View Single Post
Old September 24, 2012, 09:00 AM   #76
Mike Irwin
Staff
 
Join Date: April 13, 2000
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 36,313
OK, what the hell does a tank main gun have to do with this thread?

Absolutely nothing, so that's a complete non sequitor.

The reason no one copied the Lee Enfield is because the British government held the titles and patents on ALL of the technology associated with it.

Only the United States Army was stupid enough to think that it could use foreign patents any way it saw fit, and with no repercussions, and that's why the Mausers successfully sued the United States and won damages.

tahunua's commends about how the Mauser was marketed around the world are spot on. Mauser was a private company and could sell their rifles as they wished.

The British government had no interest in doing that, and thus did not.

Mauser, on the other hand, provided very lucrative package deals to nations who purchased its guns, not unlike Glock today.

The package deal was primarly that Mauser would provide rifles for testing and evaluation in the cartridge of the nation's choice. If the cartridge OR rifle was not up to the nations desires, Mauser would, largely on their own dime, alter or redevelop the gun and/or cartridge to meet that nation's specifications.

Mauser would then either manufacture the rifles for that nation, or would help that nation set up a home arsenal to manufacture rifles and cartridges under license.

Mauser was, in many ways, the Burger King of the armaments industry.

That doesn't, however, make their rifles the better combat weapons, it simply makes them prolific.

Regarding the Arisaka, you have GOT to be kidding.

Really all it had going for it was the inherent strength of the action and the fact that the Japanese were intelligent enough to copy the cock on closing feature.

They weren't, however, intelligent enough to copy the turned down bolt handle of later Mausers, meaning that of all of the bolt action rifles used in World War II the Arisaka had, by far, the slowest rate of fire and most awkward manipulation.

I can get 10 rounds down range with my 1903A3 in the time it takes me to get five rounds and five more reloaded with my Type 38.

The safety mechanism on the Arisaka is also a joke. The Japanese would have been better off going the French route and simply eliminating the safety. Instead, they chose a ludicrously complicated means of safing the rifle.

Regarding your experience with British rifles and their magazines, I would say that, of the feeding problems I've witnessed over the years, about 99% of them have been because they operator had no clue how to load rimmed cartridges into the magazine to prevent rimlock.

I'm seeing a lot of naysaing on your part that is long on opinion, but very, very short on reasoned argument and with no real facts in evidence at all, so it's rather curious that you're claiming the people who are supporting the Lee Enfield as the best bolt-action battle rifle are doing so simply out of collectors enthusiasm.

You should actually go back through and try READING this thread and absorbing the facts that have been presented, instead of glossing over them in your rush to deliver profound, "factually" based arguments such as "As far as the greatest bolt action battle rifle ever designed, you have to be kidding," and some blather about the barrel on a British tank.
__________________
"The gift which I am sending you is called a dog, and is in fact the most precious and valuable possession of mankind" -Theodorus Gaza

Baby Jesus cries when the fat redneck doesn't have military-grade firepower.

Last edited by Mike Irwin; September 24, 2012 at 09:06 AM.
Mike Irwin is offline  
 
Page generated in 0.04446 seconds with 7 queries