[Mike Irwin]

"Mk1 is has pretty poor accuracy so its disingenuous to say it’s the fastest most accurate bolt action rifle."

As far as I can tell, you're the only one who has mentioned that in this thread...

And, as with anything, "poor accuracy" is a relative term.

If I'm careful with my No. 1 I can cut 1.5 to 3" groups at 100 yards using surplus South African military ammo.

My 1903A3 isn't much better than that. Of course, with hand loads I'm sure that I could shrink them both quite a bit, especially the 1903.

But, the Lee Enfield design was more than accurate enough as a military rifle, and the design was also accurate enough to compete favorably in a number of early Palma matches, and win at least one.

"British believed in volley fire and trained for it..."

Uhm... The British believed in individual marksmanship ability and trained for that. Not sure where you got he concept that the British only did volley fire...

The annual empire "Rattle Battle" wasn't won with volley fire, nor were the many, many military shooting matches held around the world.

"The 303 is not a great cartridge either. Pretty much an clunker that the US gave up with the Kraig as did almost all other armies (some like the Russians never got out of the mud of the trenches as it were). Lots of striked against the Mk1 but if you had to use it and your life depended on it you would find it virtuous."

The Kraig? You mean the Krag, as in Krag-Jorgenson.

Uhm... Yeah, it was such a clunker that it was used as Britiain's primary military cartridge for nearly 75 years, and is still used in military applications in numerous nations around the world.

It was a rimmed cartridge. When it was adopted, there were a lot of rimmed cartridges in service. That doesn't make it a clunker.

The fact that it also wasn't replaced with a rimless cartridge doesn't make it a clunker, either.

What that indicates is that, when paired with properly designed weapons, it provided the British with a very capable cartridge that saw them through to the victorious side of two world wars and countless lesser military excursions around the world.

Ballistically, the British military cartridge was VERY similar to the ballistics fielded by the .30-06, the 8mm Lebel, the 8mm Mauser, and the 7.62x54R.

In fact, I believe that the 175-gr. Mark VII ball cartridge had trajectory ballistics superior to the 150-gr. Ball M2 cartridge used by the United States in World War II.

In any event, not sure how you've arrived at the conclusion that the .303 cartridge was a "clunker."

"Long time trained and drilled British army solder could shoot rapidly with ok accuracy against a mass, but they also perished at a high rate in WWI (as well as the Boor War) so that left you?"

Everyone, from all sides, perished. That's what happens when you pit 19th century tactics against the 20th century reality of massed machine guns and artillery.

But, what it left you is a less well trained military that was still armed with the fastest operating bolt action rifle fielded by any power..

AND it left a core contingent of non commissioned officers from the old standing army who passed those handling skills on to soldiers heading for the trenches, where they perfected the techniques needed to operate the action rapidly. If they weren't killed by artillery or a machine gun in a pointless "Over the top."

"reality has its own cold bath of water." Well, it does.... but only if you're addressing the correct reality.

The 1917 was, generally, faster than the Springfield or the Mauser, but it still wasn't as quick as the Lee-Enfield.

The dog leg bolt is a true pain in the ass to manipulate rapidly through the upstroke, and bolt chatter can be a serious issue with it, which really slows the cyclic rate.

On the plus side, the 1917 has a very good apeture battle sight. I turned in some great groups with one once.