The Garand was considered a serviceable weapon out to 400-500 yards, and had a factory targeted MOA of 4 (though reportedly some made it to the field during wartime with as high as 6) with the ammunition of the time, though many did better (2 - 3 MOA) and were selected for marksmen. According to the US army, the Garand was expected to produce 40 - 50 shots per minute “accurately” at 300 yards, though I don’t find a technical definition for “accurately” on that.
The Lee-Enfield was classed at the same 4 MOA from the factory with ammunition of the time, though it had selected T series marksman / sniper designated rifles that did 2.5 MOA or less.
So perhaps a 0.5 - 1 MOA advantage to the Lee-Enfield by design which is probably mostly due to a fully sealing bolt action, and apparently better factory QA. Though on the other side of the coin the Garand could produce a higher firing rate and didn’t suffer horribly in accuracy to achieve that.
They seem fairly comparable. And they were made by closely collaborating allies around the same time (about a 20 year gap between development), and mass produced using similar techniques, so no big surprise I guess.
It was actually more of a tongue in cheek jibe at the Garand. I did know about the “superior” Enfields getting designated as sniper level, and having used one, it’s definitely not up to the standards of a modern rifle. I certainly couldn’t imagine shooting 30+ shots with it in 1 minute, and hitting the broad side of a barn…
I went down a bit of a rabbit hole here for fun.
The Garand was considered a serviceable weapon out to 400-500 yards, and had a factory targeted MOA of 4 (though reportedly some made it to the field during wartime with as high as 6) with the ammunition of the time, though many did better (2 - 3 MOA) and were selected for marksmen. According to the US army, the Garand was expected to produce 40 - 50 shots per minute “accurately” at 300 yards, though I don’t find a technical definition for “accurately” on that.
The Lee-Enfield was classed at the same 4 MOA from the factory with ammunition of the time, though it had selected T series marksman / sniper designated rifles that did 2.5 MOA or less.
So perhaps a 0.5 - 1 MOA advantage to the Lee-Enfield by design which is probably mostly due to a fully sealing bolt action, and apparently better factory QA. Though on the other side of the coin the Garand could produce a higher firing rate and didn’t suffer horribly in accuracy to achieve that.
They seem fairly comparable. And they were made by closely collaborating allies around the same time (about a 20 year gap between development), and mass produced using similar techniques, so no big surprise I guess.
It was actually more of a tongue in cheek jibe at the Garand. I did know about the “superior” Enfields getting designated as sniper level, and having used one, it’s definitely not up to the standards of a modern rifle. I certainly couldn’t imagine shooting 30+ shots with it in 1 minute, and hitting the broad side of a barn…
Lol you and me both! It was a fun rabbit hole to dig down on two very cool historic weapons.