Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Mausers and Military Rifles Mark 4 No 1

Would it be fair to say as generalization, military bolt rifles with two piece stocks, inherently more 'fussy' & tend to require attention on that accord than equivalent mauser, Springfield, or 'others of genre', with conventional single piece stocks?

No offense intended to the collectors of this forum. Simply "inquiring mind..."

Best & Stay Safe!
John

IME based on all but one of the Enfield No 4 Mk1s and more than a few Mausers and Springfields I've owned the Enfields have been as reliable and trouble free as the Mausers. At the same time I think it would be fair to say there's more that can go wrong with an Enfield if you don't get a good one. The two piece stock was a factor with both the butt bolt and forend draws wore out on the one bad Enfield I owned.

The draws "wore out" or were damaged? There's nothing to wear on them, after all, but they can be damaged, such as by people not disassembling or reassembling correctly. You can also have the timber crack or be compressed due to the draws not seating properly - again, often a product of people messing with them who shouldn't. Not saying that was you of course.

The stocks weren't intended for anyone but armourers to remove, and there are some traps for the unwary or untrained in doing this. Getting the process wrong can cause damage.

On the other hand the but socket arrangement does have advantages. It is easy to provide for different stock lengths for example, and these were provided. It is also very strong, certainly strong enough to buttstroke an enemy without fearing that you'd break it. As well, it allowed better utilisation of stock wood, and allowed replacement only of that part of the stock which needed it on a FTR.