K98k or M1 Garand

fired the garand a number of times and i never had any operating problem with one. we're talking about 30-year plus rifles maintained by our school's ROTC armorers, using locally loaded ammo (at the time.)

on the other hand, i wondered what would happen if i had only one or two rounds left with me. how would i use that thing?

here's one thing people aren't touching on: how useful was semi-auto fire in ww2? most engagements happend in less than 200 meeters and individual firepower per infantryman wasn't as important as accuracy and support fire. in fact, dog faces were just expected to pick off strays not covered by machine gun or mortar fire.

 

I've fired both with modern ammunition. There really isn't any discernable difference in performance on a range that I can see. Now, I have also fired a 7mm Spanish Mauser (a K98 copy essentially in 7mm) with reloaded gilt metal jacketed bullets. There is a serious performance drop at about 200 yards with these.

 

I think blanket statements like this are extremely suspect. It may be true of the infantry fighting Europe, but not that of the infantry actions in the Pacific. A heavy volume of small arms fire was frequently crucial in the close in fighting against the Japanese, both to break infantry charges and to keep troops in defensive positions from being able to man their weapons while sappers moved in to engage with explosives and/or flame throwers. It is true that tactical commanders preferred to rely on crew-served weapons and artillery in these instances, but these expedients weren't always available.

 

It also rather neglects suppressive fire. Semi auto has an advantage there. And as I think has been mentioned earlier on the thread a semi auto has some advantages in follow up shots.

 

of course, of course. now let's not forget how someone basically fights with a rifle. few people are good enough to shoot at a target when they're running. the only exception is when you're massed in a file and charging with marching fire (nice target your platoon will make to an entrenched squad.) a rifle is usually fired stationary, preferably prone or concealed. that's the case whether on a german prairie where the enemy is 600 yards away or in a jungle in bataan where your can see the whites of the enemy's eyes. you break engagement and maneuver to a better firing position. again, few riflemen are good enough to hit running enemy troops. even in today's fighting, soldiers are intructed to shoot singly, and from the shoulder.

suppressing fire is done by stationary riflemen lined directly with the main enemy force, to allow other troops to flank or close in. the british can operate their enfields so rapidly that a squad of 'bolts' can throw suppressing fire that makes the germans think they're up against a machine gun.

 

Yes, I've heard that old saw about how fast the British Tommy could work the bolt on his Enfield, and how it made the Germans think they were facing machine guns. Only trouble is I don't believe it, and don't think any one else really does either. Regardless, unless you contend that the Enfield can put out the same volume of fire as a Garand in a given period, I think it's a foregone conclusion that a squad of GI's with Garands can lay down more suppressive fire than a squad of Tommies with Enfields.

As for the position from which a rifle is fired, it's irrelevant whether you are moving, standing, or laying on your stomach; laying down rapid, suppressive fire is the same. Generally, you aren't aiming at a point target such as another soldier, but at areas, such as firing ports, windows, doors, cave openings, etc. from which the enemy might attempt to return fire. The idea isn't to hit the opponent, but to force him to keep under cover while your own team mates can get into position to use weapons such as satchel charges, bangalore torpedoes, grenades, flamethrowers, or bazookas. It can be done with bolt action rifles, but it's much easier with a semi-auto. In fact, that is the rationale for the "assault-rifle" concept; to lay down suppressive fire while other members of your group maneuver to outflank or enfilade the enemy. Doesn't matter whether it's fired while moving or from a stationary position.

 

Yes Springfield V K98K or Sturmgerwehr 44 V Garand
otherwise your comparing a fifty year old gun to a new one.

 

I hate to add again to this Zombie thread but the Springfield and K98K are comparable but the Sturmgerwehr 44 Vs Garand is still two different weapons.

 

you know what, i still can't imagine using the garand in a running firefight in the jungle bush. even the m-14 feels like an artillery piece to me. it's like the m-16 was the only weapon really designed for that.

that's the why the island wars mystified me. how the hell can one fight in the jungle with bolts?

 

Exactly mate,

ones is an assualt rifle and the other is a semi-automatic rifle.

 

The Japanese seemed to do quite well with them.

 

You can get 20 rounds out of an Enfield in a minute. It's tough and you can't keep up that rate for any length of time, but you can do it. I know for sure having done so with my 1918 Mk III* SMLE s/n K 11515 personally. I think it is also actually easier left handed.
The reload can either be two stripper clips or, changing the magazine box. The fire is not particularly accurate at 50 yards let alone 100. Basically, you send rounds down range half aimed. The rifle gets hot quick and it is alot of work and hard on your shoulder to pump that many rounds out.
Now, 12 to 15 is more doable. That gives a bit more time to aim your fire and at least get on the paper each round.
I'd say that is about equal to the Garand. That 10 round magazine and the ease of reloading makes alot of difference. No M1 thumb to worry about.

 

that's only because they were facing enfields and garands (the latter hardly what one would call a 'developmental improvement.')

 

OT but ... I seam to recall reading that the Australians used crossbows in SE Asia on occasion during WWII but occasionally added HE to the bolts.

 

ok look at it this way hypothetical situation your fighting at st. lo & its close combat. your one on one with a enemy soldier in a room there is absolutly no cover at all. the american has a m1 garand the german had the k98k you have both fired a shot & missed who do you think will kill the other?

 

Thats one "hypothetical" scenario. What about the thousands of other situations. Or the ones that happened in real life. In those the combatants didn't have a choice on what weapon to use other then what they had. IMO the original premise of this thread was to get others to agree it was the Mauser.

 

didnt think of it like that

 

Should we go into what the Australian militita did against the Imperial Japanese Army at Kokoda with bolt rifes?