Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

@inquisitor_bob

I'm sure if you researched a few Hollywood films you will probably find the good Ol' US of A saved the day on those occassions.

Edit - Enfield - sexy with a sword on the end

I was tied between the mauser and the enfield, as a proud owner of both (many of each) I would have to say the enfield due to its smoother operation and higher amunition cappicity.

But dont get me wrong, the mauser is a fantastic rifle in all aspects.

P.S. Arisakas suck. You are better off squeezing the ammunition tighly between you finger and hitting the primer with a hammer.

Let's see, I have 3 mausers (Swedish, German and Yugoslavian), 1 enfield (No. 5 Mk1, had a No. 4) and 2 Mosins (Russian 91/30 and M38).

I have to say for both WW1 and 2: Lee-Enfield or Swedish Mauser.


Lee-Enfield
Pros: The sights on the L-E are easy to pick up for a new shooter. 10 round capacity. Smooth action that is notoriously resistant to environmental factors ( still in use for its ability to function in extreme cold without seizing up).
Cons: Relatively weak action.

M96 and 34 Swedish Mauser
Pros: Very accurate. The 6.5x55mm round is brilliant. Swedish craftsmanship and materials were ( and still are in most respects)superb.
Cons: Mauser style sights are not my favorite.

Springfield 03s are great, but honestly they are just mausers chambered for 30-03 or 30-06 ( the US ended up having to pay Mauser for the design of the rifle, part of the treaty of Versaille was that we didn't have to pay for ripping Paul Mauser off any more)
Mosin Nagants are great, but quality control was spotty depending on the arsenal and time period (ok the same can be said of Lee-Enfield, but they were designed for loose tolerances). BTW if your Mosin bolt is sticking, dip a shotgun brush in bore cleaner and stick it in a drill and run the drill at slow with the brush in the chamber, just make sure you don't get it into the rifling, cleans a bunch of crud out of the chamber, worked on both of mine and they still stick, but no where near as much.

If we add straight pull rifles from the era, Swiss K11 and K31 rifles hands down.

quote=Frazzled]

Challenger wrote:I always felt sorry for the French, 300+ years of martial glory and bravery wiped out in one inglorious rout in 1940.

Challenger

Except of course they lost to the Prussians late 1800s, almost lost to the Germans in WWI, and were defeated by Mexican peasants at Pueblo. In fact their win loss ratio is less than sterling.

Brother Gideon wrote:I was tied between the mauser and the enfield, as a proud owner of both (many of each) I would have to say the enfield due to its smoother operation and higher amunition cappicity.

But dont get me wrong, the mauser is a fantastic rifle in all aspects.

P.S. Arisakas suck. You are better off squeezing the ammunition tighly between you finger and hitting the primer with a hammer.

I'll bite, how does the Type 99 "suck"?

The type 99 doesn't really suck if and that is a big if, you get one in good condition. I see a lot of "last ditch" rifles produced late in the war which were terrible. The poor quality of late war Arisaka 99s ( no heat treatment of metal, sub par sights and no finish whatsoever) sours people to the design.The 7.7x58 it uses is a solid round, comparable to the .303 and the action is ridiculously strong. I liked my Arisaka for the short time I had it but it was just one more oddball round to reload for so I sold it.

fastchocolatesurprise wrote: The type 99 doesn't really suck if and that is a big if, you get one in good condition. I see a lot of "last ditch" rifles produced late in the war which were terrible. The poor quality of late war Arisaka 99s ( no heat treatment of metal, sub par sights and no finish whatsoever) sours people to the design.The 7.7x58 it uses is a solid round, comparable to the .303 and the action is ridiculously strong. I liked my Arisaka for the short time I had it but it was just one more oddball round to reload for so I sold it.

That is a fair assessment of the 99, comparing a "Last Ditch" to an early Type 99 is like comparing a 1939 made 98k to a VG-1 or 45 dated 98. Yeah, it's kind of the same rifle but not quite. I own a 1939 dated Type 99 and it is a great shooter. The action and bolt are arguably the best of WWII (for ease of dissassembly, low amount of parts, simple safety).

I could just say screw this and be a man ( for the men interested in this thread, or show the boys up and call them wimps), grab a Steyr 95/30. For all of those sissies who complain about a Mosin's recoil.
I still chose other and picked a non standard rifle in the Swede Mauser or the Schmidt-Rubin Swiss rifle.

Try Again Bragg wrote:This is really an interesting question. As a second point why is it that the Ruskies tend to produce weapons that are not exceptional but will never frelling die and will never degrade. That said, I will say the enfield for the points of high accuracy to rate of fire ratio.

Because no matter how accurate your weapon is, if it locks up or breaks in combat, your boned.

Plus, Russian weapons double as bludgeoning devices, they used to have ammo problems way back in the day so they needed a weapon that could beat you down and shoot your ass.

fastchocolatesurprise wrote:
BTW if your Mosin bolt is sticking, dip a shotgun brush in bore cleaner and stick it in a drill and run the drill at slow with the brush in the chamber, just make sure you don't get it into the rifling, cleans a bunch of crud out of the chamber, worked on both of mine and they still stick, but no where near as much.

I have no problem feeding in cartridges but some times the extraction requires a lot of force. My favorite Nagant is my Finn M39. It is suppose to be extremely accurate. I need to get out to the range more...