[44 AMP]

Understand a couple of things. First off, nobody equipped their armies with junk. Except for the "volksturm" guns and "last ditch" Arisakas (some of which actually are junk, as far as a good gun goes), all main issue military rifles were well made, to the extent of the origin nations arsenals.

What they aren't all equal in is design.

After WWII, and until the later 1960s was they heyday of cheap surplus rifles. And, in those days, we didn't look at them they way we do today. Instead of being desirable collectibles they were both common and cheap as dirt.

The main use of the surplus rifle was a cheap starter gun, for many, and what they could be made into by those so inclined.

Springfields, Mausers, Enfields, and even Arisakas (which are mostly mauser design), lent themselves into being made/remade as nice, even beautiful sporters. SMLE's are rugged durable, fine guns, but not as easily sporterized.

French, and Italian rifles were of less desirable "quality", not because they were junk (poorly made) but because they did not have the mauser type features, and were poor candidates for sporterizing.

Remember, this was decades before the former Soviet guns became available, creating a new market for surplus rifles, and the cheap prices made them widely available to new shooters, who typically don't have a lot of available cash.

People being what they are, there had to be some reason, beyond pure snobbery why Carcano's weren't desirable. The non-standard bore diameter, and the poor performance with "proper" 6.5mm size bullets was magnified, and became legend, kind of like the early AR problems still seem to show up in discussions today.

The whole "Oswald" thing is more an individual issue, I think. Though not everyone believes everything the Warren commission reported, even today.