The 98 Mauser is a much more accurate rifle than the Enfield for a host of reasons! You must have used a 98k with a near shot out barrel to have gotten a group that big! Or you were intentionally being a bad shot!
The Germans' own figures say you're wrong. ua-cam.com/video/S7eQT9LeVeE/v-deo.html Take the *average* figures shown in that video and compare them with the *minimum* grouping standard of 8" at 200 yds for any of the British rifles, let alone the 600 yd partial factory test of 18" at 600 yds for the No.4 (or even the 36" at 600 yd for an SMLE).
LOL! LOL! You and whatever FAKE NEWS source you may wish to quote are TOTALLY WRONG!! I have been collecting rifles for 60 years. The average 98k will outshoot a Lee-Enfield seven days a week! I have owned and shot numerous SMLE or "smelly" (Because the accuracy STINKS! But it was never intended to be accurate!) over the years. I also collect British, German, Russian, US and other nations Armorer's gauges and KNOW how to use them! The "WHY" of the smelly's INACCURACY is built into the design: It all goes back to the Middle Ages when the Brits discovered that a large number of "Longbowmen" could put out a LOT of arrows FAST and kill off lots of French Knights BEFORE the main battle was joined. Therefore the Brits wanted SPEED and a HIGH RATE OF FIRE in their battle rifle! To get that SPEED they chose an action designed by an American named "Lee". Lee's action was very fast and slick in operation. The Armorer's at Enfield added a 10 shot magazine, good sights and other useful bits and whoo-laa! The Brits had a very good "Battle Rifle" which enabled Tommy Atkins to put out a LOT of not so accurate bullets into wherever the King's enemies were! To make a smelly into a "Sniper Rifle" takes a LOT OF WORK! But there is a boat load of gauges and special tools to get the job done! But it is far to complicated to give any real detail here on how it is done and what gauges to use and so forth to get a smelly accurate enough to begin to think about putting a scope on it. On the other side, the Jerrys had it FAR EASIER! At the factory, every 98k produced was test fired with 5 shots before it left the factory, by expert marksmen. The target was delivered with the 98k for military ordnance information. The ones that delivered very tight groups (I have NEVER SCOPED 98k's that will deliver 5 shot groups you can cover with a quarter!) were made into "sniper rifles" either at the factory or by German ordnance personnel.
Wow. Wut? You talk about "fake news" and write that raft of utter ahistorical nonsense? Good for you... Here's some quotations of German official documents in the Collector Grade book on the 98k sniper: "Tests showed that with the K98k and commercial telescope and selected ammunition, a target the size of the chest target could be fought against with some accuracy from a distance of 300m, not a head sized target however. Russian sharpshooters meet these demands with their weapons, as noted from their firing specifications. The German armament industry can certainly reach the same goal. However no substantial performance improvement can be expected from the short-barrelled K98k" Nr 4325/44 geh AHA/In2 (IIb) Regarding shooting the 98k sniper rifle from a Schiessmaschine "The same goes for the demand that all five shots have to lie within the centric 70mm circle [at 100m]. Even rifles with very minimal dispersion rarely achieve such a target picture." Report of Director Holl of Mauser Werke GmbH, 17 June 1943 (70mm @ 100m is 2.5 MOA. Rarely achieved with a 98k sniper. For comparison, all No.4 Mk.1(T) rifles had to achieve 7 of 7 shots within 5" at 200 yds. Which is 2.5 MOA minimum standard, followed by a 6 of 7 shots into 10" at 400 yds, which is again 2.5 MOA allowing one flyer in 7 shots). Letter of 22 June 1943 from the Infanterieschule at Döberitz-Elagrund to the Chef der Heeresrüstung und Befehlshaber der Ersatzheeres-AHA/In2: "Experience gained from the sharpshooting training course has shown that dispersion of the ZF rifles is too large and too varied. Firing at distances of 100m showed dispersion to 15cm even though sighting shot ammunition was used..."
And also, there's a nice uncommented easter-egg in the video I linked if you were paying attention. In a 1901 trial at Hythe, they tested 2 Gew 98 rifles, which gave Figure of Merit (mean radius) values at 500 yds of 10.25" and 9.10" (rifles numbered 5425 and 4044 respectively). From a MLE, they got 5.70". And at that period the sights on the MLE were basically the same type of barleycorn as on a Gew. 98. BTW proper rapid firing didn't come to the fore until the 1909 Musketry Regulations, more than 20 years after the adoption of the Lee action so the Lee action wasn't adopted because of something decided 20 years later........
if Mauser fanboys are triggered by some rusted, sand blasted, war capture k98 doing less than 5MOA in the hands of a man who never shuts up about how bad their eyesight is then they'll be triggered by anything.
Dangerous Amoeba I love my Mauser, I love my no.4, I love my Mas 36. They are all battlefield capable and accurate enough. But being frank, the Mauser is the worst of the 3, sorry!
As an ex British infantryman in the days of the SMLE No.4 and when all is considered and a push becomes a shove the most important advantage irrespective of accuracy, I would say of the No.4 Enfield was its 10 round magazine against the 5 rounds of the Mauser, excellent for rapid fire.The No.4 when fitted with the screw back sight adjustable in 25 yard clicks was a very nice beautifully balanced target rifle for a good shot soldier.
Having shot both the difference is that the Enfield's bolt can be cycled without moving the eye from the sight. The ergo's are better and the fact it has a double stacked removable mag means more shots on target before needing a reload. Mine didn't have ghost ring sights as it was an older model but the sights were still better than the k98. Both rounds are comparable and dropped wild pigs with equal effectiveness.
I am left handed .so loose the sight picture shooting both rifles!. i find vee sights easier to use at 100 m, and there fore find the Enfield sights better to use. However used a K98[cupped butt plate] in service rifle comp for a couple of years because I found a k98 that shot inch groups at 100 yds. It is just a case of finding a rifle with a good barrel these days[Ihave a collection of Enfield rifles!! 100+] Enfields tend to be ammo sensitive[no cordite here]
Yeah, the No.4 Mk1's action is so smooth that it's spoiled me. I just bought my first bolt action ever, a Long Branch Enfield No.4 Mk1* in pretty good condition (previous owner unfortunately sporterized the fore stock, so no wood hand guards and only half the wood under the barrel), and the bolt feels like it's floating as if quantum locked it's so buttery-smooth. My uncle let me try his new Steyr Scout, and I had to lie to him about the action being nice. Compared to my Enfield, his Scout felt like I was trying to grind course sand paper with course sand paper. I paid $200 for my rifle (sporterization absolutely killed the resale value, which was good news for me), and it shoots smoother and faster than any other modern bolt action I've shot, and has at least double the capacity. More than double the capacity of my brother's Winchester XPR, which has a measly 4 round mag. Yep, the Enfield has spoiled me. The triggers on the newer guns are way better, but I'm used to my double action pistol that has a 12.5 pound trigger pull (transitions to 2 pound single action after the first shot), so I have no difficulty pulling my Enfield's trigger whatsoever.
@@23GreyFox You mean the Mauser has soldiered on in the form of nearly every hunting rifle known to man and the Enfield is relegated to history? I'm guessing your intent, but BOTH are in use today, both fixed double stack magazines of low capacity and removable 10+ round double stack magazines. I'm afraid the latter is of far far greater utility.
You do realise this won't be a fair test until you compare the accuracy of 10 mint condition, never issued, straight out of the factory Mausers shooting hand loaded custom match ammunition, vs 10 completely knackered, rusted, badly sporterised, jungle carbines shooting whatever ammunition failed inspection 70 years ago.. :)
I think it's bullshit that most modern bolt actions are sold without sights, though the norm now is to have a scope. To me it's like they're selling you an unfinished gun. To me it's like buying a car without mirrors.
@@nicholaspatton5590 No comparison. It would be more like purchasing a truck (a real one, not one of those pickups Americans mistakenly call trucks) without an engine, in order to specify what you want later. This has been done, by the way, they're called glider kits. Iron sights would be an insult to the level of accuracy a Remington 700 is intended to deliver. Otherwise, I largely agree. Not all of us want scopes, and not all rifles need them, bolt action or otherwise.
@luckyrodude Against a Kenworth K104 with a Cat 3408 engine uprated to 650hp pulling a double road train, grossing out at 90 tonne? I think your 70 Dodge 440 would die, mate, that's my solicited opinion. Before it even moved a metre off the start line, in fact. Rack off and come back when you've got something decent like a Peterbuilt or a W900. A 70 Dodge 440 isn't a truck, it's a ute (bakkie in South Africa and pickup anywhere in Europe - allowable variations). That's the difference. Anything not a ute grossing out under 25 tonne is a puddle jumper.
@@nicholaspatton5590 If you want iron sights you can buy a model that has them included, or get a gunsmith to put in a front sight and use the scope base & picatinny rail to put in a rear sight that, due to being an aperture sight located all the way in the back, is superior to the iron sights on the majority of bolt action military and sporting rifles. If I don't want iron sights, and guns can function perfectly fine without them, why should my gun have them?
@@nicholaspatton5590 On behalf of european hunters, have you ever seen anyone hunting with iron sight? Maybe, but the first action for most of us after purchase is to fix scope. Personally I went hunting with iron sight once in 15 years, when my scope was scrapped and the replacement was delayed.
I use to shoot military service match with a 98 Mauser and people use to comment about how well I shot with V notch sights. When I started shooting a no4 mk1 I felt the Enfield sights were much better and now I hate shooting my 98 Mauser. Once you get familiar with peep sights you never go back.
I'm a big fan of the 303 Lee Enfield, that said the Swiss K11 and K31 along with the Swedish Mauser are probably better rifles. Why? Because they were never under pressure to make any compromise in their making to get them to the front lines. If the question were about the best bolt action battlefield rifle, it'll be a Lee Enfield hands down! Accurate, 10 round magazine, fast to fire, reload, well balanced and reliable.
The Germans NEVER compromised on critical 98 Mauser specs, EVEN in HARSH WAR TIME CONDITIONS! It is true that superficial things, such as the finish on metal and wood, on war time 98k could and did suffer. But where it counted, the barrel was always rifled and chambered perfectly. The headspace was always correct. Even on otherwise crude "last ditch" 98k!!!
goodness me...two mainline european battle rifles, both roughly 30 caliber, both with around 30 to 40 years of development and front line service...and they shoot well enough to negate an enemy within a realistic distance for roughly trained infantryman... ze gods man...it's almost as if there was some sort of ,,,I don't know,,,similar design philosophy? tactics,,tactics ,tactics. Keep it up Bloke.
Its been said a thousand times the Germans produced a hunting rifle the British on the other hand produced a battle rifle that endured longer than any other military rifle under combat conditions I know which I would prefer especially with a 10 round magazine
Bloke, thank you for doing these vids, every time you put up one with the No 4 I go pull my out and study it down. It is still in excellent condition with the barrel still being great. Keep up the great stuff out on the range. I have owned both the 98 AND the N0 4. I traded the 98 for the No 4 because the 98 which was in pristine condition was inferior to the 4. I shot both heavily at ranges from 100 to 500 from a vise and simply put, when I did the averages, I promptly traded the 98 for the No 4. The action was so smooth on the 4 and the recoil from the 98 was brutal in comparison to the 4. As for Ike, well ROFLMBO.....
Mannilicher-Schonhaurer (or however the hell you spell it) and Krag-Jorgensen both are a order if magnitude smoother. Though in practical terms the number 4 is a better rifle.
I read the book from German sniper Bruno Sutkus. And he achieved on hundred meters regularly a group that he could cover with his thumb. But during the war the Germans had quality control issues. So if one wants a good shooting K98 a early or pre war would be the best choice
It is kind of amazing to me, for all the advancements and innovation the Germans are responsible for between the Mauser 71 and WWII, that they never bothered to develop a not-terrible iron sight set-up.
Definitely looking forward to that! Do you think they just had a more realistic expectation of combat conditions, especially post-WWI, that they felt such an emphasis on marksmanship was just wasted effort?
The Germans likely saw no reason to improve their rifle sights between the wars because optimizing open sight systems isn't as significant as making the best use of portable belt fed machine guns or deploying more submachine guns and assault rifles.
Well i have a few nice Mausers, i prefere them over alot of other guns, sights and all. But i`m Norwegian and grew up with a lot of really good condition Mausers :)
Accuracy tests are somewhat pointless unless you do it about 5-10 times. I've heard some people claim that Mausers are more accurate and some people that claim SMLEs are more accurate. Both of them are milsurps, and that Mauser as you said, had really worn sights. There's too many different variables when comparing old rifles. The better comparison would be in design and ergonomics
Bloke on the Range Uh, except this isn't an acceptance test, it's a comparison test. There's a reason why the scientific method dictates for multiple trials, to minimize any possible outside variables. Grabbing 2 beat up milsurps and shooting them without any rest one time and then measuring the distance between the furthest marks on the target is a really poor indicator of which rifle is "more accurate". Both of them are capable of 10cm groupings at 600-800m and were used by snipers.
There's also the issue that Enfields have a less secure lock on the action which inherently acts detrimental to accuracy. Think about the most accurate rifles from the war - all derivative of the forward locking bolt design from Mauser pattern bolts, except maybe the K31. I love Enfields, even own one, but I'm not going to pretend it's something it's not. It's an incredibly quick action with a detachable magazine.
The Mauser system is used in most modern day bolt action rifles. If in shorter range combat I think a No.4 would be better bcs of the fire rate, magazine size and sights. Also the lee was shorter. While if for long range shooting I'd take a 98k. Less pressure is lost due to the forward locking bolt and the ammo quality was a bit better.
There's inherent accuracy, which is not the same thing as practical accuracy. To test inherent accuracy, you'd need to lock the rifle down in a bench vise, as well as controlling other variables such as bullet weight and powder charge. This is a reasonable test of practical accuracy, which is inherently somewhat subjective and therefore not strictly scientific. To put it another way, what's practically accurate for me may not be the same as what's practically accurate for you (and neither of these may be as inherently accurate as something else), but at the same time what's practically accurate for me is the only relevant basis for preferring one rifle to another.
