Kar98k vs Mosin Nagant

I think it splitting hairs, either rifle is capable of excelent accuracy even with std ball ammo. It really boils down to circumstances such as:
What does my army issue, can I be supplied with ammo, is my war torn country still mmanufacturing the same quality barrells and actions they did at the begining of the war, is it urban or rural fighting, do you have to shoot through doors walls etc. All in all, the K98/nagant systems would meet the needs of just about any trained sniper.
Other factors are:
What scope is mounted, in WWII the Russian scope tended to be easier to adjust, variations in ammo quality make a significant contibution to accuracy, and for extrem distance shots the smaller round might hold an advantage in terminal accuray at the same bullit weight due to less drag. Most battlefield shots are well under 400 m especially in urban warfare, but out to the 400 m range, I would think, given good rifles and trained marksman, that there probably isn't much difference in real accuracy.
My $.02 is pretty week against the Euro so Give me a springfield and let me hide!

 

Here's the opinion from a sniper who used both rifles in combat, the German sniper Josef "Sepp" Allerberger with 267 certified kills:

Interview:

"Q: Weapons used?

Sepp: Captured Russian sniper rifle with telescopic sight; I cannot remember power. K98 with six-power telescopic sights.

Q: If you had a choice, what weapon would you use and why?

Sepp: K98 was best."

The following is from Albrecht Wackers book on Sepp Allerberger 'Sniper on the Estern front - The memoirs of Sepp Allerberger - Knight's Cross', Page 108 (This is just after he trades in his Captured russian Mosin Nagant sniper rifle for a Kar98k):

"Sepp got a carbine (K98) with a sight by the Hensoldt company, which had the codename 'bmj'. It was much shorter than the Russian rifle he had left behind and the sight was much better, as he had already found during the demonstration of the various guns the previous week. Proud of their new weapons, they could hardly wait to get on the firing range again to try them out. After his very first shot Sepp knew he had a super weapon in his hands. Now, for the first time, they also recieved special ammunition for marksmen. The instructor explained that these were cartridges with an especially precise load, such as were usually used during gun making and repairing in order to determine the accuracy of a weapon. He rocommended that they should beg their battalion Armourer to issue them with such ammunition as often as possible after their return to the front line."

 

Source please? Personal opinons are just that, and should be taken with a grain of "ethno/nationcentric" salt in this case.

 

It wasn't used for sniping however, as accuracy was rather poor, it was still primarily used against amoured vehicles.

Countries such as Germany also had their own semi automatic AT rifles, for example the 20mm S-18/1000 & 1100 Solothurn AT rifle equipped with a 6x scope by Dialytan, the weapon was designed by Rheinmetall Germany and produced under license by Swiss company Solothurn:

 

The source is clearly stated in the post. What's this about?

 

Where?

 

Read: The following is from Albrecht Wackers book on Sepp Allerberger 'Sniper on the Estern front - The memoirs of Sepp Allerberger - Knight's Cross', Page 108 (This is just after he trades in his Captured russian Mosin Nagant sniper rifle for a Kar98k):

 

Ok, the problem is that it wasn't underlined as a book should be; Sniper on the Eastern Front; The Memoirs of Sepp Allerberger.... You put it inside of single quote marks, which aren't supposed to be used in a citation.

That was my reason for asking, since without it being clearly cited it tends to blend into your own post. Of course I'm not going to go and find that book to check you out, but better notations would make it less likely to be queried at least.

 

Alright, will keep that in mind.

 

There is a lot of controversy on the book "Sniper on the Eastern Front" memoirs of Sepp Allerberger,As stated by Historians the book without a doubt is the authors imagination,For instance he tells "Sepp was looking through the PU 4X scope and watching heads explode like watermelons. 1st off the PU scope is not 4X second off Allerberger stated in interviews that he didnt know the power of the Russian PU scope,but he said it yielded very good results. There is an intersting comment from Sepp regarding the k98 and Mosin, At one point during the war Sepp was no longer with his Mosin Nagant and had to use a K98k. During one battle he joined the fight with his comrades and he commented that the Mauser had such a recoil that he thought that there couldnt have been many hits made by German soldiers using the K98k as he thought they spent a lot of time trying to get out of the way of the recoil, rather than focusing on hitting enemy soldiers. One thing ive noticed from owning both Russian and German original sniper scopes,The German scopes require a tool to adjust your elevation/zeroing etc... Russian PE,PEM,PU scopes you just dial it with your fingers which is more practical

 

Vintovka,

Don't make stuff up just because you don't like the conclusions of the author & head person of the book!

