Thread: Bolt Action Rifles

I have been collecting old military rifles since I was a young man of 19. (The Lee-Enfield No. 1 Mk III being my favorite, but that's unrelated.)

Anyway, a question I've never read or heard a good answer to is why some nations preferred a straight bolt handle and some adopted a turn down bold handle.

I shoot left handed and the straight handles make it faster for me to cycle the bolt than the turned ones do.

So looking at my Czech Mauser today the question entered my mind again. So I'm asking this questions here, because frankly you guys seem to be a better resource for information than the encyclopedia.

Thanks

When telescopic sights came into more common use the straight bolt handle was modified to allow clearance IIRC.

Originally Posted by JimmyHAD

When telescopic sights came into more common use the straight bolt handle was modified to allow clearance IIRC.

I've heard that a lot and it makes since, but weapons like the Lee-Metford had the bolt turned down before telescopic sights were use by the military.

I suppose there isn't a rhyme or reason. Some did and some didn't.

joscobo,

WRT the Lee-Enfields, the bolt handles being turned down placed the bolt knob in a much more accesible position - the hand movement needed is much smaller than with the 90 degree handles, leading to a much more fluid and rapid action of the bolt.

It has often been said that you knew when you had got there when there was only one distinct sound when the bolt was cycled (not four) !

I certainly could operate the bolt of my late lamented Enfield L39 faster than any other rifle I have ever used

Have fun !

Best regards

Russ

Originally Posted by JimmyHAD

When telescopic sights came into more common use the straight bolt handle was modified to allow clearance IIRC.

I recall in the 60's a lot of gunsmiths making a good bit of change
cutting off and then modifying and welding the bolt handle so it would clear
the scope.

This is a detail folk should look at when making a purchase decision.
Especially if you are a reloader. Also pay attention to the ejection path.
Some scopes interfere with cartridge ejection.

Originally Posted by joscobo

II shoot left handed and the straight handles make it faster for me to cycle the bolt than the turned ones do.

I don't know the answer to your question.
I can say that in WWI at the Battle of Mons the rate of fire from the British infantry with bolt action Lee Enfields was so high that the Germans thought they were facing machine guns.

Originally Posted by welshwizard

I don't know the answer to your question.
I can say that in WWI at the Battle of Mons the rate of fire from the British infantry with bolt action Lee Enfields was so high that the Germans thought they were facing machine guns.

It's the slickest bolt action on any rifle I've used. I love the old Lee-Enfields. Best bolt action battle rifles made (very much my opinion of course). If only they had ditched the rimmed cartridge at some point. But, from what I read they were going developing a brand new cartridge and WWI broke out and they just shelved the idea. Perhaps because the No. 1 Mk III was just that good during the War To End All Wars.

joscobo,

+1 on your view of the Lee-Enfilelds - they are simply lovely rifles

-1 on your view about rimmed cartridges !!

The rim of the .303 (and other rimmed cartridges) is probably the best way of maintaining headspace when the rifle is used very briskly.

If the 0.303 magazines are loaded with each cartridge rim forward of the previous, then the magazine action is as fluid as one could desire

From my own experience, the 'one up, one down' method of magazine charging has lead to way more falures to feed than the above method.

WRT the No1 MkIII, I have always wanted to shoot a heavy barreled version like the Australian Lithgow target barrels

Have fun !

Best regards

Russ

Originally Posted by PhatMan

joscobo,

+1 on your view of the Lee-Enfilelds - they are simply lovely rifles

-1 on your view about rimmed cartridges !!

The rim of the .303 (and other rimmed cartridges) is probably the best way of maintaining headspace when the rifle is used very briskly.

If the 0.303 magazines are loaded with each cartridge rim forward of the previous, then the magazine action is as fluid as one could desire

From my own experience, the 'one up, one down' method of magazine charging has lead to way more falures to feed than the above method.

WRT the No1 MkIII, I have always wanted to shoot a heavy barreled version like the Australian Lithgow target barrels

Have fun !

Best regards

Russ

I only really say that because I could see me, personally, having a feed issue from nerves, at the worst moment in combat. Although I've never read any soldier that shouldered a Lee-Enfield complain about it. I've never read anything but praise from soldiers, except for the No. 5's. I think possibly the wandering zero problem was more an effect of the recoil and not the rifle itself.

A big +1 on wanting to shoot a heavy barreled Lithgow target model. I had a Lithgow No 1 Mk III with the black witch stamp on the receiver ring. It was a fantastic example of the rifle.

I'm way off topic I know, but I can talk Enfield's all day long.

I used to be a sniper in the Army...When I retired I built the weapon I wanted when I was in......7RemMag, Shilen bull 24 nch barrel, Mcmillon stock, leupold LRT 6.5x20x50mm..Shoots great..heavy as crap...I forgot I got old...