The P-08 WAS great--for looks but, as for an accurate pistol--nope. The P-38 wins that contest hands down. Yep and I have owned and fired several P-38s and 2 Lugers.

Now lets see how the Browning Hi-power stacks up to the Colt .45

__________________
Lost are only those, who abandon themselves) Hans-Ulrich Rudel.

My great uncle has p-38 he brought back with him, which is basically now mine. I still haven't been able to take it out and fire it, but hope to in the near future.

__________________
"Front leaning rest position"
"Move"
"In cadence, exercise....1, 2, 3" (My favorite thing to hear at 5 in the morning.)

The Luger is not the best of side arms. Its loading mechanism is overly complicated and has many moving parts, which doesnt lend itself to making a reliable weapon. The magazine's are easily clogged with grime and dirt, because of their fit into the gun, plus they have many sharp edges with which to cut fingers and hands.
Under most conditions the P-08 is a nice weapon as long as its kept nice and clean. On the dirty, nasty, battlefield using the P-08 can be jam clearing fest.
The P-38, being the first good double action auto loader, was a great gun. But it suffers from the same problems as the P-08 with its loading mechanism. The P-38 is much more reliable.
I have a Luger 1908 model for sale. Its an American import model chambered for 7.65mm(.32 calibre)ammunition, not 9mm, repeat, NOT 9mm. The weapon is in perfect working order and good overall condition for being almost a century old. One of the original grips was cracked and broken when I purchased the weapon, so I have put walnut grips on. The original Bakelite(?) grips will still go with the pistol. I only have one magazine for the pistol, be warned these are very hard to find. First $1,500 takes this fine shootin' iron.
The man I bought this Luger from told me,"My grandpa brought it back from WWI" and went on to tell a long story. Although the pistol says Made in Germany on the reciever and it has a US serial number [img]smile.gif[/img]

__________________
It's a sick, sick world. I'm a happy man.

Sounds good but...for an early P-08, the grips should be checkered walnut only--bakelite came out much later.

__________________
Lost are only those, who abandon themselves) Hans-Ulrich Rudel.

notice I typed a ? after Bakelite as I am unsure of what the original grips are made of. It does not appear to be wood, the interior of the cracked grip does not have the look of wood grain.

__________________
It's a sick, sick world. I'm a happy man.

Please excuse my ignorance but what is Bakelite? A type of plastic?

As for the P38/P1... I liked the looks of it, and could shoot it, but I hear that there has been some improvement in pistols over the past few years, and won't really be sad when our army gets rid of the last few ones.

__________________
„Solange man nicht mit dem Kopf unterm Arm rumläuft geht es doch noch!" Erwin Rommel

Tally, its possible that the grips could be early replacement grips or replaced in the late 80's or early 90's as plastic griped molded to look like wood.

Some Lugers also had Black Rubberized Grips in ww2.

Bakelite is a plastic, which was used in the making of radios and other products.

__________________
Lost are only those, who abandon themselves) Hans-Ulrich Rudel.

Back to the original question. The K98.
I rate the K98 with the following advantages:

1. Reliable- You just can break a Mauser bolt action! It is simply the best and safest bolt design in history!
2. Accurate!- You can't beat the K98 in accuracy either. I think it partially due to the lack of moving parts, and sturdy design. I don't have a sniper version (not yet!), but I am sure with a scope you pick off targets up to 1,000 meters!
3. size- The K98 is a nice size for a standard infatry rifle, and its' weight is a little better than the M1.
4. Maintenance- as a mechanic myself, this is one of the most important items to me. The K98 is easy to strip, and clean. Or you could just neglect it in combat, and it would still function!

The main disavantages are:
1. Lack of firepower- because of its bolt action, and small magazine capacity of only 5 rounds, the K98 does lack the firepower of the M1 and Enfield rifles.

I think that is the only disadvantage that I can think of.

Now for some of the other topics discused.
The P08 is just as accurate as the P38. The P38 is just more rugged, and reliable.
Balkalite is a German plastic that was used extensively during WWII. The P38 grips are made of it. MG34 and MG42 grips are made of it. MP40 grips and guard are made of it. Radio cases were made of it. K98 cleaning oilers were made of it. PP and PPK grips are made of it. Need I say more? It is usually found in black, brown, red-brown, and the very rare grey! If anyone has a Walther PP or PPK with grey balkalite grips, PLEASE CONTACT ME IMMEDIATELY FOR RE-SALE$$$!!!

Matt

I agree absolutely with mp38 in everything!!!

As I have posted in earlier treads, my favourite rifle ever is the K98!

It is strongly made, it is very accurate, light, very reliable, easy to mantain, fast to reload, etc. It is simply marvellous. It had only got five bullets instead of Lee-Enfield's 10 or Garand's 7, beside, this last is semi-authomathic. But I think that the larger caliber gave it fire power. So it is an excellent rifle because it is powerful and accurate. Then who cares about the 5 bullets? My grandfather has six of them, including a sniper one (he was a middle-time sniper) of 1936, two WWI Mausers and even a nice 1898! I just love them. I do not like the Garand, I love bolt action rifles.

