Best bolt action military rifle...ever.

[someguy2800]

I’ve put a lot of thought into this and I’ve shot most of them. To be honest when used for their intended purpose of combat, I don’t think there is a whole lot of difference between them in terms of performance. Shooting them from practical positions like one would in combat, I shoot them all about the same including the much maligned Mosin. I think I would have to go with the No4mk1 Enfield for its sights, 10 round magazine, and moderate power cartridge. It’s biggest drawback is it’s rimmed cartridge. My next pick would be the M1917.

 

[someguy2800]

1917 for sure.

As fine a functional rifle as it was a bayonet stick, boat paddle, and club.

I’m going to ignore the criteria about efficiency if mass production. I don’t know if the 1917 fits with that or not but you can’t make a fight about what is best and then hamstring it with criteria that has nothing to do with that end point.

The point about mass production is kind of subjective because for instance the M1917 was a difficult rifle to build, but America had the industrial capacity and factories that weren’t being bombed to do it in. Same for the Garand. So both were a good rifle for America. If Russia had been trying to build them it would have been a disaster. Russia needed a rifle that could be built by the millions in hastily constructed factories by untrained peasants. For that reason a Mosin Nagant is an excellent rifle for what they needed. Trying to build a better rifle would have only slowed down their production pace and probably would not have improved the combat effectiveness of their mass attack stratagy. Honestly I think if you factor in each countries technological capabilities, the M98 was probably the worst rifle of the war. It’s not a bad rifle, not particularly great for the time either, but the Germans could have done much better if they had tried. They proved that with their machine guns and later in the war with the STG44. The Germans literally hamstrung themselves due to old fashioned thinking and romanticism.

 

[earlthegoat2]

The point about mass production is kind of subjective because for instance the M1917 was a difficult rifle to build, but America had the industrial capacity and factories that weren’t being bombed to do it in. Same for the Garand. So both were a good rifle for America. If Russia had been trying to build them it would have been a disaster. Russia needed a rifle that could be built by the millions in hastily constructed factories by untrained peasants. For that reason a Mosin Nagant is an excellent rifle for what they needed. Trying to build a better rifle would have only slowed down their production pace and probably would not have improved the combat effectiveness of their mass attack stratagy. Honestly I think if you factor in each countries technological capabilities, the M98 was probably the worst rifle of the war. It’s not a bad rifle, not particularly great for the time either, but the Germans could have done much better if they had tried. They proved that with their machine guns and later in the war with the STG44. The Germans literally hamstrung themselves due to old fashioned thinking and romanticism.

It’s sort of interesting that Germany was so advanced throughout both world wars with machine guns and aircraft and tanks but for some reason had a pretty crude infantry rifle.

 

[Mosin Bubba]

You can't go wrong with any 3-position safety Mauser IMO.

I like the Swedes the best. Excellent workmanship, and a cartridge that is better suited for a rifle than a heavy machine gun.

 

[tark]

The drawing calls for either 1050 steel, which is a plain medium carbon steel or pearlitic malleable cast iron* (MIL-I-11444, Class II of which Armsteel is a type). The top plate is just mild steel, its only purpose id to cover up the hole machined in the top for the locking abutment. The locking abutment is just a machined hole in that cast iron receiver, but it is locally treated.

Plain carbon steel isn't all that bad for receivers and bolts, you just need a little bit more of it . . .
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
* Don't confuse "cast iron" with "malleable cast iron". The are four types of cast iron, grey cast iron (stoves and the usual idea of cast iron), white cast iron, malleable cast iron , and ductile cast iron. All have different properties and are used for different purposes.

lysanderxiii, every time you post I learn more and more. My hat's off to you. And thanks again.

 

[Reloadron]

Germans with a hunting rifle . . .

That's it and thanks.

Ron

 

[lysanderxiii]

It’s sort of interesting that Germany was so advanced throughout both world wars with machine guns and aircraft and tanks but for some reason had a pretty crude infantry rifle.

Doctrine drives design.

The German army infantry doctrine emphasized the crew served weapons over all other infantry weapons, mainly the machine gun. For example, in the assault, the assault element (say a a squad, but the principle is the same for a platoon or company) would use concealing terrain to mask their approach while the machine guns and mortars of the company and battalion (support element) would provide covering fire, while bounding forward to keep up with the assault's advance. All this time the assault element was NOT to fire their weapons to preserve the element of surprise. When the objective was inside 100 meters from the assault element the assault element's MGs would open fire on the objective and the supporting fire would lift. The assault element MGs would then bound forward under covering fire from each other, only when there was one MG would riflemen provide covering fire. Normally, the rifle was only used inside 100 meters and then only as support for the MG, if there wasn't another MG available. The final assault would be accomplished with the bayonet and grenades. (Note that the riflemen in the support element, don't really do anything, except hump ammunition forward to feed all those MGs.)

