Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
11/24/2017 4:44:23 PM
11/22/2017 10:05:29 PM
Posted: 10/1/2004 11:50:39 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/1/2004 11:51:00 AM EST by guardian855]

Why is the German 1898 Mauser regarded so highly? Don't get me wrong, it was a good rifle, one that served many countries for many years (inculding the US in our 1903 Springfield)

But no one really talks about the British Enfield. Why not? It held 10 rounds as opposed to the Mausers five, and .303 British carteridge is nothing to laugh at certainly. Is it just because the Mauser was more widely available, or is there some other reason that I don't know about.

Which would you pick if you had to have just one rifle and had to choose between the German 1898 Mauser (or the K98) or the British Enfield?
Link Posted: 10/1/2004 1:04:34 PM EST
They are both nice rifles. You tend to find more worn out Enfields though. It's a good thing the Indians never got ahold of mausers.

Then again the Turks grafted the front of Mausers onto captured Enfields and made Enfausers.<G>

I'd chose whichever was in the best condition.

Dennis Jenkins


Originally Posted By guardian855:
Why is the German 1898 Mauser regarded so highly? Don't get me wrong, it was a good rifle, one that served many countries for many years (inculding the US in our 1903 Springfield)

But no one really talks about the British Enfield. Why not? It held 10 rounds as opposed to the Mausers five, and .303 British carteridge is nothing to laugh at certainly. Is it just because the Mauser was more widely available, or is there some other reason that I don't know about.

Which would you pick if you had to have just one rifle and had to choose between the German 1898 Mauser (or the K98) or the British Enfield?

Link Posted: 10/1/2004 2:39:26 PM EST

Originally Posted By guardian855:
Why is the German 1898 Mauser regarded so highly? Don't get me wrong, it was a good rifle, one that served many countries for many years (inculding the US in our 1903 Springfield)

But no one really talks about the British Enfield. Why not? It held 10 rounds as opposed to the Mausers five, and .303 British carteridge is nothing to laugh at certainly. Is it just because the Mauser was more widely available, or is there some other reason that I don't know about.

Which would you pick if you had to have just one rifle and had to choose between the German 1898 Mauser (or the K98) or the British Enfield?



no one talks about it???,,, man,, you are livin in acave then,,,alot fo enfield forums and such...

as for picking one,,it would be neither,,,, i dont care for my 98,,, but i do like the 98 action, on my turks, 98/22,, FR8, and m48,,,,,,
Link Posted: 10/1/2004 2:48:39 PM EST
The 98 action is much smoother than the enfields I've shot. Also the action is much stronger. Big game hunters have used the mauser action that has been rechambered up to .458 win mag. The enfield only went up to 308 with the Ishapore redo. I think it just had to do with exposure, strength, and feel of the action.
Link Posted: 10/2/2004 11:39:13 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/2/2004 6:03:31 PM EST by Ralph]
The Mauser is much,much, stronger than the Enfield will ever be.. reason being the locking lugs on the Mauser are on the Front of the bolt,rather than on the back of the bolt as found on the Enfield. The Enfield was designed around a Rimmed cartridge, the Mauser was designed around a Rimless cartridge, So it's much more flexable as to what cartridges can be chambered for it. Mausers have been chambered for just about every modern cartridge known. Because of the Enfield's rear bolt lug design, it is'nt really that strong of a action, and very little can be done with it,The .308 conversions done by the Indians are an example of really pushing the Enfield action to it's limits, I would shoot these with caution. The Mauser is about as good as it gets, it's still around after 100 years, and will probably be around for another 100. I'd take the Mauser 98 thank you, over the Enfield anyday....Much better design, more durable
Link Posted: 10/2/2004 1:18:56 PM EST
Link Posted: 10/2/2004 2:38:56 PM EST
The tiny Mauser sights are for youth with good eyesight.

I much perfer my "like new" 1953 #4 Mk2 Enfield with peep sights.

