View Full Version : .303 v. m14

June 2, 2007, 02:04 PM
Which was better service rifle of its time of issue (not considering them in todays battlefield) in British and American Armies?

June 2, 2007, 02:43 PM
.303 british is a cartridge, so you are compairing apples to transmissions here. the bolt action enfield rifle was the most notable offering in .303, and was an excelent battle rifle in its day.

Jamie Young
June 2, 2007, 02:49 PM
Ballistically, the .308.

June 2, 2007, 03:05 PM
At the time the M14 came out it was considered overpowered for what it was designed to do, be able to fire fully automatic and was quickly replaced with a radically different design. Of course thats mostly due to the decision to drop the M15 with a heavy barrel to up the weight so it could actually be usable. Not that its a bad rifle. It just was past its prime by the time it came into service and better suited as a more specialised rifle than your standard infantry rifle. In the later role it never did have much an effect.

The Lee Enfield design has been in used by militaries for over a century and still in use today by the likes of the Canadian Rangers. At the time it came out it was the finest battle rifle in the world, even in .303 British calibre. It had the ability to fire significantly faster than any of the opposition's rifles. It had double the capacity of pretty much every other main battle rifle of the time until the end of WW2. Its also about as reliable and easy to perform field fixes on that you can get.

June 2, 2007, 03:07 PM
hm, best of my knowledge the m14 was not the main issue rifle for the durration of any conflict in our past. garand was in two conflicts, maybe the better particapant for your poll. bobn

June 2, 2007, 04:31 PM
If I could only pick one it would be the m14

June 2, 2007, 04:44 PM
SMLE soldiered on for decades (though, to be fair, it was only saved by World War One killing British plans to replace it with a .276 caliber Mauser derivative). The M14 was shown the door after a couple years of use in low intensity conflict. In terms of "which was the more successful design" the Lee Enfield wins hands down.

In terms of which is a more viable weapon today, the M14, while not ideal for much of anything an infantryman needs a rifle to do, still is not entirely obsolete. The SMLE is.

June 2, 2007, 07:46 PM
The SMLE served in countless conflicts world wide, with great distinction. It has earned it's place in history beside the 98 Mauser, M-1 Garand, etc.

The M-14 was little more than a "product improved" M-1 Garand. the M14 should never have happened. The money wasted on the "stopgap" M14 would have been better spent on a newer and more effective design.

While the M14 turned out to be a superb target and sniper rifle, it was too little, too late, in the wrong place and at the wrong time as an infantry weapon.

Mike U.
June 2, 2007, 10:26 PM

What excatly is the point of this plethora of polls you keep generating? :confused:

June 3, 2007, 05:19 AM
I try to get better idea of the guns I have or would purchase. Plus more importantly I get the vaulable advice and thoughts of the folks who have used particular weapon they vote for. This kind of specialized advice is not available where I live because the most popular weapon is AK47, if not G3, Ak74 or SMGs. This is mainly because people get what there is offered. And choice is limited since import restrictions and bribes invovled in getting an import permit, and the ridiculosly exorbitant prices dealers charge for the guns. This limits people's exposure to lots of weapons and thus knowledge as well. Since we are in Rifle forum let me give you and example of cost of rifles first:

1. Winchester .270 was sold the other day for 2500$. A .270 bullet is for 8$!

2. BRNO .243 for 1100$, and bullet for 5$ a piece!

3. Bullet of 7mm Magnum over 7$ a piece.

4. Saiga (shotgun) for 2500$!!!

5. Colt King Cobra (revolver) 2800$!

6. Glock for not less then 6000$ on a good deal may be 5000+!

7. HK P2000 for 5000$, American 9mm bullet for 1.5$

8. Beretta (shotgun) 3300$!

9. Beretta 92 FS for 5000$ and Inox for 6000$.

10. Sig P226 for 5000$.

AND the list goes on and on. So you see one has to be farily rich to afford weapons of class, and since very few can, the advice is also narrowed- not to forget that there is also no means such as this to communicate.

I have a few friends who are good collector, but when I hear there advice it becomes obvious that a vast majority of them have no idea of what they are talking about, rather just had tons of money to kept buying stuff.

To an earlier post that I am comparing apples with transmission: In my defense I must again let you know that here we go with the caliber 303, no one including myself until a month or so ago knew the name of actual manfucaterer since those old 303s just had model markings. So if staff wants to change the name to 303 Lee Enfield then its fine.

Thank you.

