I've seen it claimed many times that an American Gunsmith had coined the term "Inherently Weak" to describe the Lee Enfield action.

Well in my studies I've run across many complaints about the weakness of the rear lugged Enfield bolt compared to other bolt action military rifles of its day.
Such as the following.
From
Rifles and Ammunition and Rifle Shooting" 1915

Rifles and ammunition and rifle shooting - Google Books

CHAPTER VII
Modern Military Rifles Critically Examined

ACTUAL war experience seems to point to the conclusion *Vi that, given a good, serviceable rifle—and all the rifles of the Great Powers and many of those of smaller Powers come into this category—the fighting value of the weapon depends more on the practical skill of the user than on any mechanical refinements which engineering or ballistic knowledge may have suggested.
As a matter of fact, the differences in effectiveness of all the best rifles are so small tHat they can easily be mastered by the human element. Good points can be nullified by lack of skill, whilst the handicap that should be introduced by a bad feature in a rifle may easily be more than made up for by highly developed aptitude on the part of the users. In one type of rifle, also, a weak or unscientific feature may be counterbalanced by another extremely good one. An instance of this may be seen in our own latest pattern short rifle. This still has the very unscientific bolt, with the lugs at the rear end of the bolt instead of close up to the base of the cartridge-case; but the slight inaccuracies brought about by this might easily be made up for on active service by the ease and rapidity with which the backsight can be adjusted with the thumb only of the left hand. The bolt is the worst to be found on any modern military rifle; the backsight is the best.
In fact the only references to the weaknesses of the Lee Enfield action that I've run across so far come from Britishicon and Canadianicon sources of the early 20th century when the LE was still a cutting edge design.

Gunsmiths here never considered the LE actions suitable for conversion to high intensity cartridges, but I don't think any British Gunsmith would either.

Also while the Lee action is lauded for its ability to shrug off mud and grit due to its loose tolerances and open design, this seems to be more due to the failure of the Ross rifle to handle the all too often poor quality of British supplied .303 ammunition of WW1.
I've never heard that either the Mausers or the Springfields were at all prone to jamming up in combat.
Information
Warning: This is a relatively older thread
This discussion is older than 360 days. Some information contained in it may no longer be current.