Mauser 98 vs Lee-Enfield

The Mauser bolt action rifles were the very finest sporting and combat rifles ever made. Here is my most recent, a Yugoslavic M48 chambered in the 7,92mm x 57 IS smokeless centralfire cartridge.



I’ve read some consider the Lee-Enfield to be a better rifle.
Nothing could be further from the truth.

The Enfield has a very weak action. The rear mounted bolt lugs are highly prone to catastrophic failure with anything more potent than the underperforming .303 British. Worst, there are few safety features of the Enfield system that would protect the shooter.

The Mauser has a tremendously stronger action and is the basis for ALL modern bolt action systems. I can’t think of one that still uses the woefully inadequate Enfield system.

Also, the Mauser has numerous safety features designed to direct gasses away from the shooter in the event of a case failure. These rifles were designed by a genius who put safety first.

Additionally, the controlled-round feed and massive claw extractor of the Mauser make it the absolute toughest, most reliable bolt action in human history. None of these can be found on the Lee.

The Enfield uses totally obsolete rimmed ammunition. This leaves the action very prone to rim jamming at the worse moment. A larger capacity magazine means NOTHING when the gun is locked up from rim jam.

Much has been made of the supposedly faster and smoother action of the Lee-Enfield being superior to the Mauser. This is Bunkum. With proper technique, the Mauser can be just as fast.

But the rimless Mauser ammunition feeds from stripper clips FAR faster and smoother than the clunky Enfield chargers. Again, a 10 round magazine doesn’t mean much when you’re fighting to reload the rifle quickly under duress.

The Mauser loads so dramatically quicker and smoother, with no chance of rim jam, that the difference in sustained firepower easily swings in the Mauser’s favor.

Then there is accuracy. Bottom line is the front locking lugs and bank vault action of the Mauser is the reason it is STILL TO THIS DAY the #1 choice for precision sniper and target rifles. The Enfield is nowhere near as inherently accurate.

Bottom line up front is the Mauser 98 is and was superior to the awkward and balky Lee-Enfield for all the reasons mentioned.

What are your thoughts? Do you agree or disagree?

The Lee-Enfield action was perfectly adequate for what the British designed it to do- handle the .303 cartridge. I find the SMLE to be faster and smoother to shoot than the average Mauser and many British rifleman used it to devastating effect in WWI (ie- the “mad minute”).

That certainly isn’t to say that the Enfield is a “better gun,” but it def had its merits. That’s my .02 anyway.

For the record my favorite milsurp has always been the Pattern 14/M1917 Enfield which is obviously a Mauser action and the finest sporting rifle ever made is a Weatherby Mark V.

Let me see, how does the old saying go . . . something like this;

If you want a hunting rifle get a Mauser.
If you want a target rifle get a Springfield.
If you want a battlefield rifle get a Lee-Enfield.

Try this with all three and see how it goes. Mad minute - Wikipedia

Well, my Rolling Block was not available with either the .303 or 30/06 calibers (to my knowledge?) so I'll just go with the 7x57 as the superior choice (for me)...

Cheers!

P.S. Nor do I train for a "Mad Minute" (or feel the need for two 20+ back-up magazines for a EDC): just too complacent, I guess?

While I admire the Mauser action and the opening narrative maximizing its attributes while at the same time dismissing the Enfield's, there is a distinct advantage to the Enfield regarding capacity and sights.

Whether one is used to cocking on close or lift, I don't know if there's an advantage but would suppose someone could measure the effort on each. I'm inclined to believe that horizontal compression with that distance is quicker than vertical camming to compress.

Enfield's rear locking lugs may not be as stout as the front locking, but actions blowing up? The Enfield was used by India in 7.62 Winchester so it would seem to be sufficiently strong. Replacing the bolt face is fairly simple when needed.

To each their own I suppose.

