Quote:
The British habit of subjecting anything British to a severe course of fault-finding has been responsible for the gradual forming of the opinion that the Empire is the worst provided for as regards small-arms of any of the Powers. In the year or eighteen months before the outbreak of war, the hint that the War Office was experimenting with a new rifle roused popular interest, and many questions were asked in Parliament and many letters written to newspapers. The burden of most of the Parliamentary answers and most of the letters was that the British Service rifle was bad, the bolt, in any case, was unscientific, and would not stand the high pressures necessary for the high velocities demanded by the most up-to- date practice; the short rifle did not shoot well.
Then came the outbreak of the Great War, and Britain had to go in with the arms she had—only to find out in a very short time that, instead of being the worst small-arm in use, the short Lee-Enfield was the best. Actual war tests proved that a "weak and unscientific" bolt may have advantages not possessed by stronger action designed on lines which meet the approval of engineers. The bolt-faction of the British rifle can be worked at very high speed, and this speed is possible without any serious sacrifice of strength or accuracy.
One of the criticisms against the British Service rifle is that the lugs which lock the bolt against the shock of discharge are placed so far back on the bolt that there are several inches of unsupported metal between the bolt-head and the lugs, and that the slightest irregularity in the seating of the lugs on the resistance shoulder and resistance grooves allows this unsupported metal to play sideways, and causes irregularities in the shooting. The body of the action is also complained about on the score that it is weak. From a mechanical point of view, both these condemnations must be supported by the critic; but a careful engineer who bears in mind how successfully the short Lee-Enfield has borne the severest test any rifle has yet been put to, may be allowed to emphasise the fact that both body and bolt of the British Service rifle are difficult and expensive to machine, and that, in the first instance, complaints as to the lack of scientific design in our rifle have come from manufacturers.
Simplicity is the outstanding feature of every detail of the British action (see Plate XXI.). The trigger mechanism is worked on two pivots, and is much less complicated than either the Mauser or the Mannlicher trigger action. In the short rifle a double pull off has been obtained in a most ingenious manner by providing two points of contact between the trigger arm and the lower arm of the sear. The first point provides a long light pressure, and the second, which takes the scear nose from the bent, provides a harder but quicker pull. The transference of the contact from one point to the other is brought about by the change in relative position of the lower sear arm and the trigger arm.
So despite the earlier acknowledgement that the rear locking bolt was not "scientific" the authors agree with the points made by the posters on this thread.