Glocks and Mausers....

[bunnyhunter12]

Oh here we go again, once all the Mauser lovers run out of poor arguments for their beloved rifles we get steered off topic. Grasping at straws to hide the fact that there are no real arguments FOR the Mauser that can't be shot down with logical arguments for obviously better arms.

[Pistolenschutze]

Originally Posted by bunnyhunter12

Oh here we go again, once all the Mauser lovers run out of poor arguments for their beloved rifles we get steered off topic. Grasping at straws to hide the fact that there are no real arguments FOR the Mauser that can't be shot down with logical arguments for obviously better arms.

Balderdash! as our fabled British allies are wont to say.

In terms of complexity, the Enfield was AT LEAST as complex as the Mauser, Bunny. Every try to take apart a Lee-Enfield bolt? Why do you think the Brits went through umpty ump "Marks" to get the silly thing to work correctly? OK, OK, the Enfield had ten shots, and the Mauser only 5, but those Brits from London and Liverpool needed ten to hit anything! The basic Mauser action has been copied all over the world for both military and sporting applications. Heck, even the Brits at Holland and Holland copied it, not to mention the Americans with their Springfields.

[bunnyhunter12]

"Needed ten to hit anything?" What? The level of Britsih marksmanship during BOTH world wars was beyond reproach. And when you count Canadians armed with Enfields you had a really deadly combination. The Canadian military mantra of "every man a sniper" was built on the Enfield. How many reports from German soldiers have I read stating that nothing struck more fear in them than seeing an assault coming with those red and white, Canadian flag shoulder flashes in view. They knew that if they gave a Canadian with an Enfield a target it was going to be hit, period

The Diemaco C7 (M16 clone) that the Canadian forces use today comes standard with an Elcan x3.4 optical sight. We don't believe in spray and pray, every possible shot must find its mark. THIS is why our forces were so feared during the WWs. In the assault, the Brits usually put the Canucks up front to breach the lines and then poured their superior numbers throught the gap. I t was known that the Canadians, fervant hunters, had grown up shooting rifles and were GOOD at it. The one Korean vet I know humped an Enfield all during THAT war, even though the FN C1 (FAL) was standard. He got his hands on "Emily" and though he doesn't like to talk about such things in detail, they "did some killing, Emily and me..............".

And yes Pistol, I've done the bolt tear down on many Enfields, showing my friends how to do it with their own rifles, just once each. It's really a job that I like doing because once I show "Billy" how to do it once, he never needs help again. I don't see what's so complex about the Enfield bolt. Here's the numbers, parts comprising JUST THE BOLT; Enfield 10, Mauser 9 Mosin Nagant 6. But how often did a soldier with an Enfield or MN have to tear apart his bolt? And I wasn't just talking about the bolt, I said "action", and the Enfields or MNs is dirt simple, while the Mausers "superior" engineering adds a lot of crap that need not be there.

I submit this, when a "superior" engineer designs something that can only be fixed by a wrench that does not exist, he will design that wrench, then a new wrench to fix that wrench, then a new type of screw to make a new screwdriver that requires the new screw to use said screw to fix the latest wrench variant.

Again, the engineering on the Mauser action is PERFECT for handling large loads in a sporting arm but far and beyond what is required or practical for a military weapon.

[Pistolenschutze]

Originally Posted by bunnyhunter12

"Needed ten to hit anything?" What? The level of Britsih marksmanship during BOTH world wars was beyond reproach. And when you count Canadians armed with Enfields you had a really deadly combination. The Canadian military mantra of "every man a sniper" was built on the Enfield. How many reports from German soldiers have I read stating that nothing struck more fear in them than seeing an assault coming with those red and white, Canadian flag shoulder flashes in view. They knew that if they gave a Canadian with an Enfield a target it was going to be hit, period . . . .

Again, the engineering on the Mauser action is PERFECT for handling large loads in a sporting arm but far and beyond what is required or practical for a military weapon.

No argument on the Canadians as soldiers, Bunny. The raid on Dieppe and their actions on D-day at Juno Beach proved that beyond any doubt. I've always believed though that both the Germans and the Commonwealth allies in World War II were foolish to rely on bolt action rifles when semi-auto designs were well within the capability of either to produce. The American Garand proved that beyond any doubt.

I still say, though, that the Mauser was the best bolt action battle rifle ever designed. Why else would so many countries have carefully picked up all they could find after the war, then reconditioned and rearsenaled them? Indeed, the Mauser design continued to be produced, on German equipment, for many years after the war.

[Ursus]

Enfield and a 1911 will do for me.

[RamblerReb]

Ditto on the Enfield and 1911. If I could have a Winchester Model 12 riot gun, all bases would be covered.

[AngelDeville]

ball peen hammer and a hunting knife.....