Infantry rifles of WW2: Which is better the M98 Mauser, the Lee-Enfield or the M1 Garand?

Question

During WW2, many different styles of rifles were designed, tried and used by a variety of countries. Most were bolt action high powered rifles, with the exception of a few semi-auto rifles that came into being during the war.

Heres the scenario.

3 infantry soldiers, from America, Britian and Germany. Each has normal gear from their country and are carrying an average infantry soldier load (around 40 lbs).

None of them have scopes, are carrying heavy equipment (like bipods, machine gun ammo etc) and are equal in the regards to training, physcial abilities and marksmanship skills with their rifles.

Keep in mind that though the M1 is a semi-auto rifle, that does not ness. make it a shoe in. It has been shown that both the M98 and the Lee Enfield could be fired with extreme accuracy rapidly, with both could average roughly 35 + rounds fired and hit a one foot by one foot target from 250 yards away.

Who do you feel would win and why?

Should be that the M98 and Lee Enfield had fired those rounds in a minutes time.

Keep in mind that while the M1 is semiauto, the more rapidly you fire it, the more you lose your aim and end up just shooting rounds downrange. The M1 was not as accurate at distance as the other two rifles, possibly due to its slighlty shorter barrel.

Answer 1

From personnel experience (as a Brit) having used all 3 at various times when seconded to both the US & German miltary forces during the 50 / 60's I'd choose the Lee Enfield. I went through vigerous training with all three under the command of their equally competant instructors.

As a marksman ***** (five star) the highest that then could be attained in the British Military, I could continually hit moving targets up to 800 yds over an open sight.

I never equalled this with any other allied foreign weapons. 660+ yds being the maximum. Beleive U me it wasn't for the wan't of trying - but I continually fell short levelling my scores against the Lee Enfield.

It interesting to note that many of my American and German counterparts had the same problem. However, it was a German paratrooper who outshot us all with his mauser.

He continually being in the ball park with all three i.e. a total difference of 40 points after each shoot, with all three!

Superb shooting. The like of which I never saw again or even equalled in my remaining military service. He earned every distinction given to him.

And would you beleive it, even the French gave him a Gong in later shoots!

Answer 2

From the phrasing of your question, it's clear that you are comparing the rifles themselves and keeping all other factors equal.

It was famously said by General George S. Patton, Jr that the M1 Garand is:
"The greatest battle implement ever devised."

The small edge in accuracy of the M98 or the Lee-Enfield is far outweighed by the other practical advantages of the M1.

The M1 is accurate to 500 meters with a flat trajectory. That's plenty. This is combat, not woodchuck hunting you're talking about!

Criticisms of the fact that one cannot "top off" a partially loaded clip while in the weapon appear to more theoretical than practical. If one has time to realize the need to reload, he can simply insert a fresh clip and at leisure reload any partially expended one. This is no secret to the seasoned infantryman. It's also faster to reload than the stripper clips of the other rifles.

The M1 was the best-loved rifle by the soldiers themselves whose lives depended on it. It was utterly reliable, no matter what the conditions. This cannot be said of the M16!

Just ask yourself: which rifle would YOU want if you had to choose from these 3?

Answer 3

First off, if you take into consideration the fact that the German is an "Axis" soldier and that the other two were "Allies", the Brit and American would probably win.

In the case of which I favour I think the American should win just because he's carrying a Canadian made M1 Garand invented by no other than the great John Garand

In your scenario's case, I think that the Lee-Enfield would win simply because it was transformed into a sniper rifle and even without the scope it still has deadly accuracy. I could say the M98 as well as it too was deadly but I think that the Enfield has more of a reputation behind it.

Answer 4

You can't compare M1 Garand to SMLE or K98. Different generations of rifles. M1 Garand should be compared to G43 or SVT-40. US had Springfield (which is pretty much same as K98 but with different sights). Between Springfield, K98 and SMLE (you can add Mosin) I would pick SMLE. Why? 1. 10 round capacity. Unique pretty much among military bolt action rifle. 2. Insane rate of fire, thanx to unique bolt locking system. British soldiers could deliver 20 aimed shots per minute with it. No other bolt action rifle compares. The Mad minute excersize. I am practicing it myself. Have THREE Lee enfields. Between G43, M1 Garand and SVT-40. SVT-40. Why? 1. In trained hands (Soviet Elite Units as well as German and Finnish units which used the rifle) it proved to be totally reliable and accurate. Understand that Before the Revolution, Russia was so backwards that only 40% of population were literate (in 1941) by 1941, 90% of population were literate, however most of them had 6 years of school. Those who finished 10 were considered "educated". That's why SVT-40 failed in most infantry units but did great in Elite units where soldiers were better educated. 2. Can be loaded with detachable magazines (10 rounds) or stripper clips. 3. The famous FAL is the same inside as SVT-40. The whole tilting lock combined with short stroke regulated piston above the barrel was pioneered on SVT-40.

Answer 5

Well, the K98 and Lee-Enfield rifles were updated frequently over the decades and purported to be dead accurate and reliable at long ranges.

But despite its weird limitations, the M1 Garand still proved to be accurate over long ranges anyway and capable of great penetration. The M1C sniper variant was even used as a standard sniper rifle during WW2 and up into the Vietnam War. Accuracy and range wasn't an issue.

And of course, it could fire semi-automatic. Bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang ka-ching! Accuracy and range aren't the most important factors when picking out a standard battle rifle - modern designs often make concessions there in exchange for other qualities.

That being said, the American would probably win were he in a friendly gun duel with a British and German infantryman of equal skill, training and disadvantage.

Answer 6

All three are excellent weapons, but I would go with the Garand, simply because it is semi-automatic. I think that would give the American soldier a significant advantage in the kind of combat a soldier would face.

A semi-automatic weapon requires minimum effort to fire several rounds, which can be a drawback if one is conserving ammo, but can definitely make a difference when things are moving quickly, as they often are in battle. The single-action rifle, such as the Enfield, requires the shooter to operate the bolt between shots and that not only takes time, it can spoil the aim.

Those of us who got acquainted with the M-16 may recall having been advised to move the safety directly to full automatic in a firefight. The ability to squeeze off a burst of three rounds can make a difference.

If the soldiers have time to acquire the target, aim and get it done with one round, the differences between the rifles are less significant. All three are accurate rifles, but usually multiple rounds help assure a hit.

Good question. I've been trying to think of a good ground-combat scenario, but was leaning more toward battle tanks or artillery.

In my case I have a small problem of being left-eye dominant. That makes it more difficult to fire a standard rifle or a camera, which are designed for right-eyed, right-handed people. So I would favor the semi-automatic rifle because it is easier for me to concentrate on my aim.

Oddly enough I am right-handed. Normally left-eyed people are left-handed as well. It makes pistol shooting more difficult for me being cross-dominant, but knowing about it helps me compensate.

I am not a terrible shot, but it is difficult for me to be a really good marksman. A semi-automatic or automatic weapon can help make up for that.

Answer 7

I think effective range is more important than fire rate. In this, the M98 and the enfield were good but the M98 is more pwoerful so I woild probably go for that.

Answer 8

Lee enfield would win. 10 mag clip, reliable, easy maintenance, and easy to shoot accurately with. K98 was ok but only had a 5mag clip, and garand couldn't be reloaded mid clip.

Answer 9

m1