For this type doctrine, the simple, easily produced, relatively light, Kar 98k was perfectly adequate. It also explains why a "super-submachine gun" like the MG-43/44 were acceptable, the average rifleman never shot at anything beyond the range for the final assault, preferably less than 100 meters.

US Infantry doctrine was totally different, placing far more emphasis on covering fire from riflemen in the support element, which means the rifleman needed weapons with longer range and better rates of fire.

 

[someguy2800]

Doctrine drives design.

The German army infantry doctrine emphasized the crew served weapons over all other infantry weapons, mainly the machine gun. For example, in the assault, the assault element (say a a squad, but the principle is the same for a platoon or company) would use concealing terrain to mask their approach while the machine guns and mortars of the company and battalion (support element) would provide covering fire, while bounding forward to keep up with the assault's advance. All this time the assault element was NOT to fire their weapons to preserve the element of surprise. When the objective was inside 100 meters from the assault element the assault element's MGs would open fire on the objective and the supporting fire would lift. The assault element MGs would then bound forward under covering fire from each other, only when there was one MG would riflemen provide covering fire. Normally, the rifle was only used inside 100 meters and then only as support for the MG, if there wasn't another MG available. The final assault would be accomplished with the bayonet and grenades. (Note that the riflemen in the support element, don't really do anything, except hump ammunition forward to feed all those MGs.)

For this type doctrine, the simple, easily produced, relatively light, Kar 98k was perfectly adequate. It also explains why a "super-submachine gun" like the MG-43/44 were acceptable, the average rifleman never shot at anything beyond the range for the final assault, preferably less than 100 meters.

US Infantry doctrine was totally different, placing far more emphasis on covering fire from riflemen in the support element, which means the rifleman needed weapons with longer range and better rates of fire.

The question I have is if it was actually the equipment driving the doctrine.

 

[lysanderxiii]

The question I have is if it was actually the equipment driving the doctrine.

If that were true, the highly portable machine gun (that also works off a tripod) would not have been designed. This doctrine was a further refinement of the assault tactics introduced in 1918, which showed the limitations of the MG-08/15. If equipment drove doctrine, doctrine would have been aligned to work with the MG-08 and the MG-13.

And, the US would never have had a requirement for the M1.

 

[herrwalther]

Uhhh....not really. The 1917 was cock on closing and the safety was totally different. The rear sight was superior to a Mauser's, however.

All of which are upgrades, in my opinion.

 

[NIGHTLORD40K]

All of which are upgrades, in my opinion.

One thing I do like about cock-on-opening is it allows restriking a dud without working the action and losing the round-just lift and close the handle to recock.
Of course, a good striker knob works even better.

 

[tark]

All of which are upgrades, in my opinion.

You too??!!! I thought I was the only one that preferred cock on closing!

One thing I do like about cock-on-opening is it allows restriking a dud without working the action and losing the round-just lift and close the handle to recock.
Of course, a good striker knob works even better.

If I get a click instead of a bang, I'm not gonna waste time trying to get a dud to fire.

 

[tark]

It’s sort of interesting that Germany was so advanced throughout both world wars with machine guns and aircraft and tanks but for some reason had a pretty crude infantry rifle.

Since the term "infantry rifle" includes semi and full auto weapons... The Germans were ahead of curve, I think. The G-43 wasn't nearly as good as the M-1, but the STG 44 was pure genius. The FG-42 was an advanced design created by one Louis Stange, who copied the firing mechanism from the Lewis gun and designed a rifle that fired from the open bolt in full auto, and the closed bolt in semi mode. I suspect it wasn't that effective since it weighed about the same as a Kar 98 and fired the same 7.92x57 round. At least not on full auto. They only made about 6,000, as they were only intended to be issued to paratroopers. The front and rear sights could be folded down and the gun could accept a scope

 

[lysanderxiii]

Since the term "infantry rifle" includes semi and full auto weapons... The Germans were ahead of curve, I think. The G-43 wasn't nearly as good as the M-1, but the STG 44 was pure genius. The FG-42 was an advanced design created by one Louis Stange, who copied the firing mechanism from the Lewis gun and designed a rifle that fired from the open bolt in full auto, and the closed bolt in semi mode. I suspect it wasn't that effective since it weighed about the same as a Kar 98 and fired the same 7.92x57 round. At least not on full auto. They only made about 6,000, as they were only intended to be issued to paratroopers. The front and rear sights could be folded down and the gun could accept a scope

The FG-42 is very controllable in full auto off the bipod or similar support, and due to the buffering system is relatively pleasant to shoot. The butt stock is not mounted to the receiver, but to the buffer, and has about 1/8 inch travel before bottoming out. This means the recoil impulse goes from the receiver, to the buffer, to the stock, then to your shoulder. Then to ease the shock even more the buffer is fairly soft spreading out the impact of the operating rod and bolt. In full auto, its only failing is its light barrel which gets hot quick, but it's not intended to be a light machine gun.