No historian has ever questioned the validity of Albrechts book, and for good reason. Albrecht Wacker interviewed Sepp over the course of sveral months for this book, got to look through Sepp's own notes, and it all happened, none of it is made up. And there are even photo's from many of the events.

Next, when Sepp commented on the recoil of a K98k he had to use once in early 43 he was refering all bolt action rifles, as he was trying to explain one of the benefits of the Gewehr 43, its lower recoil, and the reason behind the lower recoil. In the next couple of lines it is explained that Sepp achieved excellent results with this unscoped K98k because he didn't mind the recoil, as he was used to it. (Well he had been carrying a Mosin up until then so, that must have been the rifle which had him get used to the recoil)

Also in the interview to which you yourself refer, when Sepp was asked which rifle was the best he said without a single moments hesitation: The K98k. (Case closed!)

Finally it is true that Sepp said that the Mosin yielded good results, but he never uttered the sentence "very good"!

 

Take it easy,I posted my opinion and some straight out facts, Some of the events in the book may have happened but as a few historians have noted the book is exaggerated - just do a search on it in english,Russian,and German language results and read the articles on how this book is a creation based loosely on interviews! Never once did I hear and would never expect to hear a WWII veteran tell how he would look through the scope and see heads explode like watermelons,Fact is heads do not explode from a 7.62x54R round - they make a small entrance hole and a larger exit hole,Go watch some footage from the Chechen wars and see Russian snipers making that shot. Second - the Red Army war crimes in that book are so made up it actually makes me laugh "Russians stuck the rifle up the German snipers ***" Saying the Soviets were canibals" "Cutting off and Shoving genitals in Germans mouths" What a joke really. I can tell you where the author got that nonsense from,The Vietnam war - It was the Vietnamese soldiers rule when they caught U.S. snipers to cut their genitals off and shove in their mouths. Red Army soldiers were not evil beasts as cold war propaganda has led people to believe. We already know from Goebbles secretary that 95 percent of the Berlin rapes were fake propaganda. Is the k98 sniper rifle good? Its alright, The difference here is Ive fired these rifles! Ive fired many times an original k98 sniper rifle and own 3 original mosin nagant sniper rifles and without a doubt the mosin is the better tool for the job - case closed! Anyone who has fired both rifles and actually knows something about sniping and the importance of being able to sight your scope in during a battle will agree that the Mosin Nagant PU sniper rifle is much better than the scoped k98. No sniper is ever going to want to mess around with a screwdriver to zero his scope in,say their zeroed for 300 yards but then see an enemy at 500 yards - that 300 zero will not hold,you will have to redial and with the k98 that involves getting out a tool and moving screws etc... Its not something a sniper wants to deal with. In fact I will find the link from a statement made by a German sniper who served,He said it was their rule to use Russian sniper rifles because of the better scope quality and function

Martin Peglar Senior Curator of Firearms at the Royal Armouries Museum, specialising in the history and development of military firearms right here shows how the k98 sniper rifle lacks in performance

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjeCPX_4fZA

 

Stricly my opinion but I would guess that any WWII era sniper would be more likely to use "hold off" (aka "Kentucky Windage") than to be fiddling w/ sight adjustments on the battlefield.

 

Indeed you are 100 percent correct, I suppose German snipers did this for a quick shot,Im just saying with Russian scopes it would just take a 3 second dial. There's even photo's of German sniper's using Russian PU and PE scopes mounted on their mauser rifles. I'll see if I can post these pics

With best regards

 

You have posted no facts what so ever, and it is hard to take it easy when having to deal with straight out lies & fabrication from others.

What historians?? Show me a source, just one!

Fact of the matter is hat the book is the direct result of interviews with Sepp and going through his wartime notes, it all happened wether you like it or not. Nothing in that book is made up, it's simply an accurate retelling of past events.

You obviously have no idea what happens when a rifle bullet hits a human head, exploding water melons pretty much fits the bill. Size of entry & exit hole depends on placement of bullet, hence why Sepp notes different type head wounds depending on where the shot hit.

Small hint: Look closely at President J.F. Kennedy's head when he was murdered in 1963.

I'm sorry to disappoint you but no historian has ever doubted the validity of Wackers book or the statements made within. It all happened wether you like it or not. Reality of war, it is cruel and nasty ****, deal with it!

Anyways I'd still like to see some sources to back up your claims.

Sorry but that's pure bollocks. Anyone having actually seen & handled scopes from either side in reality will know the real difference, and the German scopes are far superior in both clearity, focus, FOV & brilliance. And that's a fact.

Are you kidding me? That video doesn't show any lack in performance, it merely demonstrates the difference in zeroeing in both scopes!

