Use of Lee Enfield after 1945

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

It took the US Army more than 5 years to transition from the M1 to M14, and even more from the M-14 to M-16. And that's from automatic operating systems that weren't too different.
The M-14 more or less just a improved M-1, but some may disagree. Then the M-16 gas operated too.

Yet you expect the British forces to do it in less time from a fairly trouble free bolt action to a gas operated semi-auto..
 
It actually gets a lot worse for the Garrand.

'The board assumed "that troops have landed through light surf [as Marines must often do] and that rifles were dropped or dragged over wet sand in reaching cover on the beach." The rifles were exposed to saltwater spray (but not actually soaked in water), dropped in wet sand. Results: the Springfields fired "in the normal manner." But "the bolts on the two [Garands] could not be opened by hand after the first and second shots respectively. The firer had to stand up and use his foot against the operating handle in order to open the actions. Both [Garand] rifles . . . failed this test."

The board assumed "that troops have landed through heavy surf sufficient to break completely over men and equipment, and immediately engage in combat on a sandy beach." Results: both Garands failed to operate as semi-automatic rifles (i.e., reload automatically after each round). One failed completely and the firer had to hammer the bolt with a mallet; "the other operated by hand with extreme difficulty. ..." The Springfields continued to work, with slight difficulty. On these salt water tests, the Garand was rated last, the Springfield first.

All the rifles got a thorough dousing in fresh water (assumption: heavy rain). Results: the Garands failed again.'

If I'm coming through surf, up a defended beach, I'll take the Enfield. Standing up to operate the action doesn't seem to me to be a brilliant plan. It might be worth packing a mallet!
There's not much point in having a weapon with a better rate of fire (marginally by all accounts) if it won't operate when you really need it to.

What really worries me is why, if the Garrand was really as unreliable as the Marine Corp's own tests imply, was it adopted at all?

Cheers

Steve
 
I suspect that if the Marines and Army had standardized on the Lee-Enfield in/before WW1 rather than the Springfield that the Garand would not have been adopted. However, once the Army decided on the Garand, the Marines probably decided that standardization with the Army was necessary. There's no doubt that the Lee-Enfield was superior to the Springfield; just look at what Sgt York accomplished with his Lee-Enfield.
 
Last edited:
Sgt Yorks rifle was not a Lee Enfield.
The Marines chose the Garand due to expediency.
Since the Garand was used in Korea then it's easy to rate it's performance.
British acceptance tests in adverse conditions must have been out taken a whizz when the SA80 knocked.
 
Sgt. York used a Enfield M1917, not a Lee Enfield.

The Marines early in WW2 still had the Springfield, my dad carried a Springfield at Guadalcanal.
He said when the Army troops there were equipped with the Garand, all the Marines kept a eye out for anyone straying just a little too far away from his Garand. They disappeared in a flash.

Right or wrong those Marines wanted a Garand.
 
Last edited:
Hows about a Johnson?
Marines used them.
Garand were used in all conditions and if they were jamomatics then I'm sure they would have been given a far worse reputation. Not saying they don't jam.
M1917 was a Mauser action so not a Lee Enfield as it was a modified P13. It was an Enfield design though.

P13 was supposed to replace the SMLE but that's a different thread!
 
RCAFson said:
To fire 40 rounds the Lee-Enfield would require 6 clips and the Garand 5
Click to expand...
Only if the Lee-Enfield starts with a full magazine and the Garand starts empty. If the Garand starts loaded (8 rounds) it only needs 4 reloads to get to 40 rounds.

Both stripper clips and enbloc clips tend to vary in Spring tension and actual size. Most Competition shooters had favorites or selected stripper clips, enboc clips and detachable magazines depending on rifle and had them marked as to ownership and in some cases, order in which they were to be used.

Hammering bolts closed or open when the bolt guns get dirty only works so long and certainly slows the rate of fire. Better than using the rifle as a club though.
Trying to clean the locking lug recesses on a Springfield or Mauser isn't much (if any) easier than cleaning them on an M-1.

Locking lug recesses are well inside the forward receiver ring.
I have no idea how objective the Marine corp test was. US rifle tests in the 1950s for the M-14 vs FN FAL and M-14 vs AR-15 were not only biased they were sometimes rigged. ( guns dismantled and reassembled using improper tools and using improper tolerances).

The SMLE had no hidden locking lug recesses and could be cleared much easier. The British guns also had over sized chambers which would hold a fair amount of crud without the need for hammering on the bolt.
Hammering bolts closed on dirty/gritty ammunition or chambers could very well result in a stuck case once the the gun was fired and while the bolt guns might tolerate bolt handles being beat on with rocks or boot heels better than the semi-autos there was a fair chance on either type of gun of pulling the extractor through the rim leaving the case stuck in the chamber. At which point unless you have several minutes to work on the gun uninterrupted with the proper tools it is pretty much a club no matter what type of action it has.
Hint, it is even possible to bend cleaning rods without removing stuck case.
 
Correct ( imagine what York could have done with a Lee-Enfield... ), but many Doughboys did use the .303 Lee-enfield.

My point still stands, that the US Army would have been less likely to have converted to the Garand if they had been using the Lee-enfield. I can understand wanting the Garand if the choice is between it and the Springfield.
 
The Basket said:
P13 was supposed to replace the SMLE but that's a different thread!
Click to expand...

