Dude you are a little too biased about your English gun.

"I do believe that the even the Garand and Mauser types are superior to the M-16 and its derivatives. The Garand and Mauser were also fine examples of the type but were not as reliable or durable and when considering the overall qualities were not as good in their design when compared to the Lee Enfield. The Garand was a semi-automatic model and as such had reliability problems as all semi-automatics do. The British had the Bren and Germans had their MG42s to keep their opponents heads down. The Masuer was more capable in terms of accuracy than the M1 but had only a 5 cartridge magazine and an inferior bolt action when compared to the Lee Enfield. The achievable rate of accurate fire for the Enfield would have been better than the Mauser but not as great as the M1 when it was working. But all being said these differences would be negliable compared to the differences in the skill of any individual aiming and firing the different rifles."


All three rifles shoot a .30 cal round so the balistics are similar. The Enfield was probably the best rifle in WWI but the Garand is by far the best WWII rifle issued.
The Mauser is a great rifle better suited to hunting. The Garand had very little reliability issues; where did you get your info?
The worst thing about the Garand was the classic "ping" as it ejected the empty clip and "Garand Thumb" which only happened to most GIs only once.

Yes bolt actions are more reliable than semis in fact the Mauser action is considered the best bolt action ever made and is now copied by more manufacturers of hunting rifles.

The M1 Garand was one of the reasons the Allies won WWII.

The Enfield is a worthy rifle but I would take a Mauser or a M1 Garand over one anyday.