Isn't it interesting that, when push came to shove, the Mauser was on the losing end of things quite a bit more often than the winning end?
The US, Brits et all based their tactics on their rifles in WWII, and the Germans based their on MG42.
The Mauser (K98) was simply to provide cover and support (and the rifleman provided the mules needed for copious amounts of ammo the MG42 needed.
Once we mix tactic into the discussion then the M1 winds hand down as the best battle rifle (bolt or not) and the AK wins it period ad the best battle gun period.
The German nation was led into two disastrous wars and the loss had nothing to do with weapons (only an atomic bomb would have helped them) .
WWI was a bunch of Imperialist expansionist powers having at each other (German had a far better social system than the rest so I could contend it was the superior country). It still engaged in a stupid war.
However, in booth wars it took the combined economies and the military of the US, France, Britain and Russian to defeat Germany.
The 300 Spartans lost to the bleeping Persian too, did that mean their weapons were inferior?
So, bombed, beaten, stamped on, out air companied in WWII the Germans fought the combined military might of all 4 of those major power to a standstill. If not for the insane decision of Adolph, they might have gotten an armistice that held expanded boundaries.
So, the Mauser would in all fairness be the finest battle rifle of all time as it was instrumental in maintaining the capacity if not the success to allow the MG42 to win.
And you have to wonder why Enfield designed the Pattern 1914 if the LE was so great?
And in all reality the LE has advantage in some areas (not so much as rapid fire as the ability to sustain larger volumes of fire for a bolt action though the M1 exceeded it if we are going to compare wars as you did).
The 1903 and the Mauser were probably neck and neck for accuracy in longer engagements and non mass frontal attacks. None of them was worth a **** in a trench warfare frontal assault.
Come on guys, guns that could should 2500 yard with some accuracy at 25 yards in a frontal assault and trench cleanout (or defense operation?) Resorting to bayonets is not a tactic, its pure desperation.
Ever hear of the Pederson devise, the Trench Broom? That’s because a bolt action that could shoot 2500 yards was verging on as useless as certain organic devices on a boar.
Ease of mfg goes to the 1903 and probably the Mauser and LE were second.
The troops did the best they could with what they had and what they had was not always what they needed (lets hear that again Don)
If you examine the arms carried in WWII by the US, by the time of the DDay breakout, they front line companies were carrying upwards of half Thompson Submachine guns (or M3). There was always a mix of 1903s in there for good reasons. Does that make the M1 any less steller? No, just that a mix was better.
And a good rifleman could be deadly with any of them and use what he had.
Winning had nothing to do with the gun, you ignore artillery, logistic, economic might, the US heartland under not attack.