But what that docu fails to note is that the German scopes featured more precise adjustment, built in range increment adjustment based on bullet trajectory, better mounts and last but not least the ability to take off the scope for travel and stay zeroed in when put back on.

Sorry pal, but the Soviets were quite simply behind in the equipments department when it came to sniping, they had some great snipers, but their rifles, scopes & ammunition limited their effective range.

 

Well im not going to continue arguing lol,Im biased towards Soviet weaponry obviously and you prefer German weaponry. Yes I did put out some straight facts,The author was caught lying about the PU scope saying its 4X which its not,and Sepp said in his interview he did not know the power of the Russian scope,So if the author is going to lie there who knows what else he fabricated? Im just saying in my opinion (not a fact) that I think the Russian scopes are easier to function,and the Optical quality on these original PU scopes is excellent - just as good as any German model. These were designed and manufactured to have zero distortion from edge-to-edge of field of view. This quality is necessary for this type of reticle which upon elevation or windage adjustment moves in the scope field of view. Optical clarity and resolution at 200M is sufficient to hold on a small enough POA to achieve sub MOA groups,and you are able to hit a man sized target at 800 yards consistently. Well from what I see a 7.62x54R round does not explode a head (Kennedy was hit at an angle which ripped him apart) Im probably not allowed to post it here but I have photos of dead Chechens that were shot by Russian snipers - they have a half a dollar sized entrance hole and the whole backside is blown out,BTW I honestly did not make that last part up - a German sniper really did say it was their rule to use captured Russian rifles - that was until they got better scopes later in the war in 1944 - I will post a link when i find it (its been a while),I also am not against Sepp Allerberger - I wouldnt have paid $70 for his autographed photo if I hated him! To sum both rifles up let me just say I would not want to be on the receiving end of either! In this photo it shows a German sniper who has removed his old scope and mounted a Russian PEM model,

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/31/Bundesarchiv_Bild_169-0526%2C_Russland%2C_Scharfsch%C3%BCtze_in_Stellung.jpg

I also do not think the mosin nagant PU sniper rifle lacked anywhere - If it did it would not be in front line service today with Russian Spetsnaz the most powerful military force without a doubt - their training would never be allowed in the U.S. its so severe. Here are a few photos of Russian soldiers using these rifles - they prefer it over the Dragunov SVD,it is a very good sniper rifle







With best regards

 

Im done no problem,looking back for the most part I guess I was antagonizing. Sorry Proeliator

With best regards

 

No harm done.

But the facts still stand: The author didn't make anything up, saying a scope is 4x when it is really 3.5x is nothing more than a simple mistake or typo, it can't be considered a lie, that's absurd - Albrecht was merely quoting what Sepp told him. The book is praised by historians for its detailed and accurate accounts, not once has it been critized by any historian as far as I am aware. Also the author of the book is a notable authority on bolt action rifles, having written several books on the subject.

Furthermore it was never a rule for German snipers to use Mosin Nagants, and I have no clue where in heavens name you got that idea from Vintovka, but I can tell it aint true.

German snipers prefered the Karabiner 98k over everything else, something they all say, and that choice of preference was also quite logical as the K98k featured better performance than any Mosin Nagant, esp. as specialized ammunition & scopes were used.

Now I understand that the Mosin is the baby of Russia, and that it's romantized alot in Soviet propoganda litterature of the time. But fact of the matter is that it's nothing special at all, it's a crude & rugged rifle suitable for life on the battlefield, but not an especially good sniper rifle. Its barrel is too long, the trigger too stiff, tolerances are loose etc etc.. all making it an inferior snipers tool compared to weapons such as the Karabiner 98k, Lee Enfield Mk.4 & Springfield 1903.

As for the training of the Spetznatz, I think your bias shows abit too much there. I for one know that there are better trained soldiers out there from both europe & the states. And we all know the Russian Federation state isn't exactly the most prosperous these days and haven't been for quite some time, making it hard for it too keep its armed forces up to date and equipped with the latest equipment - which is why you probably sometimes see old weapons such as the Mosin used.

 

I would add this: One major reason the Germans were using Russian scopes (and virtually everything else) was there was a severe shortage of their own equipment. By late 1941 the Wehrmacht was collecting civilian rifle scopes for use by the military to supplement the official equipment. In 1942 the technical branch had okayed the production of a greatly simplified model the , ZF 42, ZF 42M and ZF 42W to speed production.
Of course, having a specialized scope and mount for each service rifle was a mistake in itself. This led to duplication of effort, unnecessary production complexity and, contributed to the already short supply of things.