I like and enjoy shooting both rifles. I think I should point out, however, that the British Army ordnance folks decided in 1913 that the Enfield and its cartridge were obsolete and needed to be replaced. The P13 prototype replacement led to the British P14 rifle and the US M1917 rifle. WWI stopped the changeover of rifles and the large amount of 303 ammo left over after the war led to a decision to further develop and improve the Enfield.

erikpolcrack said:

I like and enjoy shooting both rifles. I think I should point out, however, that the British Army ordnance folks decided in 1913 that the Enfield and its cartridge were obsolete and needed to be replaced. The P13 prototype replacement led to the British P14 rifle and the US M1917 rifle. WWI stopped the changeover of rifles and the large amount of 303 ammo left over after the war led to a decision to further develop and improve the Enfield.

Click to expand...

An original Pattern 13 in .276 Enfield is one of my grail guns…

I have a bunch of Mausers and Enfields, and I guess I would consider them "almost" equal, with the Mauser on top.

I have a bunch of Mosins, and while I like them they don't compare. Nevertheless, I'll still keep them.

Now compare them all to an 03 Springfield, a US Rifle of 1917 (US Enfield?) or of course a Garand, and now there is no comparison.

After having happily shot 30-06 for many many years, last year I had the opportunity to shoot an AR15. Now 5.56 is my favorite and it seems that 2 more have found their way into the Gun Safe.

But back to the original question, the SMLE is a fine rifle and I'm proud to have several in my collection.

They each have their pros and cons,
The solution is of course to own one of each.

Have the same Yugoslavian Mauser,
When the urge to shoot a Mauser comes up I usually grab a Brazilian crest Mauser in .308 Nato.
Also have two Ishapore .308 Enfields, 1 is a Navy arms jungle carbine conversion.

Must agree the P17 Eddystone is my favorite,
It blends all the best stuff from both rifles with better sights.

Had a Savage made #4 Mk2 in .303 with the brass buttplate and flip up ladder sight but my buddy talked me out of it with the promise of first right of refusal if he ever sold it, he then gave it away to some nephew who has probably traded it for some polymer piece of fluff.

Glenn R. McMannly said:

Then there is accuracy. Bottom line is the front locking lugs and bank vault action of the Mauser is the reason it is STILL TO THIS DAY the #1 choice for precision sniper and target rifles. The Enfield is nowhere near as inherently accurate.

Click to expand...

I'd say most modern sniper and target rifle action have features based off the Mauser design, but very few are true K98 mauser actions. Things that made the 98 a great battle rifle like the play in the bolt are normally missing in modern accurate actions. Other things like the extractor and safety are often different as well.

the enfield can handle 45-70 from what i understand. so can mauser

SO what really needs to be compared is the sights,, the british did scopes and made really nice sniper rifles. That on the market the rifle alone with correct markings hits a typical what 4,-5,000.

Is the Mauser action strong than an Enfield? Probably. But to say this:-

The Enfield has a very weak action. The rear mounted bolt lugs are highly prone to catastrophic failure with anything more potent than the underperforming .303 British. Worst, there are few safety features of the Enfield system that would protect the shooter.

Click to expand...

...that lot just makes me smile. There's a whole lot of people pushing up daisies due to the "underperforming" .303 round. As for safety features, the odd thing about the rear locking lugs on the Enfield is that it dissipates pressure from a case head failure more quickly than a Mauser action as there are no bolt raceways to channel gas rearwards towards the shooter. As for rear lug failure, only the short lug ever breaks, usually locking up the action. The other lug runs the most of the length of the bolt. Good luck breaking that.

Now, there were cases of Enfield No.4s built during WWII having insufficiently hardened receivers where the lugs engage. Story is either something went badly wrong with the hardening process, or some rifles missed it altogether. This appears to have been an issue with late war rifles built at Fazakerley where industrial relations were famously poor. I own a 1944 Faz No.4, and it's headspace is best measured using thick books, and yet the barrel is pristine. Tells me that this is one of the badly made rifles that went bad are very few rounds. In terms of the total number of SMLEs, No4s, and No5s built, the percentage of faulty rifles is low, certainly less than the percentage of suspect 1903s compared to the number built.

