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.

__________________
Some Might Say.

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.

__________________
- Change it back -

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

__________________
USMC 69-93 Combat Pistol Inst.

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?

__________________
Sit Reloader Sentiret

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.

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

__________________
Some Might Say.

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.

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.

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

...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".

__________________
Release the Kraken

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.

__________________
Wheel guns are real guns.

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!

__________________
Thread Killer.

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

IMG_0810 (1).jpg

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

IMG_0807.jpg

IMG_0809 (1).jpg

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.

Attached Images

IMG_8586.jpg (51.7 KB, 35 views)

__________________
NRA LIFE MEMBER

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.

Attached Images

Lee-Enfield & Bayonet (2).jpg (176.7 KB, 247 views)

__________________
- Change it back -

My favorite Mauser action battle rifle is a Spanish FR-8 in 7.62x51. I also have a few Enfields as well. A couple No1 MKIII's, a Savage No4, a No5 MK1 and a No2 MKIV in .22

Nothing beats the M1 Garand for me. Just a all around superb battle rifle.

I'd have to go with a Kar98k.

__________________
No baby we aint

"Nothing beats the M1 Garand for me. Just a all around superb battle rifle."

You got that right!

__________________
Only difference Fool/Mule-ears

Well, the Brits ended up on the winning side, both times. That said, I would agree that, overall, the Mauser is the better rifle.

I still own two 1937 Sauer & Sohn K98ks. There isn't a military bolt rifle on the planet that throws better than a matched bolt on a pre war Mauser.

Had a number 5 Jungle Carbine. My shoulder never forgave me for that one.

__________________
LIVE FROM THE DAWGHOUSE

Back in the 60's we had access to cheap Mausers and Enfield's as surplus. You could mail order for either in VG condition for <20 Bucks.

My dad was a combat vet who went through Italy, France and Germany with the 3rd ID. In the 60's our family didn't have a lot of disposable cash so he decided to order a surplus bolt rifle to hunt deer with. He had a very high opinion of the Enfield because of the sights. He was used to the aperture sights on the Enfield having used those in combat. He bought an Enfield and made a sporter out of it for a deer rifle. 200 yds was a pretty easy shot for him with that rifle even though many seem to dislike the 303 cartridge. 7x57, 303 and 30-06 was the most popular rifle cartridges available in surplus rifles in the 60's.

I think it came down to the sights, not the cartridge, at least for him. So the Enfield can be a first rate sporter also.

__________________
That's just somebody talkin.

While Dorotea Arranga was an interesting individual he was also able to change his mind often. As you said "Super Ham" for Pancho Villa, may even be an understatement.

__________________
Front sight and squeeze

They used Mausers because Germany was funding their revolution and supplied them with rifles and ammo.

Remember that Pershing left MX to gear up for WW1 in Feb. 1917.

__________________
That's just somebody talkin.

I took down my first deer in 1980 with a military version of the KAR 98. It was a little heavy but the action was smooth. My best rifle!

Bill

I'm down to three guns in 303 British; a No4, a No5, and a 1903 Martini "Citadel" with Medford rifling. Medford rifling is for Black Powder and Copper jacketed Bullets. The original loading was a 200-208 grain jacketed RN bullet over 40ish grains of Black Powder My rifle has a tight enough bore to use.308" dia., 200 gr Hornady RN wit fair accuracy and .314" dia. Hornady Spitzer with excellent accuracy to 200 yards (the B.C. is so different, after 200 the sights don't match the flatter shooting ammo!)

The only 98 Mauser I have left is a Toledo, Spain model. Shoots Yugo ammo fantastic!

The only 1903 Springfield I have left is a National Ordinance 03A3 post war parts gun on sub-parr receivers.

Of those 5 guns for Targets out to 200, with iron sights, I'll take the Martini, hands down. For a battle rifle, I consider the No4 and the k98 to be a draw and the choice would be ammo availability! (Those being equal, I'll take the No4- there are several throughout the family!)

If it gets down to a guerrilla warfare situation, I'll take an SKS over an AR if ammo isn't a problem. Simplicity at its finest!

Ivan

If a fellow happens to be left-handed, none of these bolt guns work well. I can run an M1 a whole lot better than any of them.
If I was right-handed I think I'd pick the 03-A3. I like those sights the best.

