Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

Gewehr 43 vs M1 garand

Discussion in 'Small Arms and Edged Weapons' started by SSDasReich, Jan 24, 2010.

  1. formerjughead

    formerjughead The Cooler King

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2008
    Messages:
    5,627
    Likes Received:
    1,003
    When developing ballistics tables and comparing ammunition each round is fired from the same platform. This is something that the bullet manufacturers perform to provide consistant and comparative data. This is usually referred to as a "bench test" where a round is fired through a 27" barrel with a locking bolt. The information gained from that test is extrapollated mathmatically and provided as a "base line". That is just comapring the ammunition.

    Comparing weapons is often times trickier in that they can either be "bench fired" or "shoulder fired".

    "Bench Firing" is going to provide that absolute best results for a sterile environment. It is where the weapon is "locked down" and remotely fired. This test is most often used to test the interaction of the bullet with a specific weapon taking into account variables unique to a specific platform: Barrel Length, rifling, action and operation. It allows the weapon to be scrutinized without the external interfearence of a shooter firing from the shoulder. This test is usede to determine the accuracy of a specific bullet fired from a specific rifle.

    Shoulder Firing allows all of the scrutiny of above with the addition of the functionality of the weapon's sights and the "shootability" of the weapon taking into account the components of the sight system and the sight radius: Eye relief and distance from the rear sight to the front sight.The greater the eyerelief and the shorter the sight radius the less accurate a rifle tends to be. You can also take into account stock design and recoil to effect rapid fire accuracy.

    Long story short the Garand has a longer barrel, longer sight radius and shorter eye relief. All of these add up to increased muzzle velocity and more functional accuracy.
     
  2. Old Schoolr

    Old Schoolr Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    109
    Likes Received:
    12
    Not a stupid question by any means. I work in both English & Metric dimensions but I still had to look up the conversion for m/s to fps.
     
  3. Old Schoolr

    Old Schoolr Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    109
    Likes Received:
    12
     
  4. Proeliator

    Proeliator Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2009
    Messages:
    615
    Likes Received:
    20
    Spot on Old Schoolr.
     
  5. formerjughead

    formerjughead The Cooler King

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2008
    Messages:
    5,627
    Likes Received:
    1,003
    Maybe I misunderstood the point; but, I believe the original thesis was "Gewer 43 Vs. M1 Garand" Not "8MM Mauser v. M1906 30-o6, M1 of 1926 or M2 of 1938 et al"

    According to what I have : WW2 Small Arms by John Weeks:

    The G43 has a 22 inch barrel and produces a MV of 2450 fps (746 m/s)
    Wikipedia says : 21 1/2" barrel and MV of 2328 fps (775 m/s)

    The Garand (same sources)
    24" Barrel MV 2800fps (853 m/s) (Weeks)
    24" Barrel MV 2800fps (Wikipedia)
    Both of those sources support FM 23-5 Rifle Caliber .30 M1

    Now the Mauser 98 has numbers closer to what Proeliator provided

    29" barrel MV 2850fps (870 m/s) Weeks

    Mauser 98K

    23 1/2" barrel MV 2450fps (745 m/s)


    Maybe I am just missing your point but neither the Garand or G-43 were available during WW1
     
  6. Proeliator

    Proeliator Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2009
    Messages:
    615
    Likes Received:
    20
    I was responding Snyder's claim that the 30.06 was comparable to the 8x57mm only because it was loaded down for use in the Garand. That isn't true however, the 8x57mm & 30.06 are very similar in terms of maximum cartridge performance, the 8x57 being abit more powerful with heavy projectiles and the 30.06 being abit more powerful with lighter projectiles.

    As fot wartime muzzle velocities;

    Muzzle velocity of the 198 gr sS round through the K98k was 755-760 m/s, and through the G43 it was 745 m/s. Muzzle velocity with the 1943 std. 178 gr SmE round was 785 m/s through the K98k and 775 m/s through the G43. Muzzle velocity of the 154 gr S round through the K98k was 860 m/s, through the G43 I don't have any figures. Through the Gewehr 98 a & b it did 890 m/s.

    The US 150 gr M2 round did on average 850 to 855 m/s through the M1 Garand, M1919 MG, BAR & Springfield bolt action. The M1919 was issued with 173 gr tracer rounds during the war which did 790 m/s.

    The British used the .303" Enfield round, which was a 175 gr long flat based spitzer, and through the Mk.4 Enfield it did 744 m/s.

    The Soviets used the 7.62x54R primarily loaded with a 147 gr flat based Spitzer round, and through the Mosin Nagant M1891/30 it did 860 m/s.
     
  7. k98shooter

    k98shooter Dishonorably Discharged

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2010
    Messages:
    2
    Likes Received:
    0
    Gents, all I can say is that I go hunting al lot with both guns and found the G 43 a lot more accurate and easier to handle than the Garand.
     
  8. Hufflepuff

    Hufflepuff Semi-Frightening Mountain Goat

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    1,362
    Likes Received:
    79
    Location:
    Sewanee, Tennessee, USA
    Comparatively, from people who have fired both weapons in real life, I have a question:

    Which one is faster to reload?
     
