Mauser 98 vs Lee-Enfield

[mtgianni]

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

The key to the mad minute and the Enfield times was to never let go of the bolt with the thumb and forefinger. The middle finger pulls the trigger as soon as you are on target. The 10 rd stripper clips and magazine make it a better battle rifle for ranges up to 250 yards, IMO.

 

[Jäger1]

As to the 98 coming in second place during WW2 I don't think it can be argued that the 98 has to be credited with the most kills.

Most of the killing in wars is done by indirect fire, bombing, shelling, etc. Not rifle fire. It pains me to point that out as a fact after 30 years spent in the infantry, mostly airborne infantry.

So I don't know how you would even start tabulating "kills" by 98s, Lee Enfields, Mosin-Nagants, etc in WW2.

But 98s being used while standing up and shooting French, Yugoslavian, Belgian, etc citizens as a terrorist means to cower the population is a hard place to go to prove the efficiency of the rifle. Ditto lining up Jews, gypsies, etc taken from villages and concentration camps to neatly murder them at near contact distance so they would helpfully fall into prepared mass graves. You could do that with the worst military rifle ever - or just a bayonet affixed to that rifle, it just wouldn't have the same flavor of Teutonic efficiency.

 

[Jäger1]

The key to the mad minute and the Enfield times was to never let go of the bolt with the thumb and forefinger.

There's been a Lee Enfield in my life since my father picked a surplus P17 out of a barrel in Vic Dick's Hardware in 1960 to be my hunting rifle, to current day with my current Long Branch that I went to great lengths to get for competition in DCRA and CBA cast bullet competition.

Not once have I ever been remotely curious of attempting to replicate the "mad minute" (you can find the actual course of fire within the military pams of the time of the Hynthe School Of Musketry that lead to how the "mad minute" was actually fired). I didn't forsee facing a herd of charging elk when I started hunting with a Lee Enfield, and decades later when I started shooting DCRA, I didn't envision getting anywhere shooting a stage in machine gun like fashion. So I've never really had a personal interest - just amazement that somebody standing can run a bolt rifle of any kind at that speed and get that number of hits on target at that range in one minute while repeatedly reloading that magazine.

The current video you can find online of Aussie competitive shooters moving through courses of fire with their Lee Enfields is impressive in itself as far as speed goes. There's a prone speed shooting event over in Europe with bolt action target rifles that is also impressive.

How sad that nobody at that time of Hythe and WWI, when silent movies were already a thing, that nobody thought to film Sgt Snoxall and his peers while they were shooting that 'mad minute" and turning in the recorded results they did.

 

[sheepdawg]

Most of the killing in wars is done by indirect fire, bombing, shelling, etc. Not rifle fire. It pains me to point that out as a fact after 30 years spent in the infantry, mostly airborne infantry.

So I don't know how you would even start tabulating "kills" by 98s, Lee Enfields, Mosin-Nagants, etc in WW2.

But 98s being used while standing up and shooting French, Yugoslavian, Belgian, etc citizens as a terrorist means to cower the population is a hard place to go to prove the efficiency of the rifle. Ditto lining up Jews, gypsies, etc taken from villages and concentration camps to neatly murder them at near contact distance so they would helpfully fall into prepared mass graves. You could do that with the worst military rifle ever - or just a bayonet affixed to that rifle, it just wouldn't have the same flavor of Teutonic efficiency.

The 98 was used on three fronts. It was in service from September 1, 1939 to May 8, 1945. The number of Russian casualies alone was staggering. Wouldn't common sense alone tell you the 98 was associated with more kills than any other WW2 battle rifle.

 

[mtgianni]

There's been a Lee Enfield in my life since my father picked a surplus P17 out of a barrel in Vic Dick's Hardware in 1960 to be my hunting rifle, to current day with my current Long Branch that I went to great lengths to get for competition in DCRA and CBA cast bullet competition.

Not once have I ever been remotely curious of attempting to replicate the "mad minute" (you can find the actual course of fire within the military pams of the time of the Hynthe School Of Musketry that lead to how the "mad minute" was actually fired). I didn't forsee facing a herd of charging elk when I started hunting with a Lee Enfield, and decades later when I started shooting DCRA, I didn't envision getting anywhere shooting a stage in machine gun like fashion. So I've never really had a personal interest - just amazement that somebody standing can run a bolt rifle of any kind at that speed and get that number of hits on target at that range in one minute while repeatedly reloading that magazine.

