Is the Lee Enfield the BEST bolt action rifle ever made?

The action isn't as strong as others but it is faster to operate.

>>33922405
it depends, do you want to kill 5 or 10 men

>>33922405
Ask yourself what style action do modern guns use and you will have your answer.

>>33922405


yes


/thread

>>33922405
Nope. It's a pretty good rifle but not the best.

File: USA-Rifle-M1-Garand.jpg (847KB, 2000x1333px) Image search: [Google]

847KB, 2000x1333px

>>33922405
no

>>33922453
let me guess, its your lever nugget.

>>33922448
>m-muh superior mauser action
Typical nazi cuck. Superior anglo technology wins and it's not even close.
>Smoother bolt
>Quicker bolt
>More accurate
>Better sights
>More aesthetic rifle than muh mauser
The only thing you have is that the action "isn't as strong" but that doesn't matter if you're not going on an extended campaign for months or years on end with no potential to get repairs/replacement parts. kys cuck

>>33922405
not best ever made, but probably the best ever implemented

it's not the best bolt action rifle ever made

it is however, the best military bolt action rifle ever made and would be my first choice going into WW1&2

>>33922469
That's not a bolt action you mong

>>33922448
>muh perfect deer hunting action
you hunt men with an Enfield

>>33922469
are you actually disabled?

>>33922487
Really> going for months without spares
Doesn't mater. It was more than strong enough for 303 and there are thousands of actions still going strong close to 100 years old. Anon points out all the other excellent features

File: Mas 36 (1).jpg (964KB, 2419x1814px) Image search: [Google]

964KB, 2419x1814px

>>33922475
No, firstly because it's not a bolt action. Secondly because even though it's pretty great, it's not better than the top tier bolt actions of the day. The 1903a3, the No4mk1, the Type 99, the Mas 36 all surpass it.

And the Mas 36 surpasses them all.

>>33922487
Pretty much no WW2-era or earlier service action style is WIDELY used in modern production boltguns. With damn few exceptions everybody went to a tubular action. Because they're easily mass-produced on simple machinery and lend themselves to accuracy both with aftermarket work and production due to fewer stacked tolerances.

Yes, a few companies produce a comparatively small number of Mauser-based actions, because controlled round feed has a legitimate but niche use (dangerous game) and because they have a cult following from several million people that will be dead within 20 years.

>>33922519
It's not just deer that get hunted by Mauser actions, friend. Almost every precision rifle made today is based off the Mauser.

>>33922595

just because you like those guns doesn't mean they're better.

try again later when your fan boner has settled down

a type 99 better than an enfield.. jesus Christ..

>>33922405

>not the m1886 lebel

you're all plebs

>>33922653
>precision rifle
But not as a battle rifle eh?

>>33922469
herp derp

>>33922663
>a type 99 better than an enfield
Except it is. I also listed a fucking Enfield in my post though. A No4Mk1. Try reading a book, or better yet, buying the rifles and using them.

>>33922663

I'd agree that the type 99 is better than an enfield in a fair amount of categories. same with the enfield compared to the type 99. both guns were designed for different shit. the only similarity is the fact that they are bolt actions.

>>33922688
I own a no 4 mk 1* longbranch..

>>33922595
>1903a3
Get the fuck out and stay go, and take your shitty mauser clone with you. The 03A3 saw considerably less action than any US rifle, and the earlier 03's saw less action than the M1917.
1903's are the most overrated trash on the planet and the only reason they get any attention at all is because of hurr durr marines and a few historically inaccurate movies

>>33922723
> $1500

mfw D:

>>33922723
>The 03A3 saw considerably less action than any US rifle, and the earlier 03's saw less action than the M1917.
And that affects their performance how exactly?

>>33922739
They aren't even worth half of that. They are rifles with scant history and in several ways inferior to the rifles that they replaced.
In both major wars they were supplanted/replaced in effect or actuality by superior or easier to produce weapons - the M1917 and later the M1 Garand, and the fact that you can get both of said rifles cheaper than a Springfield is erroneous because odds are much higher that a M1917 or Garand has seen combat, or even been issued - a ton of M1903A3's were never even issued.