@@claudyfocan731 exactly if i was doing long range id take the kar because (in theory) 8mm Mauser is better for range if i was jumping a trench id take the enfield because the action runs faster and i have 10 rounds instead of 5
I have owned both and even tho i love my Kar98k more, i know it is lacking with its ' W ' shaped sight picture compared to a peep sight. Your eye naturally finds the center of the peep sight as i've learned with ARs.. Mausers were made to support asquads MG38 or MG42. They did a great job.
They were not made to support an MG squad, what rubbish. That may have been doctrine, to mish mash infantry platoons with a heavy MG squad but they are interchangeable and fluid as to make up. The infantry rifle was a stand alone element before the MG made its debut.
I owned a GEW98 and SMLE MKIII*, both with 1916 dates. Both were great rifles but the SMLE is a better rifle for battle. You only have to look at the number of rounds put on target which shows the difference. In WWI, there weren't huge distances between armies. As a soldier, I was trained to shoot out to 300m with the bear sites. Given these two, I would choose the Enfield every time. Whilst we all have preferences, the Enfield was after all on the winning side - twice :)
The Mauser did run the Enfield off the continent. But then the Mauser had the mosin and the garand to contend with. The Enfield popped up again when the damage was done.
It would appear that you are. Considering the guys with the mosin inflicted 85% of casualties and losses on the guys with the Mauser. The Enfield still takes too much credit for something that they didn’t do.
@djharto4917 Artillery and bombs did the job. Russia lost the most because of poor tactics. The British and colonies fought in multiple countries. The Russians one. All they did os save themselves and we saved them with supplies
So the Soviets didn’t fight the reich in Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Belarus, Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary, Slovakia, Czech, Austria and Germany? Britain didn’t open a second front until 1944 with the USA. Britain did not “win” the war it was a joint effort with the Soviets doing most of the the lifting.
weitzfc1 the British showed up with a battle rifle, the Americans showed up with a target rifle, the Germans showed up with a hunting rifle and the Russians showed up with a rifle
It would be more accurate to say that: The Brits' idea of "battle" is a MASS of spear-chuckers CHARGING them. The German idea of "battle" is to HUNT and surround their enemy with HALF as men as the enemy has and then ANNIHILATE the enemy. The American idea of "battle" is to OUT SHOOT the enemy!
@@weitzfc1 Not really! The U S Springfield model of 1903 is a MAUSER! The good old USA had to pay Mauser $$ royalty for every '03 Springfield made. The finer points of the '03 Springfield, Enfield and 98k is there because each country tailored their rifle to fight "war" as per their experience in war.
@@ike3094 go to any gun shop or auction , and the .03 will bring top dollar . the enfield will come in a dismal second , and the mauser a distant third . the american made enfields also bring top dollar . mausers were relegated to the barrel bins .
From what I've gathered not only in firing my own Enfield No.4 Mk1*, but also watching other people firing theirs - as well as other surplus rifles, is that there are a lot of variables that can affect accuracy between any two rifles of the same model. Condition of rifling, wear/damage to crown/muzzle, bolt lock up, bedding of the barrel, ammo used, condition of sights, and other things can cause a 75-year-old or older rifle to have very different performance even among other models of its own kind. Even when they were new, war time production and the machining technology compared to now will lend to inherent different performances between any given rifle. It is for these reasons why I think some people will truly have a terrible experience with a surplus rifle, and not understanding how the rifle is SUPPOSED to look and operate, they will just assume all of them were that bad, and that's how we get the Fudd lore. I watched a video (by Mike B) of a shipment of C-Grade Enfields all in rough condition shoot from surprisingly good groups to outright key-holing within 25 yards. To the untrained eye, they look the same, but if you know what to look for, you can start seeing the problems. Even then, in Mike's video, the one that looked like it was okay ended up being the one key-holing bullets. I think a better way to compare accuracy is to either compare factory-new, never issued rifles, all of the highest performance, and then compare accuracy between models. Or, make modern reproductions, following the schematics to the letter, and see which design is actually more accurate. However, all that is kinda pointless when you consider a rifle is a tool, and the application of these tools isn't to make head shots at 1,000 yards, but to be good enough to hit center mass within 300 yards, in rough conditions, and operated by hastily trained troops. If a recruit can learn his weapon and get shots on the enemy, that's good enough. Combat accuracy vs competition accuracy. If you get hit by a big ol' .30 caliber bullet, you don't care what MOA that rifle can shoot, you care about getting to cover, getting your wound treated, and praying to God you don't bleed out and die in the next minute. As far as you're concerned, that broken rib and chunk of your lung missing means that rifle was accurate enough that you may never see the faces of your loved ones again. A hit is a hit, and even if it doesn't kill you, the psychological damage of being hit and facing your imminent mortality can take a lot of grown men out of a fight and even demoralize the men around them. After all, dead men don't scream for their mommy, but a wounded man will, and that can really rattle a person's cage. I would say the accuracy of both the Enfield and Mauser are good enough that you wouldn't want to be down range of them in a fight, and any hair splitting over half or one inch difference in groups is a civilian luxury.
I own an M48 yugo and I can speak from experience when I tell you that the Yugoslavians did not seem to be very concerned about finish milling/polishing in the bolt raceways . If you want a smooth bolt they take a bit of polishing but it's worth the effort. The M48 is a fairly accurate rifle and the one that sits in my gun safe seems that it was unissued the bore shiny and the lands and groves sharp and pristine.
I'm totally a Mauser fanboy, but I'm not triggered by this. True accuracy "Comparisons" are hard to do. Speaking from a science background, a "True" experiment would reduce more variables. For instance, the use of a solid mount, and having guns that are roughly comparable in terms of condition would make the test a bit more "scientific". If the mauser is in rough shape, then the condition of the barrel, muzzle, throat, parts fit, etc could be part of the issue, as well as the experience of the shooter on the platform. Also, more bullets would need to be fired, five rounds likely isn't enough to get a statistically significant sample size. But for a simple comparison this is pretty good. I'm only really nitpicking because I have a scientific background, and had the scientific method drilled into me. That said, while I LOVE mausers, I do believe the Lee Enfield was a more practical battlefield weapon. The sights are better in my opinion, and the 10 round magazine on the Lee Enfield family of rifles is a huge advantage. I'd say the largest drawback of the Lee Enfiled would be the rimmed ammo due to issues of Rimlock. In people who are experienced on the platform it's likely not an issue, but with my admittedly limited experience, I've found that it's harder to load via stripper clips on my Mk4 than with my mausers. But given the choice to carry one into battle, I'd take the enfield. I still prefer Mausers for fun shooting though, I just love that smooth action, and I do think they're prettier rifles.
We could have been boring and just looked at the various officially-published data. The Germans' own figures expected the long 98 rifles on average to be capable of 19 shots out of 20 into a 12cm circle at 100m, and the short ones only slightly worse. Here's the official 50% figures, double the radius figure for the 94% radius: facebook.com/Blokeontherange/photos/a.208155156233987.1073741828.206360393080130/475542402828593/?type=3&theater
I'm German and I would take a No. 4 any day over a stock standard K98k for target shooting. The K98k is fine, but like you said, it's far from the best thing since sliced bread. However, I really like the portugese Mausers. Why? BETTER SIGHTS! U-notch, protected square post - what you could ask for more. I shot one the other day next to a Lee-Enfield and got basically the same accuracy at 50m.
the main issue with either rifle is that they went through wars If you want an amazingly accurate surplus rifle, the m39s and the k31s are in my opinion the best, mostly due to them not seeing much action and both countries doctrine relying heavily on accurate rifle fire from infantry groups
The issue isn't baseline accuracy. Like it was said in the video, both are more then qualified for the job. It's the details that are magnified during the stress of combat. Sight picture, ergonomics, handling etc.
I'm german and I own a K98k because most of our grandfathers did 77 years ago. My grandfather was a smart guy, so he could not have been wrong with any of his choices back then, or could he!? ;-)
The Norwegian army rechambered and improved captured German rifles after the war. They have much better (square) sights. It still can't beat a 6,5x55 Krag, but it will do.
British guy on the range, THANK YOU for your SHARING the ridiculous story about the "ping" Giving you away that your out of ammo, and ALSO the BS about topping off your M1, i really enjoyed your videos I've seen. I have a wonderful M1 Garrand that is my favorite rifle. I also have a great Kar 98 that i thoroughly enjoy shooting. I have a M1 carbine, and yes, I do love it, a little anemic but makes up for it in a very few good ways. I own a Mosin Nagant 8ft rifle that is a great rifle in my opinion. My favorite though is the M1 Garrand, i am in very desperate need of a Lee Enfield SMLE. I have shot this rifle and not even owning one it's my 2nd favorite rifle, very accurate and a good brush beater. (And I love all the wood on it) keep up the great videos. A new fan.
Enjoyed the video- thanks. You criticism of the Mauser K98 sight picture is exactly my experience. Been trying for years to warm up to the Mauser, without success.
🤡🤡🤡 mauser98💪 is more accurate, like EVERY german gun during world wars. A small (like Enfiels'🤡 d*ck, and your british ones too) advantage just for the quantity of ammos in the charger and shape of rifle's butt
Matches my experience of the Mauser rifles, even ones with good bores that gauged tight were no more accurate than stated by German ordnance and as referenced below in Blokes comments. Interestingly I have shot several Arasaka rifles that outperformed both the No4 and the K98 would be good to get Bloke to look at one (if they are available over there)
O FOOL! Why is it that the choice of snipers around the World are rifles derived from the GENIUS of Paul Mauser???? In contrast the smelly stinks and is used NOWHERE as a basis for marksmen.!!!!
@@ike3094 in Britain the Lee Enfield was used pretty much exclusively for target shooting in past years (I still have my No.4 & No.8 marksmanship badges).
@@pcka12 Yep! No surprise there! The Lee-Enfield was the Brits' service rifle, so that was what was largely available and used. You should not take that simple fact as any kind of "proof" that the Lee-Enfield was in any way superior to Paul Mauser's masterpiece! One can cherry-pic bits and pieces of info here and there and "prove" anything. But such shenanigans are not REAL PROOF! The Mauser is far superior to the Lee-Enfield in almost all respects, particularly in respect to accuracy. Almost all bolt action rifles manufactured TODAY are MAUSERS , not Lee-Enfields!
@@ike3094 the accuracy of both was good enough for a normal soldier, the Lee Enfield is a better battle rifle exactly because of the ways in which it differs from the Mauser, the Mauser is potentially stronger & has greater potential to be 'accurrised', interestingly the US 'Mauser on steroids' Springfield was originally flawed because of it's simpler metallurgy when compared with the products of Enfield because the British had far more sophisticated steels in the early 20th century.
@@pcka12 You are DEAD WRONG, as usual. For one thing, the Springfield is an inferior Mauser copy. The US Army would have been much better served, by simply buying the right to produce the 98 Mauser, and thereby gain German expertise into the correct way to mass produce a superlative battle rifle. The Lee-Enfield, on the other hand, was designed to fight colonial wars, wherein the typical battle was a British regiment, about a thousand men, being attacked by a mob of 30,000 or so, "fuzzy-wuzzie spear chuckers". That is why the Lee-Enfield is built for speed and British Army officers were taught to accurately estimate range to target. In British theory, the typical Lee-Enfield battle would develop thus: The native army would be sighted at a great distance and the British commander would order his men into battle formation. He would then order his men to set the rifle sights to maximum elevation and when the "fuzzie-wuzzies" were within range, the Brit commander would say "Range 2,000 yards - FIRE!" As the "fussie-wuzzies" RAN towards their enemy, the Brit commander would modify his order. "Range 19 hundred yards- FIRE!" "Range 18 hundred yards- FIRE!" And so on until the "fuzzie-wuzzies" either turned tail and ran away OR the Brit officer was forced to give the order "Range POINT BLANK- FIRE AT WILL!" Meaning the "fuzzy-wuzzies" were a mere 300 yards away and coming at YOU FAST! If you heard the order "FIX BATONETTS!" it mint that you were about to get into spear fight with several really angry "fuzzie-wuzzies" with really sharp 8 foot long spears and you have a 5 foot long club......... The Mauser was built as a battle-rifle to fight other modern armies. A job at which the Mauser excelled. The USA found that out during the war with Spain and the USA tried to steal the Mauser design with the 1903 Springfield, but lost the court case when Mauser sued for Patent infringement and the USA was forced to pay royalties for every 03 Springfield made. Take a good look at the WW1 casuality figures and you will find that the armies with Mauser rifles out-killed the armies with other types of rifles.
A fair test and review of 2 military rifles. Having used both Lee-Enfield No.4 and several Mauser 98-actioned rifles (with 7.62mm NATO ammunition) on ranges up to a 1000 yards, I found that I much preferred the No.4 as it was comfortable, accurate enough for competition shooting, and did not have the inherent weakness of the Mauser extractor- I had one snap in service and have been told of others experiencing the same problem.
I have a gunsmith friend who had some interesting comments about the debate between these guns. According to him, and mind you this is purely a mechanical standpoint, the 98k's claim to accuracy vs the mk4 comes from long field service without proper servicing. The rear locking lugs do make the bolt weaker and less accurate but you can't tell unless you've been out in the desert for 6 months without a field armourer ever seeing the thing and you put a hundred rounds through it every day. This is also supposedly where the stories of the locking lugs shearing comes from. The quote my friend made that stuck with me was "No one under the age of 70 has ever taken either rifle into a condition where this would matter." Given this (and note I've never handled either rifle so I can't vouch for it personally) I think your conclusion are pretty accurate and reasonable.
