MJ - I like your approach to this thread man.
GunPlummer - Not really bluster though is it, pretty solid logic. You managed to point out a mystery of British military procurement in that tank gun, well done, there have been quite a few over the years.
You seem to believe that this indicates some massive level of inertia of thought inherent in the British that does not occur in other nations. Ridiculous.
I suspect what the British guy was doing there was irony - central part of the British sense of humour, can easily be lost on people who use it less.
You are finding issues with rifles, or magazines, that likely spent decades in storage, may have been abused by previous owners etc. Of what complaints have been commonly heard about the Enfield, magazine issues was never one of them. In fact, apart from the crap bayonet on the No 4 and the ever controversial wandering zero on the No 5, combat troops really found no major problems with the rifles. The Enfield was always known for being a very reliable rifle.
As to your doubts about the quality of the rifles used for ''rapid fire'' as you put it - I don't think I quite get the point you are making? Those rifles will have been well maintained combat weapons, normal wear and tear but well maintained.
We are talking about battle rifles, not the strongest bolt action, not the most accurate bolt action, not the lightest, highest capacity, most reliable, not the longest, shortest, most ergonomic, cheapest, easiest to produce, market or anything else. The best bolt action battle rifle provides the best balance of features which give the infantry soldier the best tool.
The reasons why this is the Lee Enfield have been explained and they make very good sense.
If I were hunting deer, or slow firing at targets 1000 yards away - I will have a Mauser derivative thanks very much. Any other battlefield application, the Lee Enfield wins hands down.
Last edited by Scouse; September 24, 2012 at 01:34 PM.