The Great Debate

as they say:
>Germany built a hunting rifle, America built a target rifle, Britain built a Battle Rifle

>No 1917

Oh well the Enfield wins anyways.

>>34817973
>Germans brought a hunting rifle
>Americans brought a target rifle
>British brought a battle rifle
>Russians brought any rifle

>>34817973
Hunting and targetshooting are better than being in a rifle, that means that us and german rifle are better.

>>34817968
The Austrians.

>>34817968
Italians and Austrians had best rifles.

>>34817986
>It's better to have a target rifle in battle than a battle rifle in battle

What did he mean by this?

>>34817998
Were you ever in a rifle? No? Opinion DI-SCAR-TEDED

File: M1917_US.jpg (159KB, 1600x750px) Image search: [Google]

159KB, 1600x750px

M1917 Enfield.

>>34818003
This. Despite the fact that the M1903 was the official rifle the M1917 was more widely fielded, and superior.

>>34818003
This.

>>34817968
The Gewehr 98 is the gold standard by which al other are judged, which immediately eliminates the Mosin and Lebel.
The Mannlicher and Enfield have quicker actions, and the Carcano has a better calibre. All three have their downsides though.
The M1903 was the Mauser cranked up to 11, which makes it king of the hill - if it weren't for the excellent M1917, which probably really is the best rifle of the war.

If I were nitpicking though, it's still in the wrong calibre, it should have been chambered in .276 Enfield.

>>34818076
Lever action rifles are not battle rifles.

>>34818000
>Were you ever in a rifle?
a pic comes to mind, featuring a nugget and male genitalia...

File: 1483409388028.jpg (233KB, 720x616px) Image search: [Google]

233KB, 720x616px

the ross rifle was legitimately the best bolt action rifle of ww1

it's just a shame about the mud (and the GIs inserting the bolt backwards and getting their eyes removed but that's just natural selection)

>>34818089
>Fucking a nugget
>Not a Garand

Get out of here nancyboy.

>>34818098
>Best rifle of WWI
>Allergic to mud

Please make your selection.

>>34818108
Not really allergic too mud, just allergic to being badly manufactured.

>>34818103
snibbedi snabb :-DDDD

>>34817985
Russians brought all the rifles and was still making and buying more

File: castlecock.jpg (29KB, 409x393px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 409x393px

>>34818087
>Lever action rifles are not battle rifles.

For war I'd have the No1 MkIII. If I was a dedicated match shooter and could only use the stock rifle then it would have to be the 1903, but for everything else and as a civillian owner who wanted one single rifle for hunting and whatever else I'd take the M1917.

>>34818087
.276 Enfield would have been a good round for the time if they had loaded it with smokeless but there's too much taper to the case.

>>34819342
.276 was smokeless though.

>>34818108
It was the fastest to cycle and the most accurate, it just wasn't built for mud. It was originally a target rifle. The bayonet mount wasn't as solid as it should have been, either.

Enfield.

File: 1495220217504.jpg (1MB, 3000x2097px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3000x2097px

>>34817968
The Berthier was more standard for the French by about late 1916 onward. You have a WWII M1903A3 instead of a M1903 for the Americans and the M1917 was more standard for them anyhow.

>>34818003
this basically

The Mauser's strengths as a rifle, namely its action, do not particularly matter for warfare.

The SMLE had a greater capacity, better build quality (both in WW1 and throughout its life), finer accuracy and a quicker action. 1903 and 1917 are nearly as good. The Mauser was not in the same league.

>>34819385
It was loaded with cordite, I might be in the wrong but I never refer to it as smokeless (as in smokeless nitrocellulose powder). Cordite was a plox on British small arms for over half a century.

>>34817973
WTF even is a 'hunting rifle' 'target rifle' or a 'battle rifle'

>>34818087

Lever action rifles were first conceived for the military dumbass.

>>34817968
Reminder that the Mosin was the 1891 Model, not the 91/30 we are used to. Also the Springfield model is incorrect as the WWI era model had a different sight and it is mirrored, bolt is on the wrong side.

Enfield is the best rifle there. 10 shots, quick bolt for rapid fire, stripper clip fed, good sights. Its weakest point is the fragility of the grip connecting the stock. The rest of the rifles were not as good.
>Lebel was tube fed and that takes more time to load
>Gewehr 98 was very precise but only 5 rounds
>1891 Mosin Nagant was roughly made and only 5 rounds
>Mannlicher 1895 was stuff and things
>Carcano was like a cheap knockoff Gewehr 98
>Mauser 1903 was literally a knockoff Gewehr 98
>Springfield 1903 copied the Mauser action and there was a lawsuit involved

>>34819460
I'm guessing it implies that the other rifles are more accurate and the Brit rifles were more reliable

>>34819406
>Berthier
Watch out, you might trigger some PTSD. It was like the Bergmann all over again, though I enjoyed both series.