And the Luegger could be very accurate, styleful and beautiful, but it is not reliable and the P38 is far better pistol.

__________________
"War is less costly than servitude, the choice is always between Verdun and Dachau." - Jean Dutourd, French veteran of both world wars

"A mon fils: depuis que tes yeux sont fermes les miens n’ont cessé de pleurir." - Mère française, Verdun

The K98's muzzle velocity is only marginally higher than the Enfield No 4's, and significantly lower than the Garand. The K98's rate of fire is significantly worse than both the Garand and Enfield No 4. Also, the sights on the Garand and Enfield rifles were superior. The Garand's action is extremely solid, as is the Lee bolt used in the Enfield.

In my opinion the Garand was the best standard infantry rifle of the war, with the Enfield a close second and the K98 third.

Quote:

It had only got five bullets instead of Lee-Enfield's 10 or Garand's 7, beside, this last is semi-authomathic.

The Garand's capacity is 8.

If you were a soldier being overwhelmed by hoardes of Russian soldiers and being forced to reload every 5 rounds, you'd probably care quite a lot.

[ 13 July 2002, 09:21 AM: Message edited by: Greenjacket ]

I'll upset a few people here.

Ok ; not my opinions - I'm quoting Brigadier Peter Young, DSO, MC from the foreword to 'World War II Small Arms' by John Weeks : -

'It is interesting to see that the Germans were also capable of making mistakes. The production of the Model 98 Karabiner is a case in point. Having been missed by numerous German riflemen between 1940 and 1944, I have often wondered why the Germans, so skilful with mortar and light machinegun , should be such rotten shots with the rifle..'Unfortunately', the author writes, ' it was a relatively awkward rifle to shoot, and the bolt action was disappointing. The sight radius was short, which does not make for good shooting'. In No 3 Commando, which I commanded in Italy and Normandy, we were always glad to acquire Lugers or 'Schmeissers', and sometimes used the MG34. Nobody ever bothered to keep a German rifle. '

And from Captain Christopher Shore in his book 'With British Snipers to the Reich' ;
' I fired a good deal with both the No 4 rifle and K98.... to anyone familiar with the crisp, easy bolt action of the SMLE and No 4, the mauser bolt was nothing but a headache, and absolutely hopeless for anything in the nature of rapid fire.'

But then, maybe these contemporary actions are coloured by patriotism. But in highly-trained hands, the No 4 Enfield was terribly effective, as at Arnhem, for instance. . .

__________________
"Stand by to pull me out of the seat if I get hit" - Guy Gibson

Sorry, Greenjacket. The Garand shot eight rounds. Agree. My mistake.

No, it was not such a disadvantage to have half the ammo than a Lee-Enfield if you were a very well trained soldier who could fire 11 rounds per minute with a super accurate rifle. I know, more rounds and more velocity do always make a diference. But the K98 had fire power, soft and quick bolt action and above all, accuracy. It is light, well made and beautiful. That is why it is my favourite. But I think that many of you are not taking on account that the Mauser had a tactic to be used; a whole infantry squad with its centre in a heavy machine guns, several guys with sub-machine guns for close-range-fighting and like twenty guys with rifles in support. Do you realise that twenty rifles, excellent aimed and shot by expert shooters against you is lethal, much more than sub-machine guns and machine guns? Please, consider that.

__________________
"War is less costly than servitude, the choice is always between Verdun and Dachau." - Jean Dutourd, French veteran of both world wars

"A mon fils: depuis que tes yeux sont fermes les miens n’ont cessé de pleurir." - Mère française, Verdun

A German's 11 rounds to a British soldier's 30-40 loses every time. Yes, the K98 was an accurate rifle, but its sights were inferior to the Enfield's. An aperture sight as used on the Enfield and Garand make target aquistion easier than the open sights used on a K98. So not only could an American or British soldier acquire a target more easily than his German counterpart, he could also bring more firepower to bear against it, and in a shorter time, given the capacity and speed of their rifles.

See above. The K98 is simply outgunned by the Garand and Enfield.

Yes, the Mauser is an attractive, well balanced and well made weapon. A nice shooter's rifle, but simply not as good a weapon as the Garand or Enfield.

I am aware of German tactical emphasis on machine guns. However, the ability of the soldier behind the rifle says nothing about the rifle itself. Twenty equally skilled soldiers armed with Enfields would be capable of twice as much, given their additional capacity.

I can understand you liking the K98 for its quality and appearance. I agree with you on that aspect. However, surely you must agree that the Enfield and Garand are both superior fighting rifles?

[ 15 July 2002, 05:07 PM: Message edited by: Greenjacket ]

Just a little thing here: A man with a Lee-Enfield could shot a maximal of 16 rounds per minute. Twenty is totally impossible. A Garand can shot 30 or even more but it is semi-authomathic and therefore, it cannot be inside this comparisson.

The caliber of the Enfield is smaller than the Mauser's. The Lee-Enfield rifle was extremely unaccurate in bad conditions. Example: North Africa, where the sand and dust made the bullet change its course. The K98 did not have that problem. And certainly as a sniper's rifle, the Lee-Enfield is not very suitable for it in my opinion and the Garand, definately is not a sniper's rifle.

