Greatest bolt action battle rifle in history...

[mrclark303]

It fascinates me when the 303 cartridge is maligned because of its rim, but all other rimmed cartridges used in service rifles are OK. Not sure about that more maintenance either. It didn't seem to bother its users for over 70 years. However, that is just my conviction.

Agreed Daan, nothing wrong with .303, its a fine cartridge that served the commonwealth with distinction for many decades!

It's still my favourite to shoot!

[Eaglelord17]

It fascinates me when the 303 cartridge is maligned because of its rim, but all other rimmed cartridges used in service rifles are OK. Not sure about that more maintenance either. It didn't seem to bother its users for over 70 years. However, that is just my conviction.

When have you seen anyone advocate that a other rimmed ammo rifle is the best for smokeless powder? Off the top of my head you have cartridges like 8x50r and 8x56r, 8x50r Lebel, and 7.62x54r being the main ones. Ultimately no real benefit to a rimmed cartridge, and some major disadvantages such as increased ammo manufacturing costs (due to needing more material), potential of rimlock in many designs (only military surplus design which I believe 100% mitigates this is the Mannlicher clip designs, the interrupter on the Mosin Nagant doesn't work 100% reliably, and the Lee Enfield has the risk of it no matter how well designed the magazine is). The real sad part is when they adopted the Lee-Metford they almost went with a rimless cartridge, which would have been a major advantage for the British (as the rim was a source of many issues for them design wise not just in Enfields, but in all the other small arms forced to use a rimmed cartridge as it was the standard).

My point in regards to maintenance is from a armourers/manufacturers perspective (not the in the field soldiers perspective). How many people have you seen try and just slap wood on a Lee Enfield and 'restore' it without using the proper procedures to fit them. I argue they are more finicky than most rifles for that. Again ultimately pretty much any issued bolt action is just as effective as the next one in the average persons hands.

[Paul S.]

With Eagleford 17's comments above in mind, I have to ask; do they still run the rapid fire course of fire in competition at Bisley with the .303? If so, has anyone noted stoppages due to misfeeds?

[Daan Kemp]

I'm generalising now, I doubt if there is a manufacturing cost increase in rimmed cartridges, otherwise those parsimonious government officials would quickly have made the military change, especially if you manufacture and use millions a month. The potential of rimlock always exists, however we don't read about this being a problem anywhere rimmed cartridges were used in battle.

Talking bolt action rifles for battle. Users in war didn't worry about restoring, etc and the wood fitting didn't matter as long as it worked. As Eaglelord17 says it didn't really matter for the average user.

[CINDERS]

From my experience on the range with rim lock in a speed shoot it takes a smidge of time to get the rifle up & running again depending on where the enemy is situated he has either run you through with his bayonet or put a round through your sconce as your weapon with such a malady is either a club or a sticking stick. That's why I think Daan that it was not well known about the rim lock in battle as probably most perished or were just glad if wounded to get the hell away from the trenches.

[Paul S.]

My point is that I suspect the rim lock issue wasn't much of an issue. Otherwise, I suspect after action reports would have motivated a change at some point during the Enfield's ( and .303) nearly century long service. I find myself wondering if it is one of those myths that result from the pontifications of armchair experts.

[Eaglelord17]

My point is that I suspect the rim lock issue wasn't much of an issue. Otherwise, I suspect after action reports would have motivated a change at some point during the Enfield's ( and .303) nearly century long service. I find myself wondering if it is one of those myths that result from the pontifications of armchair experts.

They tried to adopt a new rifle in a rimless cartridge (the P13), WWI put a stop to that. Just because something is a issue, doesn't mean that it isn't something that wasn't accepted and moved on with. Personally I have done my own version of the mad minute both with a P14 and a Lee Enfield (I actually did better with the P14). My best was 22rds at 100m on target, my worst is about 8rds due to a stoppage caused by charging the rifle, followed by a rimlock stoppage. Until your on the clock you tend not to get the same types of malfunctions when shooting. When everything was working fine it was great, as soon as something went wrong it was horrible (your in the prone, having to pull the action back to you to figure out what is wrong, trying to clear the stoppage from the prone which is much harder than from a bench). All I know is one if not both of those stoppages could have been avoided with a rimless design (better chargers due to not being restricted to crappy rimmed designs would have prevented the loading stoppage, and the rimlock would not have been a issue if it was rimless in the first place).

Not bad rifles, just simply the cartridge and chargers is a weak point for it. Logistics is part of what prevents change. Even small changes cost a lot and when your considering a empire the size of the British empire it is very difficult and expensive to do anything on scale.

[amadeus76]

They tried to adopt a new rifle in a rimless cartridge (the P13), WWI put a stop to that. Just because something is a issue, doesn't mean that it isn't something that wasn't accepted and moved on with. Personally I have done my own version of the mad minute both with a P14 and a Lee Enfield (I actually did better with the P14). My best was 22rds at 100m on target, my worst is about 8rds due to a stoppage caused by charging the rifle, followed by a rimlock stoppage. Until your on the clock you tend not to get the same types of malfunctions when shooting. When everything was working fine it was great, as soon as something went wrong it was horrible (your in the prone, having to pull the action back to you to figure out what is wrong, trying to clear the stoppage from the prone which is much harder than from a bench). All I know is one if not both of those stoppages could have been avoided with a rimless design (better chargers due to not being restricted to crappy rimmed designs would have prevented the loading stoppage, and the rimlock would not have been a issue if it was rimless in the first place).

Not bad rifles, just simply the cartridge and chargers is a weak point for it. Logistics is part of what prevents change. Even small changes cost a lot and when your considering a empire the size of the British empire it is very difficult and expensive to do anything on scale.

I don’t think it’s so much WWI put a stop to it as the war proved the Wmfields merits.

[30Three]

This is an interesting thread, with some interesting propositions!. For me; I'm a Lee Enfield man, that's my area of interest in milsurp's; so I'm biased.
But the mud of Flander's and the sand of north Africa have proved the value of it's design.
I know the Swiss rifles are accurate; many shooter's use them in Service rifle competitions. But when have they been proved on the battle field?

[Gil Boyd]

Certainly agree that they have probably never seen an angry man in Switzerland, unless you try to steal one of their cows bells, but the Swiss make some lovely weapons.
It is probably driven by the fact that every male between 18 and 45 has a rifle an ammunition at home and is a member of the Armed Forces whether they like it or not. I bet their NRA is efficient, and their shooting clubs are well attended!!!
The Swiss Anti tank guns were used by many countries during WW2 because they were accurate, and I know the UK trialled them. They certainly weren't lightweight though.