The top 10 combat rifles

[Kurfürst]

The British because the Lee Enfield was a better rifle. With a faster rate of fire and double the ammunition it had clear advantages.

The SMLE didn`t have a faster rate of fire. It may have been more suitable for fast firing than the old WW1 Mauser with its straight bolt handle (which OTOH was ballistically superior), the Kar98 which had a similiar bent bolt handle. Practical rate of fire was the same.

As to double the ammuniton, I fail to see the point. The SMLE magazine holds 10 rounds, but it was fed by the same 5-round clips as the Mauser, Mosin, Springfield etc. I don`t see much difference between inserting two five-round clips and then firing 10 shots, or firing 5 shots, insert a five-round clip, fire 5 shots again, insert another five-round clip. In practical terms, the second clip is probably much more difficult to insert into the SMLE, given you already have rounds in the magazine. More than five rounds in these clip fed bolt action rifles do not seem to have gained any popularity with designers and soldiers - for the WW1 Mauser Gewehr 98, the Germans introduced a 20-round magazine, but it was abandoned.

Infantry soldier carried apprx. the same number of rifle rounds with them, ie. 45 to 60.

As to the merits of the two design, IMHO the extreme success of the Mauser 98 based bolt action rifle systems speaks for itself. As I said, it was the AK of its time. No country that had any say in it choose the SMLE over it, the latter is pretty much restricted to the British Empire and its former colonies/dominions. Even the British wanted it before WW1 over the SMLE, leading to their Pattern 13 rifles with the Mauser bolt.

As to using enemy weapons, ammo is a big consideration. British troops could pick up an MP 40 and use it without problem, their Sten fired the same 9mm Parabellum round; the bolt action rifles OTOH fired completely different rounds.

 

[pbfoot]

May I ask Soren what subject your not on expert on , it isn't aerodynamics,artlilery, submarines , armour ,jet propulsion ,please let me know as i feel insignificant with your overpowering intellect

 

[Soren]

Adler, like I said: how the heck are you gonna tell that from a picture ??

I have pictures of German soldiers running around with US M1 carbines. Why ? Because they were low on ammo ofcourse and so they'd happily grab an enemy weapon in order to be able to defend themselves. Got pictures of Germans carrying Sten guns as-well, a weapon which wasn't exactly known as a prize winner.

The point however is that Soldiers from all sides took and used each other's weapons, sometimes because they prefered the other weapon but most oftenly because they had no more amo for their own and there always was plenty of enemy ammo around.

 

[Soren]

May I ask Soren what subject your not on expert on , it isn't aerodynamics,artlilery, submarines , armour ,jet propulsion ,please let me know as i feel insignificant with your overpowering intellect

Expert ? Have I ever claimed to be an expert in all of these fields or even one of them ??

Quit the bullshit pbfoot.

 

[Glider]

I think this site will be of interest going into detail of German Snipers. What I find interesting is that the second highest scoring German Sniper used a captured Russian snipers rifle.
Also the G43 didn't have a good reputation in this field and 600 mtrs was the normal maximum range for the vast majority.

Snipers Paradise

 

[Soren]

Sepp Allerberger used the captured Nagant only for two years Glider, he then got accepted for Sniper training and recieved the K98k which he btw says himself was the best.

Oh and note that Hetzenauer could hit a standing man at 800m with 100% guarantee, pretty darn good with a six power scope!

As for the G43, well it's a semi auto rifle and semi autos are inherently less accurate than bolt action rifles which have far less moving parts. The cycling mechanism alone decreases accuracy.

 

[pbfoot]

Expert ? Have I ever claimed to be an expert in all of these fields ??

Quit the bullshit pbfoot.

every time you talk you claim to be the expert I've never read a statement were you say , I'm not sure or I may be mistaken or anything akin to that

 

[Soren]

every time you talk you claim to be the expert I've never read a statement were you say , I'm not sure or I may be mistaken or anything akin to that

Well here's some advice for you then: Read my posts.

I have never claimed to be an expert in any of those fields pbfoot, and I challenge you to find just a single time where I announced myself an expert on any of those subjects.

 

[pbfoot]

Well here's some advice for you then: Read my posts.

I have never claimed to be an expert in any of those fields pbfoot, and I challenge you to find just a single time where I announced myself an expert on any of those subjects.

read your own posts I'm punished everytime I do

 

[Glider]

Kaufaust Re the rate of fire a few quotes I would appreciate any example from yourself supporting your claim that the K98 was as fast.