The current video you can find online of Aussie competitive shooters moving through courses of fire with their Lee Enfields is impressive in itself as far as speed goes. There's a prone speed shooting event over in Europe with bolt action target rifles that is also impressive.

How sad that nobody at that time of Hythe and WWI, when silent movies were already a thing, that nobody thought to film Sgt Snoxall and his peers while they were shooting that 'mad minute" and turning in the recorded results they did.

A member here that passed about ten years ago ran that drill regularly in the Canadian army. He lived in the NW Territory after the army and was gutting an animal when a black bear came at him. He grabbed his Enfield and shot it. His claim was :"I don't recall how many shots I fired but at one point I noticed I had 5 pieces of brass in the air at once". Bruce could tell a good story and when you checked them out there was no reason to doubt him. He said the bear died 3 feet from him.

 

[Jäger1]

The 98 was used on three fronts. It was in service from September 1, 1939 to May 8, 1945. The number of Russian casualies alone was staggering. Wouldn't common sense alone tell you the 98 was associated with more kills than any other WW2 battle rifle.

The number of German casualties resulting from the surprise attack and ultimately retreat from Russia is even more staggering - you forgot to mention that part, I presume. I don't mind you wanting to limit the comparison between the two to just WWII service, rather than from beginning to end of military service. I'll just point out the flaws in your chosen five years of comparison.

In WWII, Russia inflicted the majority of Germany's combat deaths - not the Allies on the other fronts.

Now with that in mind, if we're now going to invoke common sense, how do you propose differentiating between Russian combat deaths resulting from rifle fire and those Soviet deaths inflicted by Germany's air superiority, and initial armor and artillery superiority?

Never mind the lopsided figures due to beginning with a surprise attack and abysmal Soviet military leadership because Stalin had just slaughtered a good part of the officer corps. Seasoned and battle hardened troops and leadership attacking a surprised military in a state of chaos with little left in the way of leadership. Doing that helps rack up the combat deaths, regardless of the rifles on each side!

And one more variable: troops in defensive positions provide far more effective rifle fire than troops firing on those defenses in an attack. Germany, after their assault on Russia failed, was mostly fighting from the defense for the remainder of of the war and their battles with Russia.

How about removing the question of which rifle each side issued their infantry; just consider if one side's forces were more combat effective in battle where leadership skills and training are concerned?

After all, Germany was never as contemptuous about willingly throwing away the lives of their ground troops as Stalin was. That contempt made it easy for German forces to slaughter enormous numbers of Soviet infantry in those suicidal battles.

No matter what quality of rifle they were using along with machine guns, mortars and other direct fire weapons.

The comparison you are attempting to make, even as limited as you want to make it, is far, far too simplistic to draw any conclusions from

Common sense should now begin to kick in about now and realize that comparisons in this manner ignore pretty much every other relevant factor in those battles in WWII.

 

[Jäger1]

He lived in the NW Territory after the army and was gutting an animal when a black bear came at him. He grabbed his Enfield and shot it. His claim was :"I don't recall how many shots I fired but at one point I noticed I had 5 pieces of brass in the air at once".

That is a good story.

I have to confess that if I had either flavor of bear coming at me and I was shooting at it to defend myself, I would not be as aware of all my surroundings rather than just the bear, that I could count how many empty shell casings were in the air while I was aiming, operating the bolt, and squeezing the trigger. I'd be 100% focused on the sights and the bear, not what was up in the air.

I'm not aware of any Canadian military pam, including Shoot To Live in 1945 expressly written around the No. 4 rifle, that has a range course range of fire detailed that replicates the documented British stage that is written and talked about as "the mad minute". Nor is there one in current Canadian range practices and PWTs that replicates a "mad minute" scenario with either the C7 family of individual weapons or the C1 FN FAL rifles that preceded the SARP and the C7 rifle.

Individual regiments often make things up as they go for range practices, of course. I would not be surprised to hear of the Patricia's in Western Canada or the RCR's in the east having a battalion commander at some point during the service of the No. 4 rifle who told his SAIs and RSOs to write up range instructions to include an additional "mad minute" course.

Even if just to expend all remaining rounds at the firing point, eliminating the necessity, time and aggravation of returning unexpended ammunition to the bin rats back at the base.

