007BondJamesBond007
Member
I Just bought a K98 Mauser in 8mm with bayonet and cleaning kit. Shoot the deer and field dress with the bayonet. What a great concept!!!
Mauser or Enfield?
- Thread starter dak0ta
- Start date
- Status
Obvious Choice
Although they all have their pluses and minuses there is really only one first surplus choice that can't miss.
First let me say this. With few exceptions ALL surplus ammo is crap. Yeah, it goes bang but beyond that it's really only good for plinking and putting wear and tear on your rifle.
There is nothing wrong directly with the Enfields but it is a comparatively under powered round. The whole design is of the old world pre 1890s. The .303 Brit round is hard to find and expensive. The ones I've had were accurate and easy to shoot though.
The Mausers are a superb firearm as far as quality and can be reasonably accurate although not usually exceptionally so. The draw back is the cartridges it uses and the sights are crap. Sights are very difficult to use in perfect conditions not to mention in low light or less than perfect conditions. Of the Mausers the Swede is by far head and shoulders above all other Mausers. It is incredibly accurate easy to shoot and terrible very made. I love my Swedes. I have all incarnations including M41B sniper. Unless you reload the ammo is the issue. The commercial ammo is gutless and expensive. The Swede is still not a bad choice.
The P14s real nice too but the ammo again is the crux.
The P14s American cousin is a fine rifle. Very accurate. Real well made to a fault. It has 2 draws backs though. They are much longer than is necessary and the rear sight has no windage adjustment.
The Mosins are a creature in it's own catagory. They are cheaply made but still work surprising well. They are very powerfull and are more accurate than one might think considering the barrel is little more than a piece of pipe. The 7.62x54R surplus ammo is absolute garbage. But if you handload them they shoot actually pretty darn well. Big plus is they are F - - - ing cheap to buy.
There are a number of other surplus rifles out there like the Swiss K31s which is an absolute tack driver. Most accurate out of the box mil-spec rifle ever made. They're made like a Swiss watch you know and they are still cheap to buy. The crux again is the ammo. I handload mine and the results are nothing less than spectacular.
Which bring me to the obvious choice. The 1903A3. They are still plentiful. They are made to a very high level of quality. They are very accurate. All parts are readily available. They do nothing but continue to grow in value in good condition. And a huge plus is the cartridge ..... good ole 30.06. Plenty of surplus available. You can go to any mom and pop store and find ammo. It lends itself readily to handloading with components being very common. IMHO it's the best looking of all surplus bolt rifles. They are smooth reliable and tough as nails. The A3 has very nice peep sights with windage and elevation adjustments. Minus is they are getting costly to buy in good condition but if you search you can find one for the right price. I have a number of them of which I might part with one if asked nicely.
My vote goes to the 1903A3. CASE CLOSED!
Although they all have their pluses and minuses there is really only one first surplus choice that can't miss.
First let me say this. With few exceptions ALL surplus ammo is crap. Yeah, it goes bang but beyond that it's really only good for plinking and putting wear and tear on your rifle.
There is nothing wrong directly with the Enfields but it is a comparatively under powered round. The whole design is of the old world pre 1890s. The .303 Brit round is hard to find and expensive. The ones I've had were accurate and easy to shoot though.
The Mausers are a superb firearm as far as quality and can be reasonably accurate although not usually exceptionally so. The draw back is the cartridges it uses and the sights are crap. Sights are very difficult to use in perfect conditions not to mention in low light or less than perfect conditions. Of the Mausers the Swede is by far head and shoulders above all other Mausers. It is incredibly accurate easy to shoot and terrible very made. I love my Swedes. I have all incarnations including M41B sniper. Unless you reload the ammo is the issue. The commercial ammo is gutless and expensive. The Swede is still not a bad choice.
The P14s real nice too but the ammo again is the crux.
The P14s American cousin is a fine rifle. Very accurate. Real well made to a fault. It has 2 draws backs though. They are much longer than is necessary and the rear sight has no windage adjustment.
The Mosins are a creature in it's own catagory. They are cheaply made but still work surprising well. They are very powerfull and are more accurate than one might think considering the barrel is little more than a piece of pipe. The 7.62x54R surplus ammo is absolute garbage. But if you handload them they shoot actually pretty darn well. Big plus is they are F - - - ing cheap to buy.