>>33922763
What performance? The M1903A3 is anything but exceptional

>>33922763
Define performance, because several rifles of the era will run circles around the Springfield. At the end of the day the Springfield is just a 30.06 Mauser

>>33922739
>MFW springfields are so overvalued currently that M1917's above service grade can be had for $600 or less.
>YFW despite over 900k more M1917's being made, they were exported heavily and saw combat all over the world, and at this point in time the reality is there are probably more original springfields than M1917's.

>>33922822
Sure are. I listed two. The M1917 is another. Doesn't make the 1903a3 bad.
>>33922796
Yes, a strong reliable rifle with great sights, good ergonomics and weight, and a high level of production quality is clearly a shitty fucking rifle indeed.

I don't even like 03s. I'm bored to tears every time I shoot one. But I can acknowledge their strengths.

>>33922595
>t.alex c

>>33922872
Who do you think Alex is parroting? He certainly isn't capable of forming his own independent ideas.

>>33922856
The 03A3 isn't bad, it's just mediocre. The sights aren't great either, they are a much needed improvement over the earlier ladder target sights in terms of combat use and durability, but everyone in their right mind prefers the Garand sighting system. I'll even go out on a limb and say the No.4 enfields had superior sights to the 03A3.
>good ergonomics and weight, and a high level of production quality is clearly a shitty fucking rifle indee
Lest we remind you of cracked stock issues, and high level of production quality is subjective relative, some last ditch mausers have nicer park.
And I'm not even touching the problems with early springfields (including the socket bayonet 30-03 version).

The Springfield was a mistake, and its combat record is pitiful

>>33922895
do you think mausers are VENERABLE?
E
N
E
R
A
B
L
E?

>>33922856
Both the Krah-Jorgensen and the M1917 are superior rifles to the springfield.
The krag simply needed a reboot with a charger guide and rechambering to a hotter round (like it got with euro users), and the M1917 needed a post war variant with windage adjustments and a lighter stock.
There is no legitimate reason the Springfield stayed in service after WW2 other than to waste taxpayer money on a rifle that was more expensive to produce and less effective than the rifle that carried the US in WW1

File: 1493690402916.jpg (38KB, 800x792px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 800x792px

>>33922469
really anon?

File: tumblr_npg0k3mU9g1rwjpnyo1_1280.jpg (27KB, 1223x241px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 1223x241px

>>33922405
You'll cowards don't know what you're talking about

>>33922903
Since the 03A3 didn't see much action, remind me again how well 1903A1 equipped Marines and Soldiers, with Thompsons, BAR's and M1917's/M1919's, did against the Japanese in the early days of WW2? Because it seems to me like shitty little 6.5mm Arisaka's ruled the rifle game in those early days of the Pacific war.

>>33923006
M1917 Browning Machine guns btw, also meant to reply to >>33922856

>>33922937
>The krag simply needed a reboot with a charger guide and rechambering to a hotter round
>A hotter round
>In a single lug rifle
Yeah, that'd go swimmingly.

File: 1457114401512.png (57KB, 625x626px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 625x626px

>Lee Enfield is the greatest bolt action rifle
>Not the M44 Mosin
good jokes famalam

>>33923006
Are you implying that US setbacks early in WWII against the Japanese can be somehow linked to the use of the 1903?

File: dsr1-308-3.jpg (22KB, 650x300px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 650x300px

>>33922405
100 years ago, maybe.

Technology tends to progress forwards, though.

>>33923023
Did fine in 6.5x55 rimless and 8x58mmR
Face it the .30-40 Krag was the biggest weakness of the American Krag. Danish and Norwegian Krags had a much better service history, and it was even more shocking that after WW2 when the Krags were worn out/lost/destroyed that said countries adopted surplus M1917's

>>33923046
If you can give us a better reason why an Island full of US troops with seemingly higher firepower than the Japanese - including a much larger use of submachine guns, was ultimately defeated in combat and surrendered - I'm all ears. Casualty figures for the Phillipines are only slightly higher for the Japanese.