Yep, right up until about 1915 at which point the P13 became sort of a substitute standard and was never seriously considered again.
The No4 Mk 1 has quite a few differences from the SMLE including a heavier barrel and needed less care in bedding. The fitting of the new rear sight eliminated one of the major advantages of the P13. The No 4 rifle also used a slightly heavier receiver. There may have been little or no practical difference in accuracy between a N0 4 rifle and a P-13 when using the same ammunition. If your ammunition is only good for 2 1/2-3 minutes of angle then jumping though hoops to build a super rifle is a waste of time.
 
The M1917 was called Enfield but isn't a Lee Enfield. Their was a mixing of nationality in the trenches but can you be clear where American forces used a SMLE? It certainly wasn't an issued rifle that i am aware of.
When the P14 was evaluated in the trenches they were not kind. The British troops didn't like the 5 round capacity and felt the Mauser action more prone to mud. The SMLE was the right rifle at the right time so good show for keeping it in service. The P13 took so long to get going that the Boer war Enfields had been markedly improved so the P13 did become unnecessary.
I watched a video on the EM-2 and the rate of fire was far superior to the SMLE or the Garand. As I predicted the Garand got off over 40 rounds in a minute while the SMLE was 27. Aimed shots not simply how fast you can pull a trigger. The Garand loading system is simply better.
Good data on the EM-2 is tricky as it never went anywhere and the test results could be biased but it does seem to me to have been years ahead of the curve and even better than the FAL. So I would take the EM-2 over the Garand.
 
All this theory makes my head spin.

I trained using the lee enfield and the SLR. Fired the American Garand once or twice, as well as the m1 carbine and the m-16.

For accuracy I think the SLR is the best. the Enfield was heavy but dependable. Garand was a gun only its mother could love and wasn't helped that it jammed incessantly in the conditions we put it through. The M-16 was the nearest gun to the AR-44 ive ever shot. Matter of personal taste, but on full auto I didn't like it. empty the mag in a second, very inaccurate. Lightweight and the ammo was small calibre but the amount of ammo wasted spraying that thing around in the sky made it a waste of time in my book.

in Vietnam the Australian army far preferred the SLR to any of these fully automatic assault rifles. I guess in times when you need them I would change my tune, but in circumstances where every round counts and you need sustained and accurate fire suppression you cant beat either the enfield or the SLR
 

In both World wars the US Army entered the war short on equipment. In the first war "...One entire division (the 27th, which fought under British and Australian command throughout the war) was equipped with British .303 Lee-Enfield rifles (the SMLE), as were other independent and detached artillery, engineer and infantry units serving with British and Commonwealth forces..."
Doughboy's Rifle
 
An anecdotal piece. When Brazilian infantry were deployed to Italy in WW2 they arrived with their 7.92 Mauser bolt action rifles. The US army gave them Garands to use standard US army ammunition. Whenever captured 7.92 ammunition was found in enough quantities the Brazilians returned their Garands to store and picked up their beloved Mausers. Of course Brazilians love Brazilian rifles but the moral is really that the Garand was good, but not remarkable.
 

Anybody see a not so minor detail in this story that might render it bogus (busted myth)??
 
I would note for all the talk about how many rounds could be fired per minute from each of these rifles it is pretty much a "burst" situation as few armies actually supplied enough ammunition or means of carrying it to keep up this kind of fire for more than a couple of minutes.
US pre-war (July 1941) standard of issue was a mere 40 rounds for their riflemen while on the march with a further 96 rounds issued in two 48 round bandoleers (six 8 round clips) for M-1 equipped troops and 120 rounds issued to to troops with bolt action rifles in two bandoleers (two 5 round stripper clips per pouch in the 6 pouch bandoleer).
Total ammunition for the M-1 in the Regiment was 328 rounds per rifle counting ammo at all levels of supply in the Regiment (Division might very well have more). This compares to a total of 220 rounds for each bolt action rifle.
As a comparison as to where the squad and platoon/company firepower was coming from each BAR was allotted 1748 rounds in M-1 equipped units and 1720 rounds in 1903/1917 equipped units, There were only a certain number of magazines supplied with the BAR and the majority of the ammo was carried/supplied in the same bandoleers as the rifle ammo for the unit/s.
The Browning 1919A4 air cooled guns were allotted 6000 rounds per gun and the 1917 water cooled guns were allotted 8000 rounds.

What the US actually issued or used in 1942 and later could be very different.

Many other nations arranged for the troops to carry 60-150 per rifleman (may depend on transport) with extra ammo on ammunition trains.

The US needed the extra firepower of the M-1 (and it is much easier to train a raw recruit to fire 15-120rpm from an M-1 than any bolt rifle) because most other countries LMG (in the squad) could deliver roughly twice the firepower of a BAR. Late war 13 man Marine squads were often equipped with 3 BARs to get the total fire power up.

BTW try googling "Bump fire M1 Garand" for some real rapid fire videos
A very similar technique was occasionally used by factory testers ( some tests were simply firing thousands of rounds and seeing what broke).
 
Last edited:
Shortround6 said:
Anybody see a not so minor detail in this story that might render it bogus (busted myth)??
Click to expand...
According to Wiki, the first 5000 troops arrived it Italy without weapons, and also that the entire Brazilian Expeditionary Forces had a American TOE ( Table of organization and equipment).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

The emblem on the fuselage of an F-106A
Replies
14
Views
1K
junkman3353
J
O
Muzzle velocity of Bofors 57mm m/47 gun
Replies
1
Views
477
Wurger
Korean War: Areas of Responsibility
Replies
4
Views
1K
ThomasP
T
Good video of most '60s NavAir aircraft
Replies
1
Views
675
Gnomey
A
What were the best cost effective fighters of the postwar era?
2 3
Replies
51
Views
4K
swampyankee
Menu
Log in
Register