Michael Z. Williamson has a pretty droll rant up about the Garand. I largely agree with him, too; I think the Garand is thought of a little overfondly. Sure, I'd rather have a Garand than a Mauser Kar.98k, but I'd rather have an FN-49 than either.
I only had one involuntary twitch while reading his post: Everybody always refers to the Short Magazine Lee Enfield as having a "detachable magazine", which I guess it technically does, in that there's a catch that can be operated to release the magazine from the gun, but that's not how the rifle was used. They were reloaded or topped up through the top with stripper clips, just like any other halfway-decent bolt action service rifle (which categorization, you'll note, neatly excludes the Lebel as well as any rifle using Ferdinand Mannlicher's annoying en bloc clip-loading system.)
As anybody who's wandered gun show aisles in despair for more than fifteen minutes knows, the British made 17,000,000 Enfield rifles of all patterns and 17,000,001 magazines for them, and that old guy wants too much for it, and the follower's all rusty, anyway.
As a matter of fact, since the relentlessly class-conscious British officer's corps was sure that the average Tommy couldn't be trusted with anything more complicated than a spoon lest he injure himself with it or lose it, SMLE magazines were actually chained to the rifle like a mitten on a string, at least until the urgency of wartime production caused such fripperies to be discontinued.
(The magazine situation isn't quite that bad, although I would caution against most aftermarket SMLE mags. I have a pair of extra mags, one for each of my Enfields, but they're more by way of spare parts than for reloads.)
(H/T to Bayou Renaissance Man.)