Why do would I trust my life to an Enfield but not a Rem. 700? What makes a GI rifle better other than the sights? And if that were to be the only reason, why can't commercial irons be better than those weenie sights they used to offer?
steve marshall
You can buy an M24 and have a military Remington 700 with Iron sights.
Better or worse depends on what you are trying to do with the gun.
Better or worse depends on what you are trying to do with the gun.
Why typically a military rifle is better than commercial is many times the military rifle has a heavier barrel and is built a little better. Meaning a military rifle is designed to be used in combat firing many rounds in a row...a commercial rifle is built to hunt with and shot maybe 3-5 time in a row.
I have some of both, but prefer military rifles.
I have some of both, but prefer military rifles.
The question remains. Were I to go in harms way, I'd choose my Enfield over a Rem 700, Win 70 or Ruger 77. There is no doubt in my mind that an Enfield would fare better. But is that true? Why should an Enfield outperform a Remington 700? The Remington is better machined, has presumed better metallurgy and was designed 75 years later than the Enfield. Almost certainly more accurate and with better cartridges. I'm not a nostalgic guy but I "know" the Enfield is better. Why? There have to be others that feel the same way. Or that disagree. Does anyone have constructive reasoning why they prefer one over the other? At minimum, disregard cartridge choice and firepower, please.
A military step barrel and a full Mannlicher stock that that make the rifle very resistant to being knocked around? A cock on closing bolt and relatively loose tolerances that make it smooth to operate and fast cycling? The option to carry ammo on chargers and load the rifle with them? Nostalgia?
Very tough question to answer, as many have indicated, it depends on application. But I'll stick with what I think is your intention. When the Enfields were produced, they were indeed produced on production lines. Not ibndividually hand crafted but rather "mass produced" to certain specs.
With that being said however, the technology on these "mass production" lines has greatly improved with the introduction of better machining methods. The CNC mills, boring, stamping, etc have improved to include greater tolerances, improved accuracy of details/specs, and far more consistency part after part.
So, I disregard all of this milspec, low bidder, and other garbage, and consider that in my thinking. An example, ok, hear me out, is a Ferrari. hand crafted, hand assembled, so the fit from to another is not that great. More time and energy in a repair, than let's say, a GM.
With that being said however, the technology on these "mass production" lines has greatly improved with the introduction of better machining methods. The CNC mills, boring, stamping, etc have improved to include greater tolerances, improved accuracy of details/specs, and far more consistency part after part.
So, I disregard all of this milspec, low bidder, and other garbage, and consider that in my thinking. An example, ok, hear me out, is a Ferrari. hand crafted, hand assembled, so the fit from to another is not that great. More time and energy in a repair, than let's say, a GM.
Why choose a milsurp over a commercial product?
Simple, cost.
The Lee rifle in military guise is a clunker really. Loose military tolerances, grand slabs of wood, if you scratch it, dent it, drop it, who cares.
A Winchester model 70? While basically a 1898 Mauser action, well refined, there are those refinements. It isn't clunky, the machining is precise, the wood trim and light. Scratchnit and you're gonna feel it both personally and in the wallet.
The funny part, most .mil guns are hard pressed to shoot sub 2" groups, especially with their advancing age and drying/swelling wood.
Conversely, 1.5" groups are common if not expected from modern rifles, if not better.
The question becomes "what will serve you better"?
Personally, I own a number of Mausers in commercial and .mil guise.
My choice for making a fast exit? A Remington 660 .308 carbine.
Light, handy and much more accurate than the .mil Mausers, it allows me to take
more gear or supplies with me rather than carrying more gun weight.
I will admit, I am building a "scout" Mauser, but its more a truck gun that I don't care about than anything better than the 660 for my use.
Simple, cost.
The Lee rifle in military guise is a clunker really. Loose military tolerances, grand slabs of wood, if you scratch it, dent it, drop it, who cares.