>>33923035
worst bolt gun ever made, literally just wood and metal drunkenly glued together

>>33922682
Nobody had a bolt action as battle rifle

No, the k98 exists.

>>33922872
I like how tfb tv wrote a farewell post about him like an obituary

File: _oTrWYVsu6gdcKpLCerkD_r6Jinl2O0Gcuf_SreKYic.jpg (119KB, 768x768px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 768x768px

>>33923093
>He believes in US propoganda
Good goy, the soviets are terrible creatures

>>33923149
Terrible? They're barely even count as homo sapient

>>33922405
I wanna get an Enfield. Primarily, I'm looking for something fun to shoot, but if history comes with it that's cool too. How much should I expect to pay? What models should I look for? mkIII* and jungle seen a lot of. If it's bubba-ized does it affect how it shoots significantly?

>>33922688
based on what exactly, fanboi?

>>33922723
>The mauser action is a great piece of engineering
>BUT CLONES OF IT SUCK, GET OUT! REEEEEEEEEEE
I will never understand this retarded logic.

>>33922405
No, that title goes to the famas

>>33923175
To be perfectly honest with you, they're all a pleasure to shoot but the No. 4 Mk2 is the best overall

>>33923211
>bolt action

>>33922405
Not when the K31 exists.

File: Girls.png (490KB, 449x401px) Image search: [Google]

490KB, 449x401px

>>33923006
>He thinks the majority of combat against the japs was on land with infantry
>Not naval and air battles
>and that somehow the rifle the US was using seriously impacted anything
HAHA, the 1903 was better than the type 99 in every way

>>33923064
>Did fine in 6.5x55 rimless and 8x58mmR
The 6.5 Krag loads are significantly lighter than ones used in Swedish Mausers. It's even lighter than scaled down American commercial loads. So yeah, wouldn't go hotter in a Krag.
>>33923187
>Fanboy
Ok boss. How about the stronger, simpler action? Stronger stock design? Ease of maintenance? Reliability? Front locking lugs? Chromed bore? Dust cover?

>>33923084
I'll take being unable to be reinforced or re supplied for 500, Alex.

File: BigSaleAtBudsGunshop.png (875KB, 915x539px) Image search: [Google]

875KB, 915x539px

Even Hickok45 agreed it was the best bolt rifle

File: 1476125158724.jpg (19KB, 500x380px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 500x380px

>>33922595
Muh nigga. I bought my MAS-36 on a whim since it was a good deal. Ended up being one of my favorites. If only 7.5 French wasn't so expensive.

>>33922405
It's a nice meme gun, second only to the mosin.
That's about all it's got going for it.

File: IMG_9391.jpg (3MB, 2448x3264px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2448x3264px

>>33923569

File: buckethead wendy.jpg (93KB, 400x300px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 400x300px

>>33923484
You have no business crying about 7.5 french prices until you pick up a mas-49/56

$15 a box could be worse though.

>>33922405
it depends on the specific rifle, such a generalization is improper

File: image.jpg (3MB, 2448x3264px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2448x3264px

Not enough pictures up in here.

>>33922653
>precision rifle
>CRF, integrated recoil lug
Swing and a miss!

File: 20150924_164725.jpg (2MB, 3264x1836px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3264x1836px

>>33923279
This

>>33923084
>one side had massed artillery
>the other side did not
There ya have it folks

File: IMG_9253.jpg (2MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3264x2448px

fuck your thread its story time.