Dennis Jenkins



Originally Posted By raf:
Ralph made some good points. In summation, remember that the basic '98 Mauser action is still in modern production, whereas the Enfield is not.

The Enfield, while a viable battle rifle for its day, was schedualed for replacement prior to WWI by the P-14 which fired a different, rimless round. Only the sudden onset of hostilities scotched the changeover. Post-war, financially strapped Britain could ill-afford to discard the millions of rifles in storage for a new issue rifle. Kind of like the U.S. in the post-Civil War, revamping Springfields into breech-loading trapdoor models instead of buying then-modern lever-action rifles.

Fortunately, the P-14 gave rise to the last, best bolt-action battle rifle, the U.S. M1917 rifle. Combining the best features of the Enfield, P-14, and the Mauser from which it and the P-14 were derived, it was better as a battle rifle than any of them. Correcting its flawed ejector (a $5/10 minute job), the rifle was without flaws compared to its comtemporaries, and had numerous advantages relative to them all.

Fact is, except for CQB, I'd rather have a good M1917 than an AR. YMMV.

Link Posted: 10/2/2004 3:27:43 PM EST
.303 ammo is just expensive and hard to find. Best price I have found is like 17.99 for 20rds. Compare that too 8mm Turk which is like $5 for 70rds. Enfields make good wall hangers I guess, I would like to get one, but they are on the bottom of the list because they are not afforible shooters (like Swiss K-31s).
Link Posted: 10/2/2004 3:40:51 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/17/2004 1:27:29 AM EST by raf]
Link Posted: 10/2/2004 6:22:39 PM EST
I had a P-17 that had been sporterized, and drilled and tapped for a scope. It still had the orginial barrel on it. it was made in December, 1917, it was an Eddystone. I liked the rifle, but one thing I did'nt like about it was the "cock on closing design" of the bolt, and the bolt was somewhat diffcult to get apart, as compared to a Mauser. these are minor, personal preferance issues. It was a much better design than the Enfield, I bought a Mk4 about 2 years ago, it's neat to shoot,it's in nice shape, I still have a couple of those 50 rnd boxes of .303 that was around for a short while, the ammo situation makes it a safe queen, a good example of a WWII Brit issue rifle
Link Posted: 10/3/2004 9:22:42 PM EST

Originally Posted By Corbic:
.303 ammo is just expensive and hard to find. Best price I have found is like 17.99 for 20rds. Compare that too 8mm Turk which is like $5 for 70rds. Enfields make good wall hangers I guess, I would like to get one, but they are on the bottom of the list because they are not afforible shooters (like Swiss K-31s).



.303 was, for many years, cheaper than 8mm. I remember when good 8mm was nearly impossible to find. I wouldn't base my preference for a rifle on the availability of surplus ammo at any given moment. Plus, commercial .303 has ALWAYS been available. When there's a glut of .303, you stock up. That's why I have 5,000 rounds of the excellent South African to enjoy until the next cache of goood surp shows up. I also have 8,000 of 8mm for those times down the road when 8 dries up, and everyone will be saying Mausers are nothign but "wall hangers" and shooting their Enfields.

FWIW, I think the No4mkI is the finest battle turn bolt ever made. Superior ergonomics, faster action than a Mauser, vastly better sights, 10 round capacity, and superb long range accuracy from the .303. Give me the pride of the British empire anyday.
Link Posted: 10/3/2004 9:28:33 PM EST
But the No.1MkIII is so much prettier! I'm actualy going to order one of Aimsurpluses Aussy Enfields tommarow. Found a good pile of cheap .303 (cheap enough) and I still can't decide on a Mauser to get. Are the Aussy Enfields good enough? They, along with the Indian ones seem to be the most common, and I'll pass on anything Indian. Also No. 4MkI came after the No.1MKIII right?