Speaking of Lefties- easy for me, I am one.
A while back met a super interesting dude, Wayne Bailey.
He and his wife were Indian Art Dealers.
In his younger days, Wayne was hired in the Border Patrol, discharged because of poor Spanish ability. Later he spoke excellent Spanish, traveled all over Mexico and talked to everyone.
Wayne made multiple trips into the Sierra Madre, buying fetishes from the Tarahumara Indians.
He would drive to a nearby Mexican Ranch and they would pack him into Copper Canyon.
Wayne, a lefty, would buy a Straight Bolt Mauser and take it to Mexico. He shot Lefthanded and went over the top to reach the straight bolt.
Often he would take deer and gift it to his Indian hosts.
But he never brought the Mauser back across the border. He would sell it or just gift it to the folks at the host ranch.
It widely known that those Mexican Folks love those Mausers.
And yes, this is the guy who told me about the Walker Colt in Cuba, NM.
‘We got to go up there and get that Walker.’

__________________
NRA LIFE MEMBER

There's a Walker in Cuba?
I pass through there quite often...

Wayne was absolutely positive there is/was a Walker Colt in Cuba, NM.
I was never presented with convincing evidence.

__________________
NRA LIFE MEMBER

If you know the story of Poncho Villas raid on the town of Columbus NM there's some interesting history there about the use of 1903 Springfield rifles. Seems the US troops were killing Ponchos men at 800 yds when they retreated. That's just a click under half a mile. Says something about the training and the rifle.

__________________
That's just somebody talkin.

Back to the OP, it's a Mauser K-98 for me as I have had many of both and there's no comparison for fit and quality, not to mention noticed recoil is worse with the Enfield's.

Granted the opportunity is limited, but as a "right handed left eye dominant" I shoot off the left shoulder. Off a bench or anything somewhat solid the Enfield is very fast to operate.

Keep the rifle on the left shoulder and on target, right hand on the bolt handle. The cock on closing helps a lot too.

I would take an AR-15 hands down for serious use.

I have a few of those as well. Very utilitarian, boring guns. But for serious use, boring is good. I just like bigger, heavier bullets. Still have everything I need to put together a 'Tanker' Garand, which would suit me just fine. Plus there is the black tip .30-06 the CMP was selling a while back.

Please don’t destroy a Garand to make a “Tanker”. They aren’t exactly making any new M1s.

This one may make your eyes bleed. Shuff's Mini-G built on a June 1938 4-digit Gas Trap receiver, all early parts and a slant-cut WRA op-rod.

Before I get roasted, the only irreversibly altered parts were the barrel, stock ferrule and the op-rod. The barrel is a 1952 SA that had a wrecked muzzle and the front half of the op-rod tube was badly pitted. Way beyond repair. Ferrules are a dime a dozen.

Attached Images

20250217_172100.jpg (64.5 KB, 13 views)

They're not exactly rare either.

__________________
- Change it back -

Read the article, not really a viable weapon in the eyes of the military. "Tanker's) were scrapped by the military. Only civilian versions out there by Gun dealers to sell to the gullible public.

'Tanker Garands:' The Real Story | An Official Journal Of The NRA

__________________
USMC 69-93 Combat Pistol Inst.

7.62x54R is the oldest serving military cartridge. The PKM and the tank version, PKT Russian machineguns are chambered for it. Belt fed guns have no problems with rimmed cartridges. Rims are only a hassle in box magazines. The belts used with the Russian guns pull the cartridge out to the rear, even in open bolt guns like the PK. One reason for that is all the Russian belt fed guns use the same belt as the 1910 Maxim did.

Most western open bolt guns use a push thru type link, MG42, MAG, M60 et al. Feeding is a lot more finicky.

Those who remember the M85 machinegun will recall it used the M15 push-thru style link unlike the more common M2 machinegun with the M9 pull out style links.

Two things about the supposedly inadequate .303. Mk VII ball had a light tip filler in the 174 grain spitzer bullet. It was aluminum, but wood and paper were also used. As a result, the bullet tumbled quickly when it hit. It was a very good wounding bullet. Impressive enough the German complained it violated the Hague conventions during WW1.

The Brits also used the Vickers to shoot barrages at 2800-3000 yards. The US tried to do the same with the M1917 Browning and the superior .30-06, with disappointing results. Infantry complained to Ordnance branch rounds were falling short. Ordnance blamed the Infantry. Got so bad after the war, a Captain Hatcher, was detailed to prove the Infantry wrong. He left behind a Notebook if you want to know the rest. The Brits were using 174 grain bullets, the Swiss 175, and after shooting up the sand in Miami, we eventually got M1 ball, 173 grain boatail in 1925. only to go back to 150 grain bullets to keep from bending M1 op rods.