Thanks for this video, I have big collection of mausers & the whole collection of British 303's. The history of both rifles are very rich!!!!!!! Martin in Ga. Usa
Thank you Bloke, the #4 you were using looks exactly like the one I have and it functions almost exactly the same as well. I am currently in the process of refinishing the stock. It's a beautifully accurate and tough as nails field weapon. I truly appreciate your trials and side by side demonstrations. Anyone who says you are using grossly unequal (quality) weapons are so full of, well you know where I am headed there.... I for one am grateful for the work you do in brining us these videos with your thoughts, opinions and facts.
Hi Bloke, nice Video. How did you managed to get some old "Cordite" Surplus? How does your Long Branch Bore looks like after shooting the "Cordite stuff" do you Flush the Bore with Hot Soap water to get rid of the corrosive Salts?
Thx for answer ^^ LOL forgot that you already have made a video about that theme with the bore ^^ my fault. I hope and in my mind it would be great if we meet some day it would be awesome if I can bring my Enfield collection out on the range for a video ^^ Have about 5 Brit. Lady´s including some rare ones (in terms of contract serials). g patrik
Mausers are lovely rifles and I desperately want several of them, but I know which of this pair I'd want in a warzone. At least the last (non-'custom'... don't start me) Mauser argument I got drawn into was splitting hairs over comparative accuracy between 91/30 snipers and Kar98k snipers, and devolved into going over ammo and optics. Anyone who unironically thinks a bog-standard Kar98k was somehow super accurate is delusional, ~3-4 MOA was acceptance standard for most nations at that time and any rifle which shot substantially under it would be spirited away and fitted with a scope for issue as a sniper rifle (where ~1.5moa was the usual standard).
The Canadian Ranges have just replaced their .303 No.4 with a Colt C19 (Tikka T3). 73 Years of service under the harshest conditions and only giving them up due to the lack of spare parts. There was NOT a Mauser or a Mauser derivative good enough to replace the No 4.
My father and I shot the kar98, the Lee-Enfield and the Mosin-Nagant. I have to say that the kar98 is the best of these 3 because it's (for my opinion) a good feeling when you hold it and it is very precise.
yes he is becaus the shooter is the same one can expect to have the same effect on both rifels and becaus the impact is the same on both firearms you can safly say that de difereces displayed are down to the rifel and ammo used
When I trained using the SLR yeah that's showing my age, we used to blacken the sights using a match or lighter. Breaking your position during the Kar98k group is most likely what led to the two outliers. I have never fired the 98 but used to own a couple of .303's which I enjoyed using.
I am trying to decide whether to get a k98 or a No. 4 but I am afraid of the zeroes on the No.4 sights. 400m? Should I get the No.4 or the k98? They both look like they've been through hell (probably because they have), but the gun store owner says they both shoot fine.
You can actualy better better, non-historical sights for these old rifles. Like i did on my K98K, you pretty much have to order them online but you all the fun of shooting a rifle without the hassles of old sighting. So don't let that be a problem for you.
I'd agree with the bloke. There are the No.4s Mk2s with the ladder aperture sights that are adjustable to much lower ranges than the battle sight apertures. I use those on my P14 and Ross.
Okay, thanks for the answer. I didn't know that and the only time I shot was with an air rifle in my youth and it had the Mauser sight and was for beginner target shooting. I couldn't hit shit, but the instructor nailed the middle with all his shots.
Probably had better sights. Still couldn't hit shit and now imagine me with a Mauser. :D Could also be the lack of instruction, if I remember correctly the instructor just said get the Korn ( how to call that in English?) over the black of the paper and shoot. Nothing about the rear side and how the alignment should work.
That rear sight on the No4 is far less common than the fine adjustable flip up version, which has the large battle sight aperture in the down position. Also anecdotally No4s varied quite alot in individual sample's inherant accuracy. Selected samples consistently shoot especially well, close to 2 moa with open sights - one could cover the 25 metre 5 round group with a 2p piece and often with the old 5p. Indeed the No4 derived No4T WW2 era sniper rifle and the later 7.62x51 heavy 600 mm barrel conversion of this, the L42, were based on selected 'good shooter' samples. In the Cadets in the mid 70s our minor English public school had about 30 No 4s and there were 2 samples in that lot that I knew really shot well. Our sample included 3 different types of rear sight - some with 2 land rifling - 4 was the usual, and I seem to remember a few 6 groovers. Our sample also had 2 different types of bolt release and samples with aluminium and brass butt plates. It was noticeable that the post war samples in our batch, which seemed to usually have light beech colorued stocks, were better made.
Great comparison! I always thought that the k98 was a terrible weapon to go to war with. It may be a great hunting rifle, but for fighting it is just horrible. Heavy, slow reload, bad sights, overly powerful ammo, the list goes on. And I am German so no anti German bias here.
Thank you for your comparison. Your No 4 Mk 1 is consistent with my Enfields. I understand your sighting issues with the K98k. I placed a long eye-relief scope on mine and it definitely helped. I have had good experience with S&B ammo. It seems other manufacturers downgrade the loading in 8mm.
but -ze german soldier never misses -tommies cant shoot ze superior german weapon -When shooting ze german veapon ze german soldier can call upon the rotting corpse of otto von Bismarck to guide ze shot to its target
Hey Bloke, i have a question concerning my No4 MK1. I keep seeing the grooved cocking pieces on many enfields but mine seems to be factory smooth and i am confused on why mine would be different. It doesn't appear to have been modified but I could be wrong as i am not an expert. Can you help?
Is it a button type or a slab-sided one without grooves? If it's the former, it's probably off a trials rifle or an SMLE. If it's the latter, congrats you've got one of the rare reduced-production-cost ones without a halfcock. Could you take a photo and send it to me on Facebook please?
Sight design and who made it and at what point in the war are very important when considering accuracy. There was a big quality variance in the pre and mid war kar98k compared to the Enfield no.4. This was because as the war progressed, many German factories had to be relocated multiple times causing tooling and labour issues and one rifle might have had its parts manufactured by multiple companies. This is most notable with the Mauser-Werke AG rifles. Interestingly the migration of German manufacturing also had some good side effects such as the production of the Brno variants. In contrast the Enfield was the AK of its day and easier to manufacture. They also had the benefit of relative stability and not having to move manufacturing too much, although BSA Small Heath and Enfield were also bombed extensively by the Luftwaffe. Both great designs and rifles, but I personally do love the action of the Enfield more.
The Lee Enfield was most definitely NOT the “AK of its day”. Manufacturing the Lee action was a lot more difficult than most of its contemporaries. The Mauser was more of the AK of its day. The No. 4 was definitely an improvement on the SMLE, which was the most expensive standard production infantry rifle of its time, but even it still required hand fitting of some parts.
Even the AK was hand fitted, it's just using stamped parts that were not available until towards the start of the 2WW by the Germans. The MP38 is the first mass-produced stamped military weapon to eschew wood of any sort. To clarify by referring to the Lee Enfield it as the AK of its day, i meant simply that it was relatively low quality bolt action. it utilised a lost wax cast receiver that was then milled and pinned barrel. it could be found globally with the NO4 having nearly 60 years of service and just short of 20M production. It ended up in a multitude of wars and conflicts and was specifically a battle rifle. Accurate enough for the job given, durable, reliable, and held twice as much ammo onboard as any competitor. In my opinion the Mauser is not that, its more accurate and a lovely rifle with a high build quality especially pre war. At the end of the war they had manufacturing issues with quality declining, however its design is very much a traditional bolt action, both in its design (the way it cocks) and its functionality. I have fired both and in my opinion the difference is day and night @@jusportel
@@civiprepper the Lee Enfields were not at any time made using cast parts, with the exception of the upper bands on some wartime No.4’s, and the trigger guards on the last No.4 Mk.2’s. I, myself, have owned approximately 30 Lee Enfields of various models and vintage, and about the same number of various Mausers. I wouldn’t characterize ANY of them as “low quality”, with the exception of Spanish Mausers of the Civil War era, some of which were so bad, I would consider them unusable.
Having owned both a No.4 and an SMLE and a k98 I disagree. Notably the SMLE has a milled receiver from billet. The No4 has a lost wax cast receiver blank that is then milled to finish and has an integral rail and inclusive charger guide, and this is what im referring to. it also has only two-groove barrels replacing five-groove ones in the SMLE. It's well documented both in the imperial war museum, royal armoury documentation and norfolk tank museum who write 'Lee Enfield was re-designed with the view towards being mass produced, even by people who had no previous experience of rifle manufacture'. Obviously you're entitled to your opinion...best regards@@jusportel
As long as you maintain as good a focus on the front sight, all should be well. And remember, you don't need to necessarily see your target as long as you know where it is.
Let me start off by giving you a HUGE THANK YOU!!! for doing this and other side by side comparisons. They are very valuable in my opinion and I thank you for it. I have a couple questions for you and please these questions are NOT meant to be critiques or condescending in any way shape form or fashion. I like others did and you even noted it on the vid that you right arm was free floating. I totally understand that so my question for that is, how did the recoil differ between the two for YOU? I have fired a ton of antique weapons and many, many long guns and I have never fired one that was so comfortable to shoot as the Mk4. I have owned several over the years and currently have one that I am refinishing the wood on. Every single one have been a joy to shoot. My second question is related to the sights; do you think that the square sights in THIS test/comparison force your eye to focus more vs the comfortable aperture sight on the Mk4? Did you fire more rounds than just the ones on the video? What I mean is, did you take a brief break to get your eyes reset and then go shoot the Mauser first then the Mk4? I had an old Korean War vet who was a Sniper teach me that little trick about allowing our eyes to reset. Then mixing up the order in which I test/fire the weapons. That was almost 40 years ago when I learned that and I still use it today. Sometimes I even shoot handguns and long guns and do this exercise. There is a bit of science in this that I won't go into here unless someone wishes to learn the whole thing that I did. So all that being said and questions asked THANK YOU again for doing these videos. I hope to see more of them and keep up the good things you are doing for we shooters and wannabe shooters.
Thanks. 1. The 98k recoils faaaar more than the No.4, cos it's lighter and firing a cartridge which generates more momentum. 2. There is no question that barleycorn sights are shockingly bad to shoot with. They're just poor optical ergonomics, which is the reason why most countries that cared about marksmanship went away from them mostly pre-WW1 (even the Russians did away with them in the '30's). There's a reason why the pre-aperture-rear-sight target rifles had fairly chunky rectangular posts, and I'll do a video on this topic when I get around to it, and the superiority of an aperture rearsight is shown by their dominance in target shooting disciplines once they were allowed (there's a famous exceptional 60 shot course fired by a World Champion from Switzerland over open sights with a K31. His prone scores were 90 and 94. 90 I beat quite often with an aperture rear and post front on a K31, and 94 I can equal).
Now you just need to get the best bolt action rifle of WWII, the French MAS-36 and compare it to the No.4. I'm sure you could have Lindy tag along to degrade it and find some nit picky fault to disqualify it! ;)
Shot a MAS 36 many times myself, owned a couple. Better than a No4? Not a chance - need even more bedding refinement than a No4 to get to shoot even remotely accurately. The stocking up and bedding tolerances in the MAS36 is so finnicky - French soldiers were not even supposed to disassemble their rifles at all for fear of ruining the bedding (yes, it does happen with them a LOT). A Long Branch No4 Mk 1, or an early WW2 Brit or Post War No4 Mk 2 will outshoot the MAS every time, as will an SMLE actually. Best shooting No4 I ever owned was a Canadian Arsenal conversion for the DCRA to 7.62 NATO (using a Brit No4 Mk 2 action - UNCOMMON) - it shot PHENOMINALLY well even with the battle sights, let alone the Parker Hale sight!
Any rifle you take the stock off can and will mess with the bedding. And they weren't made to not take the gun apart out of fear of ruining the bedding, but because that wasn't their job. And for best rifle, I wasn't meaning best accuracy. There is a lot more to a rifle than how accurate it is.
The problem is that military arms are not really about target-range accuracy. It is about their overall utility on battlefields. Nearly all military-grade bolt-action rifles can hit man-sized targets fairly consistently up to 300 meters. The real question is how handy is the gun when running and gunning? How well can you shoot it in awkward stances forced by the available cover? Does it catch on stuff as you wheel around? How comfortable is the bolt to use when prone? Such considerations are equally, if not more, important than the MOA. If you look from that perspective, the MAS 36 starts to really shine. It was basically a No. 5 Jungle Carbine without the wandering-zero problem.
True, but never managed to impair the accuracy of any of my Mausers taking the stock on and off. On the other hand, the poor design of the MAS-36 attachment of the foreend, the average quality beech used for MOST of their stocking up and a too-thin handguard (that warps VERY easily and/or cracks with regularity) makes for a mediocre rifle, not just in terms of accuracy, but other factors. I discredit the "Run and Gun" mob very much (I am sure you know who I mean) - sure, in peacetime use, you can make a MAS 36 perform, but subject it to any form of actual combat use, and the problems arise. Metallurgy on some is also a question - one I had had a cracked bolt and needed to be replaced, making it a non-matching rifle (sold it), and another I saw at a gunshow had a cracked action ring. I owned a pre-occupation example (with a German LK5 marking), a Vichy example and 2 late post-war mint/unissued examples. Nice, light and handy and a decent round, but definitely not the best combat rifle ever made. I am a Lee Enfield collector down to the ground, and will bet an SMLE any day of the year over any other combat rifle. Again, not astoundingly accurate, but it has a lot more redeeming factors. I like the No4 also, but it's not an SMLE :)
It actually does change the bedding of any gun you take the stock off. Pretty much all militaries didn't let their soldiers take the stocks off. That was the job of an armorer. You can ruin an SMLE stock if you take it off wrong. I've never heard or seen any with cracked bolts or action rings, but even if that's true that's nothing different than any other military bolt action rifle.
