If you had to quickly arm and train a group of civvies with almost no shooting experience and limited funds, would you buy 8mm Mausers or Russian bolts?

yeah i agree with Beer Slayer, but if i had time train the civies i would Go with the Mosin Nagants because with enough practice you can work the action faster than the mauser action.

I would go with the Mauser action as well.
My .02 [:)]

Tyler

I gotta go german. There is no rifle as battle proven as the mauser. It has to be the most imitated, and duplicated rifle in history.

German all the way, if for no other reason the Mosin saftey is a work of satan[uzi]

I think i'd go with the Mausers,I have 3 Mosins,6 Mausers, myself, nothing wrong with them,but I feel the Mauser would be easier to learn,Mauser bolts are much easier to field strip than a mosin bolt, which is somewhat complex,and for those who haven't done it too often can be frustrating to reassemble, engaging the saftey is another issue,Mauser safteys can be easily engaged,even with gloves on, Mosin safteys, on the other hand, are difficult to say the least,almost impossible with gloves on (I've often wondered how many russians were shot in the ass by their "comrades" behind them who could'nt get the saftey on) Both rifles are quite durable,reasonably accurate, and currently, reasonably priced,(often very cheap)All in all, when compairing the two side by side,the Mauser is the clear winner.

I know this is about the Mosin vs. Mauser, but I have to challenge Mr. Guncrazy223 when he said the Mauser there is no rifle as battle proven as the Mauser; I have to say the Enfield is ahead of the pack in that particular category (and many others).  No disrespect intended, just a slight challenge. :)

For the issua at hand; I would have to say the Turkish Mauser idea has my approval.

Targets? Buy a Springfield
Hunting? Buy a Mauser
Combat? Buy an Enfield

Sorry, but the Mauser has much more battle experience than the Enfield, with many more nations. Since the Mauser hardly proved deficient in all of its combat use, I find it difficult to believe that a rifle with [i]significantly less[/i] battle experience is somehow more battle proven.

The Lee-Enfield was in fact an improved version of the Lee-Metford, based upon the British experience against the Boer Mausers. It is also interesting that the Brits were going to go to a Mauser action (the Pattern-14 Enfield), but didn't because of WW1.

The Mauser is certainly the stronger, and more accurate, action. The Mauser design is much safer when it comes to cartridges that exceed the pressure levels.

It is claimed that the Lee-Enfield is more reliable in mud, etc., but I'm skeptical of that. The Lee-Enfiled is a bit faster to cycle, mostly due to the location of the bolt handle (not just due to a shorter bolt throw--if that was the case short action Mausers would be faster). And the Lee-Enfield has a higher magazine capacity, and the advantage of a removable magazine.

The K98k all the way. 14 million made during WWII. Our model 1903 rifle was modeled after "The Backbone of the Wermarcht".

Splurge!
Spend $100 ea. on the .308 Enfields, ammo will be newer and more available.

No. 4 MkI Enfields.  MUCH faster and easier to work than the Mauser action IMHO, 10 round magazines, and peep sights instead of that damned v-notch pain in the ass.  If you get the nice machined ladder sight, it's even better.  Plus, the .303 round isn't as hot as the 7.92JS Mauser, so the recoil is less.

Fast action, good sights, reasonable capacity, lower recoil.  What more could you want in a battle rifle?  (Besides lower weight.)

Since we are throwing Enfields into the mix, then hell give them the No.4 Mk1's. The best Enfield.