"So much for the superiority of the Lee-Enfield's 10-round magazine. It had to be fed with 5-round chargers. Anyway . . ."
Wrong answer, so your dig has no merit.
The Enfields used by Britain in the Boer war didn't have charger guides.
British tactics at the time were to use the guns as single-shot weapons with the magazines held in reserve and used ONLY upon command of the officer in charge.
It was felt that if you gave men access to a full magazine they would immediately shoot it randomly and waste ammunition instead of carefully aim...
The first Lee Enfield to have charger loading capability was the Rifle No. 1, adopted in 1902.
"the british wanted to field a 30-year old rifle. Every other army in the world wanted Mausers..."
Know why every other nation wanted Mausers? Yes, they were good, and Mauser's sales force never stopped telling people that. Mauser rifles sold so well because they were marketed.
The Lee-Enfield never was. It was a product of the state, not of a private corporation, so the L-E was never actively marketed around the world.
In other words, we don't have any idea what the true reception between the two would have been on the open market.
I submit that the British wanted to rearm with a Mauser-style rifle because the people in charge of making such decisions were also blinded by the Mauser marketing hype and didn't realize just how effective the rifle they had on hand was.
In part, it's the military mentality to "evolve at all costs, no matter what, even if it's not a clear forward path." If you don't evolve, your funding gets cut.
That was the true driver behind the development of the P13/14 rifles, NOT any great and pressing need to solve a major problem with the Lee-Enfield.
"The gift which I am sending you is called a dog, and is in fact the most precious and valuable possession of mankind" -Theodorus Gaza
Baby Jesus cries when the fat redneck doesn't have military-grade firepower.