I own both rifles, a 1943 Enfield, and a 41 98k. Both are in great condition, (i restored both) i shoot left handed. So, ergo is basically non existent for me. I have shot better groups with my 98k than with my Enfield. I'll see about finding my targets and I'll edit this later. (Both are great rifles, I just prefer my mauser)
i remember using a lithgow #3 mk1 for a few years, then got a chance to fire a k98 finally....... after a few shots, i was left feeling it was a total piece of crap and id been spoiled using the SMLE for so long. there is a reason the smle was kept in service till the 1990s.
Well said PP, Smooth and fast and reliable. Worked in the sands of Nth Africa and the mud of New Guinea. I would not say you or myself were spoiled. I would say we were privileged. Note The Canadian Rangers have only just replaced their no.4s. Cheers.
my mate has a LE and I have a Swedish Mauser and we go hunting. he has a lot of trouble hitting the animals were as my 1900 mauser keeps knocking them over almost on every shot. I wondered if his barrel is shot out. how do you tell?
Thumbs up for the 303 British I've had my #4 since I was 16 and I'm 77. Now and it spends it's days in the gun rack. It was the best 25 dollars I ever spent, and it has only appreciated in value over the years.
Did you not note the conclusion? That they're both adequate? Or that I biased the test AGAINST the No.4 by using awful ammo that suffered from hangfires cos it had 75 year old powder and primers?
Mausers are overrated as all hell, and you need to stop putting stuff from Nazi Germany on a pedestal. You’ll be a lot less disappointed by real life shooting if you do.
Something like 95% of soldiers back then never shot at anything more than 300 meters away. If you can hit a man sized target consistently, centre mass, at up to 300 meters your rifle and sights are doing everything 95% of soldiers will ever need them to do. You ask me the Swedes got it right. Make a fast 6,5 mm round that does not kick too much with a the flattest possible trajectory out to 300 meters and sights that allow more or less point and shoot on a man sized target out to 300 -400 meters and you are good.
How exactly would a bench rest make the test fairer? He used the same technique for the two rifles. I wouldn't be surprised if a different, nicer mauser performed better, but the point is THAT Enfield performed better that THAT mauser. I'm sure a no.4 in better nick with a nicer sight would perform better than that one too
Isaac Priest A bench rest would ensure that the shooter would have a more stable platform and not be affected by recoil as much. The video clearly shows this guy was more aware of recoil with the mauser. The point of a comparison it to test the rifles, not the shooter. A bench rest reduces shooter caused variables. This test only showed which rifle this shooter was better with.
So, I agree that for precise target shooting the Enfield's sights are far superior. However when you look at practical application of the battlerifles, the open sight of the Mauser does have some upsides. The fact that you don't have a ghost ring makes it easier to track and shoot down targets that are moving or in cover. (Something I learned to appreciate on hunts) Additionally the more "open" sight of the Mauser permits you to more easily keep and eye of the surroundings as well as the target itself after firing. All those are negligible on a range, but can give you an edge of the battlefield.
swiss k31 beats both enfield and mauser for accuracy,hands down! i own all 3. but the enfield and mauser did go thru war,while the k31 sat out on the sidelines
I'm sure the joke has been posted elsewhere, but here goes... The Germans brought a hunting rifle The Americans brought a target rifle The British brought a battle rifle The Russians brought... a rifle. No matter what Mauser and Enfield lovers disagree on, at least we can sit together and laugh at the Mosin fanboys.
Considering your freehanding both rifles, obvs the L4 will be more accurate since its a bit smaller and lighter. The K98 being the bigger rifle makes it harder for you to be consistent with it. If you were holding it constantly the EXACT same way you will be more accurate (just like the two shots you landed in thr same spot.
And re "two shots you landed in the same spot", that's an example of en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clustering_illusion since two shots close together in a 5 shot group has effectively zero statistical significance and is pure chance. Also, the ammo I shot in the No.4 was total junk, as I pointed out in the vid ;)
(and for completeness, I was resting and not freehanding, and also if you think that it's harder to shoot a bigger, heavier rifle accurately you'd better tell the Olympic shooters, High Power shooters, Palma shooters etc. cos they've been doing it all wrong all these years by wanting the biggest and heaviest rifle the rules allow for. The only exception to the "heavy rifle = good" rule is biathlon, but that's cos skiing is more important than shooting, so they have a minimum weight limit whereas everyone else has a maximum weight)
I have both and I have to say I reload for both. My lb 1943 no4 1* out shoots my 1942 K98k. Totally agree on the sight and the k98 whollops you much nastier than the. 303. No obvious at first but after 10 to 20 shots it certainly does lol.
@@georgevafeidis2320 i agree that the no4 has better sights but the sights on the k98k are not "horrible". i prefer the no4 peep sight as my eyes are not good enough to get the most out of the k98k. overall peep sights give you a better depth of field which makes it easier for accurate shooting and the open sights on the k98k allows for fast alignment. in games you dont benefit from peep sights and they only block your view which is why everyone hate them in games. the accuracy difference between both rifles is not noticeable except on the shooters end where the groups will be smaller when using peep sights. Accuracy varies because of production quality etc. but a cherry picked no4 or k98k with good handloads can achieve 1.5 moa accuracy.
The Mauser can group much tighter than what you have achieved, just because you are a bed rifleman doesn't mean the Mauser is an inferior weapon. Of course, you think that the Enfield won WW1, It didn't.
, My name is Ian Simmons at the Belambi rifle range in NSW Australia on February 14th 1968 I shot 20 consecutive bulls eyes at 700 yds with no rest open sights army amo with the long branch number 4 and no scope or spotter and that target was 24 inches i still have the trophy, I claim it a world record I was shooting for the Bulli rifle club.
You know the Mauser is horrible, when even British companies and gunsmiths build almost all of their hunting and sporting rifles on their basis. Rigby... ew.
Aah, yes, the 98k is a great military rifle because sporting rifles. One of our favourites. You know what's also a great sporting rifle? A nice double rifle by Hollands or Purdey. Here on the Continong, people also like what English speakers call "drillings", even though technically they're "Zwillingen" ("Twins"), although in the UK they are frowned upon due to the chance of working the wrong trigger and sending a 7x64R sailing away at a high angle instead of a round of birdshot. Blaser straight-pulls are also rather popular, although we don't see where all the money goes into them - rather high-priced for what they are really. Also, for pure target shooting there's some really good solid-action single-shots from RPA that dominate UK-style target rifle. Over here, there's Grünig+Elmiger, SIG-Sauer and so on that make pure target rifles that are absolutely superb. Interesting though this all is, I'm not sure what any of this has to do with a video about two battle rifles though
First off- I talk about the system. Nowhere I talked about the Mauser military rifle specifically. Secondly, I find Heym and Krieghoff make far superior and also far more affordable double rifles. I am very much familiar with the Concept of the classic German Drilling in that I own a Krieghoff Trumpf Drilling passed down from my father in *7x65R* and 12/70, fitted with a 5,6x50R Mag. Keppeler insert barrel. As far as precision shooting goes- I am not interested in ringing some steel plate some miles away with a rifle so ugly it could give me eye cancer. Have a nice day.
Thing is, that you also like to stress the point, that the rear locking mechanism of the enfield is just as capable as that of the Mauser. Or the point about safeteys in another video. If I came of as salty, I apologize, but some points are connected to both system and rifle. But I have to say, that these videos are pretty interesting and, even though I don't agree with several points, very entertaining to watch.
a) am I suddenly 2 different people? b) erm... you might like to look up how the Germans did their accuracy acceptance tests. Mostly it was done from the shoulder, although they did use "Schiessmaschinen" too. c) Yeah, I also really shouldn't have used crappy click-bang ammo in the No.4. That was very unfair of me.
The enfield is de beter rifle but some people like the Lee, some the k98k some the M1 garand and there are even people like me which like the K31. Diversity is a beautiful thing
It is indeed, but people seem to get terribly offended when "their" rifle is subject to criticism, the Mauser Wehraboos particularly so for some reason. Let's not forget that in the end they are just inanimate lumps of wood, metal and (nowadays) plastic.
There’s a quote in an old Gun Digest that goes something like, “I wouldn’t let someone with problems tolerating recoil recommend a rifle to me.” Now-disregard the recoil part. I wouldn’t let someone with problems focusing on the sights recommend a rifle to me. I’ve owned one Kar98 and two VZ24’s, and all of them would easily shoot 25mm at 50 meters, and I have groups from another that are 30mm at 100 meters. I am not faulting your personal conclusions, but with both rifles it would have been nice to try a steadier rest. Otherwise, this is not a test of each rifle’s inherent accuracy per se, it is a field test of how they shoot for this shooter off elbows. I expect the Enfield would do better, too.
I'd take a #4 over a K98 any day. All this crap about how the Mauser has "the strongest action" is pointless BS. What are you going to do, fire proof rounds, day in, day out? The Enfield has greatly superior sights, a bigger magazine, fires faster, a near perfect safety lever & the rear locking lugs are easy to clear of mud/debris. IMO the only WW2 rifle better than the Enfield was the Garrand, Stg44 & SVT40.
Coming from Turkey, I’ve grown up around a lot of mauser 93/98 patterns. Hell, in turkish Mavzer is slang for bolt action. I love the foolproof safety and the overbuilt action but I have to admit If I was serving and I heard the guys on the other side got to carry twice as many ammo and didn’t get their shoulders ripped off every time they fired I’d be jealous. Both are great rifles
This proves nothing . You clearly do not know how to shoot , do not understand how to figure out what ammo will shoot well in a rifle or why . Shooting at 50 yards with a rifle proves nothing , that is a normal pistol distance . Our shooting club has shot 1000's of 100 yard matches over 20 years using every type rifle with top of the line bench rests and wind flags . We found German 8mm Mausers were good for about 1 inch 5 shot groups at 1100 yards , 100's of groups in that range . Enfields did so poorly they were not competitive . Even when we had many guys with their " amazingly accurate " Enfields show up , they were always in last place when it counted . So I hate to tell you 2 random rifles with what ever for ammo shooting from his elbows is a joke . We never shot at 50 yards as all the bullets go through the same hole and you learn nothing , that shows you just how bad your shooting is .
The 98 Mauser is a much more accurate rifle than the Enfield for a host of reasons! You must have used a 98k with a near shot out barrel to have gotten a group that big! Or you were intentionally being a bad shot!
The Germans' own figures say you're wrong. ua-cam.com/video/S7eQT9LeVeE/v-deo.html
Take the *average* figures shown in that video and compare them with the *minimum* grouping standard of 8" at 200 yds for any of the British rifles, let alone the 600 yd partial factory test of 18" at 600 yds for the No.4 (or even the 36" at 600 yd for an SMLE).
LOL! LOL! You and whatever FAKE NEWS source you may wish to quote are TOTALLY WRONG!! I have been collecting rifles for 60 years. The average 98k will outshoot a Lee-Enfield seven days a week! I have owned and shot numerous SMLE or "smelly" (Because the accuracy STINKS! But it was never intended to be accurate!) over the years. I also collect British, German, Russian, US and other nations Armorer's gauges and KNOW how to use them! The "WHY" of the smelly's INACCURACY is built into the design: It all goes back to the Middle Ages when the Brits discovered that a large number of "Longbowmen" could put out a LOT of arrows FAST and kill off lots of French Knights BEFORE the main battle was joined. Therefore the Brits wanted SPEED and a HIGH RATE OF FIRE in their battle rifle! To get that SPEED they chose an action designed by an American named "Lee". Lee's action was very fast and slick in operation. The Armorer's at Enfield added a 10 shot magazine, good sights and other useful bits and whoo-laa! The Brits had a very good "Battle Rifle" which enabled Tommy Atkins to put out a LOT of not so accurate bullets into wherever the King's enemies were! To make a smelly into a "Sniper Rifle" takes a LOT OF WORK! But there is a boat load of gauges and special tools to get the job done! But it is far to complicated to give any real detail here on how it is done and what gauges to use and so forth to get a smelly accurate enough to begin to think about putting a scope on it. On the other side, the Jerrys had it FAR EASIER! At the factory, every 98k produced was test fired with 5 shots before it left the factory, by expert marksmen. The target was delivered with the 98k for military ordnance information. The ones that delivered very tight groups (I have NEVER SCOPED 98k's that will deliver 5 shot groups you can cover with a quarter!) were made into "sniper rifles" either at the factory or by German ordnance personnel.
Wow. Wut? You talk about "fake news" and write that raft of utter ahistorical nonsense? Good for you...
Here's some quotations of German official documents in the Collector Grade book on the 98k sniper:
"Tests showed that with the K98k and commercial telescope and selected ammunition, a target the size of the chest target could be fought against with some accuracy from a distance of 300m, not a head sized target however. Russian sharpshooters meet these demands with their weapons, as noted from their firing specifications. The German armament industry can certainly reach the same goal. However no substantial performance improvement can be expected from the short-barrelled K98k" Nr 4325/44 geh AHA/In2 (IIb)
Regarding shooting the 98k sniper rifle from a Schiessmaschine "The same goes for the demand that all five shots have to lie within the centric 70mm circle [at 100m]. Even rifles with very minimal dispersion rarely achieve such a target picture." Report of Director Holl of Mauser Werke GmbH, 17 June 1943 (70mm @ 100m is 2.5 MOA. Rarely achieved with a 98k sniper. For comparison, all No.4 Mk.1(T) rifles had to achieve 7 of 7 shots within 5" at 200 yds. Which is 2.5 MOA minimum standard, followed by a 6 of 7 shots into 10" at 400 yds, which is again 2.5 MOA allowing one flyer in 7 shots).
Letter of 22 June 1943 from the Infanterieschule at Döberitz-Elagrund to the Chef der Heeresrüstung und Befehlshaber der Ersatzheeres-AHA/In2: "Experience gained from the sharpshooting training course has shown that dispersion of the ZF rifles is too large and too varied. Firing at distances of 100m showed dispersion to 15cm even though sighting shot ammunition was used..."
