Slightly off-topic, but reading Weiland's DGR book brought this query to the front-burner. I believe the correct terminology for the US Enfield was Pattern 1914 or P-14 (.303) and Model 1917 or M-17 (.30-06).

I take Terry Weiland's repeated use of the term 'P-17' to be in error. The only text I have specifically dealing with the P-14 and M-17 is Ian Skennerton's book "The US Enfield", which is a definitive text IMO, and I have checked this in a number of other military texts and rifle encyclopaedias on my bookshelf.

I think we should try to stick to the correct nomenclature wherever possible on these forums, Weiland's enthusiasm notwithstanding! Unless you're into steam locomotives, or HIV genetics, there is no such thing as a "P-17".

And here's another thing: I notice that Americans are hung-up on 'cock-on-closing' for their bolt-rifles, which makes absolutely no sense to me for two important reasons. Firstly, the bolt has the dual role of primary extraction of the case, and cocking the striker. Why put both these functions onto the same bolt-lift, when their resistance is cumulative? Isn't it smarter to do one on the lift, and one on the close, thus seperating their resistance, and avoiding their cumulative effect? The second point involves simple ergonomics: far more force can be exerted by the outstretched arm pushing downwards and inwards, than can ever be brought to bear pushing upwards and outwards! Try it for yourself!

Most Australians of my generation were brought up on Lee Enfields and P-14s, and cock-on-closing is second nature. I stand in awe at the amount of money changing hands within the US custom rifle industry to convert 'cock-on-closing' to 'cock-on-opening', when to me it defies common logic.

Anyway, there, finished.
Back to the virtues of the .300 H&H, which I would roundly endorse (in a properly customised P-14 or M-17) over the .300 Win Mag any day of the week!