>>34819489
>rimmed ammo
>good

>>34819453
Cordite is a double-base powder consisting of nitroglycerin, nitrocellulose and petroleum jelly. If that's not smokeless according to you, most modern powders wouldn't even count as smokeless.

>>34819460
>>34819503
It implies that
>The Germans made their rifle out of a Mauser-designed rifle, which was a common hunting rifle back then (and is the most common hunting rifle action today)
>The Americans put a heavy emphasis on target shooting and rifle competition, with very little consideration of applying it into real world warfare. Still true today to some extent.
>The Brits designed their rifle from the ground up for warfare, and never really used it for something else

>>34819489
>Its weakest point is the fragility of the grip connecting the stock.
No, that's not its biggest weakness. In fact it doesn't even matter on a military rifle. Nor is it fragile. The biggest weakness of the rifle is that .303, while eventually made adequate for the job, was a shitty round of bad design. I mean they could have gotten better external ballistics and less pressure but they didn't even bother to load it with something other than the devil's spaghetti. Or at least not the standard issue ball.

>>34819503
That said, in order for an SMLE to leave the factory it had to be more accurate than the Mausers destined for sniper usage.

>>34819536
>>34819519
>.303 Brit
>bad
LEAVE

File: russian Winchester.jpg (484KB, 1841x1227px) Image search: [Google]

484KB, 1841x1227px

>>34819489
The biggest shortcoming of the Enfield was the rimmed ammo, otherwise it does indeed have a lot going for it.

The Gewehr 98 wasn't precise in practice because the sights were rather shitty for actual engagement distances.

Also, special shout-outs to the Russian Winchester 1895. I'd definitely prefer that thing over most bolt-actions of the time.

>>34817968
>Austria-Hungary
>Gun named ''Manly''

We have a winner (not really the Lee-Einfield is the best of the lot and i intend to buy one some day).

>>34819564
>Rimmed cartridge
>Dating back to before 1900
>Originally designed for blackpowder
It's not exactly the best cartridge. I can't think of any worse calibres in general service during WW1 except 8mm Lebel.

>>34819564
Most of the criticism of it seems to be based on bizarre anecdotes and an aversion toward it because of where it comes from, not down to its ballistic performance. I have never had any trouble whatsoever with .303. I've also never had an Enfield action fail on me, though I will be the first to admit they are not as "strong" as a Mauser action they are just as reliable.

The biggest problems with .303 in the modern world is that, outside the Commonwealth, it's rarer than comparable cartridges and therefore more expensive. Anecdotal, but I've never seen an Enfield action fail. The only time I've heard of them failing (catastrophically) is when people put ridiculous loads through them, then critique the rest of the rifle as somehow lacking because of it. Even when they have failed, the rear shoulders haven't. So instead of a dangerous failure, you basically have the right hand side of the rail warping.

55 years of shooting Enfield rifles. I'm no expert, but virtually every criticism I've heard of the things in the USA have boiled down to either the ammunition cost or myths about them being made of cheese.

Best bolt action rifle ever issued to an armed force, no question.

>>34819564
leave for what? The right opinions zone?

>>34819424
>The Mauser's strengths as a rifle, namely its action, do not particularly matter for warfare.
>reliability
>soldier proof action
>strength
>gas handling capabilities
>inherent accuracy
>not important in a war rifle

I suppose that's why the Lebel and 1903 were such ubiquitous rifles across the globe for over 60 years, unlike the Mauser 98.

>>34819550
>bloke on the range has deposited .35 into your account

>>34819675
Did the Mausers strong action give it a practical advantage over the SMLE in WW1?

>>34819686
That's been known since the 1950s, at the very least. The quality wasn't there.

The Mauser is a stronger action that has proven more popular. That doesn't make the weapon it was part of better, nor does it mean the action gave the Germans any advantage in the war.

File: MAS-36.jpg (226KB, 1600x666px) Image search: [Google]

226KB, 1600x666px

>>34819646
>Best bolt action rifle ever issued to an armed force, no question.
I'd say this one's better, although mainly because it was pretty much the last.
Surprisingly, it has a lot in common with the Lee-Enfield

>>34819564
I'm a bong, so you might think that I'm biased but in fact I'm not. And have been shooting, reloading and owning Enfields for a decade and .303 is a shit round and I don't like it one bit. The taper is a double edged sword, on one hand it probably does aid extraction but on the other is certainly does increase bolt thrust, which isn't ideal with already full power loads in a rear locker. That said the Mk7 bullet was decently designed for a flat base, it had respectable BC and having sectioned some the lightened tip are nice. Shitty case design and terrible propellant choice though.