And also, there's a nice uncommented easter-egg in the video I linked if you were paying attention. In a 1901 trial at Hythe, they tested 2 Gew 98 rifles, which gave Figure of Merit (mean radius) values at 500 yds of 10.25" and 9.10" (rifles numbered 5425 and 4044 respectively). From a MLE, they got 5.70". And at that period the sights on the MLE were basically the same type of barleycorn as on a Gew. 98.
BTW proper rapid firing didn't come to the fore until the 1909 Musketry Regulations, more than 20 years after the adoption of the Lee action so the Lee action wasn't adopted because of something decided 20 years later........
This is the dumbest thing I’ve ever read. Congratulations.
if Mauser fanboys are triggered by some rusted, sand blasted, war capture k98 doing less than 5MOA in the hands of a man who never shuts up about how bad their eyesight is then they'll be triggered by anything.
but to be fair I don't think any are... you instead have everyone else going "you mad bro" and shite like that.
easier to cure than being cross eye dominant.
I've got a K98, SMLE and a No4, so guess which one is my favourite...
"SMLE and a No4"
_Weapons history intensifies_
Dangerous Amoeba I love my Mauser, I love my no.4, I love my Mas 36. They are all battlefield capable and accurate enough. But being frank, the Mauser is the worst of the 3, sorry!
As an ex British infantryman in the days of the SMLE No.4 and when all is considered and a push becomes a shove the most important advantage irrespective of accuracy, I would say of the No.4 Enfield was its 10 round magazine against the 5 rounds of the Mauser, excellent for rapid fire.The No.4 when fitted with the screw back sight adjustable in 25 yard clicks was a very nice beautifully balanced target rifle for a good shot soldier.
1 round of the K98 is more effective that 5 of the english piece of crap
Having shot both the difference is that the Enfield's bolt can be cycled without moving the eye from the sight. The ergo's are better and the fact it has a double stacked removable mag means more shots on target before needing a reload. Mine didn't have ghost ring sights as it was an older model but the sights were still better than the k98. Both rounds are comparable and dropped wild pigs with equal effectiveness.
I will go with your word u seem to know more then this entire group of combined.
I am left handed .so loose the sight picture shooting both rifles!. i find vee sights easier to use at 100 m, and there fore find the Enfield sights better to use. However used a K98[cupped butt plate] in service rifle comp for a couple of years because I found a k98 that shot inch groups at 100 yds. It is just a case of finding a rifle with a good barrel these days[Ihave a collection of Enfield rifles!! 100+] Enfields tend to be ammo sensitive[no cordite here]
Yeah, the No.4 Mk1's action is so smooth that it's spoiled me. I just bought my first bolt action ever, a Long Branch Enfield No.4 Mk1* in pretty good condition (previous owner unfortunately sporterized the fore stock, so no wood hand guards and only half the wood under the barrel), and the bolt feels like it's floating as if quantum locked it's so buttery-smooth. My uncle let me try his new Steyr Scout, and I had to lie to him about the action being nice. Compared to my Enfield, his Scout felt like I was trying to grind course sand paper with course sand paper. I paid $200 for my rifle (sporterization absolutely killed the resale value, which was good news for me), and it shoots smoother and faster than any other modern bolt action I've shot, and has at least double the capacity. More than double the capacity of my brother's Winchester XPR, which has a measly 4 round mag. Yep, the Enfield has spoiled me. The triggers on the newer guns are way better, but I'm used to my double action pistol that has a 12.5 pound trigger pull (transitions to 2 pound single action after the first shot), so I have no difficulty pulling my Enfield's trigger whatsoever.
They have both double stacked magazine. One design is in use today, the other isn't.
@@23GreyFox You mean the Mauser has soldiered on in the form of nearly every hunting rifle known to man and the Enfield is relegated to history? I'm guessing your intent, but BOTH are in use today, both fixed double stack magazines of low capacity and removable 10+ round double stack magazines. I'm afraid the latter is of far far greater utility.
You do realise this won't be a fair test until you compare the accuracy of 10 mint condition, never issued, straight out of the factory Mausers shooting hand loaded custom match ammunition, vs 10 completely knackered, rusted, badly sporterised, jungle carbines shooting whatever ammunition failed inspection 70 years ago.. :)
Will you ever show a Carcano? (if you ever found one)
I possibly should have used a tag.
john martin no you realise you dont get 'jokes', right?
Cannot tell if troll, or just plain Nazi...
+John Martin
-I refer to this website.
www.nazis-im-internet.de/nazis-anzeigen/hate-crime.htm
Sights matter.
A Mosin-Nagant with iron sights will be more precise than a Remington 700 without sights.
I think it's bullshit that most modern bolt actions are sold without sights, though the norm now is to have a scope. To me it's like they're selling you an unfinished gun. To me it's like buying a car without mirrors.
@@nicholaspatton5590 No comparison. It would be more like purchasing a truck (a real one, not one of those pickups Americans mistakenly call trucks) without an engine, in order to specify what you want later. This has been done, by the way, they're called glider kits.
Iron sights would be an insult to the level of accuracy a Remington 700 is intended to deliver. Otherwise, I largely agree. Not all of us want scopes, and not all rifles need them, bolt action or otherwise.
@luckyrodude Against a Kenworth K104 with a Cat 3408 engine uprated to 650hp pulling a double road train, grossing out at 90 tonne? I think your 70 Dodge 440 would die, mate, that's my solicited opinion. Before it even moved a metre off the start line, in fact. Rack off and come back when you've got something decent like a Peterbuilt or a W900.
A 70 Dodge 440 isn't a truck, it's a ute (bakkie in South Africa and pickup anywhere in Europe - allowable variations). That's the difference. Anything not a ute grossing out under 25 tonne is a puddle jumper.
@@nicholaspatton5590 If you want iron sights you can buy a model that has them included, or get a gunsmith to put in a front sight and use the scope base & picatinny rail to put in a rear sight that, due to being an aperture sight located all the way in the back, is superior to the iron sights on the majority of bolt action military and sporting rifles. If I don't want iron sights, and guns can function perfectly fine without them, why should my gun have them?
@@nicholaspatton5590 On behalf of european hunters, have you ever seen anyone hunting with iron sight? Maybe, but the first action for most of us after purchase is to fix scope. Personally I went hunting with iron sight once in 15 years, when my scope was scrapped and the replacement was delayed.
I use to shoot military service match with a 98 Mauser and people use to comment about how well I shot with V notch sights. When I started shooting a no4 mk1 I felt the Enfield sights were much better and now I hate shooting my 98 Mauser. Once you get familiar with peep sights you never go back.
I'm a big fan of the 303 Lee Enfield, that said the Swiss K11 and K31 along with the Swedish Mauser are probably better rifles. Why? Because they were never under pressure to make any compromise in their making to get them to the front lines. If the question were about the best bolt action battlefield rifle, it'll be a Lee Enfield hands down! Accurate, 10 round magazine, fast to fire, reload, well balanced and reliable.
It would be cool to see Bloke on the range review the accuracy of the M1 garand to all the other bolt actions
Also the good thing about the mag on the Lee is that you can add in extra rounds by opening the bolt and loading if it is needed.
The Germans NEVER compromised on critical 98 Mauser specs, EVEN in HARSH WAR TIME CONDITIONS! It is true that superficial things, such as the finish on metal and wood, on war time 98k could and did suffer. But where it counted, the barrel was always rifled and chambered perfectly. The headspace was always correct. Even on otherwise crude "last ditch" 98k!!!
Subscribing simply for the fact that you stood up for yourself bro! Love that!
goodness me...two mainline european battle rifles, both roughly 30 caliber, both with around 30 to 40 years of development and front line service...and they shoot well enough to negate an enemy within a realistic distance for roughly trained infantryman...
ze gods man...it's almost as if there was some sort of ,,,I don't know,,,similar design philosophy?
tactics,,tactics ,tactics.
Keep it up Bloke.
Go to hell.
Design, Design, Design.
The enfield holds 10 rds an a very smooth action but the k98 is also a great rifle
Its been said a thousand times the Germans produced a hunting rifle the British on the other hand produced a battle rifle that endured longer than any other military rifle under combat conditions I know which I would prefer especially with a 10 round magazine
Bloke, thank you for doing these vids, every time you put up one with the No 4 I go pull my out and study it down.
It is still in excellent condition with the barrel still being great. Keep up the great stuff out on the range. I have owned both the 98 AND the N0 4. I traded the 98 for the No 4 because the 98 which was in pristine condition was inferior to the 4. I shot both heavily at ranges from 100 to 500 from a vise and simply put, when I did the averages, I promptly traded the 98 for the No 4. The action was so smooth on the 4 and the recoil from the 98 was brutal in comparison to the 4.
As for Ike, well ROFLMBO.....
When it comes to bolt smoothness, no one can beat Lee-Enfield.
Mannilicher-Schonhaurer (or however the hell you spell it) and Krag-Jorgensen both are a order if magnitude smoother. Though in practical terms the number 4 is a better rifle.
I think the krag-jorgensen
@@Mavd-mk9iq . The Krag-Jorgensen action is like oiled silk. smoothest that I've ever handled. The Lee Enfield a close third.
I'd rather use an M-14.
R R ah yes an m-14 has the best bolt smoothness
I read the book from German sniper Bruno Sutkus. And he achieved on hundred meters regularly a group that he could cover with his thumb.
But during the war the Germans had quality control issues. So if one wants a good shooting K98 a early or pre war would be the best choice
It is kind of amazing to me, for all the advancements and innovation the Germans are responsible for between the Mauser 71 and WWII, that they never bothered to develop a not-terrible iron sight set-up.
Definitely looking forward to that! Do you think they just had a more realistic expectation of combat conditions, especially post-WWI, that they felt such an emphasis on marksmanship was just wasted effort?
bhauger1 same here. I prefer the v-notch.
why should they? they had the best scopes at that time.
The Germans likely saw no reason to improve their rifle sights between the wars because optimizing open sight systems isn't as significant as making the best use of portable belt fed machine guns or deploying more submachine guns and assault rifles.
Well i have a few nice Mausers, i prefere them over alot of other guns, sights and all. But i`m Norwegian and grew up with a lot of really good condition Mausers :)
Accuracy tests are somewhat pointless unless you do it about 5-10 times. I've heard some people claim that Mausers are more accurate and some people that claim SMLEs are more accurate. Both of them are milsurps, and that Mauser as you said, had really worn sights. There's too many different variables when comparing old rifles. The better comparison would be in design and ergonomics
Bloke on the Range Uh, except this isn't an acceptance test, it's a comparison test. There's a reason why the scientific method dictates for multiple trials, to minimize any possible outside variables. Grabbing 2 beat up milsurps and shooting them without any rest one time and then measuring the distance between the furthest marks on the target is a really poor indicator of which rifle is "more accurate". Both of them are capable of 10cm groupings at 600-800m and were used by snipers.
There's also the issue that Enfields have a less secure lock on the action which inherently acts detrimental to accuracy. Think about the most accurate rifles from the war - all derivative of the forward locking bolt design from Mauser pattern bolts, except maybe the K31.
I love Enfields, even own one, but I'm not going to pretend it's something it's not. It's an incredibly quick action with a detachable magazine.
The Mauser system is used in most modern day bolt action rifles. If in shorter range combat I think a No.4 would be better bcs of the fire rate, magazine size and sights. Also the lee was shorter. While if for long range shooting I'd take a 98k. Less pressure is lost due to the forward locking bolt and the ammo quality was a bit better.
There's inherent accuracy, which is not the same thing as practical accuracy. To test inherent accuracy, you'd need to lock the rifle down in a bench vise, as well as controlling other variables such as bullet weight and powder charge. This is a reasonable test of practical accuracy, which is inherently somewhat subjective and therefore not strictly scientific.
To put it another way, what's practically accurate for me may not be the same as what's practically accurate for you (and neither of these may be as inherently accurate as something else), but at the same time what's practically accurate for me is the only relevant basis for preferring one rifle to another.
@@claudyfocan731 exactly if i was doing long range id take the kar because (in theory) 8mm Mauser is better for range if i was jumping a trench id take the enfield because the action runs faster and i have 10 rounds instead of 5
I have owned both and even tho i love my Kar98k more, i know it is lacking with its ' W ' shaped sight picture compared to a peep sight.
Your eye naturally finds the center of the peep sight as i've learned with ARs..
Mausers were made to support asquads MG38 or MG42.
They did a great job.
They were not made to support an MG squad, what rubbish. That may have been doctrine, to mish mash infantry platoons with a heavy MG squad but they are interchangeable and fluid as to make up. The infantry rifle was a stand alone element before the MG made its debut.
I owned a GEW98 and SMLE MKIII*, both with 1916 dates. Both were great rifles but the SMLE is a better rifle for battle. You only have to look at the number of rounds put on target which shows the difference. In WWI, there weren't huge distances between armies. As a soldier, I was trained to shoot out to 300m with the bear sites. Given these two, I would choose the Enfield every time. Whilst we all have preferences, the Enfield was after all on the winning side - twice :)
The Mauser did run the Enfield off the continent. But then the Mauser had the mosin and the garand to contend with. The Enfield popped up again when the damage was done.
@@djharto4917 You are clueless
It would appear that you are. Considering the guys with the mosin inflicted 85% of casualties and losses on the guys with the Mauser. The Enfield still takes too much credit for something that they didn’t do.