I have done that as a SAI/RSO as recently as with the C7A2 rifles. The only difference being I did so in a way that I thought had better training benefit to the troops - and since the Cold War and the adoption of the C1 FN FAL, wildly throwing rounds down range as fast as possible to expend remaining ammunition at a range is not the best training you can provide as an SAI/RSO.

 

[sheepdawg]

The number of German casualties resulting from the surprise attack and ultimately retreat from Russia is even more staggering - you forgot to mention that part, I presume. I don't mind you wanting to limit the comparison between the two to just WWII service, rather than from beginning to end of military service. I'll just point out the flaws in your chosen five years of comparison.

In WWII, Russia inflicted the majority of Germany's combat deaths - not the Allies on the other fronts.

Now with that in mind, if we're now going to invoke common sense, how do you propose differentiating between Russian combat deaths resulting from rifle fire and those Soviet deaths inflicted by Germany's air superiority, and initial armor and artillery superiority?

Never mind the lopsided figures due to beginning with a surprise attack and abysmal Soviet military leadership because Stalin had just slaughtered a good part of the officer corps. Seasoned and battle hardened troops and leadership attacking a surprised military in a state of chaos with little left in the way of leadership. Doing that helps rack up the combat deaths, regardless of the rifles on each side!

And one more variable: troops in defensive positions provide far more effective rifle fire than troops firing on those defenses in an attack. Germany, after their assault on Russia failed, was mostly fighting from the defense for the remainder of of the war and their battles with Russia.

How about removing the question of which rifle each side issued their infantry; just consider if one side's forces were more combat effective in battle where leadership skills and training are concerned?

After all, Germany was never as contemptuous about willingly throwing away the lives of their ground troops as Stalin was. That contempt made it easy for German forces to slaughter enormous numbers of Soviet infantry in those suicidal battles.

No matter what quality of rifle they were using along with machine guns, mortars and other direct fire weapons.

The comparison you are attempting to make, even as limited as you want to make it, is far, far too simplistic to draw any conclusions from

Common sense should now begin to kick in about now and realize that comparisons in this manner ignore pretty much every other relevant factor in those battles in WWII.

I'll stand by my comment. Feel free to again reply with another 10,000 words challenging it.

 

[Jäger1]

I'll stand by my comment. Feel free to again reply with another 10,000 words challenging it.

I'll stand my detailed explanation of why your narrowly focused five year simplistic comparison that excludes every other possible variable is a completely unsubstantiated and vague claim.

Feel free to continue refusing to supply any kind of meaningful, fact based defense of your claim. Just hope everyone will agree with you that most of the casualties in war are from rifle fire as the root cause of your claim, with no other weapons or variables involved.

After all, if my detailed listings of the shortcomings and holes in your claim haven't brought common sense to your simplistic assertion by now, adding more won't change a thing.

 

[sheepdawg]

I'll stand my detailed explanation of why your narrowly focused five year simplistic comparison that excludes every other possible variable is a completely unsubstantiated and vague claim.

Feel free to continue refusing to supply any kind of meaningful, fact based defense of your claim. Just hope everyone will agree with you that most of the casualties in war are from rifle fire as the root cause of your claim, with no other weapons or variables involved.

After all, if my detailed listings of the shortcomings and holes in your claim haven't brought common sense to your simplistic assertion by now, adding more won't change a thing.

How was your room last night?

 

[bph9]

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?

quote-------------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.-------quote

You are both right and very wrong. If we are speaking of the No. 4 MK 1 rifles you are very wrong as they were outstandingly accurate. The Mauser required an expensively machined stepped barrel and was laboriously hand fitted to the stock channel while the No. 4 rifle had a thicker barrel and was mostly floated. The barrel only touched a couple of wood cross ridges in the stock channel and there were two pit channels milled out under the barrel in the forearm to circulate air keeping the barrel cooler than the tightly fitted Mauser's barrel that contacted the stock from breech to muzzle.

Firepower: That is the difference between life and death. Anyone who had to load a rifle under stress with someone shooting at you would opt any day for a 10 shot rifle over a 5 shot one.

Reliability: The No. 4 rifle hands down was the more reliable in muddy and dusty conditions and easily cleared. Try and clear mud out of a Mauser rifle some time that has gotten mud or debri or semi-burnt powder granules on the locking lugs. Good luck with that. A jammed up rifle is the best form of suicide I know under combat conditions.

Strength: The Enfield was plenty strong enough for the cartridge it was chambered for. End of debate on that one.