There are a number of other surplus rifles out there like the Swiss K31s which is an absolute tack driver. Most accurate out of the box mil-spec rifle ever made. They're made like a Swiss watch you know and they are still cheap to buy. The crux again is the ammo. I handload mine and the results are nothing less than spectacular.
Which bring me to the obvious choice. The 1903A3. They are still plentiful. They are made to a very high level of quality. They are very accurate. All parts are readily available. They do nothing but continue to grow in value in good condition. And a huge plus is the cartridge ..... good ole 30.06. Plenty of surplus available. You can go to any mom and pop store and find ammo. It lends itself readily to handloading with components being very common. IMHO it's the best looking of all surplus bolt rifles. They are smooth reliable and tough as nails. The A3 has very nice peep sights with windage and elevation adjustments. Minus is they are getting costly to buy in good condition but if you search you can find one for the right price. I have a number of them of which I might part with one if asked nicely.
My vote goes to the 1903A3. CASE CLOSED!
irishsquid
Member
Amen!
I love my '03 but I'll confess the sights are horribly painful to use. The peep sight on the '03A3 was a VAST improvement.
MetalMan52
Member
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2008
- Messages
- 160
M vs e
I own and shoot both varieties, all of those that you mention. If you plan on shooting them in original condition, depending on your eyes, the #4 enfields and the P14 have the edge. The #1 Mk III enfields and Mausers have very small "V" notch sights that can be hard to see in good conditions and damn near impossible to see in less than perfect conditions. As my eyes age it is increasingly more difficult to use the "v" notch sights.
The #5 Jungle carbine while having a really cool looking profile, can be a bit of a challenge to shoot. For what ever reason, they replaced the standard buttstock with a narrower hard rubber buttstock that concentrates the recoil on a narrower portion of the old shoulder. If you do not like a heavier recoiling gun, this one is not for you.
Both rifles types are classics, both have loyal followings, so it comes down to what you are most comfortable with. You really can't go wrong with either type as long as it fits your style of shooting
Pat
I own and shoot both varieties, all of those that you mention. If you plan on shooting them in original condition, depending on your eyes, the #4 enfields and the P14 have the edge. The #1 Mk III enfields and Mausers have very small "V" notch sights that can be hard to see in good conditions and damn near impossible to see in less than perfect conditions. As my eyes age it is increasingly more difficult to use the "v" notch sights.
The #5 Jungle carbine while having a really cool looking profile, can be a bit of a challenge to shoot. For what ever reason, they replaced the standard buttstock with a narrower hard rubber buttstock that concentrates the recoil on a narrower portion of the old shoulder. If you do not like a heavier recoiling gun, this one is not for you.
Both rifles types are classics, both have loyal followings, so it comes down to what you are most comfortable with. You really can't go wrong with either type as long as it fits your style of shooting
Pat
IrishSquid, I agree. I also have some 03's. Although the iron sights are more precise, they require more discipline and good eye sight to make them work to the level the rifle itself is capable of. The A3 sights are a huge improvement. Here is 2 photos, one of my scoped national match Springfield 1903. Originally built in 1923, then sent back to the arsenal in 1939 to have the scope mounted. It has 2 bolts. The original NM bolt and the bolt for using the scope. The scope is a 3x Weaver. Fascinating to see how they did things back then as compared to today. It is a tack driver, easily shooting sub MOA with the scope. The second photo is a Smith Corona 1903A3 target rifle that I completely restored. The Lyman sights are a huge improvemt over the mil-spec peep sights. It also wil hit whatever you point it at.
Attachments
irishsquid
Member
lencac
Those are two beautiful rifles! I wish mine looked HALF that good! I've been spending too much time on my Garand. I need to pay little more attention to her older sister!
Not only are the M1903 and M1903A3 exceptional performers, they are downright pretty to look at.
Those are two beautiful rifles! I wish mine looked HALF that good! I've been spending too much time on my Garand. I need to pay little more attention to her older sister!
Not only are the M1903 and M1903A3 exceptional performers, they are downright pretty to look at.
Limeyfellow
Member
You could always go the center ground and get the P14 or M1917. Then you have a Mauser/Enfield combination that takes the best features of all.
You have the strength of the 98 Mauser design, the exchangeable bolt head for quick easy repairs, the superior peep sight and a nigh indestructible rifle.