@djharto4917 Artillery and bombs did the job. Russia lost the most because of poor tactics. The British and colonies fought in multiple countries. The Russians one. All they did os save themselves and we saved them with supplies
So the Soviets didn’t fight the reich in Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Belarus, Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary, Slovakia, Czech, Austria and Germany? Britain didn’t open a second front until 1944 with the USA. Britain did not “win” the war it was a joint effort with the Soviets doing most of the the lifting.
they used to say , enfield for battle , mauser for hunting , and the springfield for accuracy.
weitzfc1 the British showed up with a battle rifle, the Americans showed up with a target rifle, the Germans showed up with a hunting rifle and the Russians showed up with a rifle
It would be more accurate to say that: The Brits' idea of "battle" is a MASS of spear-chuckers CHARGING them. The German idea of "battle" is to HUNT and surround their enemy with HALF as men as the enemy has and then ANNIHILATE the enemy. The American idea of "battle" is to OUT SHOOT the enemy!
@@ike3094 i was referring the best attributes of each gun . the springfield for quality , bests the mauser and enfield.
@@weitzfc1 Not really! The U S Springfield model of 1903 is a MAUSER! The good old USA had to pay Mauser $$ royalty for every '03 Springfield made. The finer points of the '03 Springfield, Enfield and 98k is there because each country tailored their rifle to fight "war" as per their experience in war.
@@ike3094 go to any gun shop or auction , and the .03 will bring top dollar . the enfield will come in a dismal second , and the mauser a distant third . the american made enfields also bring top dollar . mausers were relegated to the barrel bins .
From what I've gathered not only in firing my own Enfield No.4 Mk1*, but also watching other people firing theirs - as well as other surplus rifles, is that there are a lot of variables that can affect accuracy between any two rifles of the same model. Condition of rifling, wear/damage to crown/muzzle, bolt lock up, bedding of the barrel, ammo used, condition of sights, and other things can cause a 75-year-old or older rifle to have very different performance even among other models of its own kind. Even when they were new, war time production and the machining technology compared to now will lend to inherent different performances between any given rifle.
It is for these reasons why I think some people will truly have a terrible experience with a surplus rifle, and not understanding how the rifle is SUPPOSED to look and operate, they will just assume all of them were that bad, and that's how we get the Fudd lore. I watched a video (by Mike B) of a shipment of C-Grade Enfields all in rough condition shoot from surprisingly good groups to outright key-holing within 25 yards. To the untrained eye, they look the same, but if you know what to look for, you can start seeing the problems. Even then, in Mike's video, the one that looked like it was okay ended up being the one key-holing bullets.
I think a better way to compare accuracy is to either compare factory-new, never issued rifles, all of the highest performance, and then compare accuracy between models. Or, make modern reproductions, following the schematics to the letter, and see which design is actually more accurate.
However, all that is kinda pointless when you consider a rifle is a tool, and the application of these tools isn't to make head shots at 1,000 yards, but to be good enough to hit center mass within 300 yards, in rough conditions, and operated by hastily trained troops. If a recruit can learn his weapon and get shots on the enemy, that's good enough. Combat accuracy vs competition accuracy. If you get hit by a big ol' .30 caliber bullet, you don't care what MOA that rifle can shoot, you care about getting to cover, getting your wound treated, and praying to God you don't bleed out and die in the next minute. As far as you're concerned, that broken rib and chunk of your lung missing means that rifle was accurate enough that you may never see the faces of your loved ones again. A hit is a hit, and even if it doesn't kill you, the psychological damage of being hit and facing your imminent mortality can take a lot of grown men out of a fight and even demoralize the men around them. After all, dead men don't scream for their mommy, but a wounded man will, and that can really rattle a person's cage.
I would say the accuracy of both the Enfield and Mauser are good enough that you wouldn't want to be down range of them in a fight, and any hair splitting over half or one inch difference in groups is a civilian luxury.
Sexiest sound ever: kar98k bolt being closed
Juan Zapata i like the sound of a remmington 870 12 gauge more
This isTrue, but the .303 Mag sounds great going in esp if you whack it!
I own an M48 yugo and I can speak from experience when I tell you that the Yugoslavians did not seem to be very concerned about finish milling/polishing in the bolt raceways . If you want a smooth bolt they take a bit of polishing but it's worth the effort. The M48 is a fairly accurate rifle and the one that sits in my gun safe seems that it was unissued the bore shiny and the lands and groves sharp and pristine.
@ Scariest sound for a K98k owner is two clips of 5 rounds going into a Lee Enfield. ;)
@@No1sonuk *laughs in mauser trench mag*
I'm totally a Mauser fanboy, but I'm not triggered by this. True accuracy "Comparisons" are hard to do. Speaking from a science background, a "True" experiment would reduce more variables. For instance, the use of a solid mount, and having guns that are roughly comparable in terms of condition would make the test a bit more "scientific". If the mauser is in rough shape, then the condition of the barrel, muzzle, throat, parts fit, etc could be part of the issue, as well as the experience of the shooter on the platform. Also, more bullets would need to be fired, five rounds likely isn't enough to get a statistically significant sample size. But for a simple comparison this is pretty good. I'm only really nitpicking because I have a scientific background, and had the scientific method drilled into me.
That said, while I LOVE mausers, I do believe the Lee Enfield was a more practical battlefield weapon. The sights are better in my opinion, and the 10 round magazine on the Lee Enfield family of rifles is a huge advantage. I'd say the largest drawback of the Lee Enfiled would be the rimmed ammo due to issues of Rimlock. In people who are experienced on the platform it's likely not an issue, but with my admittedly limited experience, I've found that it's harder to load via stripper clips on my Mk4 than with my mausers. But given the choice to carry one into battle, I'd take the enfield. I still prefer Mausers for fun shooting though, I just love that smooth action, and I do think they're prettier rifles.
We could have been boring and just looked at the various officially-published data. The Germans' own figures expected the long 98 rifles on average to be capable of 19 shots out of 20 into a 12cm circle at 100m, and the short ones only slightly worse. Here's the official 50% figures, double the radius figure for the 94% radius: facebook.com/Blokeontherange/photos/a.208155156233987.1073741828.206360393080130/475542402828593/?type=3&theater
Bloke on the Range mm
I'm German and I would take a No. 4 any day over a stock standard K98k for target shooting. The K98k is fine, but like you said, it's far from the best thing since sliced bread. However, I really like the portugese Mausers. Why? BETTER SIGHTS! U-notch, protected square post - what you could ask for more. I shot one the other day next to a Lee-Enfield and got basically the same accuracy at 50m.
the main issue with either rifle is that they went through wars
If you want an amazingly accurate surplus rifle, the m39s and the k31s are in my opinion the best, mostly due to them not seeing much action and both countries doctrine relying heavily on accurate rifle fire from infantry groups
The issue isn't baseline accuracy. Like it was said in the video, both are more then qualified for the job. It's the details that are magnified during the stress of combat. Sight picture, ergonomics, handling etc.
I'm german and I own a K98k because most of our grandfathers did 77 years ago. My grandfather was a smart guy, so he could not have been wrong with any of his choices back then, or could he!? ;-)
The Norwegian army rechambered and improved captured German rifles after the war. They have much better (square) sights. It still can't beat a 6,5x55 Krag, but it will do.
I guess V notches annoy gay cunts who need better glasses
British guy on the range,
THANK YOU for your SHARING the ridiculous story about the "ping"
Giving you away that your out of ammo, and ALSO the BS about topping off your M1, i really enjoyed your videos I've seen.
I have a wonderful M1 Garrand that is my favorite rifle.
I also have a great Kar 98 that i thoroughly enjoy shooting.
I have a M1 carbine, and yes, I do love it, a little anemic but makes up for it in a very few good ways.
I own a Mosin Nagant 8ft rifle that is a great rifle in my opinion.
My favorite though is the M1 Garrand, i am in very desperate need of a Lee Enfield SMLE.
I have shot this rifle and not even owning one it's my 2nd favorite rifle, very accurate and a good brush beater. (And I love all the wood on it) keep up the great videos. A new fan.
Enjoyed the video- thanks. You criticism of the Mauser K98 sight picture is exactly my experience. Been trying for years to warm up to the Mauser, without success.
Thanks for your comparison of the Enfield #4 and the Mauser K98k. I have both and prefer the Mauser sights. Both are quite accurate.
The Enfield is usually more accurate due to longer sight radias and the peep arrangement, much like the M1 garand
🤡🤡🤡
mauser98💪 is more accurate, like EVERY german gun during world wars. A small (like Enfiels'🤡 d*ck, and your british ones too) advantage just for the quantity of ammos in the charger and shape of rifle's butt
I mean, I think we know what conclusions will be had, but a comparison of the No. 1 and No. 4 would make for some interesting content
and No.5 BUT only samples in top condition. Worn out old clunkers just stir.
Matches my experience of the Mauser rifles, even ones with good bores that gauged tight were no more accurate than stated by German ordnance and as referenced below in Blokes comments. Interestingly I have shot several Arasaka rifles that outperformed both the No4 and the K98 would be good to get Bloke to look at one (if they are available over there)
O FOOL! Why is it that the choice of snipers around the World are rifles derived from the GENIUS of Paul Mauser???? In contrast the smelly stinks and is used NOWHERE as a basis for marksmen.!!!!
@@ike3094 in Britain the Lee Enfield was used pretty much exclusively for target shooting in past years (I still have my No.4 & No.8 marksmanship badges).
@@pcka12 Yep! No surprise there! The Lee-Enfield was the Brits' service rifle, so that was what was largely available and used. You should not take that simple fact as any kind of "proof" that the Lee-Enfield was in any way superior to Paul Mauser's masterpiece! One can cherry-pic bits and pieces of info here and there and "prove" anything. But such shenanigans are not REAL PROOF! The Mauser is far superior to the Lee-Enfield in almost all respects, particularly in respect to accuracy. Almost all bolt action rifles manufactured TODAY are MAUSERS , not Lee-Enfields!
@@ike3094 the accuracy of both was good enough for a normal soldier, the Lee Enfield is a better battle rifle exactly because of the ways in which it differs from the Mauser, the Mauser is potentially stronger & has greater potential to be 'accurrised', interestingly the US 'Mauser on steroids' Springfield was originally flawed because of it's simpler metallurgy when compared with the products of Enfield because the British had far more sophisticated steels in the early 20th century.
@@pcka12 You are DEAD WRONG, as usual. For one thing, the Springfield is an inferior Mauser copy. The US Army would have been much better served, by simply buying the right to produce the 98 Mauser, and thereby gain German expertise into the correct way to mass produce a superlative battle rifle. The Lee-Enfield, on the other hand, was designed to fight colonial wars, wherein the typical battle was a British regiment, about a thousand men, being attacked by a mob of 30,000 or so, "fuzzy-wuzzie spear chuckers". That is why the Lee-Enfield is built for speed and British Army officers were taught to accurately estimate range to target. In British theory, the typical Lee-Enfield battle would develop thus: The native army would be sighted at a great distance and the British commander would order his men into battle formation. He would then order his men to set the rifle sights to maximum elevation and when the "fuzzie-wuzzies" were within range, the Brit commander would say "Range 2,000 yards - FIRE!" As the "fussie-wuzzies" RAN towards their enemy, the Brit commander would modify his order. "Range 19 hundred yards- FIRE!" "Range 18 hundred yards- FIRE!" And so on until the "fuzzie-wuzzies" either turned tail and ran away OR the Brit officer was forced to give the order "Range POINT BLANK- FIRE AT WILL!" Meaning the "fuzzy-wuzzies" were a mere 300 yards away and coming at YOU FAST! If you heard the order "FIX BATONETTS!" it mint that you were about to get into spear fight with several really angry "fuzzie-wuzzies" with really sharp 8 foot long spears and you have a 5 foot long club......... The Mauser was built as a battle-rifle to fight other modern armies. A job at which the Mauser excelled. The USA found that out during the war with Spain and the USA tried to steal the Mauser design with the 1903 Springfield, but lost the court case when Mauser sued for Patent infringement and the USA was forced to pay royalties for every 03 Springfield made. Take a good look at the WW1 casuality figures and you will find that the armies with Mauser rifles out-killed the armies with other types of rifles.
A fair test and review of 2 military rifles. Having used both Lee-Enfield No.4 and several Mauser 98-actioned rifles (with 7.62mm NATO ammunition) on ranges up to a 1000 yards, I found that I much preferred the No.4 as it was comfortable, accurate enough for competition shooting, and did not have the inherent weakness of the Mauser extractor- I had one snap in service and have been told of others experiencing the same problem.
I have a gunsmith friend who had some interesting comments about the debate between these guns. According to him, and mind you this is purely a mechanical standpoint, the 98k's claim to accuracy vs the mk4 comes from long field service without proper servicing. The rear locking lugs do make the bolt weaker and less accurate but you can't tell unless you've been out in the desert for 6 months without a field armourer ever seeing the thing and you put a hundred rounds through it every day. This is also supposedly where the stories of the locking lugs shearing comes from. The quote my friend made that stuck with me was "No one under the age of 70 has ever taken either rifle into a condition where this would matter." Given this (and note I've never handled either rifle so I can't vouch for it personally) I think your conclusion are pretty accurate and reasonable.
"FIVE ROUNDS INDEPENDENT FIRE!! That's very nice of him."
Thanks for this video, I have big collection of mausers & the whole collection of British 303's. The history of both rifles are very rich!!!!!!! Martin in Ga. Usa
The pattern 14 Enfield made both guns look sick. British design American made very strong and very accurate. If a bit heavy.
Thank you Bloke, the #4 you were using looks exactly like the one I have and it functions almost exactly the same as well. I am currently in the process of refinishing the stock. It's a beautifully accurate and tough as nails field weapon. I truly appreciate your trials and side by side demonstrations. Anyone who says you are using grossly unequal (quality) weapons are so full of, well you know where I am headed there.... I for one am grateful for the work you do in brining us these videos with your thoughts, opinions and facts.
*grabs M1917 Enfield
When a Mauser and a enfield have a baby, you get the best of both
Pretty much!