My major criticism of most Mausers is the awful sights. That barleycorn front sight always seems to catch the light wrong for me, and the rear notch on some models is damned near invisible. Oh yes, the accuracy Mafia will be along in a minute to tell me that this is best for accuracy, and it may be so. But, in combat when you made need to shoot quickly, most Mauser sights are a liability. The only Mauser with sights I find easy to use are the Swedish rifles with their straighter front site and larger rear notch.

I see the OP is showing a picture of a Yugo M48. I commend him on finding one with a smooth action. Mine certainly isn't, my Yugo 24/47 is much better, and I have other Mausers better than that rifle. Are any of them as slick and light as my SMLEs? Not even close. The only front lug rifles I own that get even near are my very well broken in 1903A3 and a Brazilian 1908/34* as modified from a long rifle at Itajuba.

Back to the subject of ammo. The fullhouse, 7.92x57, 196 gr, German load is punishing on the shooter. It exhibits way more recoil than M2 ball from a 1903A3. Yes, German WWII stuff makes fine sniper ammo, as does the Yugo M75, but for general issue it's overkill IMHO. Perhaps that is why the Czechs and the Romanians made lighter ammo.

* Watch out for the Brazilian 1908/34 designation. It covers three different firearms: Czech built vz33s labeled "1908/34" on the receiver; cut down 1908 long rifles marked "FI 34" on the butt, but usually retaining 1908 on the receiver; 1908 rifles converted to 30-06 stamped "MOD. 08/34 .30".

I agree with the OP on all points.

My favorite bolt action military rifle is a toss up between my #4Mk2 Enfield and my Model 1917 Eddystone. The main reason I prefer them over the various Mauser’s and the 1903 is the sights. I have yet to meet a bolt action military rifle I don’t enjoy shooting, but the Eddystone and #4Mk2 are the most fun for me.

I have both Mausers and Enfields in my modest collection - unmodified surplus. Both are battle proven designs.

In my collection:

If I had to chose an Enfield, I'm picking my 2A 7.62. It's a shooter!

If I had to pick a Mauser it's be my Cz 98/22. That long barrel will squeeze out every bit of velocity and it'll shoot to its sights.

I have to disagree with rimmed ammo being obsolete 7.62x54R is still being used. Mosin stripper clips are just as fast as any other - if you get the technique down.

If I had to take a bolt gun to war, all things being equal, I'd choose a Finn M39 over ANY milsurp Mauser or Enfield - I'd take any Finn Mosin for that matter!

38magnum said:

the enfield can handle 45-70 from what i understand. so can mauser

SO what really needs to be compared is the sights,, the british did scopes and made really nice sniper rifles. That on the market the rifle alone with correct markings hits a typical what 4,-5,000.

Click to expand...

I reload for the 45/70 in handgun (T/C Contender, single shot rifle and Enfield, Marlin) and my vote for stronger action would go to the Mauser. I keep 45/7- handloads in the Enfield to Contender levels.

This 45/70 started out as a Mk III



I don't think the Germans had anything to compare to the Enfield sniper rifle - of which, this isn't one ....





Back when the Irish Enfields were only a few hundred $$$ I had one made up as a sniper model. Probably wouldn't do it again, but it's alot of fun at the range.

Supposedly- according to reports and photos- he carried a Winchester lever Rifle.
But when you see his pic - look at the ammo he’s wearing.
He was a Super Ham for the camera, my guess is his men, who did typically use Mausers, hung ammo on him when he directed.

Many a dead Russian soldier’s family would dispute the OP’s contentions of the Enfield being a weak, inaccurate, unreliable and difficult to load battle rifle. It is an accident of history that the Mujahideen had stocks of old Enfields, but they worked to devastating effectiveness against AK-47’s decades after military Mausers faded away.

The OP's picture shows a very nice Mauser. Thought I'd show my unissued Lee Enfield No4 MKII.