It was estimated that the highly trained British Expeditionary Force that arrived in France in September 1914, were able to fire 15 rounds per minute. The Lee-Enfield could be aimed accurately over about 600 metres but could still kill someone over 1,400 metres away. Lee Enfield Rifle

Much to everyone's surprise, the S.M.L.E. turned out to be an excellent combat rifle. The British troops, now superbly trained in musketry (particularly accurate rapid fire), were handing out a thorough drubbing to the German infantry. On occasion, the Germans believed themselves to be under machine gun fire, such was the accuracy and rapidity of the rifle fire directed at them.

With the outbreak of the Great war British troops were still armed with the "poor" SMLE Mk.III rifles, which soon turned far from any "poor", giving some hard time to the Germans. In fact, the SMLE Mk.III was a really good rifle, quite accurate, reliable and suitable for rapid and accurate firing. British soldiers were rigorously trained for both individual and volley fire marksmanship, and were routinely capable of firing 30 aimed shots per minute, which was quite a rate of fire for any non-automatic rifle.

British Commonwealth forces used the Lee Enfield Mark 4 as their main rifle. Although bolt action, its locking mechanism made it the fastest bolt action rifle in the world. Its long service also permitted its design to be optimized over time to make it very rugged and reliable.
The trained soldier could fire 30 aimed rounds at a target 200 meters in one minute (known as "the mad minute").

Re your comment on the ammunition capacity. Are you really telling me that you wouldn't prefer to go into action with 10 rounds in your rifle instead of 5 rounds. Because if you are I would ask you to find anyone to support that view.

Re your comment about the British wanting the Walther version this was considered but disregarded as the Lee Enfield proved itself.

If the Lee Enfield was so poor then why was the Sniper version in use until the 1980's remembering that the British always put a high premium on accuracy and sniper skills.

 

[Kurfürst]

With you tendency for name calling and childish, nationalistic arguements, you have earned your place on my ignore list, Glider.

Re your comment on the ammunition capacity. Are you really telling me that you wouldn't prefer to go into action with 10 rounds in your rifle instead of 5 rounds. Because if you are I would ask you to find anyone to support that view.

Oh I can find plenty. After all, everybody wanted Mausers. Persians wanted it. Yugos wanted it. The Swedes wanted it. The Yanks copied it. Should I go on how many countries choose it as their service weapon...? Hell even the French copied it and replaced the famous Lebel with a Mauser-action rifle, the MAS 36. All had 5-round capacity, as did the Mosin bolt action rifles (which are unrelated to the Mauser, and pretty clumsy, I own 3 of them. Still, they are sufficient weapons for a simple soldier.).

Nobody wanted the SMLEs, outside the British Empire that is, where there wasn`t that much of a choice.. It wasn`t a weapon of choice for most countries, the Mauser was. As a matter of fact, even the British wanted a 5-round magazine, as the Pattern 13 and 14 rifles, designed by Enfield engineers that were to replace the SMLEs reverted to a 5 round magazine.

On occasion, the Germans believed themselves to be under machine gun fire, such was the accuracy and rapidity of the rifle fire directed at them.

Funny the same story can be found in every British book... always without a source or any confirmation from the German side.

As the rate of fire achiavable with a Kar 98, I suggest you check the end of this youtube clip:


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Ck2v4iehVY

Of course this type of firing is totally pointless for anyone who has some experience on the range - there`s no way to fire at this as accurately
I guess British obsession with this RoF thing was a result of their colonial wars, and certain Zulu chieftains habit of using British army officer skulls as teacups.

And of course the propaganda-value RoF price goes to the French - IIRC they managed to demonstrate - with a specially trained crew of course - that they could fire their famous M1897 75mm gun at something like 90 rounds/min. Totally useless and inpractical for anything else than propaganda purposes of course.

Re your comment about the British wanting the Walther version this was considered but disregarded as the Lee Enfield proved itself.

The British wanted the Mauser, not the Walther. I am not sure Walther was in business at all at the time.. The British wanted a Mauser 98 bolt system to be introduced and replacing the SMLE bolts, just before WW1, largely because the Mauser system is simply better, and more robust, also easier to manufacture. WW1 intervened, and altough the rifle was presented, the British army needed rifles, and lots of them. And after the war, they had a lot on stock, and besides, everybody was too bankrupt to even think of replacing all those millions of rifles and billions of rounds they had for them in storage.

If the Lee Enfield was so poor then why was the Sniper version in use until the 1980's remembering that the British always put a high premium on accuracy and sniper skills.