Jack
Link Posted: 10/4/2004 7:47:42 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/4/2004 8:02:46 PM EST by Ralph]
Yes, the Mk4 came along later, look over any prospective candidates carefully, many of these rifles(all models) were rebuilt in India, as the brits had a large rebuild and repair station there. My Mk4 was a Indian rebuild,it started out in England being built by Fazerakerly (SP?) and still has the orginial rear sights, the bolt is a unnumbered replacement,it seems this, some buttstock repairs, were all that were needed,and it has the famous "Ishpore screw" (if I remember correctly) it's a wood screw that was put in the stock if front of the mag, the idea was to strengthen the stock for use with rifle grenades, Alot of these Indian rebuilds are good shooters in nice shape.
Link Posted: 10/4/2004 8:25:53 PM EST

Originally Posted By Corbic:
Are the Aussy Enfields good enough? They, along with the Indian ones seem to be the most common, and I'll pass on anything Indian. Also No. 4MkI came after the No.1MKIII right?

Jack



All the No1's AIM and Centerfire are selling have been reworked by India. Still a fine rifle, but you're not getting a true Lithgow, or an unmolested one I should say. Just FYI. That said, the Lithgows are thought to be the best of the No1 rifles, in terms of fit, finish and overall quality. They certainly have the best triggers, that's for sure.
Link Posted: 10/4/2004 11:11:31 PM EST
Alright, well I ordered one today, any infor on the 32rd box ammo Aim is selling or the 48rds bag stuff on GunsNstuff.net?
Link Posted: 10/4/2004 11:26:28 PM EST

Originally Posted By Corbic:
Alright, well I ordered one today, any infor on the 32rd box ammo Aim is selling or the 48rds bag stuff on GunsNstuff.net?



AIM's ammo is Pakistani....questionable quality but sometimes you luck out. I've had a lot of click-bang hangfires and a few split cases. Not the best stuff.

GunNStuff's is probably DAC or old Brit corrosive if it's 48 rounds to a box, but I'd have to know the headstamp to be sure. Probably the same story as Paki as far as quality.

Not alot of surplus .303 right now, but rumor mill has it that a lot is headed our way, possibly South African or RG out of one of the British protectorate countries.
Link Posted: 10/5/2004 5:05:49 PM EST
I prefer my Indian Enfield .308 to my Yugo Mauser.
1) Extra ammo capacity
2) Suprisingly accurate
3) And the recoil doesn't seem as bad for some reason.
Link Posted: 10/6/2004 7:24:20 AM EST
I have a soft spot for nice Enfields... and a hard-on for ones with high quality sporter stocks.

Gotta have two of em tho... one dressed up for sport, one dressed down in honor of the Brits


- BG
Link Posted: 10/6/2004 5:21:43 PM EST
Mausers are entirely overated in my opinion. Their sights suck; and sights on a 5 shot bolt gun ARE VERY IMPORTANT!! The Enfield is a superior weapon. It has better sights, one of the fastest bolts in the world, accurate (not saying the Mauser isn't) and 10 round detachable mag! The only problem with the Enfeild was the cartridge.
Link Posted: 10/6/2004 7:36:14 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/6/2004 7:46:23 PM EST by Ralph]
I would disargee with that..Let's not forget 2 very important things 1. sights can be changed.. take a look at a '03 Springfield or a 03a3 Springfield both are Mauser variants.Both are very,very accurate. 2. Mauser actions, rifles, are still being made... There's is a reason the Mauser is still around, and it's not because it's overrated... Let's look at another aspect, Mauser bolts can be disassembled with nothing more than your ten fingers, an Enfield bolt needs a special tool to remove the firing pin, So, the soldier who has a firing pin break for instance, with a Mauser he can change firing pins himself, in the field, provided he has a spare. If the soldier with the Enfield breaks a firing pin, he'd better look for an armorer with some tools....
Link Posted: 10/6/2004 9:13:27 PM EST

Originally Posted By guardian855:
Why is the German 1898 Mauser regarded so highly? Don't get me wrong, it was a good rifle, one that served many countries for many years (inculding the US in our 1903 Springfield)



The '98 was basically a perfected action, the final in a series of improvements. In terms of strength, safety, and accuracy, it remains near the top today, over 100 years later.

