Is the M1917 Enfield a superior design to the SMLE?Would the m1917 be a good platform today to the chamber in different calibers, or is there something inherently bad about the design? <tinyboard flag alt>United States</

Email
Comment *
File	Select/drop/paste files here
Password	(Randomized for file and post deletion; you may also set your own.)
* = required field	[▶ Show post options & limits] Confused? See the FAQ.

Embed	(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options	Do not bump (you can also write sage in the email field) Spoiler images (this replaces the thumbnails of your images with question marks) Hide country (this board displays your country when you post if this is unchecked)
Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf Max filesize is 16 MB. Max image dimensions are 15000 x 15000. You may upload 5 per post.

File: 5d9cd162d7bb0ad⋯.jpg (8.66 KB, 650x148, 325:74, 1288254623.jpg)

Strelok 05/14/18 (Mon) 00:04:18 257006 No.579595

Is the M1917 Enfield a superior design to the SMLE?

Would the m1917 be a good platform today to the chamber in different calibers, or is there something inherently bad about the design?

Strelok 05/14/18 (Mon) 00:13:51 738960 No.579596

File: 8b5c62dc04b4b14⋯.jpg (375.65 KB, 4036x2280, 1009:570, Remington-Model-700-BDL.jpg)

>>579595

>Is the M1917 Enfield a superior design to the SMLE?

Arguably, yes. The strength of the action paired with the quickness of the SMLE with no real downsides, magazine aside.

>Would the m1917 be a good platform today to the chamber in different calibers, or is there something inherently bad about the design?

It's arguable that most hunting rifles, most notably the Remington 700, were at least vaguely modeled after the 1917 rather than the Mauser 98 or even the 1903 Springfield. The location of the safety in particular lent itself quite well to the mounting of optics over the receiver.

Strelok 05/14/18 (Mon) 00:56:58 a6b160 No.579601

>>579595

People rechamber beat to hell p14/17's to things like 300WM.

Strelok 05/14/18 (Mon) 01:28:28 abd3e8 No.579608

>>579595

>Is the M1917 Enfield a superior design to the SMLE?

Yes, it's why we designed it.

Strelok 05/14/18 (Mon) 01:46:43 a6b160 No.579612

>>579608

It was more of looking at what mauser was doing and just copying it.

Strelok 05/14/18 (Mon) 01:49:08 4bb8fa No.579616

>superior design to the SMLE?

Yes

>good platform today to the chamber in different calibers

Remington used the design and tooling to make the Model 30 after the war, and a lot of 1917s got sporterized after being surplussed.

But today? If someone were making them new, sure. Except they're not. So go out and buy a barreled action from Howa or whoever-the-fuck instead of chopping up and irreplaceable hundred year old rifle.

>is there something inherently bad about the design?

The bolt stop / ejector contains an integral flat spring that tends to break easily. It's the rifle's one real flaw.

Strelok 05/14/18 (Mon) 03:11:39 abd3e8 No.579626

>>579612

Well that's true for pretty much every bolt action "designed" after 1898

Strelok 05/14/18 (Mon) 16:08:08 64bd06 No.579717

>>579595

While cock on close increases the rate of fire, the front locking lugs on the mauser style bolt actually still make it slower to operate than the lee Enfield action which has a rear locking lugs and this less travel for any given cartridge length.

The difference is minor though.

The whole purpose of the p13/14/etc was to fire the .276 Enfield cartridge which was essentially cribbed from the 7mm mauser family.

The p13 was seemingly necessary after the boer war's relatively long range action. Yet when ww1 rolled around, rate of fire was king anyway so the lee action stayed.