Rim Lock: If the stripper clips are properly loaded you can forget worrying about rim lock. I personally have never experienced it since I bought my first Enfield back in the 1960's so I am not holding my breath for a future rim lock.

Speed of operation: You are very wrong on this one. The Enfield is a cock on closing action and the bolt literally flies back in your face when operation it while the Mauser has the troublesome bolt guide milled on the bolt which makes the action stiff and binding when operating it even when its clean. I have often had to grease my Mauser Bolts to get them to operate smoothly and rapidly when I shot NRA National Match courses with them. I preferred the M70 Winchesters both old pre-64 and even new model because they had no troublesome bolt guide on the bolt.

Sights: Mauser rifles had such narrow sights even a 20 year old with perfect eyesight often had a devil of a time using them even in sunlight. Target shooters never use "V" notch sights when they can use peep sights as the ability to shoot more accurately with peep sights has been known for well over 100 years.

Finally: There is an old adage and that is "The Mauser made the better sporting rifle while the Enfield was the superior combat rifle". No one who experienced both types of use would argue that point, no one.

 

[bph9]

quote------------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.--quote

Come on surely you jest. The Weatherby MK V was a big heavy action and it was a push feed. It's the last type of action anyone would use in hunting dangerous game as it's all too easy to short stroke the bolt and jam the gun up to the point that I once needed a large machinists screwdriver to pry out two twisted together "live rounds" out of the action. That was the last time I ever bought a push feed action for serious hunting.

Weatherby's use a lot of free bore to get the highest of velocities which is a detrimite for precision accuracy although in all honesty shooting a big game animals at reasonable ranges this is not a problem, just do not expect the average Weatherby MK 5 to be a tack driver compared to rifles that do not use freebore.

Weatherby's selling point, at least in the old days, was its high velocity cartridges which again were not needed for big game hunting. Even the ubiquitous archaic 6.5 mm Mannlicher or 7x57 Mauser will shoot right through an elephant. Even today, most big game is shot under 200 yards and the majority under 100 yards.

Weatherby rifles, at least in the old days, were some of the most expensive of rifles and their barrel life was short being chambered for their fire breathing cartridges which kicked like "H" which most people could not shoot very accurately as compared to standard cartridges like the 3006 class that had much milder recoil and much longer barrel life. It's not unusual to get 8,000 rounds out of a 3006 compared to only 2,000 rounds out of a Maganum and even only 800 rounds out of the "latest and greatest" super magnum cartridges. Replacing barrels as fast as you change your socks is best left to millionaire's not working class people.

Jack O'Connor "the Dean of American Gun Writers" tried the magnum cartridges like the 7mm Remington and came to the conclusion that the small gain in velocity had more disadvantages than advantages and he dropped the 7mm Mag (except in a few isolated cases) and went back to the .270 for the majority of his hunting. Old Jack seldom if ever steered me wrong on hunting rifles compared to that buffoon Emer Keith, (who beat the "big bore drums for years) and was the Dean of American Gun Writer Bull Crappers but that is another long, long story.

 

[Valmet]

I’ve had lots of luck with my Mark Vs then- the only one I have left is a 1961 vintage that has a 24” Douglas bbl on it that is a laser (.270 Wby Mag). Barrel is not free bored. Admittedly I don’t hunt nearly as much as I used to and when I hunted Africa it was with a Savage 110.

Regarding bbl life- will a .270 Win or .30-06 outlive any Weatherby? Absolutely. But I don’t ever see myself needing to rebarrel a rifle at this point, high pressure mag or otherwise. And just because a 7x57 may shoot thru an elephant doesn’t mean I’m going to go around chasing elephant with one

 

[Jäger1]

How was your room last night?

You trolling for tips working as a bell hop at that Holiday Inn isn't going to work with me. Sounds like as good a place as any to hang around making up history and theories to support them, however.

 

[sheepdawg]

You trolling for tips working as a bell hop at that Holiday Inn isn't going to work with me. Sounds like as good a place as any to hang around making up history and theories to support them, however.

Ha ha, my father drew up most of Holiday Inn's first trademarks. Not the "Great Sign." Did you know your father?

 

[Jäger1]

Ha ha, my father drew up most of Holiday Inn's first trademarks. Not the "Great Sign." Did you know your father?

Indeed I do know my father. For your part, at least you can be relieved that as I served in the Army, I'm not the nameless one of the sailors who lined up at your mother's door on shore leave who should now be calling you "son".

There is that... I hope that works as well for you as it does for me.