1943 SIG made, IIRC, and is all matching.
Great story behind it here in the states.
>be middle school runt
>have a geometry class with this based teacher and my qt3.14
>Teach lowkey hooks us up
>end up dating qt for seven years
>Teach keep me on track in geo, helped me with math
>Suplexes a student in class
>Eats spicy sausages, and breathes the nasty smell on students who lax off then ask for help
>he was lowkey /k/ as well
>levelup to highschool
>he saves my ass from trigonometry, gives me 50 brass cased 7.62x54r in the school parking lot
>because he knows about my 1943 nugget
>dates Ms. B(ased), the hippest crazy cat lady wiccan English teacher who cussed out students on the regular
>basically he is exceeding the scale of based by such a magnitude, it cannot be measured
>when graduation week comes, students nominate most influential Teach; I nominated him
>we both missed the event because we coincidentally were out of town (me and qt were fucking)
>Only see him once at the actual graduation ceremony, signs my yearbook.
>levelup to college far away
>teach takes his fiance for a semester off. Ms. B dies soon after of natural causes. RIP
>Dont get the news until months later
>get the feels inna 4th semester hard, keep dating my qt
>Be me, 3rd year college student
>old high school mathematics teacher hits me up on FB
>offers to sell me this gun
Best teacher of all time.

>>33923313
>the 1903 was better than the type 99 in every way
You had me until that point

>>33923749
Thats a based teacher

File: IMG_9256.jpg (2MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3264x2448px

K31 is clearly best bolt action.

>6 round mag, stronger than SMLE
>inherently more accurate
>simpler
>made by master gunsmiths with time and effort
>realistic sight range and can accept diopotors easily
>bayonets are actually sharp
>Overall highly maintained
>never seen a as-from-arsenal K31 with a bad bore
>K31 uses smother feeding than a clip, charger protects bullet better
>K31 has many good condition accessories and is worth the investment.
>7,5 Swiss surplus is still available and is considered match grade.

File: IMG_9559.jpg (373KB, 1080x1920px) Image search: [Google]

373KB, 1080x1920px

>>33923817
I would recommend an Ishapoor 2A1 for aesthetic only. I would prefer a No4Mk1, which has a complex but improved stock bedding.

>>33923861
>No.4 Mk1
I recommend a Mk1/2, 1/3, or 2. The trigger update cleaned up the trigger pull. They also tend to be a bit cheaper.

>>33922405
It would be, if not for the Mauser(s).

>>33923861
>Ishapoor 2A1
I'm thinking this or a 1917 as my next milsurp purchase. I'm leaning toward the Ishapore because I already have several Mauser system rifles, but no Enfield rifles.

>>33923749
what a bro

File: 1418244321456.jpg (8KB, 208x199px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 208x199px

>>33923059
Which one's the mag well

>>33922405
It's not even the best bolt action rifle of it's time.

>>33925142
The rear, for maximum barrel length.

File: AMP_DSR-1_Koalorka.jpg (153KB, 1200x605px) Image search: [Google]

153KB, 1200x605px

>>33925142
the back one apparently
it had be ruse and confused for a moment

>>33924489
I would take the 1917. enfields are complicated.

>>33923749
A-are you still dating that qt3.14? If so, the only thing that would make the story more perfect was if Ms.B and Based Teach were still alive. ;_;

>>33925185
I can handle complicated. But in what way? Cos the stock fit is finicky?

File: IMG_0301.jpg (114KB, 798x322px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 798x322px

The Enfield is damn good but the m1917 is a touch better. It has all the SMLEs advantages plus a better cartridge that was rimless and generally more modern.

>>33922405

This guy has it basically right: >>33922421

Was it a great bolt action at a time when bolt actions were the norm? Absolutely. Maybe even the best, you can argue the value of the trade offs of each in that theater if you want.

But Bolt Actions aren't used as standard rifles today, and they aren't used when speed is necessary. You buy a bolt action for a strong, consistent action at a good price even for high pressure cartridges. Why buy a bolt action and then immediately sacrifice part of why you bought it? If you need speed, buy a semi-auto.

If you want to go into non-action related considerations and into specifics of the rifle like sighting options, aesthetics and other as >>33922487 does, the answer is still no. Because there are modern rifles that use LE action that perform better in those regards.