A Winchester model 70? While basically a 1898 Mauser action, well refined, there are those refinements. It isn't clunky, the machining is precise, the wood trim and light. Scratchnit and you're gonna feel it both personally and in the wallet.
The funny part, most .mil guns are hard pressed to shoot sub 2" groups, especially with their advancing age and drying/swelling wood.
Conversely, 1.5" groups are common if not expected from modern rifles, if not better.
The question becomes "what will serve you better"?
Personally, I own a number of Mausers in commercial and .mil guise.
My choice for making a fast exit? A Remington 660 .308 carbine.
Light, handy and much more accurate than the .mil Mausers, it allows me to take
more gear or supplies with me rather than carrying more gun weight.
I will admit, I am building a "scout" Mauser, but its more a truck gun that I don't care about than anything better than the 660 for my use.
To a great extent it is personal preference. BUT, there is also the fact the the military firearms were designed to stand up to a great deal more abuse than the civilian firearms out there.
The military firearms may not be as accurate, as smooth, as light weight or as elegant as the civilian firearm, but it is general designed to be more durable. That is why many consider it to be a “better” firearm.
In reality, it depends on what you are looking for, and what you are going to use it for.
If you are hunting sheep the high mountains, you will want a light weight rifle, in a larger caliber, that is capable of firing anywhere from 1 to 3 rounds accurately.
If you are setting up on a bench to shoot prairie dogs out tp 300+ yards, you will want something a bit heavier that can shoot a high round count without loosing accuracy as the barrel heats up, with a tremendous amount of accuracy.
However, if you are preparing for the zombie apocalypse, you are going to want something that is light enough to carry all day, that uses a caliber that is small enough to carry a lot of rounds while still being powerful enough to take down an opponent that is durable enough that it won't break on you because it was dropped from the roof while you were climbing down.
Each of these three firearms have different requirements and, while there will be something out there that may fit all three roles, you will generally be looking at three different rifles/configurations. Doesn't really mean that one is “better” than the other, but it will be better than the other for a particular purpose.
The military firearms may not be as accurate, as smooth, as light weight or as elegant as the civilian firearm, but it is general designed to be more durable. That is why many consider it to be a “better” firearm.
In reality, it depends on what you are looking for, and what you are going to use it for.
If you are hunting sheep the high mountains, you will want a light weight rifle, in a larger caliber, that is capable of firing anywhere from 1 to 3 rounds accurately.
If you are setting up on a bench to shoot prairie dogs out tp 300+ yards, you will want something a bit heavier that can shoot a high round count without loosing accuracy as the barrel heats up, with a tremendous amount of accuracy.
However, if you are preparing for the zombie apocalypse, you are going to want something that is light enough to carry all day, that uses a caliber that is small enough to carry a lot of rounds while still being powerful enough to take down an opponent that is durable enough that it won't break on you because it was dropped from the roof while you were climbing down.
Each of these three firearms have different requirements and, while there will be something out there that may fit all three roles, you will generally be looking at three different rifles/configurations. Doesn't really mean that one is “better” than the other, but it will be better than the other for a particular purpose.
Seeing as the discussion has been mostly limited to bolt guns I would make the argument that most of the bolt rifles the US military shoots today are based off of common "civilian" production rifles (Remington 700 currently and Winchester 70 until after Vietnam IIRC). Now there are much more niche makers vying for a supply of that magnitude.
As whirlibird said though, if I have an Enfield/Mosin/Mauser I'm more likely to not give a hoot about dinging it and use it more for target practice whereas my "civilian" rifles I baby because they usually have as much in glass on top of them as the rifle is worth and are dedicated to hunting. The older "military" rifles also seem to be more manufactured to take front line abuse than a modern bolt action. Cost is what factors into my decisions on what I will abuse lol.
