A lot of good reading there, BUT, I did find the article on the Lee Enfield to be a bit prejudicial. In particular, the part on it being "Practically Stronger" than a Mauser. The fact was the comparison was made with the pattern 14 Enfield, NOT a Mauser. Both the 1903 Springfield & the pattern 14 Enfield were based on the Mauser action, but the breaching was completely changed. Both of these used the so-called Cone breech, as did a pre 64 model 70 Win which left the entire head of the cartridge unsupported essentially up to the extent of the thicker walls of the head.
From the model 1889 Mauser on the head of the cartridge was enclosed by the chamber walls all the way to the extractor groove. When the1898 model was introduced it used a ring in the receiver to which the bolt head was closely fitted & was almost, if not quite, as strong as the fully enclosed chamberings of far newer rifles.
Simply no way the Lee Enfield was as strong as a True Mauser. Strong enough for the shells it was chambered for, Yes, but not as strong as a Mauser, not even the "Weak: model 93..
