If you had to fight with WWII bolt actions, which would you pick?

[Rapidrob]

Shooting long range every Sunday, hands down I'd have to use the M1917.g

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.

[Son]

Shooting long range every Sunday, hands down I'd have to use the M1917.g

While you are here, rapidrob, how about telling us all about the rare trials MkV Lee Enfield that the you refered to over at surplusrifles? You know the one- you asked the guys at gunboards what it was two days earlier and then jumped up and said

"Instantly post were made that the rifle was some how not right.I found that the replies were from members gaining their expertise from one web site and four photo's!
When I contacted a reparable source for information, I was informed the rifle was in fact correct and was a very early variant of this rifle type."

They had done the right thing by directing you to a site that held basic outline information to get you started. When they offered to help you further understand the irregularities with your rifle (these guys between them own several MkV's) you disappeared only to turn up on surplusrifle as an expert on the subject with a new found rare variant proven by some contact in England- a contact you have not verified and information you have not divulged.

I ask you here to come over to the Lee Enfield forum and post about your rifle, supplying the new information from England and set the record straight.

[ww2freak]

I would choose a mauser k98. Well built, reliable, and accurate. What else could you ask for in a bolt action combat rifle? My second choice would be a mosin nagant m91/30....face it, they're idiot proof, fairly accurate and they seem to never want to jam. Also a pretty good choice IMHO.

[mack]

I have owned and shot all the major player's bolt rifles from WWII. There is no question that the best of the bolt lot was the Enfield No. 4. As previously stated, it is the winner because it shoots fast from the slickest bolt action ever designed in a military rifle and has a large capacity magazine. WWI Germans thought they were firing against machine gun fire when they came up against Mk III fire, it was so much faster than their Mausers.

But what about my objections to the others, you might ask? Well, let's see...

Mauser.....slick, secure, accurate, but limited magazine capacity made it the rifle you wanted to replace in the battlefield. Many German troops took Garands off GI's because these had tremendous firepower.

Arisaka.....very nice, but limited in several respects. Caliber is not one of those limitations though.

Carcano.....gets took little respect, but a decent if outdated rifle in WWII. But the little Alpine carbine or Mountain carbine is about as slick a weapon as to be found and in the right hands, deadly and quick. Other factors limit it as well.

03 and 03A3....limited magazine capacity, but a tremendous rifle once you overcome the very unusual two piece trigger, which makes accuracy difficult.

Mosin....difficult bolt operation and limited magazine capacity. Outdated worse than the Carcano, but no where near as handy in a tight spot. Russian replacement semi was and is a strange duck, frequently refusing to work. And, never produced in sufficient supplies.

[kragluver]

I own and have shot the 1917, 03A3, Mosin Nagant and Enfield No 4 Mk 1. I've also shot my friends Mauser 98. Out of those, I'd pick the 03A3. I like the sights, and its handier than the 1917. My second choice would be a toss-up between the 1917 and the Enfield No. 4. The '17s had an issue with ejectors breaking. I've not had that issue, but I wouldn't want to have to deal with that in the field. It also feels a bit clunky as long as it is. I hate the sights on the Mauser and the Nagant.

[RBruce]

Swedish M38. Light, accurate, slick bolt, low recoil.

[buffdog]

I would have to go with the Lee Enfield No. 4. Reasonably accurate at combat ranges, works under almost any conditions, fast bolt operation, good sights designed for combat, simple to use, fast to reload, and while most of the other bolt actions have five rounds available, you have ten.

There is an old saying: " The Germans build a hunting rifle, the Americans build a target rifle, and the British build a rifle to kill people with."

[firthcpt]

Interesting post, me I would go with my 1903 A3, slick bolt and accurate shooter. Rear peep sight is a plus for me with old eyes. This rifle beats all of my mausers and mosins for ease to shoot and accuracy.

[burpgun]

For a WWII bolt action fighting rifle I would choose the No4.

Why?
1.Accurate enough
2.Reliable
3.Large magazine capacity
4.Very good sights
5.That fast and smooth bolt movement

That was too easy!

[841NER]

but if I had to only use one rifle from that era it would have to be the Swiss k-31. While it was not shot in battle due to the Swiss restraint,

I hadn't heard that theory; commercial reasons, quiet compliance yes but restraint? nup.

Can't go with Arisaka 99 or 38. The greatest weapons the Japanese Imperial Forces had were the zero and the bicycle. Unfortunately both offered similar levels of protection.

Mausers got the math wrong - five in the mag and superior numbers of opposition coming from two sides.

Never fired the Russian, but do look forward to it.

I'm going with the SMLE No1MkIII - it didn't suffer from restraint!

I know the No4 is an improvement, but I am Australian and the Old Dart told us Gallipoli was a good idea too!