In the Boor War '96 Mausers bested the British Lee Metford, leading to the development of both the P-14 Enfield and the Lee Enfield. In the Spanish American War, '96 Mausers bested the Krag, and lead to the 1903 Springfield.

The Mauser became the basis of the best big game rifles as well as sniper rifles, where they remain despite being replaced by assault rifles as standard combat weapons.


Originally Posted By guardian855:
But no one really talks about the British Enfield. Why not? It held 10 rounds as opposed to the Mausers five, and .303 British carteridge is nothing to laugh at certainly. Is it just because the Mauser was more widely available, or is there some other reason that I don't know about.



I've seen lots of talk about the Lee Enfield.

The Mauser is stronger, more accurate, and much better for sporterizing.

Link Posted: 10/7/2004 8:30:42 AM EST
Yeah, just got my No.1MkIII....


How the hell do you take this thing apart? Yes yes, went hear, www.surplusrifle.com/no4/maintenance.asp

Yeah... real easy and straight forward..

Enfield 0, Mauser 1
Link Posted: 10/16/2004 6:11:21 PM EST
I think it's impossible to say which is the better rifle, they are two of the finest battle rifles ever conceived. It's all fine to say that the Mauser is better because of it's simple and robust action which lends so easily to rechambering. But, to really judge them against each other I think you have to look at them in terms of what they were designed to be, battle rifles.

So with all the talk of caliber conversion and such aside how do they stack up as they were issued in their day?

Accuracy
We all know that the Mauser is very accurate, but what about the Enfield? Many people regard it as an innacurate rifle, I have even heard it described as having 'minute of man' accuracy, all this talk though is complete bollocks. I own several Mausers and several Enfields and they are all very accurate rifles, all three of my Enfields (1942 Longbranch No.4MkI*, 1943 Savage No.4MkI and a 1919 Lithgow No.1MkIII) are perfectly capable of shooting a group the size of your fist at 200 yards and will bowl over a man sized target at 400 yards, no problem. My Mausers are indeed more accurate, but the difference is not really major, in short both rifles will do the job they were intended for.

Sights
Sights are not a strength of the Mauser, it's in keeping with the strange European trend of using the inferior barley corn and tangent style of sight even when better styles (like aperture and square front post) were becomming common place. The sights are not quick and easy to line up and can be hard on the eyes. Against this the U notch and square post sights of the SMLE and the aperture or 'peep' sight and square post of the No.4 are both superior to the Mauser style of sight. They are both quicker to line up and easier on the eyes, especially the No.4's MkI and MkII micrometer sights, these are hugely superior to the Mauser style sight and really facillitate fast, accurate shooting. In this area the Enfield wins hands down.

Action
The Mauser action is undoubtedly stronger than the Enfield, but how does this count as they were issued and used in their hey day? Not for much I'd say, sure today when it comes to sporterising or re-chambering the Mauser actions superiority really shows through. But in their day of issue the Enfield action was strong enough for the caliber it was intended to fire. In fact it has a few advantages over the Mauser action, one is that it is faster cycling and cappable of a high rate of fire from a good firing position. The British infantry standard was something like 20 aimed shots per minute and the record for fasted cycling bolt action ever is held by the Enfield with 37 aimed shots all landing in a 10 inch target at 300 yards in one minute, performed after WW1 by a SGT in the British army. Another advantage is the thread off bolt head of the Enfield which allows varying headspace to be fixed quickly and easily, all a soldier with his ehadspace out needed to do was visit his unit's armourer and have the bolt heads changed, it was even simplified further in the No.4 design with the 4 standard sized bolt heads. The Mauser has no such system and fixing headspace requires the rifle to be seriously tooled with.

Simplicity? I think the Enfield wins here again, it is simple to remove the bolt from the weapon, it is also very simple to operate and de-cock the action, the safety too is probably one of the quietest safties on a military rifle I have ever encountered. The safties on all my Enfields engage and disengage with only the slightest of sound and also all this can be done with the thumb of the trigger hand without having to remove it from the grip or change hold in any way like you have to do to operate the Mauser's three position lever.

