Go Back   CMP Forums > CMP Sales > CMP Bolt Action Rifles
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #91  
Old 06-25-2018, 07:40 AM
SA1941 SA1941 is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: Shreveport, LA
Posts: 559
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by amadeus76 View Post
The 1917 Enfield is really more of a modified Mauser design. A better example would be the Canadian Rangers who until very recently carried No4ís for the same reason.
True. It did borrow from the Mauser in respect to the turn bolt. It was also manufactured by Americans, and used 30-06 instead of British .303. So in a sense, it was sort of a bastardized rifle, copied the Mauser action, made in America, with a British name. Only thing British about it was the name Enfield. But I am sure someone out there would like to argue that point. Either way though, I did not realize that the Canadian Rangers carried the No 4 up until just recently. Thanks for sharing!
Reply With Quote
  #92  
Old 06-25-2018, 08:44 AM
Tam 3 Tam 3 is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 46
Default

A buttstroke with an Enfield never, as I recall, resulted in a rifle broken at the small of the stock.

Regards,

Tam 3
Reply With Quote
  #93  
Old 06-25-2018, 09:10 AM
TSimonetti TSimonetti is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Western Pennsylvania
Posts: 3,749
Default

For a number of reasons, many were/are great historical weapons. I don't think there necessarily has to to be a "greatest".
Reply With Quote
  #94  
Old 06-25-2018, 06:04 PM
ZvenoMan ZvenoMan is online now
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: AL
Posts: 3,656
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TSimonetti View Post
For a number of reasons, many were/are great historical weapons. I don't think there necessarily has to to be a "greatest".
A wise statement.
Of the main rifles listed in this thread (Mauser, Mosin Nagant, 1903/1903A3, Enfield); if you had minutes to go and grabbed a bag that had 1, with enough ammunition, and you couldn't check until later, would it really matter to you?

Yes, you may have a favorite, but was any of these significantly better, or worse than the others for the specific mission for which they were designed (main battle rifle for moderately trained solders in wartime conditions)? Of course we can measure using specific metrics (accuracy with standard ammo, rate of fire, weight, length, sling, recoil, and so on) but how do you rate these items? Is longer better (sight radius) or shorter? In the desert VS Jungle you may have different opinions.
As I said earlier, "best" is, at best, (I meant to do that) only useful for one person with one set of "best features".

JH
Reply With Quote
  #95  
Old 06-25-2018, 06:11 PM
S99VG S99VG is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Northern California
Posts: 2,073
Default

Then there is absolutely nothing wrong with having a personal favorite that is backed with good reasoning. It shows an ability to think. But at the end of the day, don't forget that in this context we all are nothing more than armchair warriors. So its nothing to get all worked up about.
Reply With Quote
  #96  
Old 06-25-2018, 07:32 PM
ZvenoMan ZvenoMan is online now
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: AL
Posts: 3,656
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by S99VG View Post
Then there is absolutely nothing wrong with having a personal favorite that is backed with good reasoning. It shows an ability to think. But at the end of the day, don't forget that in this context we all are nothing more than armchair warriors. So its nothing to get all worked up about.
A personal favorite does not need to be justified by good reasoning
Reply With Quote
  #97  
Old 06-27-2018, 01:16 AM
gamblelane gamblelane is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: California
Posts: 141
Default Best Battle Rifle?

I remember reading in American Heritage Magazine years ago on the "Most overrated things in the 20th century" the 03 Springfield was one of them!
Reply With Quote
  #98  
Old 06-27-2018, 06:47 AM
98Charlie 98Charlie is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: WI
Posts: 396
Default

I have found this thread very interesting, with many different opinions. Now you can hear mine...
The OP asked what is the best "bolt action combat rifle" made?

What makes it the best?

Reliability, ease of use, good sights, adequate "combat" accuracy, weight and length, etc.


Mosin Nagants are way too long and have a pretty clumsy action.


The '03 is a fine target rifle, but the rear sights left much to be desired as a combat sight.


The M1917 is a bit clumsy with the cock on closing, but once you got used to it, it worked just fine. The rifle is just a little too long and heavy, and one flaw in the design is the ejector. Those little leaf springs broke, and later a modified ejector with a small coil spring was designed. The rifle has great combat sights, but lack windage adjustment, but that isn't a big factor for a combat rifle. I don't know of many guys doping the wind and adjusting their sights in combat.


Mauser rifles, made by quite a few manufacturers, and made in the millions, armed the bulk of armies world wide. I would say the only drawback is the V-notch rear sight. I much prefer a rear mounted peep sight.
As far as numbered produced and sold world wide, I must say that the US never intended to sell '03's to foreign governments, and we had a hard enough time just arming our own troops. I recently aquired a M1903 WW2 dummy trainer rifle and I read that over 2 million were made during the war... Pretty sad to think how ill prepared we were.


As for the British Enfields, I can't keep 'em all straight, with all the various No's and Mk's, etc. but they have shown to be outstanding "combat rifles". I think the shorter rifle made during WW2 with the rear peep sight is a fine rifle, and I've always wanted to get a Canadian Short Branch, and a US made Savage but never got around to it. Maybe someday....


Now, if I had to choose one bolt action to carry into combat, my personal choice would be the 03-A3 with a full Type-C stock. That stock handles recoil much better that the old Style-S straight grip stock.


And a big thanks to Rick the Librarian for posting those two pics of a most beautiful '03 !!! They don't get any purdier.


So now that I've spoken my piece and have you all straightened out, we can close this thread...LOL
Just joking, of course. I look forward to reading more comments.

Last edited by 98Charlie; 06-30-2018 at 05:44 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #99  
Old 06-27-2018, 07:47 AM
ceresco ceresco is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 7,404
Default

How about the 1886 Lebel: no flimsy, sharp front sight blade to break off or cut you and it has a magazine cutoff. Good Shooting. ....
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:43 AM.