IMO they should have taken a .30-06 case or something similar in the interwar period duing No4 development, cut it down to around 50mm and necked it to 6.5 or 7mm and loaded it with a 130-140gr boat tail with a lightened tip like Mk7 (which would make it longer than average for the weight), a fairly slow powder and made sure to get about 2,600fps. Would have been awesome, redesign the mag and get 15 rounds in. I would have said just chamber them in 6.5x55 but the actions aren't long enough to take advantage of the long bullets at reasonable seating depths, so the case needs to be shorter but retain reasonable capacity.

>>34819675
having shot a lebel and a 98, I'd choose the lebel any day just for the sights. best sights out of any of these rifles. but thats just my opinion man. and 8 shots is closer to 10 than it is to 5.

File: MAS 36.jpg (12KB, 740x198px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 740x198px

>>34819737
It's pretty underrated, yeah. It was designed as more of a spear that shoots bullets than a rifle.

File: this makes germans cry.jpg (247KB, 1600x1200px) Image search: [Google]

247KB, 1600x1200px

>>34817968

USA for war crime shotty

File: 439cb86da274afed9a4181cca8e6f20c--french-army-military-history.jpg (44KB, 540x406px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 540x406px

>>34819766
Lmao, the bayonet looks longer than the handguard it's stored in from that view.
But yeah, it's seems to be a great gun:
>really strong action
>aperture sights
>short and light
>very quick action
>decent cartridge with acceptable recoil (rounds like 8mm Mauser are way overpowered for a grunt's rifle)
>apparently designed with mud-resistance in mind

>>34817968
>not even the right Mosin
What the fuck

File: frf_210.jpg (38KB, 600x158px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 600x158px

>>34819830
You forgot
>still has a variant in use

File: DCB_Shooting_FR_F1.jpg (427KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

427KB, 1024x768px

>>34819916
Well, the FR-F1 & 2 have a very heavily modified action, but I suppose you're right.

>>34817968
>the 1903 is lazily mirrored
Nice one

Considering the US built rifles for itself, the Russians, and the UK, I'd say the US wins.

>>34820076
This

>>34819746
Enjoy taking a time out for five minutes in battle to reload it.

>>34820159
Tube mags are indeed fucking aful
Magazine capacity is only a plus as long as you have acceptable reload times relative to the capacity.
Hence, I think there's no inherent advantage to the Lee Enfield's 10 rounds if reloading all 10 takes way longer than reloading 5 on a rifle with rimless ammo.

>>34817968
Britain.

>>34817968
haha y didnt they just bring ak47 tho fucking retards

>>34817968
That picture is extremely misleading. Each of those nations used far more than one rifle. France's Berthier was more widespread than the Lebel after the first half of the war. Russia had very few Mosins and mostly used older single shot rifles from other countries. Germany also used other guns like the g88. The US used the 1917 as well.

>>34819746
The Lebel actually has a 10 round capcity. 8 in the tube, one in the elevator and one in the chamber.

While the Mausers were most reliable and durable, I'd have taken a SMLE N°1 MkIII.

>>34817968
I'd take a Kar98az.

>>34817968
Your 1903 Springfield is a 1903a3.

Also, it should be a M1917, which coincidentally is the best rifle of the war.

>>34818098
Too heavy and too long. Also the exposed magazine was prone to damage.

>>34819424
>finer accuracy
No. Not even close. The No1mk3 is notorious for its less than stellar accuracy.

>>34818087
>Lever action rifles are not battle rifles
They were for the US, they were used towards the end of the civil war, the Mexican war, and used to exterminate indians

>>34820764
That's an unfair generalization. Some rifles could respectably shoot, others didn't, but few were terrible. 2MOA for the best of them and 4MOA for the worst, but in those days that wasn't too bad. Their bedding arrangement was too complicated and relied on too many fine little points being right, they should have seen that and realized it was over engineered and needed simplification. Fortunately they fixed that for the No4. There's no doubt that the 98s were. by design, mechanically more accurate, but it's not like they were all 1MOA tack drivers.

British ammo however could fairly be called notorious and I have little doubt it contributed to the inaccuracy of rifles.

>>34820991
They were also used by the Russians to great effect.

That picture is shit.

>>34820994
More like 3-7 moa for the No1. They had deliberately looser chambers to account for, as you said, the varying degrees in quality in ammunition. This proved to be beneficial in WW1 because it meant the No1 could fire under worse conditions (in addition to other features that aided in reliability) than some of the contemporaries. You are correct however that the No4 is indeed a very accurate and improved rifle, which is a miracle itself considering the design history of the Lee Enfield in general.