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.

I'm posting this following Deff Jaw's post on Machine Guns.

My vote goes to the Enfield. 10 round magazine and superior rate of fire since the action is fast and very smooth.

Pah! M1 Garand throws taunts at you puny bolt action rifles!

Pretty sure the guys who could give you the best asnwer to that are either dead, senile or well on the way to both.

whatwhat wrote:Pretty sure the guys who could give you the best asnwer to that are either dead, senile or well on the way to both.

* Mr. Frazzled joke*

The problem is with all of them you have to fight urges:

Mauser
Have to fight the urge to see the sights of Paris.

Enfield
You feel the need to shout “RIGHT!” a lot. The term ‘mad minute’ makes you feel all warm and giddy.

Nagant
Have to fight the urge to go lie in a slight trench and drink vodka.

Arisaka
You have to fight the urge to go get a better rifle.

Enfield any day. Good range and stopping power, Pluss it can be used as elephant gun

My vote goes to the Nagant, purely for longevity. That rifle killed a lot of US in Vietnam (not that it is a good thing I am at pains to point out) but it does prove testament to the simplicity and reliability of it; a true peasant's weapon.

reds8n wrote:

whatwhat wrote:Pretty sure the guys who could give you the best asnwer to that are either dead, senile or well on the way to both.

* Mr. Frazzled joke*

Senility is not an option!*

(*family members may disagree)

The Nagant, hands down.

Got to be the Enfield, smoothest bolt action I've seen, comparitively deep magazine and very accurate.

The Nagant is a cool rifle, but it is very long and the lack of a semi pistol grip makes it a bit strange to hold at first.

Incidentaly the Lee Enfield has the edge on the Nagant for longevity. Its apparently still in use in Afganistan, was used in the Nepol Civil War and is current issue to the Indian Police and IIRC their Militia.

Challenger

I would have to disagree regarding the Nagant. I have 2 91/30 and a Finnish M39. All of them have sticky bolt even though I tried 4 different types of surplus ammo.

The Nagant is also really long and slightly unwieldy for me personally.

I like the bayonet on the Enfield. There's a proper blade on that bayonet. On the Nagant all you get is a glorified screwdriver.

The Mauser action is considered to be more accurate, however the difference is non-existent in battlefield terms.

Why are the French, Austrian and Italian rifles not on the list?

That's why I included 'Others'

I don't think the Mauser action is more accurate. The Mauser is a 'cock-on-open' design. That means when you pull up on the bolt it cocks the firing pin. This puts a lot of force on the weapon and really throws off your aim. Enfield on the other hand is a cock on close. It is a smoother design. The Mauser is a much stronger design with a huge extractor claw and a stronger bolt.

Why the Enfield? The Mauser is nearly the same, just more accurate. Further the Mauser Bolt System was superior to the Enfield and Nagant Bolt Systems.

I love this poll, I have one of each!

The Enfield (whether it be the No.1 MK III or the No. 4 MK I) was superior to the rest of the designs here.

Hey Fraz, I wouldn't poo poo the Type 99, that was the only bolt action rifle of the era to have a Chrome lined barrel (great for jungle and tropical environments) and had a smoother action than the Mosin.

I picked the Enfield because it's the best looking gun out of all those listed, and the only one I've fired.

Frazzled wrote:Pah! M1 Garand throws taunts at you puny bolt action rifles!

Sure, it was a great rifle. And the M2 is a great machine gun. But neither do well in this survey because they're not bolt action rifles.

Kilkrazy wrote:The Mauser action is considered to be more accurate, however the difference is non-existent in battlefield terms.

Why are the French, Austrian and Italian rifles not on the list?

Were any French rifles used in WWI or WWII?

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

Challenger

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.

17 million made

inquisitor_bob wrote:That's why I included 'Others'

I don't think the Mauser action is more accurate. The Mauser is a 'cock-on-open' design. That means when you pull up on the bolt it cocks the firing pin. This puts a lot of force on the weapon and really throws off your aim. Enfield on the other hand is a cock on close. It is a smoother design. The Mauser is a much stronger design with a huge extractor claw and a stronger bolt.

It is due to the position of the bolt locking lugs.

Supposedly.

It is one of those weapon fetish things like the reason the French lost the Napoleonic Wars is because their musket was 0.69 cal compared to the British 0.75.

I mean the Italian Mannlicher-Carcano was a notoriously unreliable, inaccurate and underpowered design yet it did the job.

Well Inquisitor Bob has, what all three of the ones in discussion? he can literally put them on the table and compare the actions.

I would want to say nagant, but it kicks like nobody's business.

The second shot was often used to relocate shoulders dislocated by the first shot.

It also made for great tent pole, oars, clubs, firewood, etc if you ever ran out of ammo.

The Kar is a great rifle from what I've heard, but I just like the springfeld for some reason.

Frazzled wrote: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.

Their win/loss ratio is still well above 1. Up until, and including, Napoleon it was exceptional. Just after Napoleon they became a bit of basket case, almost dysfunctional, shown in the terrible performances in the first and second world wars.

sebster wrote:

Frazzled wrote: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.

Their win/loss ratio is still well above 1. Up until, and including, Napoleon it was exceptional. Just after Napoleon they became a bit of basket case, almost dysfunctional, shown in the terrible performances in the first and second world wars.

Another embarrassing fact is that the Poles inflicted more casualties on the Germans than the French did.

It was a combination of old tactics against new technology. In 1940, the French and British had superior tank designs compared to the Germans, but they used them like tanks were used in WWI. They sent two or three tanks as infantry support instead of using them en masse. The Germans didn't need better tanks, they just outmaneuvered and cut-off pockets of enemies and forced their surrender. This, combined with the failure of the Maginot line and the Germans use of combined arms made France look absolutely embarrassing in WWII.

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.

The Mauser got my vote for longevity. Smoothest action in the world won't help if you got a bunch of sand in it (such as in the North African campaign), but having a reliable and sturdy action might.

sebster wrote:

Frazzled wrote: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.

Their win/loss ratio is still well above 1. Up until, and including, Napoleon it was exceptional. Just after Napoleon they became a bit of basket case, almost dysfunctional, shown in the terrible performances in the first and second world wars.

Not quite. They repeatedly lost to the British. Napoleon and the US Revolution were bright spots in a long history of losing from the Romans on.

I'll have to agree with that.

I just watched this old movie with Kirk Douglas called 'Path to Glory'. I didn't realize the French almost lost Paris to the Germans in WW 1. It was the Brits who virtually saved Paris.

inquisitor_bob wrote:I'll have to agree with that.

I just watched this old movie with Kirk Douglas called 'Path to Glory'. I didn't realize the French almost lost Paris to the Germans in WW 1. It was the Brits who virtually saved Paris.

Research the "Miracle On The Marne", they were quite lucky.