June 3, 2007, 05:16 PM
I dont know where you are buying ammo, but our local wall mart has all that ammo for a fraction on your reported costs, even with the cost of the gun and given the useful life of the gun. No 270 will cost 8$ a shot., cept for maybe a 270 that is loaded with them Silver bullets for the occasional Werewolves. \
As for the original use of this post, My vote goes to the 303 Enfield. My first real non 22 was a 303 . I still have it and It still shoots very well. ( just not as well as my 300 Winn mag or my AR-15)

Mal H
June 3, 2007, 06:22 PM
... no one including myself until a month or so ago knew the name of actual manfucaterer since those old 303s just had model markings.What epiphany happened a month or so ago that rocked the firearms world and uncovered the long lost name of the manufacturer of the .303?

armedtotheteeth - he's not in the USA and probably doesn't have access to a local Wal-Mart.

Mike U.
June 4, 2007, 09:30 AM
Aahhh! Good to see there is method to the madness. :D
I was seeing all these seemingly unrelated polls and couldn't make sense of the purpose. Now I see! Thank you for clearing up my confusion and not taking offense at my query. I really appreciate that. :)

Now, I must say, I am REALLY glad I don't live where you live. :eek:

Those prices you posted are shocking!
Seeing those prices has just given me a whole new appreciation of living where I do.
I sincerely hope things radically improve for you and your countrymen in the area of firearms pricing and availability.

June 4, 2007, 09:48 AM
Well 303 or as we call it here 3knot3, is just known by its generic name. A month ago I became interesd in acquiring a small one which is MIV of MV, but only then I started reading about them. Before that, I had no interest in it. I guess since it was used way before my time, I was more keen on buying newer stuff.

June 4, 2007, 10:09 AM
oneshot, I got an Enfield No4MK1* Longbranch a couple of years ago. A coworker had taken it in pawn for $50 15+ years earlier, while still in the Coast Guard, and the guy had never returned for his rifle. The guy discovered I like old bolt action, and offered it to me for what he had in it..$50. Can you say, sold?
The barrel still had cosmo in it from when it was FTR in Faz. The outer cosmo had been cleaned off, but it had never been fired.
With one handload, I can get MOA accuracy from the bench, most of the time. It's rugged, durable, dependable, and idiot proof. The SMLE/No4 design, (the No4 is NOT known as an SMLE, that is the No1 and previous editions), is still in service today in some locations, and will likely turn up for years to come.
The ammo is a little harder to come by, so I handload. I keep a bandolier of factory ammo on chargers ready, JIC. BTW, at $1, the ammo cost more than the rifle.:p I even splurged for a Mk9 bayonet, just for grins and giggles.
But, I cannot afford an M14, M1A, or even an AK right now. So, the venerable Enfield soldiers on, as my backup SHTF rifle, ready to serve yet again, with a stiff upper lip. And a Canadian accent.:D


June 4, 2007, 10:58 AM
Beautiful rifle armoredman:) I don't vote because I haven't shot either rifle yet. I always liked the look of those Enfield rifles though, I might eventually get one since I also reload which makes the higher cost of factory ammo unimportant.

Mike Irwin
June 4, 2007, 02:59 PM
"the name of actual manfucaterer since those old 303s just had model markings."

Lee-Enfield was not the manufacturer. It was the generic name for the rifle.

Lee-Enfields of ALL vintages are stamped with the actual manufacturer.

June 4, 2007, 07:44 PM
#4mk1's were made in England at Fazakerly, Maltby, and BSA, Long Branch in Canada, and Savage in the US. Ishapore (India) and Lithgow (Australia) made #1mk3's during WWII, and SSA, BSA, and LSA made ShtLE III's diring WWI. Also, fazakerly and Maltby made #5mk1's. and Fazakerly made the #4mk2 into the 1950's, and Long Branch also produced their #4mk1*'s into the 50's. A LOT os .303's have been built.

The point is, what is your paradime concerning the usage of the Enfield or the M14 in the field? The M14 was never intended for targeting over 600 yards, while the #1's and #4's sights were graduated to over 1200 yards (volley fire).

Since I own many rifles in the .303 range and no M14 style (M1A), I give the nod to the .303.



Mike U.
June 4, 2007, 11:38 PM
Daaaamn! So, how are set for Lee-Enfield's DougW? :p

Welcome to TFL! That's one helluva nice collection you have there.

Could you tell me what the one on the extreme right is? I'm not well versed on L-E's and I believe I just saw one of those in a Pawn Shop recently.

June 5, 2007, 01:50 PM
From the poll it looks like the british rifle was not far behind the american m14. I guess thats British workemship.

June 5, 2007, 02:18 PM
I don't know if it has to do with the workmenship involved, just a good design. As has been said already, the M14 was really just an improved M1 Garand, not really a new design.

June 5, 2007, 04:14 PM
you boys are forgetting the M1 Garand,the 3006 is a better round than the303 any day .while your working your bolt on the Enfield the M1 is throwing rounds at a brisk pace. :D