-
Legacy Member
Any one else sick of the misinformation?
With all the sabre rattling between Pakistan and India again, one of my sons asked me if they both used lee Enfields against each other over the years, before adopting more modern arms. Assuming yes, I looked up some history on them and inadvertently came across a web site asking why more countries didn't use or copy them.
The numerous replies were all very negative towards the SMLE, and gave myriad reasons why the mauser and its copies were better in nearly every way. The usual tripe about the weak action, inaccuracy, head spacing, how it should have been replaced by the P14 , rim jam, how mediocre it was etc etc.
One misguided soul even said he would trust a mosin over an Enfield.........
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. |
|
-
Thank You to AradoAR234 For This Useful Post:
-
03-21-2019 08:20 PM
# ADS
Friends and Sponsors
-
Legacy Member
Those who don't know tend to parrot the ramblings of the ignorant.
That said, there is a reason Australia used SMLEs from before WWI right through the Korean War and beyond. It soldiered on with the Australian Army Reserve even after the SLR was readily available.
As for the BS that it would have cost too much to re-arm, it doesn't matter how many of a given tool of the trade you may have, you'll find a better tool for the job if the tool you have is crap. Witness Canada and the Ross rifle circa 1915.
Last edited by Paul S.; 03-21-2019 at 08:35 PM.
-
The Following 3 Members Say Thank You to Paul S. For This Useful Post:
-
-
Contributing Member
Ditto on that. Every time I go to the range with an LE, someone asks either what caliber or type of rifle I'm shooting. When I tell them it's a Lee Enfield in 303, the response is the same; "I hear those things have headspace problems." When I ask where they heard that BS, it's always "some guy had one blow up on him" or "the internet" or "a gunsmith told me that." My brain goes in check-out mode and I politely and minimally explain I have had no problems with headspace or grenading guns. I return to shooting and they eventually stumble back to their own shooting point.
-
Thank You to smle addict For This Useful Post:
-
Legacy Member
THe main issue is that I don't recall the british government allowing anyone other the United Kingdom from MAKING them. If you don't let anyone build their own, or buy them from you.... no one gets to use them.
Mauser tried to arm the entire world. anyone with money could buy one, and if they had enough money they could purchase a manufacturing permit and make their own.
-
Thank You to pocketshaver For This Useful Post:
-
Legacy Member
Mauser was and is a private, commercial concern for whom licencing a patent was basically pure profit, and profit was their sole motive. Licencing gave them a monetary percentage for each rifle produced without the costs of labour, materials or tooling. Enfield, or more rightly, HM Government, was not profit motivated (short-sighted thinking that), but solely interested in producing a military rifle - 'tools of the trade'. That said, Australia and India also made SMLEs by the thousands. Canada made No. 4 rifles right into the middle 1950s.
-
-
Legacy Member
Mine are not the best, but they are not too bad. I can think of lots of Enfields I'd rather have but instead of constantly striving for more, sometimes it's good to be satisfied with what one has...
-
-
FREE MEMBER
NO Posting or PM's Allowed
And Britain kept and used thousands of Ross rifles.
-
Contributing Member
Tell ya what those arm chair bandits that personify the mis information need to note exactly why the Lee was such a long lived affair with our armed force the bloody thing worked and well it did in the hands of the Old Contemptibles it decimated the advancing German hordes who had their 5 shot Mausers. The lee could handle the mud & sludge of WWI far better than the Mausers or the Ross could it was a minimalistic rifle that did what it was designed to do kill the enemy and be in Peter L's words "Crunchie Proof."
Allot of issues to be found on ranges is with idiots wringing the lee's neck with hot loads or getting a rim over like its the end of the world to them just clear it and move on I would rather go into a conflict with a weapons system that has stood the test of time it may not be a tack driver or on par with todays military weapons but I would rather have a lee enfield covered in mud and still capable of firing than my Rem 700 which is a front locker all fouled up and no better than a club...…...
-
Thank You to CINDERS For This Useful Post:
-
Contributing Member
Hey Cinders, I was beginning to think you'd got lost.
-
Thank You to muffett.2008 For This Useful Post:
-
Contributing Member
As Alan de Enfield states they were made by several countries. I have to say, those rifles that have been "fiddled with" by such countries as India and Pakistan, have in my opinion brought the rifle's good name and history into disripute.
I am sure there will be others on the site like Peter L who dealt or saw some of these poorly maintained rifles in their service, where wire tires and bands had been lashed to the barrels and stocks to continue into service. Having said all of that, I have seen some cracking Indian examples but NEVER Pakistani ones.
The Lee Enfield has to be up there with the great accomplishments of modern warfare, if you just take its longevity as an example of an operational weapon, that has seen service in EVERY campaign since the Boar War, nearly 150 years in various forms and models if I can call it that!!!
'Tonight my men and I have been through hell and back again, but the look on your faces when we let you out of the hall - we'd do it all again tomorrow.' Major Chris Keeble's words to Goose Green villagers on 29th May 1982 - 2 PARA
-