Basically you can't separate "best" from use case. In a modern context, the answer is probably not.

>>33922449
You don't "/thread" your own post, retard.

>>33923581
Low energy b8, m8.

>>33925521
>all the advantages
>fewer rounds
>slower action
Wut

>>33923149

But they are. They are absolute hot garbage. I know your tiny vatnik mind can't comprehend multi-syllable retorts, so let me put it this way:

U GAY FAG!

>>33925582
Most of them. Your criticism is valid but I was typing on my phone and wanted to be brief.

Yes, slower action, but still cock on closing so not as slow as a Mauser yet you still get the superior Mauser style extractor and locking mechanism.

Yes smaller mag.

BUT

In return you get:
-Better sights
-Better cartridge
-More positive extraction
-Stronger lockup, action is more robust in general (1917's have been modified for fucking Express big game rounds)

For the ideal volley fire, rapid fire scenario the Brits fetishized, the SMLE was better, but for actual combat in field conditions, and for use a marksman's and hunting rifle once bolt actions were made obsolete, the M1917 is superior.

>>33923175
What country you in? You can get them used in Canada for 250

File: No Marking 1917.jpg (216KB, 1200x900px) Image search: [Google]

216KB, 1200x900px

>>33925521
>>33925651

Any clue as to why this 1917 doesn't have any receiver markings? I'm thinking about buying it but it seems fishy.

>>33925759
Probably just scrubbed, may have been pitted all to hell or something.

>>33925759
Is it serialized anywhere?

Regardless, when that is done to a military gun it is usually because the gun was "stolen" from the US government at some point. Not in like a heist or anything, but usually by the fellow it was issued to.

A lot M1917's went to coastal defense reservists/volunteers during WWII and a lot of them kept their guns even though they were supposed to be returned, in large part because the US Gov't didn't really ask for them back. A paranoid "thief" in, say, 1946, might have removed the markings for plausible deniability.

The same could have been done at any point in its life be a common criminal if it was stolen in say, a break in.

Also, if that's a photo from an auction site, it's possible the owner just blurred out the markings in photoshop. There's a persistent rumor that you should never post the serial numbers of your guns online that a lot of older dudes adhere to.

>>33925788
>>33925831
It's got Eddystone markings and normal everything else I believe.

>>33925848
IMO, buy it if you can get a deal. The lack of markings will reduce collector value but it should be a fine shooter.

Will the gun need to go through an FFL? It is quite legal to transfer it because it was built prior to the passage of the Gun Control Act (assuming you are in US) but some FFL's are still uncomfortable with transferring an un-serialized gun.

File: 1494389611470.jpg (123KB, 800x850px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 800x850px

>>33923581
I see people meme about Mausers, I see people meme about Mosins, I barely see people meme about the Enfield.

I wish people would meme about the Enfield more.

>>33922644
M8 the Model 70 is a Mauser derivative. The Ruger M77s are Mauser derivatives. CZ550s are Mausers.

>>33925918
Yep, they'll always have a place.

High end target or sniper rifle: probably not a Mauser.

High end hunting rifle: virtually guaranteed to be a Mauser derivative. It's not just controlled round feed, it's also about the Mauser claw extractor which works very reliably in mud and other adverse conditions.

>>33925868
It's 775, and it looks great, beautiful wood and good blue.

I presume it'll need to go through an ffl, and it has a serial number listed on the website, but I don't see any in the pics. But the sn is listed in addition to the sku number, so I think it is serialized.

>>33922405
Today, OP was not a fag.

File: Dl5zKgJP8JHkT0ivk6NpST9TIWUStFLGZp2fIa5I0UM.jpg (63KB, 748x467px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 748x467px

>>33923279
>>33923817
>muh perfect rifle
Wouldn't be perfect for long if you actually used it

>>33925371
based teach is still alive.

>>33925375
The SMLE has a lot of surfaces to optimize for accuracy. Fit and shape. I mean my Ishapore is a single stage trigger because the position of the floorplate; I have to shim it slightly for the trigger to function as a two stage.