As whirlibird said though, if I have an Enfield/Mosin/Mauser I'm more likely to not give a hoot about dinging it and use it more for target practice whereas my "civilian" rifles I baby because they usually have as much in glass on top of them as the rifle is worth and are dedicated to hunting. The older "military" rifles also seem to be more manufactured to take front line abuse than a modern bolt action. Cost is what factors into my decisions on what I will abuse lol.
single greatest piece of military gear ever developed is a poncho liner, affectionately referred to as the 'woobie'... the field jacket insert also known as the "smoking jacket" comes in second...
My judgment of the military issue weapons I carried across the decades, issued, or cared for as a young armorer, is that they fail as frequently and for the same reasons as any mid-grade civilian firearm. MIL-SPEC is a statement of standards, not a stamp of quality. There is a (possibly false) expectation that some level of quality is in the MIL-SPEC standards, but over the past few decades, military weapons purchasing has included an increased percentage towards spare parts, training, and depot level service. Which means MIL-SPEC standards includes a growing acceptance of failure with each new contract.
I'm not a bolt guy, but I like pistols, so for example I'd sooner trust my life to a commercial Sig than any milspec M9. But in your scenario, I don't see an Enfield outshining a Remmy 700 when the buffalo is empty.
I'm not a bolt guy, but I like pistols, so for example I'd sooner trust my life to a commercial Sig than any milspec M9. But in your scenario, I don't see an Enfield outshining a Remmy 700 when the buffalo is empty.
Military vs commercial, Mostly I choose commercial.
I have owned and tested nearly every military weapon fielded before the end of WW2 and many of the newer ones as well. I greatly respect the K98 Mauser, Enfield, and the 03 Springfied. I trust the M1 Garand. Beyond these I prefer a modern commercial gun.
I have owned and tested nearly every military weapon fielded before the end of WW2 and many of the newer ones as well. I greatly respect the K98 Mauser, Enfield, and the 03 Springfied. I trust the M1 Garand. Beyond these I prefer a modern commercial gun.
My AR's and AK's are commercial guns so to speak... If I was grabbing one rifle to defend the family and put meat on the table it would be my Remington 700 BDL deluxe 30-06 with a Leupold 3-9x scope on it. I am wicked accurate with it and can take deer easily to whatever distances I am capable of. I figure if I can hit something with 4 legs with it, I can probably hit something with 2 legs with it.......
Be careful with that sentiment if you are ever in a real life scenario. Killing deer and killing man is two totally different ballparks.
Historically there is a very good reason why the semi-auto rifle was such and improvement over a bolt action and lever action.
The semi-auto rifle allowed the soldier to fire multiple rounds from cover / concealment without giving away his position by showing movement from working the bolt or lever.
The semi-auto rifle allowed the soldier to fire multiple rounds from cover / concealment without giving away his position by showing movement from working the bolt or lever.
All government contracts - procurements go through the bid process. The term Low Bidder - means just that. It's doesn't mean that it's somehow cheap, low quality, junk. It's just the way government procurement works.
Lots of companies bidding on a contract or procurement will lower their bid to get the prestige of the contract. Winning a bid could mean work for years to come.
Lots of companies bidding on a contract or procurement will lower their bid to get the prestige of the contract. Winning a bid could mean work for years to come.
Mil-spec is just a set, repeatable standard. Meaning in weapon terms, one colt M4 will have 100% interchangeability with another one. Its also a set standard for durability to a certain degree. With ammo its a known quantity in regards to powder, primer, bullet weight, accuracy and trajectory. It doesn't always mean its better, just that there was a certain thought process behind it and testing of the design.
Lowest bidder.....I dont think most think it means, what they think it means.
It means if the requirement of a handgun is 2,500MRBS, 35,000 MRBEFF, and modular and lets say 2 companies meet those requirements then the cheapest usually wins.
The way most talk about lowest bidder would lead one to believe if Hi-Point offered the government a $200 rifle they would adopt it.
It means if the requirement of a handgun is 2,500MRBS, 35,000 MRBEFF, and modular and lets say 2 companies meet those requirements then the cheapest usually wins.
The way most talk about lowest bidder would lead one to believe if Hi-Point offered the government a $200 rifle they would adopt it.
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
-
?