  9. Black6

    Black6 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2010
    Messages:
    347
    Likes Received:
    56
    The Garand is slightly faster because there is nothing to remove (magazine), but you get 20% less rounds than the G43. So reload 4 times w/a G43 and 5 times w/an M-1 for the same 40 rounds.
    Overall I'd say the Garand is more reliable, but the G43 has its merits. Interestingly here many posters point to the crudeness of parts of the G43. To that I have to say so what? The important mechanical parts are high quality steel and well machined (ever have one apart?). I can't think of a single stamped part that isn't very robust or tough, or a single machined part that isn't well made. The G43 soldiered on for quite a while after WWII in foreign armies and there a plenty of examples out there today to attest to its quality.
    A quick note on the G41 gas system being complicated.......:eek:? hah? The G41w gas system has about 4 pieces, not much to it at all (OP-rod, recuperator, piston and gas trap/cone). Its about as simple as it gets for a semi-auto rifle, the problem was is that it was front heavy, bulky and used alot of material.
     
    brndirt1 likes this.
  10. Hufflepuff

    Hufflepuff Semi-Frightening Mountain Goat

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2008
    Messages:
    1,362
    Likes Received:
    79
    Location:
    Sewanee, Tennessee, USA
    Yeah...after reading the thoughts on reloading times, I would still stick with the M1.
     
  11. lwd

    lwd Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    12,312
    Likes Received:
    1,234
    Location:
    Michigan
    I don't remember the details of the G41-M but this sounds about right for it as well. I remember cleaning it took all of a couple minutes including dissasembaly and reassembly. Not of the whole rifle obviously but...
     
  12. Black6

    Black6 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2010
    Messages:
    347
    Likes Received:
    56
    The G41 Mauser uses the same gas trap concept as the G41 Walther, the cone assembly, gas trap and piston are pretty close. It changes dramatically from the Walther design when you get to the multi-piece op-rod/recuperator configuration though. With either design I can't see where you would have an issue from the gas system becoming fouled and causing a malfunction, there just isn't any part of it that has a close tolerance or fragile aspect to it. The only possible piece I can think of is the piston, but you would really need to neglect it for it to seize up from carbon build up or corrosion.
     
  13. surfersami

    surfersami Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2009
    Messages:
    268
    Likes Received:
    32
    From what I am reading I think it would boil down to how practiced the soldier carring it was. Both are great rifles for their time, and I would bet my life on either one if I had to. Many a US serviceman will tell you that they would not trade their M1 Garands for any rifle of the time, and you would be crazy to argue with them. Even today, the M1 is a formidable weapon. Having fired the M1 I would not hesitate to use it in battle today if I had a good supply of clips. That's not to say I would not take an M-14 over the M1 though. I am use to switching clip fed rifles but I imagine in a war time situation, you get really proficient the longer you live.
     
  14. sf_cwo2

    sf_cwo2 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2009
    Messages:
    200
    Likes Received:
    18
    Also consider supply & servicing. If a Garand needed repair, it would be fixed or replaced by a factory fresh new rifle rather quickly. German units were lucky to receive any G43s. How quickly could repairs or a replacement be procured?
     
  15. Sheikh Al Stranghi

    Sheikh Al Stranghi Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2008
    Messages:
    12
    Likes Received:
    0
    M1 rifle is a far superior weapon without doubt. Remember that the quality control in US factories was way superior to the German war production at that time, the US could afford to rebuild or scrap rifles that did not perform well. The M1 is actually faster to reload than the G43, also due to the fact you don't have to close your cartridge belt pocket after pulling out a M1 clip and your single G43 ammunition pouch has to be closed after changing magazines. I'd never trade my M1 for a G43.

    I don't know about the G41 but from what I've heard it's a unreliable piece of poo.
     
  16. T. A. Gardner

    T. A. Gardner Genuine Chief

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2003
    Messages:
    5,945
    Likes Received:
    761
    Location:
    Phoenix Arizona
    Every US division had an ordinance maintenance company attached with an M7A2 small arms repair shop truck or two attached. The maintenance men assigned could rework almost any weapon no matter how bad in shape it was with the equipment provided.
    For the Germans new issue was pretty much the case as this sort of high level field maintenance was not commonly available to their units.
     
  17. lwd

    lwd Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    12,312
    Likes Received:
    1,234
    Location:
    Michigan
    As I think I expressed earlier both my dad and I found it just to be a very reliable nice shooting gun. A bit on the heavy side but otherwise a very nice rifle.
     
  18. Sheikh Al Stranghi

    Sheikh Al Stranghi Member

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2008
    Messages:
    12
    Likes Received:
    0
    In the field ;) Quite a difference between the field and a shooting range.
     
  19. lwd

    lwd Ace

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    12,312
    Likes Received:
    1,234
    Location:
    Michigan
    And your point is? While dad didn't use it as a battle rifle it was his deer rifle of choice for ~30 years. I don't recall him ever having a problem with it.
     
  20. surfersami

    surfersami Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2009
    Messages:
    268
    Likes Received:
    32
    All through the years different weapons gain a reputation for certain characteristics. In reality they are often overstated. The 1911 Colt was reliable and used at the proper distance was accurate enough for the job at hand, the G43 in the hands of a battle hardened vet, was probably maintained better than his toe nails! In that case it was pobably very reliable. The fact is, a lot of enemy troops were killed with both weapons. From a purely practicle stand-point, if I'm German I use the G43, if US I use the M-1 Garand. Sometimes on the battle field you pick up and use what is at hand, but after the battle you find what can be readily supplied with ammunition. I would love to hear from our vets about their daily routine as far as servicing their weapons is concerned.
     

Share This Page