due to the great amount of noise and blast created, when all your senses are keyed up for the sounds of a wounded animal moving in the brush (think about the ending with the Cape Buffalo-assumed to be dead by the tracker- in Hemingway's great story: "The Short, Happy Life of Francis Macomber"..