m1 garand v.s. mauser

Not true, the clip, full or partially loaded can easily be ejected from the weapon. In a combat situation, if you were wanting to top off the weapon you eject the partial clip and replace with a full. This entire proceedure can be performed as quickly, if not quicker than you can top off a bolt gun like the K98 or '03 Springfield. Then top off the partial clip with loose rounds when time permits. If this is a drawback then it is one shared by every detatchable magazine weapon ever in use because the magazine has to be detatched to insert rounds and top it off.

Brad/formerjughead got it exactly right, the weapon can fire 30-06 or 7.62 NATO, not both. It depends on what the rifle was cambered for.

I think a lot of WWII Marines would take issue with this statement since part of their basic marksmanship qualification required shooting from the 500 yard line (457meters). IIRC the K98's maximum effective range is normally listed as 400-500 meters, no difference.

 

While loading a partial enbloc, or ejecting one is not an exactly "easy" task, it can be accomplished with very little practice. My Uncle Leo could do an eject, reload in very little time. Of course he had practiced with the Garand for all its military life since he started shooting one in late 1942.

 

I don't know about that, I read a book stating EXACTLY that it can not be removed until it "pops" out after 8 shots. Another thing; i'm aware it can't fire both unless it's a seperate version of the Garand, and actaully now-a-days it's avaliable in the .308 Winchester round aswell. Also the 500 yard shooting is something a Garand can acomplish, just not very accuratley/effectivley. I don't know how this relates to the K98K in any way shape or form, but I do know that a Garand will have some issues (without optics) for firing a range up to 500m which makes it a good part of basic training.

NO OFFENCE, THANKS FOR TEACHING ME A FEW THINGS =]

 

Nolan, that would be crazy. What would a soldier do if he say, had guard duty or watch that required him to carry a loaded weapon and nothing required them to use the weapon? You have to be able to unload it.

You are aware that the .308 Winchester and the NATO 7.62 x 51 are the same bullet? That's why Brad/formerjughead wrote:

​

The Garand is an excellent and very accurate weapon at 500 yards. The iron sights on the weapon are more than adequate for this task, it just requires a shooter that know how to use them.

None taken. I learn something new here all the time, there is unfortunately a lot of bad info floating around as well. Don't worry though, Brad, T.A., Bobby, Clint and a bunch of others are pretty good about calling B.S. on bogus data.

 

Alright, I guess im fileing a complaint of this book. This book clear states ( i got it right inforont of me) PLEASE TELL ME WHAT IS WRONG HERE: (the following is not my work)

"John C. Garand developed as early as the 1920's the first semi-automatic rifles from which came the M1 in the mid-1930's. While the plan was to replace the maunually loaded M 1903 by the new model relativley quickly, this only happened completly after 1945." Im not going to type all of it, i'll just skip to the part....
"The magazine of the M1 had to be filled with special loading clips which could only be realoaded when they fell out of the weapon after the last round"

 

Even "wiki" has the story on the "partial" en bloc reload, like it or not they are right this time.

The M1's safety is located at the front of the trigger guard. It is engaged when it is pressed rearward into the trigger guard, and disengaged when it is pushed forward and is protruding outside of the trigger guard.[33] Contrary to widespread misconception, partially expended or full clips can be easily ejected from the rifle by means of the clip latch button.[33]

It is also possible to load single cartridges into a partially loaded clip while the clip is still in the magazine, but this requires both hands and a bit of practice. In reality, this procedure was rarely performed in combat, as the danger of loading dirt along with the cartridges increased the chances of malfunction. Instead, it was much easier and quicker to simply manually eject the clip, and insert a fresh one,[34] which is how the rifle was originally designed to be operated.[27][29][32]

Later, special clips holding two or five rounds became available on the civilian market, as well as a single-loading device which stays in the rifle when the bolt locks back.

Goto:

M1 Garand - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

i dont know why there are so many posts, it is no contest whatsoever, period. The M1 is far superior. Mauser: 5 rounds, bolt action. M1: 8 rounds, semi auto action. Both about equally reliable. You can get off 3 or 4 rounds in the Garand for every 1 from the mauser. Reload time is the same for all intents and purposes. That's all there is to it.

a better question is M1 garand vs Mp44 sturmgewher? Now that's a better contest.

 

IF i had the choince between the M1 Grand and the 98, i would sling the 98 over my back and pick the M1 grand and take them both into combat, they are bothreliable and accurate rifles. the M1 grand has stoppage problems because of its close fitting parts which jammed easily if and dust or dirt got in to the gun

 

While you're at it you'd better stuff a Panzerfaust in your shorts. You never know when a tank might try to poke its nose into your business.

 

That is bunk. The Garand had a very limited "jamming" problem due to dirt and foreign objects. It did however suffer from some problems when the incorrect oil was used in sub-zero (F) conditions, but this could be (and was) solved by the soldier simply urinating on the mechanism to get it to start "going again". This was re-proven in Korea, after it was first discovered in the Battle of the Bulge combat. Amazing what a little body temperature liquid can do to free up a balky mechanism is it not?

 

from what i have heard, the M1 grand had a poor reliability problems in france from all the dust and debre in the air from constant fighting which caused it to either not fire or the slide would stick and could only be closed with force

 

You have heard wrong. Please cite your source.

 

I'm certainly no expert on the subject of the Mauser 98K and its variants. Over the years I've handled an example only twice, and fired a dozen rounds or so at paper targets at 200 yards. Judging from overall feel and function there's not much to choose between the Kar-98k and the Springfield M1903, except that the walnut stocks on every '03 I've examined are far superior in looks and finish to the standard-issue wartime Mauser, though the actual shape and contours of the 98K stock suits my hands better. The Mauser's side sling is better than the conventional sling on the Springfield, at least to my judgement. The .30-06 is considered by some to be the better marksman's round, while the 7.92 x 57mm made a better round for modern automatic and semi-auto weapons, or at least that's my judgement based on the general retirement of caliber in the US military after WWII.

All this being said in favor of the Mauser in a fighting situation I'd rather go BANG!-BANG!-BANG! than BANG!-(clunk-shunk-shunk-clunk)-BANG! any day of the week.

I have one question, however, that no one I've asked has given a good answer to. Specifically the hole in the stock... what's it for?

 

The M1 had a wonderful reputation for reliability when used in the desert. It was found that it was better to remove any grease and run the action dry to prevent buildup. The very early Garands did suffer some issues when it was subjected to heavy rain, but this was solved and they were proof tested at Springfield while being doused under a hose.

Having shot both, I own six Garands and no Mausers, so there's my answer...

 

The hole is to help stripping the bolt.
[video=youtube;2A_-FnDhmAc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2A_-FnDhmAc[/video]

 

Thanks Ulrich, I had only found a site which listed it as a "bolt stripping" hole, and couldn't really figure what that meant. Your YouTube shows the reason for the thing, while mine just labeled it.

Goto:

http://www.mausershooters.org/k98k/i/K98kimage2en.jpg

 

No, that is not correct. The K98K and M1903's stock's are very diffrent. There Markman round's are VERY diffrent and the M1903 is a better marksman round.

 

Give me a good K98k and i proof it to you that there is no advantage for the M1903. The rounds are indeed very similar.

 

WE DO NOT USE THAT LANGUAGE HERE! Do not be rude when speaking about the Japanese people, and don't tell me to "shut up"

 

That ain´t the way to discuss anything! And before you make the next not nice post, i know how to handle both and my qualification on rifles is Expert.