Hi Bloke, nice Video. How did you managed to get some old "Cordite" Surplus? How does your Long Branch Bore looks like after shooting the "Cordite stuff" do you Flush the Bore with Hot Soap water to get rid of the corrosive Salts?
Thx for answer ^^ LOL forgot that you already have made a video about that theme with the bore ^^ my fault. I hope and in my mind it would be great if we meet some day it would be awesome if I can bring my Enfield collection out on the range for a video ^^ Have about 5 Brit. Lady´s including some rare ones (in terms of contract serials). g patrik
Mausers are lovely rifles and I desperately want several of them, but I know which of this pair I'd want in a warzone. At least the last (non-'custom'... don't start me) Mauser argument I got drawn into was splitting hairs over comparative accuracy between 91/30 snipers and Kar98k snipers, and devolved into going over ammo and optics. Anyone who unironically thinks a bog-standard Kar98k was somehow super accurate is delusional, ~3-4 MOA was acceptance standard for most nations at that time and any rifle which shot substantially under it would be spirited away and fitted with a scope for issue as a sniper rifle (where ~1.5moa was the usual standard).
rossmum you take that, more Persian Mausers for me :D
The Canadian Ranges have just replaced their .303 No.4 with a Colt C19 (Tikka T3). 73 Years of service under the harshest conditions and only giving them up due to the lack of spare parts. There was NOT a Mauser or a Mauser derivative good enough to replace the No 4.
To be fair you changed your position halfway through firing the kar
My father and I shot the kar98, the Lee-Enfield and the Mosin-Nagant.
I have to say that the kar98 is the best of these 3 because it's (for my opinion) a good feeling when you hold it and it is very precise.
Surly accuracy is down to the shooter?
Bloke on the Range surly you cant be serious???
yes he is becaus the shooter is the same one can expect to have the same effect on both rifels and becaus the impact is the same on both firearms you can safly say that de difereces displayed are down to the rifel and ammo used
Ruben Janssen no. The CORRECT reply was 'yes. And stop calling me surly!!' (With apologies to Leslie Neilsen RIP)
Sorry, shirley.
@krigsmjörd are sights not part of the rife and therfor it is the rifele not th shooter?
When I trained using the SLR yeah that's showing my age, we used to blacken the sights using a match or lighter. Breaking your position during the Kar98k group is most likely what led to the two outliers. I have never fired the 98 but used to own a couple of .303's which I enjoyed using.
I am trying to decide whether to get a k98 or a No. 4 but I am afraid of the zeroes on the No.4 sights. 400m? Should I get the No.4 or the k98? They both look like they've been through hell (probably because they have), but the gun store owner says they both shoot fine.
You can actualy better better, non-historical sights for these old rifles. Like i did on my K98K, you pretty much have to order them online but you all the fun of shooting a rifle without the hassles of old sighting. So don't let that be a problem for you.
I'd agree with the bloke. There are the No.4s Mk2s with the ladder aperture sights that are adjustable to much lower ranges than the battle sight apertures. I use those on my P14 and Ross.
buy both
Hey Bloke, I have got a question. Could it be that you like the Lee enfield sights just better, because you got used to them at a very young age?
Okay, thanks for the answer. I didn't know that and the only time I shot was with an air rifle in my youth and it had the Mauser sight and was for beginner target shooting. I couldn't hit shit, but the instructor nailed the middle with all his shots.
Probably had better sights.
Still couldn't hit shit and now imagine me with a Mauser. :D
Could also be the lack of instruction, if I remember correctly the instructor just said get the Korn ( how to call that in English?) over the black of the paper and shoot. Nothing about the rear side and how the alignment should work.
i like this guy he is the kind of British person i like.. so cool
That rear sight on the No4 is far less common than the fine adjustable flip up version, which has the large battle sight aperture in the down position. Also anecdotally No4s varied quite alot in individual sample's inherant accuracy. Selected samples consistently shoot especially well, close to 2 moa with open sights - one could cover the 25 metre 5 round group with a 2p piece and often with the old 5p. Indeed the No4 derived No4T WW2 era sniper rifle and the later 7.62x51 heavy 600 mm barrel conversion of this, the L42, were based on selected 'good shooter' samples. In the Cadets in the mid 70s our minor English public school had about 30 No 4s and there were 2 samples in that lot that I knew really shot well. Our sample included 3 different types of rear sight - some with 2 land rifling - 4 was the usual, and I seem to remember a few 6 groovers. Our sample also had 2 different types of bolt release and samples with aluminium and brass butt plates. It was noticeable that the post war samples in our batch, which seemed to usually have light beech colorued stocks, were better made.
Great comparison! I always thought that the k98 was a terrible weapon to go to war with. It may be a great hunting rifle, but for fighting it is just horrible. Heavy, slow reload, bad sights, overly powerful ammo, the list goes on. And I am German so no anti German bias here.
Thank you for your comparison. Your No 4 Mk 1 is consistent with my Enfields. I understand your sighting issues with the K98k. I placed a long eye-relief scope on mine and it definitely helped. I have had good experience with S&B ammo. It seems other manufacturers downgrade the loading in 8mm.
I'm whistling 'Rule Britania' now :)
I’m with my lee Enfield here and he is quite pleased on the results!
but
-ze german soldier never misses
-tommies cant shoot ze superior german weapon
-When shooting ze german veapon ze german soldier can call upon the rotting corpse of otto von Bismarck to guide ze shot to its target
The Noobinator but we wuz bismarck n schiesse
Otto Von Bismark guide mein shotz, Jawohl.
Bismark was Chinese
superior weapon lost two world wars...
The Noobinator the Lee Enfield was even by the German's they took them from captured British and commonwealth forces when they had the chance.
Hey Bloke, i have a question concerning my No4 MK1. I keep seeing the grooved cocking pieces on many enfields but mine seems to be factory smooth and i am confused on why mine would be different. It doesn't appear to have been modified but I could be wrong as i am not an expert. Can you help?
Is it a button type or a slab-sided one without grooves? If it's the former, it's probably off a trials rifle or an SMLE. If it's the latter, congrats you've got one of the rare reduced-production-cost ones without a halfcock. Could you take a photo and send it to me on Facebook please?
As much as I do love my k98 (and I do).
The sights are awfully primitive
Sight design and who made it and at what point in the war are very important when considering accuracy. There was a big quality variance in the pre and mid war kar98k compared to the Enfield no.4. This was because as the war progressed, many German factories had to be relocated multiple times causing tooling and labour issues and one rifle might have had its parts manufactured by multiple companies. This is most notable with the Mauser-Werke AG rifles. Interestingly the migration of German manufacturing also had some good side effects such as the production of the Brno variants. In contrast the Enfield was the AK of its day and easier to manufacture. They also had the benefit of relative stability and not having to move manufacturing too much, although BSA Small Heath and Enfield were also bombed extensively by the Luftwaffe. Both great designs and rifles, but I personally do love the action of the Enfield more.
The Lee Enfield was most definitely NOT the “AK of its day”. Manufacturing the Lee action was a lot more difficult than most of its contemporaries. The Mauser was more of the AK of its day. The No. 4 was definitely an improvement on the SMLE, which was the most expensive standard production infantry rifle of its time, but even it still required hand fitting of some parts.
Even the AK was hand fitted, it's just using stamped parts that were not available until towards the start of the 2WW by the Germans. The MP38 is the first mass-produced stamped military weapon to eschew wood of any sort. To clarify by referring to the Lee Enfield it as the AK of its day, i meant simply that it was relatively low quality bolt action. it utilised a lost wax cast receiver that was then milled and pinned barrel. it could be found globally with the NO4 having nearly 60 years of service and just short of 20M production. It ended up in a multitude of wars and conflicts and was specifically a battle rifle. Accurate enough for the job given, durable, reliable, and held twice as much ammo onboard as any competitor. In my opinion the Mauser is not that, its more accurate and a lovely rifle with a high build quality especially pre war. At the end of the war they had manufacturing issues with quality declining, however its design is very much a traditional bolt action, both in its design (the way it cocks) and its functionality. I have fired both and in my opinion the difference is day and night @@jusportel
@@civiprepper the Lee Enfields were not at any time made using cast parts, with the exception of the upper bands on some wartime No.4’s, and the trigger guards on the last No.4 Mk.2’s. I, myself, have owned approximately 30 Lee Enfields of various models and vintage, and about the same number of various Mausers. I wouldn’t characterize ANY of them as “low quality”, with the exception of Spanish Mausers of the Civil War era, some of which were so bad, I would consider them unusable.
Having owned both a No.4 and an SMLE and a k98 I disagree. Notably the SMLE has a milled receiver from billet. The No4 has a lost wax cast receiver blank that is then milled to finish and has an integral rail and inclusive charger guide, and this is what im referring to. it also has only two-groove barrels replacing five-groove ones in the SMLE. It's well documented both in the imperial war museum, royal armoury documentation and norfolk tank museum who write 'Lee Enfield was re-designed with the view towards being mass produced, even by people who had no previous experience of rifle manufacture'. Obviously you're entitled to your opinion...best regards@@jusportel
As long as you maintain as good a focus on the front sight, all should be well. And remember, you don't need to necessarily see your target as long as you know where it is.
Let me start off by giving you a HUGE THANK YOU!!! for doing this and other side by side comparisons. They are very valuable in my opinion and I thank you for it. I have a couple questions for you and please these questions are NOT meant to be critiques or condescending in any way shape form or fashion.
I like others did and you even noted it on the vid that you right arm was free floating. I totally understand that so my question for that is, how did the recoil differ between the two for YOU? I have fired a ton of antique weapons and many, many long guns and I have never fired one that was so comfortable to shoot as the Mk4. I have owned several over the years and currently have one that I am refinishing the wood on. Every single one have been a joy to shoot.
My second question is related to the sights; do you think that the square sights in THIS test/comparison force your eye to focus more vs the comfortable aperture sight on the Mk4? Did you fire more rounds than just the ones on the video? What I mean is, did you take a brief break to get your eyes reset and then go shoot the Mauser first then the Mk4? I had an old Korean War vet who was a Sniper teach me that little trick about allowing our eyes to reset. Then mixing up the order in which I test/fire the weapons. That was almost 40 years ago when I learned that and I still use it today. Sometimes I even shoot handguns and long guns and do this exercise. There is a bit of science in this that I won't go into here unless someone wishes to learn the whole thing that I did. So all that being said and questions asked THANK YOU again for doing these videos. I hope to see more of them and keep up the good things you are doing for we shooters and wannabe shooters.
Thanks.
1. The 98k recoils faaaar more than the No.4, cos it's lighter and firing a cartridge which generates more momentum.
2. There is no question that barleycorn sights are shockingly bad to shoot with. They're just poor optical ergonomics, which is the reason why most countries that cared about marksmanship went away from them mostly pre-WW1 (even the Russians did away with them in the '30's). There's a reason why the pre-aperture-rear-sight target rifles had fairly chunky rectangular posts, and I'll do a video on this topic when I get around to it, and the superiority of an aperture rearsight is shown by their dominance in target shooting disciplines once they were allowed (there's a famous exceptional 60 shot course fired by a World Champion from Switzerland over open sights with a K31. His prone scores were 90 and 94. 90 I beat quite often with an aperture rear and post front on a K31, and 94 I can equal).
I'm surprised you found the Mauser recoil to be stiffer than your No. 4, I've always found the Lee's to be a bit more or a snappy rifle.
Brainmalfuction well the Mauser is lighter, has a larger bullet, and doesn't have to deal with the silliness that was cordite
he's just a pussy
Only way to make things clear of this situation is to shoot off of a lead sled. The Enfield will probably still outscore the 98k.
Now you just need to get the best bolt action rifle of WWII, the French MAS-36 and compare it to the No.4. I'm sure you could have Lindy tag along to degrade it and find some nit picky fault to disqualify it! ;)
Shot a MAS 36 many times myself, owned a couple. Better than a No4? Not a chance - need even more bedding refinement than a No4 to get to shoot even remotely accurately. The stocking up and bedding tolerances in the MAS36 is so finnicky - French soldiers were not even supposed to disassemble their rifles at all for fear of ruining the bedding (yes, it does happen with them a LOT).
A Long Branch No4 Mk 1, or an early WW2 Brit or Post War No4 Mk 2 will outshoot the MAS every time, as will an SMLE actually. Best shooting No4 I ever owned was a Canadian Arsenal conversion for the DCRA to 7.62 NATO (using a Brit No4 Mk 2 action - UNCOMMON) - it shot PHENOMINALLY well even with the battle sights, let alone the Parker Hale sight!
Any rifle you take the stock off can and will mess with the bedding. And they weren't made to not take the gun apart out of fear of ruining the bedding, but because that wasn't their job.
And for best rifle, I wasn't meaning best accuracy. There is a lot more to a rifle than how accurate it is.
The problem is that military arms are not really about target-range accuracy. It is about their overall utility on battlefields. Nearly all military-grade bolt-action rifles can hit man-sized targets fairly consistently up to 300 meters. The real question is how handy is the gun when running and gunning? How well can you shoot it in awkward stances forced by the available cover? Does it catch on stuff as you wheel around? How comfortable is the bolt to use when prone? Such considerations are equally, if not more, important than the MOA. If you look from that perspective, the MAS 36 starts to really shine. It was basically a No. 5 Jungle Carbine without the wandering-zero problem.
True, but never managed to impair the accuracy of any of my Mausers taking the stock on and off. On the other hand, the poor design of the MAS-36 attachment of the foreend, the average quality beech used for MOST of their stocking up and a too-thin handguard (that warps VERY easily and/or cracks with regularity) makes for a mediocre rifle, not just in terms of accuracy, but other factors. I discredit the "Run and Gun" mob very much (I am sure you know who I mean) - sure, in peacetime use, you can make a MAS 36 perform, but subject it to any form of actual combat use, and the problems arise.
