The Accurate Reloading Forums
Bolt action infantry rifles of World Wars I and II
02 February 2018, 10:18
NaphtaliBolt action infantry rifles of World Wars I and II
I'm uncertain whether the trenches of World War I or the desert war and Eastern Front of World War II was more abusive on bolt action infantry rifles. I have owned no bolt action rifle since my unfired Long Branch No.4 Mk. II (dated December 1954) that I bought from Springfield Sporters in the late 1970s.
I'm unaware of any serious problem with reliability or maintainability with any World War I or II infantry rifle of any major participating country. Splitting hairs, I understand that British No. 4s, and No. 3s (of the Great War), were somewhat easier to keep shooting in mud and muck than other bolt actions because chambers and locking lug seats had easier access for cleaning out mud and filth. Beyond that, what are the weak spots and questionable design facets of boltd action infantry rifles of the World Wars? As a lefty, I've avoided bolt actions save for several years when I learned to shoot right-handed on a 1903 Springfield loaned to me by a friend - learning by dry firing and operating it from the shoulder while watching Western TV shows.
It's so simple to be wise. Just think of something stupid to say and then don't say it. Sam Levinson
02 February 2018, 20:46
ismithquote:
Originally posted by Naphtali:
I'm unaware of any serious problem with reliability or maintainability with any World War I or II infantry rifle of any major participating country.
Read up on the Ross Model 1905.
What force or guile could not subdue,
Thro' many warlike ages,
Is wrought now by a coward few,
For hireling traitor's wages.
03 February 2018, 22:37
Grizzly AdamsCompare those rugged old rifles to all the complexity and small parts, including tiny springs of modern weapons. Gotta wonder how they would stand up under the combat conditions of yesterday ?
Grizz
Indeed, no human being has yet lived under conditions which, considering the prevailing climates of the past, can be regarded as normal. John E Pfeiffer, The Emergence of Man
Those who can't skin, can hold a leg. Abraham Lincoln
Only one war at a time. Abe Again.
04 February 2018, 08:29
NormanConquestLike the man said to the gal on the beach "damned sand gets in everything."
Never mistake motion for action.
16 May 2018, 17:06
tiggertatequote:
Originally posted by Naphtali:
I'm uncertain whether the trenches of World War I or the desert war and Eastern Front of World War II was more abusive on bolt action infantry rifles. I have owned no bolt action rifle since my unfired Long Branch No.4 Mk. II (dated December 1954) that I bought from Springfield Sporters in the late 1970s.
I'm unaware of any serious problem with reliability or maintainability with any World War I or II infantry rifle of any major participating country. Splitting hairs, I understand that British No. 4s, and No. 3s (of the Great War), were somewhat easier to keep shooting in mud and muck than other bolt actions because chambers and locking lug seats had easier access for cleaning out mud and filth. Beyond that, what are the weak spots and questionable design facets of boltd action infantry rifles of the World Wars? As a lefty, I've avoided bolt actions save for several years when I learned to shoot right-handed on a 1903 Springfield loaned to me by a friend - learning by dry firing and operating it from the shoulder while watching Western TV shows.
I strongly recommend anyone interested in subjects like this go to Youtube and watch the "C & Asenal" series (yes, that's how it's spelled).
The presenter is a fellow called Othias and there's a young woman that shoots the weapons at the end of each episode, theory being she is the height and weight of the average enlisted soldier of the era. Right now the concentration is on small arms of WWI. The is another series called the Great War that is exceptional as well.
20 June 2018, 03:37
enfieldsparesEven before WWI, well before it in fact, the British NRA described the Ross as "a target rifle masquerading as a service arm".
The real problem with the Ross was that Britain relaxed the cartridge specification for the .303 Mk VII so rounds that would have been previously rejected as out of tolerance were accepted.
In the SMLE this wasn't an issue. In the Ross it proved terminal to the rifle.
The major drawback of the Enfield (and I've shot them for forty-five years) is its poor bayonet mounting system on the SMLE. The No4 gets it right.
In the Western Desert rifles were not lubricated if going into action but kept totally oil free and dried off. Dry sand runs off dry metal.
21 June 2018, 03:35
BobsterYes and the key to that is properly hardened metal with proper tolerances. Old Mausers with case hardened bolts and guide-ways are slick even when dry. Enfields are the same way. There is also generous clearance allowing for dirt.
quote:
Originally posted by enfieldspares:
Even before WWI, well before it in fact, the British NRA described the Ross as "a target rifle masquerading as a service arm".
The real problem with the Ross was that Britain relaxed the cartridge specification for the .303 Mk VII so rounds that would have been previously rejected as out of tolerance were accepted.
In the SMLE this wasn't an issue. In the Ross it proved terminal to the rifle.
The major drawback of the Enfield (and I've shot them for forty-five years) is its poor bayonet mounting system on the SMLE. The No4 gets it right.
In the Western Desert rifles were not lubricated if going into action but kept totally oil free and dried off. Dry sand runs off dry metal.