What if the US had adoped the Enfield?

[Sunray]

"...the Lee-Enfield was SO underwhelming in the Boer War..." The Lee-Enfield wasn't used in the Boer War. They were Lee-Metfords(aka Long-Lee). Not the same thing. The SMLE was adopted in 1902. After the war was over.
"...1918 Enfield with the 0.316 bore..." The barrel is shot out. But just barely. Barrels are ok if they measure between .311" and .315". You won't find commercial ammo that'll shoot worth beans through a .316" barrel. Most factory uses .311" or .312" bullets. Steve at .303british.com is, seasonally, making 200 grain .314" jacketed bullets you could try.
Oh and no industrialized country wanted or wants to use a rifle made elsewhere.

[John Kepler]

The Lee-Enfield wasn't used in the Boer War. They were Lee-Metfords(aka Long-Lee) Not the same thing..

Actually, it was! Though you are quite right on one thing.....they AREN'T the same thing! A Lee-Metford isn't a "Long-Lee", and they were Lee-Enfields (MLE)!

The barrel is shot out.

I'm a competition shooter chum and the barrel was not only air-gauged, but bore-scoped! It isn't "shot-out"....it was made wrong!

[John Sukey (Deceased)]

Just a comment. The Lee Enfield was made to put round holes in square heads and it did that very well. So Yes, Mr Kepler, it is NOT a high precision competition target rifle! As the first paragraph in the skill at arms hand book stated,
"Your weapons are given you to kill the enemy"
There is no mention about shooting tight groups on paper targets.

[Jim K]

I have no expectation that any comment will reduce the eternal SMLE vs. 98 Mauser vs. M1903 vs. M1917/P-14 arguments, but it is well to remember that in an era of rapid arms development, the original Lee-Metford was a whole generation earlier in thinking than the other rifles. That means, in other words, that it was a generation behind the others in manufacturing methods and overall usability.

The British were, at the time, very wealthy and quite quickly rearmed with their new rifle, but that also meant that they could never again afford a rapid rearmament of their whole empire, even when they admitted (with the P-13) that the day of the SMLE was past. Fortunately, the SMLE is a good battle rifle, in spite of its shortcomings, and served well. the No.4, of course, is simply an improved SMLE; the action is still the basic Lee.

Just for those who might not know, the British practice at the time was to name the service rifle after the designer(s) of the action, followed by the designer(s) of the barrel rifling. So a Lee-Metford is a Lee action with Metford rifling, a Martini-Henry is a Martini action with Henry rifling, and a Lee-Enfield is a Lee action with rifling designed at RSAF Enfield Lock.

Jim

[Thunderbox]

.... even when they admitted (with the P-13) that the day of the SMLE was past.

But thats just not true: the Lee Enfield proved so superior as a battle rifle that it was the Mauser/P13 project that was abandoned altogether - and some 250,000 manufactured and paid-for P14 rifles were never even issued. Those brand-new P14s were sufficient to re-equip the 1920s peacetime regular army and, given the wartime M17 production, there was an economic source of spares and fresh rifles. Instead the P14s remained in store and No1s were refurbished and retained. When 1939 came along, it was another Lee Enfield - the No4 - that had been developed to pre-production state, and not a Mauser.

[John Kepler]

Just a comment. So Yes, Mr Kepler, it is NOT a high precision competition target rifle!
There is no mention about shooting tight groups on paper targets.

So nice that all those ROF folks got jobs after the war working for John Lucas and British Leyland....they both operated under the engineering principal of "close enough is good enough!" too....when they took a Union-approved work-break!

FWIW John...the Enfield's days of being much of anyone's primary killing tool ended over a half-century ago. What's left is "...shooting tight groups on paper targets.", or just hanging them all on a wall to look at, so that's the current evaluating criteria. That little factoid is the one you always seem to lose track of!

[John Kepler]

When 1939 came along, it was another Lee Enfield - the No4 - that had been developed to pre-production state, and not a Mauser.

And the US was already building and issuing a semi-automatic battle-rifle making the No. 4 obsolete rather than just obsolescent before it was even built...keeping it into the mid-1950's is even less justifiable. So...your point being?

[John Sukey (Deceased)]

Well John, The 03 Springfield, the 98 mouser, The Arisaka, and the Carcano are also nobody's primary killing tool either. That doesn't mean they were not good at doing that.
However both the mouser and the Enfield are still taking game on several continents and countries which is one factoid YOU forgot.

I shoot rifles and handguns for the fun of doing so. You shoot rifles to make tiny groups on paper. These are two different things, and I cannot understand why you have to continualy denigrate anyone else's sport.

For that matter While not engaged in major wars, there are still minor conflicts where the enfield and the mouser are doing what they were designed to do.

[Strangely Brown]

I'm a competition shooter chum and the barrel was not only..........

And don't you keep reminding us John!

[Dimitri]

And the US was already building and issuing a semi-automatic battle-rifle making the No. 4 obsolete rather than just obsolescent

I don't know, I own a M14/M1A rifle, and I own a No.4, and I'd take the No.4 to war before I took my M1A or a M1 Garand.

Dimitri