I guess because Britain was not in a good economical shape at the time, rather than the qualities of the rifle itself. Everyone else moved on by that time, or employed more modern bolt action designs. Most armies simply integrated a designated marksman of some kind for the infantry squad - the USSR for example with it`s famous SVD for example.

As for the SMLE, its not a poor rifle by any standard, it is just my impression that it is sorrounded in Britain, and to a lesser extent, in the Anglo-Saxon world with a sort of hype far in excess of its actual qualities. The Americans have something similiar towards the Springfield, but that`s just another Mauser 98, as are many of even todays modern hunting rifles.

 

[Soren]

Re your comment about the British wanting the Walther version this was considered but disregarded as the Lee Enfield proved itself.

Wrong, the Lee Enfield was retained because so many were in stock and because of insufficient funds and time to amass any new rifle.

If the Lee Enfield was so poor then why was the Sniper version in use until the 1980's remembering that the British always put a high premium on accuracy and sniper skills.

The .303 Enfield stopped being used in 1960 Glider, it wasn't used in the 80's. The 7.62x51 NATO L42A1 was used up until the 80's after which is was replaced by the L96.

 

[Glider]

Kurfurst
I have never called you a name, I have always supported my arguments with quotes and examples and where I have been unable to find a quote I have admitted it.
My only crime that I can think of, is to ask you to support your statements, something you have consistantly failed to do. This last posting is a good example.

 

[Glider]

Wrong, the Lee Enfield was retained because so many were in stock and because of insufficient funds and time to amass any new rifle.

Soren
My posting was based on the following two quotes

The common thinking of the period was to issue the long rifle for infantry and the carbine for cavalry, artillery and other such troops. The Brits decided to replace this variety of sizes with one, "intermediate" size, that will fit all niches. This "one size fits all" rifle was called ".303 caliber, Rifle, Short, Magazine, Lee-Enfield, Mark 1", or, in short SMLE Mk.I, where "short" referred to the length of the rifle. This rifle passed some improvements during the following pre-WW1 years, finalizing in the 1907 as a SMLE Mk.III. Development and introduction into service of this rifle was accompanied with constant complaints of some "theorists", which stated that this rifle would be no good neither for infantry, nor for cavalry, so RSAF was set do design another rifle, patterned after the German Mauser, which also should be more suitable for mass production, than the SMLE. This rifle finally appeared in 1914 as an ".303 caliber Enfield Pattern 1914 rifle", or simply a P-14. With the outbreak of the Great war British troops were still armed with the "poor" SMLE Mk.III rifles, which soon turned far from any "poor", giving some hard time to the Germans. In fact, the SMLE Mk.III was a really good rifle, quite accurate, reliable and suitable for rapid and accurate firing. British soldiers were rigorously trained for both individual and volley fire marksmanship, and were routinely capable of firing 30 aimed shots per minute, which was quite a rate of fire for any non-automatic rifle. There were times when advancing Germans were impressed that they were under the machine gun fire, when Tommie used their salvo-firing techniques. During the war time the basic Mk.III design was slightly simplified to better suit the mass production needs, with omission of "volley" sights and magazine cutoffs, and with some production shortcuts.


As it turned out, there was never any question of the P-14 replacing the Lee-Enfield. Far from it. The superiority of the Lee was now firmly entrenched, and the Bisley-like refinements of the P-14 left the British soldiery profoundly under-whelmed. They were primarily used for training and general rear echelon work, although some P-14's saw considerable front line work as sniper rifles. Here their enhanced accuracy potential could be effectively utilised, and the P-14 was highly regarded in this role.

The .303 Enfield stopped being used in 1960 Glider, it wasn't used in the 80's. The 7.62x51 NATO L42A1 was used up until the 80's after which is was replaced by the L96.

You are correct re the calibre in use but the basic weapon was the Lee Enfield and in my defence, I did say the Sniper Version as a general statement. This was in production until around 1985 as the L42A1 a remarkable length of service.

 

[parsifal]

I thought it might be useful to look over the shoulder, and see what some other internet sites are saying. My search was on the basis of "best bolt Action in WWII" and I was staggered to find the number of entries under that parameter. There were a number of discussion forums, and one poll that I found. Opinion is sharply divided about which was the best. The consistent front runners were the Enfield and the Mauser, although there were quite a few who support the Russian Moisin Nagant, for a number of reasons.

The poll that I found, concluded that the enfield was the best rifle, being voted by 46% of those polled. The Mauser came in second, with about 37%. There sample size was 142, which IMO is pretty reasonable.