What about smoothness? Well both actions are very smooth, personally I think it is largely depndant on the rifle, when it was produced, how well it was machined etc etc. I have used Mausers which cycle smoothly and then I have encountered Mausers which are very rough. The same goes for Enfields, my Longbranch is a little rough, my Savage is better, but my Lithgow SMLE cycles so smoothly you could almost believe you were moving the bolt through nothing but thin air, and this rifle is 85 years old! My point is I don't think you can make a blanket statement over which rifle has the smoother action in the end.

Now what about the trigger? In my opinion the Enfield has the best military two stage trigger I have ever encountered in any of the milsurps I own and have shot. Every single Enfield I have touched has that same trigger, with it's smooth take up of the first stage till it stops and then it's clean 'breaks like glass' pull through the second stage. This is another plus for accurate shooting.

Magazine and Feeding
The Enfield is revolutionary in this sense, it was probably the first ever battle rifle to utilise a detatchable box magazine. When James Paris Lee designed it he intended for the rifle to be loaded primarily this way, shame though that the British army went the cheaper road with stripper clips. It doesn't change the fact though that the rifle held 10 rounds, and was capable of either being loaded by strippers or by slamming in another magazine, good versatility there. I think in this area it totally beats the Mauser, think about it, what do you do if the spring in your Mauser magazine breaks? You need to get a new spring installed, yet if this happens in an Enfield you can simply change the magazine out in a few seconds (every British soldier was issued the rifle with the magazine in it and another magazine just for this eventuality) and keep soldiering on.


So in conclusion?

Well like I said above the Mauser and the Enfield are both excellent battle rifles, in the end I think it comes down to personal prefernce. To my mind though I think in terms of a simple and effective battle rifle the Enfield is superior to the Mauser. It is accurate enough, has better sights, a better trigger, a higher capacity and more flexible feeding system, simpler operation and a robust and tough as nails design which will stand up to any conditions on the battlefield. I'd take either rifle into battle but if I was forced to choose I'd definitely take good ol' mister Lee Enfield No.4.

By the way, g'day the name's Marc and I'm new to the boards, I'm from Aussie land, yes the land down under
Link Posted: 10/17/2004 1:34:25 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/17/2004 1:35:22 AM EST by raf]
Link Posted: 10/17/2004 2:13:06 PM EST
[Last Edit: 10/17/2004 2:26:17 PM EST by Ralph]
Red one
For the sake of a good disscussion,I'll disagree with you on your post made for the Enfield...

Headspace.. sure you can change the head on the bolt to gain headspace, but the Mauser dosen't always need serious machineing to gain head space, most often a simple bolt swap will do. For awhile here in the states, Century arms was selling turk mausers at 5 for $100.. A few guys I've met simply got their headspace gages out and swapped bolts between rifles until they headspaced safely, usually out of this deal you could get 2,3, rifles that were good shooters,and at least one "parts" gun. and if you look at most 98k's used in WWII, most have mismatched bolts, reason being, when they took what little time they had to clean them they didn't worry about bolts, bolts were dropped into buckets of slovent and swished around, they grapped whatever bolt came out and slapped it in, and off they went, and there also many Mausers still safely shooting with the orginial bolt/barrel 60-70 years later...I don't think it's that much of an issue.

Trigger pull,
This, I feel pretty much depends on the specimen on hand... The Enfield I have (No. 4) trigger is, to say the least unimpressive, I've a m38 Swede that has a really good trigger, it's brother the m96 is a little creepy, And the trigger on the Persian 98/29 is'nt too bad either, the trigger on my yugo m48 is lousy..the best of all is the Swiss k-31 now that breaks like a glass rod, and will put many commerical rifles made today to shame, and Red One, if you can get ahold of one down under, do so, you won't be disspointed. you'll like the sights, too

Safteys
True, the Mauser has a 3 position saftey and when left in the 12 o' clock position it can be easily flipped off quickly and when put in that position to start with, it will remind you it's on when you look down the sights.granted it not as easy as the Enfield, but it's not that difficult to operate either.

