Art
01-09-2023, 02:14
......as a battle rifle.
I made a post on the M1903 page to the effect that I believe the M1903A13 rifle is the finest example of the Mauser family. This is due to its weight, mine weighs in at 8.8 pounds unloaded with a sling and butt stock cleaning kit. My M1903 is exactly a pound heavier similarly fitted out and most Mausers short rifles come in also at about 10 pounds. The '03A3 has superior sights to other Mauser type rifles and a frankly smoother action than most. They are all fine rifles.
The Lee system does have its faults, the biggest being the rimmed ammunition. While problems with the ammo is largely fixed by the magazine design and properly loading the clips rim lock can happen and is a maddingly difficult stoppage to clear. There is also the problem of weak ejection caused by the lack of a proper ejector, the empties being kicked out by the charger loading thumb groove which requires, also, a strong extractor spring. None of these issues exist with Mauser rifles.
So why the Lee??
Large magazine capacity aided by very smooth bolt operation and a bolt handle that actually lies behind the trigger which results in a high rate of fire in the hands of a trained rifleman has always been its biggest selling point but there are others. For one the rifle is very, very simple mechanically and easy to maintain. The locking lug recesses on front locking bolts are dirt traps and the Lee does not suffer from this problem. Take the bolt out and you're looking right at the breach face where cleaning requires nothing more than a wipe off. The sight on the Lee, is, for me anyway, superior to those on the '03A3. While the sight isn't adjustable for deflection I haven't found this to be a problem, at least out to 300 yards. I like the big "ghost ring" battle sight which with me shooting it hits dead on at 200 yards with mil spec ammo. Lees have a very practical battle sight. In addition the ladder sigh part of the set up is very good "fine sighting" option out to any practical range.
The Lee's have, what I believe, is, an undeserved reputation for sub par accuracy. I'm not surprised with the number of worn out barrels out there and the amount of badly stored garbage milsurp ammo floating around (POF, WWII Brit.) In the case of my No 4Mk2 which I got new in the mummy wrap ragged out rifle problems don't exist. It's capable of telling accuracy at any range I shoot. I will confess that with ammo of equal quality My '03A3 performs a bit better but not by a whole lot. I think this is due in no small part to the '03A3s better trigger.
Now a disclaimer. I'm speaking only of the virtues of this weapon as a battle rifle, not a match rifle or a hunting rifle. For either of those functions my first choice in an action/rifle would not be the Lee though I've certainly had no problems taking deer with a Lee action rifle.
I made a post on the M1903 page to the effect that I believe the M1903A13 rifle is the finest example of the Mauser family. This is due to its weight, mine weighs in at 8.8 pounds unloaded with a sling and butt stock cleaning kit. My M1903 is exactly a pound heavier similarly fitted out and most Mausers short rifles come in also at about 10 pounds. The '03A3 has superior sights to other Mauser type rifles and a frankly smoother action than most. They are all fine rifles.
The Lee system does have its faults, the biggest being the rimmed ammunition. While problems with the ammo is largely fixed by the magazine design and properly loading the clips rim lock can happen and is a maddingly difficult stoppage to clear. There is also the problem of weak ejection caused by the lack of a proper ejector, the empties being kicked out by the charger loading thumb groove which requires, also, a strong extractor spring. None of these issues exist with Mauser rifles.
So why the Lee??
Large magazine capacity aided by very smooth bolt operation and a bolt handle that actually lies behind the trigger which results in a high rate of fire in the hands of a trained rifleman has always been its biggest selling point but there are others. For one the rifle is very, very simple mechanically and easy to maintain. The locking lug recesses on front locking bolts are dirt traps and the Lee does not suffer from this problem. Take the bolt out and you're looking right at the breach face where cleaning requires nothing more than a wipe off. The sight on the Lee, is, for me anyway, superior to those on the '03A3. While the sight isn't adjustable for deflection I haven't found this to be a problem, at least out to 300 yards. I like the big "ghost ring" battle sight which with me shooting it hits dead on at 200 yards with mil spec ammo. Lees have a very practical battle sight. In addition the ladder sigh part of the set up is very good "fine sighting" option out to any practical range.
The Lee's have, what I believe, is, an undeserved reputation for sub par accuracy. I'm not surprised with the number of worn out barrels out there and the amount of badly stored garbage milsurp ammo floating around (POF, WWII Brit.) In the case of my No 4Mk2 which I got new in the mummy wrap ragged out rifle problems don't exist. It's capable of telling accuracy at any range I shoot. I will confess that with ammo of equal quality My '03A3 performs a bit better but not by a whole lot. I think this is due in no small part to the '03A3s better trigger.
Now a disclaimer. I'm speaking only of the virtues of this weapon as a battle rifle, not a match rifle or a hunting rifle. For either of those functions my first choice in an action/rifle would not be the Lee though I've certainly had no problems taking deer with a Lee action rifle.