Its clear to me that there are those who are never going to accept the views of the majority, no matter what. The prejudices are simply too strong to break down.. That's okay, people are entitled to their opinion. But IMO the Enfield is a superior military weapon to the Mauser. Guess I am one of the prejudiced as well…….

Here are the links to three of the sites that I found. I looked at a lot of sites, incidentally, and tried to take a representative sample of what I found,

The only thing this "mini survey" shows, is that opinion is very divided on this subject. It has made me realize that it is dangerous, and erroneous to make alleged irrefutable claims about either rifle. It seems that just about anything is refutable

Favorite WWII Bolt-Action rifle - Page 10 - Armchair General and HistoryNet >> The Best Forums in History

Best Military Bolt action of all time? - The Firearms Forum.Com

http://www.gunslot.com/blog/guns-top-ten-10-military-rifles-all-time-w-pics

 

[Glider]

Kurfurst
Well you gave a reply which is good. Taking your points one at a time

Ammunition
Well if you want to go in with half the ammo thats your funeral

Rate of Fire
Be fair I did give you 4 different quotes from different sources and all you can do is say they came from the same story. Not impressive
No doubt that the Mauser is a good weapon but you have to stop twice as many times to reload so the number of shots will drop.

Pattern 13/14
I covered that with two quotes from diffferent sources in my reply to Soren. Can you supply a quote to support your statement

Long Life in Front Line
To blame it on the cost is a poor statement which I would be interested to see, if you can support it.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Adler, like I said: how the heck are you gonna tell that from a picture ??

I have pictures of German soldiers running around with US M1 carbines. Why ? Because they were low on ammo ofcourse and so they'd happily grab an enemy weapon in order to be able to defend themselves. Got pictures of Germans carrying Sten guns as-well, a weapon which wasn't exactly known as a prize winner.

The point however is that Soldiers from all sides took and used each other's weapons, sometimes because they prefered the other weapon but most oftenly because they had no more amo for their own and there always was plenty of enemy ammo around.

The point is the picture is no evidence.

I agree with you that the K98 is a great weapon. I enjoy shooting it from time to time but fact is that the Gerand had advantages over it too.

 

[parsifal]

One of the discussion boards I posted raises a point, which I think will bring a smile to this rather dour discussion. Basically the Mauser as the main sidearm of nations has not won, or helped to win a single war for its owners, whereas the enfield has won every major conflict that it was a part of. Havent checked the veracity of these claims, and it was a very tongue in cheek statement, but it kinda makes you think for a minute.....does that mean that for the greatest poll, ie the ones that matter, ie the two world wars, that the enfield is leading 2-0 over the mauser????

 

[Soren]

Glider,

The SMLE was only retained because:

A.) There wasn't enough time to acquire the new weapon (Vickers were only capable of building a handful)
B.) A lack of sufficient funds
C.) The Enfield proved, despite its deficiencies, that it could still fulfill the its role to a satisfactory degree.

Now regarding the RoF of Enfield and Mauser, well Kurfurst brings up some very good points. The primary difference between the M98 action and Enfield action however is that the Enfield is slightly quicker to operate, but we're talking milliseconds here, and the time is quickly gained back when the Enfield has to reload which takes over twice as long as it does for the Mauser.

Another thing about the Enfield action is that it isn't nearly as safe as the M98 action, and it'll blow your head to bits if don't clean it properly. The M98 action never blows up, and it makes sure that excessisve gasses are vented away. Nomatter what you do to the M98 action it wont blow up in your face, heck welding the barrel shut and the action still easily holds solid.

Thus Glider, the M98 is better suited for firing ammo of varying degrees in quality, while this can be bloody unsafe with the Enfield.

 

[Soren]

One of the discussion boards I posted raises a point, which I think will bring a smile to this rather dour discussion. Basically the Mauser as the main sidearm of nations has not won, or helped to win a single war for its owners, whereas the enfield has won every major conflict that it was a part of. Havent checked the veracity of these claims, and it was a very tongue in cheek statement, but it kinda makes you think for a minute.....does that mean that for the greatest poll, ie the ones that matter, ie the two world wars, that the enfield is leading 2-0 over the mauser????

So let me get this straight, you're boiling entire wars down to which rifle the various nations were issuing ??? This is as stupid as when people claim, "The Allies won the war so everything they made was better!"

Fact is that the Mauser is the better rifle, the mass production of the rifle up until this day prooves that point more than anything. Nearly every hunting rifle today is of the Mauser 98 design, now if that doesn't say something then what does ??