Simplicty...
It's easy to get a bolt from an Enfield, it's easier to get a bolt from a Mauser, and the Mauser bolt can be competely dissassembled with out the use of tools, Enfield bolts needed a special tool to remove the firing pin, the Mauser dosen't..

Magazines..
Mauser Magazines are probably the most reliable magazine fed rifles in the world, as far as the mag spring breaking, this very rarely happened, All the Mausers I have have the orginial mag springs what do you do when your mag spring breaks in the Enfield?? that's what the other mag is for.. other than 5 more rounds, I really don't see a real advantage here

Sights
Again I'll say that Mauser sights aren't the best but, I can use them fairly well, and I'm 50yrs old and wearing glasses (and have been for 42years) and while we're on the subject.. what about the No. 5 "jungle" carbine? If I'm not mistaken these rifles had a terrible problem staying zeroed the "wandering zero" a problem that was never resolved.. Mauser sights may not be that user friendly for many, but when they are zero'ed they stay put..period.

Smoothness
I agree with you 100% I only have one Enfield and 6 Mausers I can't fairly compare one against the other

Calibers..
Mausers were sold to militarys all over the world in more than one caliber, offhand, I can think of several, 7x57, 6.5x55, 7.65 arg. 8mm, later post war, 7.62 nato, 30-06....The Enfield came in only one caliber, well 2 if you count those Indian 7.62 Enfields, Frankly, those things scare me, I don't think that's a safe rifle, nor do I think the Spanish FR-7's (Small ring Mausers) in 7.62 are either...Anyway, the .303 did it's job in WWII but, it faded into history after the war as well, Most of the calibers that Mausers were chambered in are still around, exception being the 7.65 arg. brass can be found for it but, it's not cheap....

I still think the Mauser is the better of the 2 and let's not forget, the m98 is still being made...the Enfield went by the wayside in the post war era....just as soon as the Brits could get their hands on some FAL's (I'd would'nt mind having one either, come to think of it..)
Link Posted: 10/17/2004 3:25:23 PM EST
Sights on an Enfield suck. Was shooting my Mk1 today, and they are godawful. It is impossible to put your cheek on the stock thanks to how high the sight is.
Link Posted: 10/17/2004 8:05:39 PM EST

Originally Posted By Corbic:
Sights on an Enfield suck. Was shooting my Mk1 today, and they are godawful. It is impossible to put your cheek on the stock thanks to how high the sight is.



Nice generalization.

Enfield sights are varied and all different. If you had a No1mkV, it would have peep sights like the No4 rifles do. I have never had a problem obtaining a good cheek weld on an enfield rifle. Is your head really small?
Link Posted: 10/20/2004 8:54:15 AM EST
I'm rather partial to Enfields myself
Link Posted: 10/20/2004 11:05:22 AM EST
You said what I was wondering.<G>

Dennis Jenkins



Originally Posted By swingset:

Originally Posted By Corbic:
Sights on an Enfield suck. Was shooting my Mk1 today, and they are godawful. It is impossible to put your cheek on the stock thanks to how high the sight is.



Nice generalization.

Enfield sights are varied and all different. If you had a No1mkV, it would have peep sights like the No4 rifles do. I have never had a problem obtaining a good cheek weld on an enfield rifle. Is your head really small?

Link Posted: 10/20/2004 8:29:53 PM EST
AS far as a broken firing pin in an enfield goes you can grab another bolt, check headspace, and install the appropriate bolt head if needed. No problem.

The Enfiled could also be adjust in SIZE for a shooter by installing seperate buttstock assemblies to fit the shooter. It also made getting damages rifles to the field easier as a busted stock did not necceistate replacing the entire thing and making the stock 2 pieces made better use of wood supplies and easier manufacturing.