The 1903 and 03a3 are great rifles for target shooting, but they really should have rethought the front sight, for a battle rifle. It wouldn't have been hard to give it protective ears or a ring to prevent it from being knocked out of place, as it is kind of delicate. I do like the rear sight of the 03a3, even if it is once again more designed for thoughtful shooting, rather than the heat of combat, where you not really going to have much time to adjust the windage setting. It was a fine rifle, but with a few alterations it would have been perfect/the M1917. Unfortunately that rifle suffered from the "not designed in the US" syndrome, even if it was the main rifle used in WW1 by the US.
You have the strength of the 98 Mauser design, the exchangeable bolt head for quick easy repairs, the superior peep sight and a nigh indestructible rifle.
The 1903 and 03a3 are great rifles for target shooting, but they really should have rethought the front sight, for a battle rifle. It wouldn't have been hard to give it protective ears or a ring to prevent it from being knocked out of place, as it is kind of delicate. I do like the rear sight of the 03a3, even if it is once again more designed for thoughtful shooting, rather than the heat of combat, where you not really going to have much time to adjust the windage setting. It was a fine rifle, but with a few alterations it would have been perfect/the M1917. Unfortunately that rifle suffered from the "not designed in the US" syndrome, even if it was the main rifle used in WW1 by the US.
Dark Skies
Member
My Lee Enfield #4 Mk1 is fitted with a Parker Hale 5C sight and has a number of replacement peep holes of varying sizes so sight picture and zeroing is not an issue. When I pick it up I'm hefting a piece of military history used to fight the Nazi hordes when Britain really was Great. My grandfather was all over it when I first brought it home. He was a marksman during WWII and carried one whilst fighting a rearguard action to Dunkirk and thereafter during every major theatre of the war. He'd turn in his grave if I took up a Mauser.
Factory loaded ammo is a doddle to get hold of over here and reloading components are plentiful.
Factory loaded ammo is a doddle to get hold of over here and reloading components are plentiful.
Actually the Model 17 actions were excellent and stronger than the Mauser. But the ergonomics were at fault. There was never a need for a 26 inch barrel and although the Model 17 (P14) had a nice rear peep it had no windage adjustment and the size of the rear apature was to large for precision work at long distance. Which worked counter productive to utilizing the overly long barrel. As for the front sight on the 03 being "delicate" there is no known record of that ever being an issue and there is a front sight shroud that was easily installed which many did use. For some reason the military shyed away from the cock on closing Model 17 too. But the basic Model 17 action is superb and lend themselves well to custom built rifles for everything from tack driving target rifle to superb hunting rifles, even for cartridges like 458 Win mags for elphant. There is a reason why the gov't never used tham as 1st string rifles. That's because as ironic as it my seem in it's military form it's true genius was somewhat hidden by the couple of shortcomings I mentioned.
Here' a few photos of 2 of my modified Model 17 target rifle. Both have have the rear sight wings and boss milled off to provide a round rear receiver for mount target sights. The first one is a remington and retains the original 5 groove lefthand twist barrel shorten by 2.5 inches. It's mounted in a beautiful heavy bedded stock with excellent Redfield rear target sight and a brass bead front post sight within a globe. The second Model 17 is an Eddystone and there's nothing stock about it from the match grade 6 groove heavy barrel to the highly modified remnant of a military stock. It's a 22 inch barrel with excellent Lyman target sights, front and rear. It will routinely shoot 1MOA with the open sights and handlaoded ammo. They are both 30.06 and were built in the 1950s. Oh and I put in a photo of my mil-spec Eddystone Model 1917 for good measure
Here' a few photos of 2 of my modified Model 17 target rifle. Both have have the rear sight wings and boss milled off to provide a round rear receiver for mount target sights. The first one is a remington and retains the original 5 groove lefthand twist barrel shorten by 2.5 inches. It's mounted in a beautiful heavy bedded stock with excellent Redfield rear target sight and a brass bead front post sight within a globe. The second Model 17 is an Eddystone and there's nothing stock about it from the match grade 6 groove heavy barrel to the highly modified remnant of a military stock. It's a 22 inch barrel with excellent Lyman target sights, front and rear. It will routinely shoot 1MOA with the open sights and handlaoded ammo. They are both 30.06 and were built in the 1950s. Oh and I put in a photo of my mil-spec Eddystone Model 1917 for good measure
Attachments
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
