The Firing Line Forums - View Single Post - .303 surplus british enfield

Danger Dave · September 23, 1999, 04:15 PM

Gale, I had a long response written, but IE4.0 went and crashed before I could post it! Ahh, well, it's all for the best, I'll make a short summary:
1) I don't consider having to beef up a rifle to handle a more powerful cartridge to be a design flaw, since I've never heard of an Enfield self-destructing under the loads it was designed for, even after thousands of rounds.
2) The cost of the Enfields in the stores after the war was related more to the popularity of the .30-06 cartridge in the U.S. (for surplus weapons, the more expensive the cartridge, the cheaper the weapon, generally speaking) and the fascination of having a "war trophy" rifle than any difference in effectiveness as a battle rifle.
3) 10 rounds vs. 5 rounds...
4) shorter, quicker action than the Mauser-type actions
5) I never heard anyone say .303 just wasn't a powerful enough round to get the job done
6) I have never heard anyone accuse the Enfield action of being complicated or unreliable, either

But, the Enfield has it's problems:

1) Quality varies greatly, as is the norm for wartime production (IMO, the Canadian made No.4 Mk1* models are the best wartime Enfields)
2) That #$%& rimmed .303 cartridge! Getting the rims crossed-over is not a good thing (and the stripper clips don't work worth a darn).
3) Many consider the Enfield to be butt-ugly. I kinda like 'em, but I thought DeLoreans were neat, too.
4) I can tell you for a fact they don't like wet sand (50th anniversary of D-Day re-enactment experience).

Anyway, that's my 2 cents.

[This message has been edited by Danger Dave (edited September 23, 1999).]

September 23, 1999, 04:15 PM	#14
Danger Dave Senior Member Join Date: April 21, 1999 Location: Dallas, GA, USA Posts: 791	Gale, I had a long response written, but IE4.0 went and crashed before I could post it! Ahh, well, it's all for the best, I'll make a short summary: 1) I don't consider having to beef up a rifle to handle a more powerful cartridge to be a design flaw, since I've never heard of an Enfield self-destructing under the loads it was designed for, even after thousands of rounds. 2) The cost of the Enfields in the stores after the war was related more to the popularity of the .30-06 cartridge in the U.S. (for surplus weapons, the more expensive the cartridge, the cheaper the weapon, generally speaking) and the fascination of having a "war trophy" rifle than any difference in effectiveness as a battle rifle. 3) 10 rounds vs. 5 rounds... 4) shorter, quicker action than the Mauser-type actions 5) I never heard anyone say .303 just wasn't a powerful enough round to get the job done 6) I have never heard anyone accuse the Enfield action of being complicated or unreliable, either But, the Enfield has it's problems: 1) Quality varies greatly, as is the norm for wartime production (IMO, the Canadian made No.4 Mk1* models are the best wartime Enfields) 2) That #$%& rimmed .303 cartridge! Getting the rims crossed-over is not a good thing (and the stripper clips don't work worth a darn). 3) Many consider the Enfield to be butt-ugly. I kinda like 'em, but I thought DeLoreans were neat, too. 4) I can tell you for a fact they don't like wet sand (50th anniversary of D-Day re-enactment experience). Anyway, that's my 2 cents. [This message has been edited by Danger Dave (edited September 23, 1999).]