The only real drawback I see with the Enfield is the miserable front sight the early models had.
I am not aware of a chronic problem with Enfield actions letting go or jamming.
The design was strong and durable enough for the cartridge they were designed for.
Yes, the Mauser was a more refined design, but for a down and dirty battle rifle that will continue to function in extreme muddy and sandy environments, the Enfield was among the best. That’s why the chambers were typically slightly oversized so they would still function with dirty and. corroded ammunition.

I have a Tanker 'kit', a couple Garand parts kits, and a couple stripped Garand receivers that I picked up from the CMP many years ago. Also have a CMP barreled receiver with headspaced bolt that will be used to assemble another Garand.

One of those receivers is a 5-digit from the gas trap era. No way I can justify the money to build a 'gas trap' even with repro parts so I will probably sell it at some point.

I have given thought to selling the Tanker kit I have and having him make me a Mini-G from one of my parts kits and a muzzle worn extra barrel. I have one of the Smith Enterprises Garand muzzle brakes that is part of the gas system. It really smooths out the recoil but everyone at the range will likely curse me.

I agree completely with the OP.
This is not to say that any of the discussed rifles are not collectible, shootable, and interesting.
However, most of the “pro-Enfield” arguments are based on silly conjecture.
How many people here are really, honestly, serious when they talk about going into battle with one of these rifles?
Sorry, that’s just fantasy. Hopefully, we’re all just having fun, right?

Maybe, we should be discussing the comparison based on criteria that is actually relevant to contemporary use, that is sporting/range/target application?

Study the actions on their merits of mechanical accuracy, metallurgy, inherent safety (including escaped gas and cartridge case rupture, etc.) and the Mauser comes out on top.
As for the Springfield, that was just an attempt to bypass the Mauser patent. On that point it failed, as court ordered royalties attest.
Every design change made from the Mauser 98 was for the worse.

Going back to the Lee-Enfield, it’s few attributes have nothing to do with civilian use.
Too bad, because I think Elwood Epps’ conversions and wildcats based on the 303 British are pretty cool!!

Read Jack O’Connor’s “The Rifle Book”, first published in 1949.
Specifically, read the chapter “Bolt Actions Analyzed”.
Point by point, he was the only guy who objectively figured it out back when these rifles were being used for contemporary applications.
Having his thumb broken by an accidental discharge only strengthened his convictions.
Jack could see these actions from one perspective, and at the same time, use his analytical criteria to see forward to actions such as the Winchester 70, Remington 30, and with his 2nd edition, the Remington 721/722/700 action and the Savage 110.

But, ultimately, none of this matters.
We all enjoy comfy non-combat lives, and are free to shoot any old (or new) rifle we like.

So, who’s gonna make a case for the Dreyse needle fire?

Old saying: The Americans in WW1 had the best target rifle (Springfield '03); the Germans had the best hunting rifle (Mauser 98); the Brits had the best battle rifle (SMLE).

__________________
Pisgah

The Lee is hands down a better battle rifle than the 98 Mauser, simply because it holds twice as many bullets. It has proved itself over the very fine 98 Mauser in 2 world wars.

Scrolling down this whole thread reminds me so much of the "old days" which for me were pre getting drafted in 1966, pumping gas during the day, going to school at nights, hunting when I wanted and taking my 57 Chevy to the drags in Niagara Falls, New York on Friday night. This was a long haul (about 95 miles) and no trailers, if you blew a tranny or worse you walked (or thumbed) home. Anyway....the Friday night drags were ordinary public guys, just like me and my buddies, no sponsors, no trick stuff, the only advantage at all was if you could afford a pair of cheater slicks.

Friday nights at Niagara were on the radio and it was always a loud advertisement screaming "FRIDAY AT NIAGARA..****N WHAT YOU BRUNG".

This thread seems the same way...all posters A: have an opinion, and B: they collect, accumulate, shoot what they like aka "Run what you brung"

My favorites: no particular order, no particular reason, maybe not even any advantage of one over another....I just like em all, and they ALL have merit.

Attached Images

	57 Chevy.jpg (122.7 KB, 12 views)
	303 British -1.jpg (222.2 KB, 18 views)
	1903A3-1.jpg (213.6 KB, 16 views)
	AR 15 right side.jpg (24.6 KB, 17 views)
	M1 Garand -1.jpg (221.5 KB, 18 views)

__________________
Charlie B
SWCA#3083, SWHF#570