The micrometer sites on my No4 MkII are nothing short of fabulous.

The action is like runing a hot knife through butter. It is insanely fast to shoot with minimal change in grip. There were stories of the Brits throwing so much lead at the Jerries on Crete that the germans thought they were up against a much larger well equipped force than originally thought.

More time between reloads, that can be done THREE ways to the mausers TWO.

Like was said, I have never seen much variation in Enfield triggers, even the MkII , which is supposed to be superior to the MkI design.

The Mauser action is a great unit and makes wonderful sporting rifles but the Enfield action makes superior battle rifles.

There are 303 "Improved" rounds that give 30-06 performance within safe 303 pressures.

I would own a Mauser for the historical impact but an Enfield for everyday shooting.

S.O.
Link Posted: 10/20/2004 9:31:52 PM EST
Welcome to AR15.com Marc. Great post. I would agree with most everything you said.

I own several varieties of both types. For me though it comes down to ne thing when deciding which one was the better battle rifle of it's time - as issued. That would be the sights. In the wars of their time most battles were fought at longer distances than in more modern times. So good sights, IMO, are more important than anything else. I can hit what I aim at with either one out to 600 yards. But the sights on the Enfields, rear micrometer peep or aperture, make it much easier.

This thread really should have been "Which is better, K98, Enfield, M1917" though as the M1917 really did combine the best of all worlds. If it had been give a windage adjustable rear sight, and the trigger of a K31, it would have been the perfect bolt action battle rifle.
Link Posted: 10/22/2004 7:41:18 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/22/2004 7:41:37 AM EST by green-grizzly]
The Mauser certainly has a better action for sporting rifles, but the Enfield is a slightly better battle rifle IMHO.
Link Posted: 10/22/2004 8:13:59 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/22/2004 8:15:09 AM EST by raf]
Link Posted: 10/22/2004 4:31:29 PM EST

Originally Posted By raf:

Originally Posted By Pthfndr:
Welcome to AR15.com Marc. Great post. I would agree with most everything you said.

I own several varieties of both types. For me though it comes down to ne thing when deciding which one was the better battle rifle of it's time - as issued. That would be the sights. In the wars of their time most battles were fought at longer distances than in more modern times. So good sights, IMO, are more important than anything else. I can hit what I aim at with either one out to 600 yards. But the sights on the Enfields, rear micrometer peep or aperture, make it much easier.

This thread really should have been "Which is better, K98, Enfield, M1917" though as the M1917 really did combine the best of all worlds. If it had been give a windage adjustable rear sight, and the trigger of a K31, it would have been the perfect bolt action battle rifle.




Parker-Hale made a steel, micrometer rear sight for the M1917 a long time ago. With some minor, nearly invisible modifications to the sight and its mount, it slips on and off the M1917 with the original rear sight still mounted. Remove the P-H adjustible iris aperture, and the original battle sight is completely visible and useable. To flip up the M1917 rear sight, simply press in a button on the sight base and slide the P-H sight off. My sight was purchased from a vendor in the U.K., and I consider myself fortunate to have found it.

As for triggers, a number of companies make drop-in aftermarket trigger assemblies that will fit the M1917. Installing same may require removal of some wood from the interior of the stock, however. Not wishing to go that route, a simple trigger job consisting of stoning and polishing various surfaces yielded excellent results.



I have one of the PH windage adjustable rear sights on one of my No4 Mk2. I wonder if it would fit on my 1917?
Link Posted: 10/22/2004 5:35:22 PM EST

Originally Posted By raf:
Fact is, except for CQB, I'd rather have a good M1917 than an AR. YMMV.


IIRC, you would prefer a sharp stick over an AR.
Link Posted: 10/23/2004 7:11:46 AM EST
Link Posted: 10/25/2004 2:36:50 PM EST
someone told me this long ago
germans built the best hunting rifle, mauser
americans built the best target rifle, springfield
english built the best battle rifle, enfield.
FWIW
Top Top