Metallurgy on some is also a question - one I had had a cracked bolt and needed to be replaced, making it a non-matching rifle (sold it), and another I saw at a gunshow had a cracked action ring. I owned a pre-occupation example (with a German LK5 marking), a Vichy example and 2 late post-war mint/unissued examples. Nice, light and handy and a decent round, but definitely not the best combat rifle ever made.
I am a Lee Enfield collector down to the ground, and will bet an SMLE any day of the year over any other combat rifle. Again, not astoundingly accurate, but it has a lot more redeeming factors. I like the No4 also, but it's not an SMLE :)
It actually does change the bedding of any gun you take the stock off. Pretty much all militaries didn't let their soldiers take the stocks off. That was the job of an armorer. You can ruin an SMLE stock if you take it off wrong.
I've never heard or seen any with cracked bolts or action rings, but even if that's true that's nothing different than any other military bolt action rifle.
Good short, to the point, no-nonsense video.
Those sights are perfectly fine for those with Master Race Vision.
@Juan Sanchez hah...ha-hah....nice one.
I own both rifles, a 1943 Enfield, and a 41 98k. Both are in great condition, (i restored both) i shoot left handed. So, ergo is basically non existent for me. I have shot better groups with my 98k than with my Enfield. I'll see about finding my targets and I'll edit this later. (Both are great rifles, I just prefer my mauser)
i remember using a lithgow #3 mk1 for a few years, then got a chance to fire a k98 finally.......
after a few shots, i was left feeling it was a total piece of crap and id been spoiled using the SMLE for so long.
there is a reason the smle was kept in service till the 1990s.
Well said PP, Smooth and fast and reliable. Worked in the sands of Nth Africa and the mud of New Guinea. I would not say you or myself were spoiled. I would say we were privileged. Note The Canadian Rangers have only just replaced their no.4s. Cheers.
my mate has a LE and I have a Swedish Mauser and we go hunting. he has a lot of trouble hitting the animals were as my 1900 mauser keeps knocking them over almost on every shot. I wondered if his barrel is shot out. how do you tell?
Love both, Enfield is slightly more accurate, my experience.
Thumbs up for the 303 British I've had my #4 since I was 16 and I'm 77. Now and it spends it's days in the gun rack. It was the best 25 dollars I ever spent, and it has only appreciated in value over the years.
Another, "This rifle is my favorite so it HAS to be the best," test. This was hardly objective.
Did you not note the conclusion? That they're both adequate? Or that I biased the test AGAINST the No.4 by using awful ammo that suffered from hangfires cos it had 75 year old powder and primers?
Mausers are overrated as all hell, and you need to stop putting stuff from Nazi Germany on a pedestal. You’ll be a lot less disappointed by real life shooting if you do.
@@Kill3rGr1zzly thats why the mauser action is still used today because its and i quote: "overrated as hell".
Kev Doe sounds like someone is a little bitter😂
Interesting and fun, so thank you for that. Not a real good comparison, but the sights and overall impressions of shooting both rifles was good info.
I still prefer 8mm Mauser over .303 any day
The virgin rimless 8mm vs the absolute chad obsolete but still used for 80 fucking year 303
Something like 95% of soldiers back then never shot at anything more than 300 meters away. If you can hit a man sized target consistently, centre mass, at up to 300 meters your rifle and sights are doing everything 95% of soldiers will ever need them to do. You ask me the Swedes got it right. Make a fast 6,5 mm round that does not kick too much with a the flattest possible trajectory out to 300 meters and sights that allow more or less point and shoot on a man sized target out to 300 -400 meters and you are good.
I've got 8 Mauser in 3 calibers and any one of them would do better than this one did. A bench rest would help when comparing rifles.
How exactly would a bench rest make the test fairer? He used the same technique for the two rifles.
I wouldn't be surprised if a different, nicer mauser performed better, but the point is THAT Enfield performed better that THAT mauser. I'm sure a no.4 in better nick with a nicer sight would perform better than that one too
Isaac Priest
A bench rest would ensure that the shooter would have a more stable platform and not be affected by recoil as much. The video clearly shows this guy was more aware of recoil with the mauser. The point of a comparison it to test the rifles, not the shooter. A bench rest reduces shooter caused variables. This test only showed which rifle this shooter was better with.
So, I agree that for precise target shooting the Enfield's sights are far superior.
However when you look at practical application of the battlerifles, the open sight of the Mauser does have some upsides. The fact that you don't have a ghost ring makes it easier to track and shoot down targets that are moving or in cover. (Something I learned to appreciate on hunts)
Additionally the more "open" sight of the Mauser permits you to more easily keep and eye of the surroundings as well as the target itself after firing.
All those are negligible on a range, but can give you an edge of the battlefield.
swiss k31 beats both enfield and mauser for accuracy,hands down! i own all 3. but the enfield and mauser did go thru war,while the k31 sat out on the sidelines
Thanks for doing what you do, and being you Bloke :D
I'm sure the joke has been posted elsewhere, but here goes...
The Germans brought a hunting rifle
The Americans brought a target rifle
The British brought a battle rifle
The Russians brought... a rifle.
No matter what Mauser and Enfield lovers disagree on, at least we can sit together and laugh at the Mosin fanboys.
May I ask were are you shooting from because I thought Australia and the uk banned long guns
You thought wrong ;)
Nothing can beat the German engineering!
Hmmmm they got beaten twice !
@@pathfinder303 purely by doctrine of quantity over quality.
TomYawns they lost get over it.
actually, quite a lot can
Taking out my No.4 Mk1* out for the first time, hope to bring in some good results :D
Considering your freehanding both rifles, obvs the L4 will be more accurate since its a bit smaller and lighter. The K98 being the bigger rifle makes it harder for you to be consistent with it. If you were holding it constantly the EXACT same way you will be more accurate (just like the two shots you landed in thr same spot.
Mate, the Kar98k is the smaller and lighter of the two ;)
And re "two shots you landed in the same spot", that's an example of en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clustering_illusion since two shots close together in a 5 shot group has effectively zero statistical significance and is pure chance. Also, the ammo I shot in the No.4 was total junk, as I pointed out in the vid ;)
(and for completeness, I was resting and not freehanding, and also if you think that it's harder to shoot a bigger, heavier rifle accurately you'd better tell the Olympic shooters, High Power shooters, Palma shooters etc. cos they've been doing it all wrong all these years by wanting the biggest and heaviest rifle the rules allow for. The only exception to the "heavy rifle = good" rule is biathlon, but that's cos skiing is more important than shooting, so they have a minimum weight limit whereas everyone else has a maximum weight)
I have both and I have to say I reload for both. My lb 1943 no4 1* out shoots my 1942 K98k. Totally agree on the sight and the k98 whollops you much nastier than the. 303. No obvious at first but after 10 to 20 shots it certainly does lol.
@@georgevafeidis2320 i agree that the no4 has better sights but the sights on the k98k are not "horrible". i prefer the no4 peep sight as my eyes are not good enough to get the most out of the k98k. overall peep sights give you a better depth of field which makes it easier for accurate shooting and the open sights on the k98k allows for fast alignment. in games you dont benefit from peep sights and they only block your view which is why everyone hate them in games.
the accuracy difference between both rifles is not noticeable except on the shooters end where the groups will be smaller when using peep sights. Accuracy varies because of production quality etc. but a cherry picked no4 or k98k with good handloads can achieve 1.5 moa accuracy.
Much love for the #4 Mk1 even with the flip sites.
The Mauser can group much tighter than what you have achieved, just because you are a bed rifleman doesn't mean the Mauser is an inferior weapon. Of course, you think that the Enfield won WW1, It didn't.
Michael Mayo Mausers suck in comparison
@@bretaki8489 Your mother too.
What did? The Lebel?
, My name is Ian Simmons at the Belambi rifle range in NSW Australia on February 14th 1968 I shot 20 consecutive bulls eyes at 700 yds with no rest open sights army amo with the long branch number 4 and no scope or spotter and that target was 24 inches i still have the trophy, I claim it a world record I was shooting for the Bulli rifle club.
You know the Mauser is horrible, when even British companies and gunsmiths build almost all of their hunting and sporting rifles on their basis. Rigby... ew.
Aah, yes, the 98k is a great military rifle because sporting rifles. One of our favourites. You know what's also a great sporting rifle? A nice double rifle by Hollands or Purdey. Here on the Continong, people also like what English speakers call "drillings", even though technically they're "Zwillingen" ("Twins"), although in the UK they are frowned upon due to the chance of working the wrong trigger and sending a 7x64R sailing away at a high angle instead of a round of birdshot. Blaser straight-pulls are also rather popular, although we don't see where all the money goes into them - rather high-priced for what they are really. Also, for pure target shooting there's some really good solid-action single-shots from RPA that dominate UK-style target rifle. Over here, there's Grünig+Elmiger, SIG-Sauer and so on that make pure target rifles that are absolutely superb.
Interesting though this all is, I'm not sure what any of this has to do with a video about two battle rifles though
First off- I talk about the system. Nowhere I talked about the Mauser military rifle specifically. Secondly, I find Heym and Krieghoff make far superior and also far more affordable double rifles. I am very much familiar with the Concept of the classic German Drilling in that I own a Krieghoff Trumpf Drilling passed down from my father in *7x65R* and 12/70, fitted with a 5,6x50R Mag. Keppeler insert barrel. As far as precision shooting goes- I am not interested in ringing some steel plate some miles away with a rifle so ugly it could give me eye cancer.
Have a nice day.
Toodlepip!
Thing is, that you also like to stress the point, that the rear locking mechanism of the enfield is just as capable as that of the Mauser. Or the point about safeteys in another video.
If I came of as salty, I apologize, but some points are connected to both system and rifle.
But I have to say, that these videos are pretty interesting and, even though I don't agree with several points, very entertaining to watch.
fully agree
I'm totaly sure this channel doesnt have any bias
Haha Mauser fanatics triggered. Great vid non the less it amuses me. Cheers!
The manufacturing variances on enfield barrels were massive. If you take the average accuracy the I'm sure Mauser would beat the enfield.
Can't test accuracy this way. It's different from shooter to shooter lol.
a) am I suddenly 2 different people?
b) erm... you might like to look up how the Germans did their accuracy acceptance tests. Mostly it was done from the shoulder, although they did use "Schiessmaschinen" too.
c) Yeah, I also really shouldn't have used crappy click-bang ammo in the No.4. That was very unfair of me.
So what were you saying there as you were enjoying the 98:).The only sights I find worse than on the 98 are on the P-08.
The enfield is de beter rifle but some people like the Lee, some the k98k some the M1 garand and there are even people like me which like the K31.
Diversity is a beautiful thing
It is indeed, but people seem to get terribly offended when "their" rifle is subject to criticism, the Mauser Wehraboos particularly so for some reason. Let's not forget that in the end they are just inanimate lumps of wood, metal and (nowadays) plastic.
Bloody engineers, we're all like this for some reason.
which rifle is better, Lee enfield or k98k?
a: m1
Some snotty dude in love with himself giving these old weapons a sniff test LMFAO.
So many "Experts" in the comment section, loved the video mate.
There’s a quote in an old Gun Digest that goes something like, “I wouldn’t let someone with problems tolerating recoil recommend a rifle to me.” Now-disregard the recoil part. I wouldn’t let someone with problems focusing on the sights recommend a rifle to me. I’ve owned one Kar98 and two VZ24’s, and all of them would easily shoot 25mm at 50 meters, and I have groups from another that are 30mm at 100 meters. I am not faulting your personal conclusions, but with both rifles it would have been nice to try a steadier rest. Otherwise, this is not a test of each rifle’s inherent accuracy per se, it is a field test of how they shoot for this shooter off elbows. I expect the Enfield would do better, too.
Ok, so this guy hates everything German and loves British stuff, got it! Sad for him. Moving on to the next video
lol
don't let the door of truth hit your wehraboo ass on the way out.
wehraboo....that is freaking hysterical. :)
he is of a downy kosher look as well,lol
bellator11 i3
Have you done a P14 vs Lee Enfield shoot?
I'd take a #4 over a K98 any day. All this crap about how the Mauser has "the strongest action" is pointless BS. What are you going to do, fire proof rounds, day in, day out? The Enfield has greatly superior sights, a bigger magazine, fires faster, a near perfect safety lever & the rear locking lugs are easy to clear of mud/debris. IMO the only WW2 rifle better than the Enfield was the Garrand, Stg44 & SVT40.
No, but fire 9,3x64 and 8x68S day in, day out.
MooseHunter330 Zastava has even scaled the basic Mauser action up to. 50BMG.
Coming from Turkey, I’ve grown up around a lot of mauser 93/98 patterns. Hell, in turkish Mavzer is slang for bolt action. I love the foolproof safety and the overbuilt action but I have to admit If I was serving and I heard the guys on the other side got to carry twice as many ammo and didn’t get their shoulders ripped off every time they fired I’d be jealous. Both are great rifles
This proves nothing . You clearly do not know how to shoot , do not understand how to figure out what ammo will shoot well in a rifle or why . Shooting at 50 yards with a rifle proves nothing , that is a normal pistol distance . Our shooting club has shot 1000's of 100 yard matches over 20 years using every type rifle with top of the line bench rests and wind flags . We found German 8mm Mausers were good for about 1 inch 5 shot groups at 1100 yards , 100's of groups in that range . Enfields did so poorly they were not competitive . Even when we had many guys with their " amazingly accurate " Enfields show up , they were always in last place when it counted . So I hate to tell you 2 random rifles with what ever for ammo shooting from his elbows is a joke . We never shot at 50 yards as all the bullets go through the same hole and you learn nothing , that shows you just how bad your shooting is .
I am sure he appreciates your honest feedback and open mind. Warning irony alert!
One inch groups? That all? At my club, we get one hole groups at 2,000 yards shooting offhand with Mauser 93s rebored to .45-70.
Yeah sure one inch groups at 1100 yards ..... Who are you trying to fool