 

[tark]

I've never fired an FG-42, not many people have. I have held and examined one, The R.I.Arsenal museum had three on display, one first pattern and two second pattern guns. I think they were ahead of their time. I wanted to pull one apart but the museum director said no to that. They are very easy to field strip without tools. They were intended to fulfill a multi role function and I think they did that far better than the M-14 did.

 

[DDDWho]

I didn’t choose the Enfield, it chose me. I bought off the widow of the owner who was a friend and neighbor. Probably paid too much but didn’t want to take advantage. Besides she needed the money

.

 

[rizbunk77]

What I read once was that a felllow who fought in WW1 said that the 1917 was a better war rifle than the 1903.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

1) "Pretty" counts for NOTHING!! Cosmetic beauty is NOT to be mentioned or considered.

The 03A3 fits right in there.

2) Was it rugged and reliable? Did it "Possess the highest degree of mechanical reliability known to exist in a mechanism of its type?" ( Jeff Cooper quote. )

The 03 and 03A3 are basically Model 98 Mausers and just as rugged and reliable.

3) Was it accurate enough and powerful?

Hard to beat the 03 and 03A3 for accuracy and hard to beat the .30-06 for power

4) was it easy to use and train raw recruits on.?

The 03A3 with its simple peep sight is about the best and easiest to use sight on any bolt action rifle.

5) Was it simple, easily to manufacture and also relatively inexpensive to build? This is a very important point.

Ease of manufacture and inexpensive is what the 03A3 was all about.

6) It must have been actually IN a war. ( sorry, you Swiss lovers )

WWI, WWII, and even Korea

 

[Archie]

Much variation and good logic. I chose the Short (barreled) Magazine Lee-Enfield (SMLE) for reliable service in multiple settings. The Carcano next for it's weight and simplicity.

However, if I were the platoon leader, I'd let you guys take the rifle you want, as long as you had at least fifty rounds and loading devices per foray.

 

[lysanderxiii]

Hard to beat the 03 and 03A3 for accuracy and hard to beat the .30-06 for power

I'm gonna have to argue with this statement.

While the .30-06, in general, is a pretty powerful and versatile cartridge, the Caliber .30, Ball, M1906 and Caliber .30 Ball, M2 cartridges are not all that hard to beat. The antiquated French 8mm balle D and British .303, Mk VII can both out range the M1906 in the machine gun, which is why Caliber .30 Ball, M1 was introduced, however, M1 Ball never saw combat as a standard round as it was replaced by M2 Ball, which is ballistically pretty much the same as M1906 Ball (40 fps faster, 2 grains heavier). M2 AP isn't all that bad, but even it is inferior to the German 7.9mm Patrone s.S. with its 196 grain boat-tail bullet, and .303 Mk 8 with its 174 grain boat-tail bullet.

The .30-06 cartridge could have been the equal or the better of these cartridges, but it military loadings were always on the light side, hamstringing it's performance.

 

[HollowDawg]

Swiss K31.

 

[tark]

Welcome to the forum. But read rule # 6 in my original post. K-31s, excellent as they may be, don't qualify.

 

[lysanderxiii]

Also rans:

- Chassepot Mle 1866
- Steyr-Mannlicher 1895
- Ross Mk III and M10
- Lebel 1886
- Berthier Mle 1916
- Krag-Jorgensen
- Vetterli
- M1895 Lee Navy
- French FR F1
- M40
- M24
- Japanese Type 13 (Murata)
- Japanese Type 30 Rifle
- Gew 1888

I think if you dig deep enough, every bolt action rifle design, with the possible exception of the K31, has seen combat in some corner of the world.

 

[herrwalther]

You too??!!! I thought I was the only one that preferred cock on closing!

It is growing on me. I did not think I would like it when I got my M1917 on a lark auction. Seeing and feeling the striker extend out the rear of the bolt on closing is interesting.

 

[lysanderxiii]

It is indisputable that the best bolt action rifle is the Dreyse Perkussionsgewehr Model 1841,


(at least, from 1824 to 1866, as it was the only one available.)