>>33928229
>my Ishapore is a single stage trigger because the position of the floorplate; I have to shim it slightly for the trigger to function as a two stage.
Interesting. How's it shoot un optimized?

>>33922469
>americuck education

>>33922595
And the m1917 surpasses the mas
>by about 2 decades :^)

>>33929008
Too long, too heavy. Nope.

Also what?

>>33929014
>too scrawny
>too weak

The French made a new rifle that was already surpassed by 20 year old commonplace designs

>>33929008
In what practical environment is the 1917 better than the MAS36?

>>33929124
>Bayonet fighting because length
>Urban stuff because cock on close
>Accuracy/practical use because weight stops barrel sway

File: StockimageIposteverythread.jpg (46KB, 736x294px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 736x294px

>>33929124
>>33929142
More importantly, it looks better

>>33929078
You've never even held a Mas have you?

>>33929142
I think you underestimate the importance of snap shooting, being able to draw your weapon in a split second and pulling that trigger.

The MAS36 is fuckin fast, and the bolt cock in on opening is not as big a disadvantage as people like to make it out to be: mostly just a theoretical advantage noguns like spouting off. If it were true, we'd be hearing about how much faster a Swedish Mauser or Arisaka is compared to a Gewehr 98. It's just Enfieldfags that go on about muh cock on close.

>>33929321
>>33929078
He also forgets that the men of 1940 were indeed weaker and scrawnier than men of today.

Your average guy from that era is gonna be 5'7 to 5'9 and weight about 140 soaking wet.

File: 1480019586975 copy.jpg (30KB, 419x375px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 419x375px

>>33922469

Silly shartnik

>>33929346
And yet men of today carry shorter and lighter rifles still. It's almost like size and weight are big considerations.

>>33929321
I have, not a big fan. Too light and whippy for what should be a full power rifle

>>33929322
The m1917 is fast too my man, plus the m1917 won the war it was most used in.

>>33929346
Most Americans in 1940 were far better fed than their French counterparts. This was also true in 1914. This is why the US got away with s heavier, more accurate, and sturdier rifle. It was made for taller, stronger, and sturdier men

File: IMG_9395.jpg (4MB, 2448x3264px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 2448x3264px

>>33928478
I'm a terrible shot. I cant say. To be clear, I don't shim it because I am not opening that barrel of monkeys. But I have to add space to the forward receiver screw in order to achieve a two stage pull.

K31 from that benchrest at 100 yards or so.

File: IMG_20170402_155708365-4008x2255.jpg (2MB, 4008x2255px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4008x2255px

Does anyone else's shoot really high at 50 yards? I mean like 18-20 inches high.

>>33932129
The sights start at like 200 so I can see why

>>33932401
I know the battle sight is zeroed at 400 and the bottom of the latter sight starts at 200 but, it still seems excessively high.

File: IMG_20170511_184530880-4008x2255.jpg (2MB, 4008x2255px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 4008x2255px

>>33932401
My Lee Enfields zero is 100 yards or at least I think it is, and it only shooting like 1-2 inches high at 50. The eddystones 200 yard zero hits 18-20 inch high at the same range.

>>33932533
I don't know man, I guess the person who did died in the 60's

File: 1493600125394.png (548KB, 552x1500px) Image search: [Google]

548KB, 552x1500px

>>33922487
>>33922519

>>33922469
I mean it does technically have a bolt.

File: 1469114526030.jpg (132KB, 858x990px) Image search: [Google]

132KB, 858x990px

>>33932587

>>33925181
I take it the front one is a spare?

inb4 muh nugget

>>33925707
US. I know we don't have a little mini union-jack on our flag but don't we get a Bro discount?

Anyways, what should I look out for if buying one for $250? Am I doomed to a bubba-ized version? Should I be wary of WWI dated ones no matter how tempting they are?

>>33932620
yes, and i also shoot a bolt action ruger mk 3