Do you realise that Germany defeated Poland, France, the low countries, France, the Balcans and nearly the Soviet Union and North Africa with K98s, Stukas, Me-110, Me-109E, Pz I, II, III and IV? And we lost with V2s, Sturmgewehrs, MG42s, Panthers, Tigers, Me-262, etc.? That shows you that tactics and general strategic circumstances win wars, not the weaponry.

__________________
"War is less costly than servitude, the choice is always between Verdun and Dachau." - Jean Dutourd, French veteran of both world wars

"A mon fils: depuis que tes yeux sont fermes les miens n’ont cessé de pleurir." - Mère française, Verdun

Carl,

Peter Young is a Brit, and therefore is going to be bias against the K98 and support the Lee/Enfield. It is funny that the Brits considered this "there" rifle, when in fact is was mostly designed by an American.

As far as the sights on an Enfield go. It depends on which model you are shooting. If you are shooting a No. 1 Mark III, then the sights are open "v" notched, just like the K98. However if you are shooting a No.4 Mark I, then it has the rear apearature, and front peg sight simular to the Garand rifle. The Garands sights are very good, and I agree that they are a bit better than the K98 as for finding targets, and centering on the center mass. However, I don't agree that the Enfields where much better. The sight adjustments were very clumbsy, and easy to damage in combat, which would render the rifle useless 9except for making noise!). Also the Enfields' action is no where near as sturdy, safe, or reliable as the Mauser action. These two main facts along with the fact that the Enfield didn't make a really good sniper, leads me to the conclusion that the K98 was a little better than the Enfield.

Lets drop that now. No one has even mentioned the other bolt action rifles of the war! What about the 1903 Springfield, The Nagant M39 or M44, and the Type 99 Arisaka. These were all very good rifles. The Springfield and Arisaka rifles where both Mauser copies (why didn't they copy the Enfield? [img]tongue.gif[/img] ), and the Nagant was also a very sturdy and reliable rifle. Lets' talk about some of these!

Matt

Very, very well, mp38. I wanted to discuss about the Moshye-Nagant too. I find it a very, very good weapon, very simlpy done and reliable. As many of the things the Soviets did. But I think its bullets do not have also a lot of power and the bolt-action is a little bit rougher than Mauser's or Lee-Enfield's. Still it is a very beautiful gun which I love to fire (my Opa and his guns collection, you know...).

The Arisaka 99 is a very nice rifle too (the versions made during the 1930's and the first years of 1940's, because those rifles very late on the war very poorly made by kids and with awful materials). It is accurate, reliable in the terrible conditions of sand, water, mud and all the problems of rain-forest. As I said with the K98, the weather of the rain-forest did change bullet's course indeed, from normal rifles, but not Arisaka rifle. It had many practical accesories and nice stuff, it is also beautiful. Its only major failure is its size. With the bayonet one it is 1.90 metres lenght!!! The Japanesse average soldier was not taller than 1.60 metres!!! Even for giants soldiers it is a huge rifle. But it was strongly made and could bear the fight in sun, water, sand and mud. It was perhaps, the best Japanesse hand-gun of the war. Because their authomatic pistols were simply awful...

__________________
"War is less costly than servitude, the choice is always between Verdun and Dachau." - Jean Dutourd, French veteran of both world wars

"A mon fils: depuis que tes yeux sont fermes les miens n’ont cessé de pleurir." - Mère française, Verdun

Can't resist adding to this one - sorry !

Why didn't Springfield and Arisaka copy the Enfield action ? It was harder to manufacture.
The Mauser action was certainly stronger with its front locking lugs. The Enfield, with rear-locking, had a shorter 'throw' - so faster fire.
'The Enfield proved to be one of the smoothest, fastest military bolt actions ever built. there's an old saying to the effect that ''the Mauser is a hunting rifle, the Springfield is a target rifle and the Enfield a battle rifle'' ' Another Brit source ? No, Garry James in 'Surplus Firearms' magazine, LA.

__________________
"Stand by to pull me out of the seat if I get hit" - Guy Gibson

Yes, Martin. I agree about the soft bolt-action of the Enfield. It is soft and quick to reload, despite its ten rounds are better than five or even eight. But I still not liking the lower caliber. I have fired Enfields (from my Opa's collection) and I am still with the Mauser.

The Springfield... nice, but... it has lack of class. I suposse because it is not from Europe... Sorry...

I think the only way for this to be settled, Friedrich, is for you and I to meet : you, clutching your battered K98, me gripping my trusty Mk4 Enfield - grimly, we trudge toward each other across a frozen steppe . . . . . . [img]tongue.gif[/img]

__________________
"Stand by to pull me out of the seat if I get hit" - Guy Gibson

OK. We shall see. Volgograd, next Monday, 8.00 A.M. We will reenact Zaitsev-Königs duel. We change the Russian for a British and ready. Then we will know!!! (But I really don't think we have König's nor Zaitsev's style or class...) Whatever. It will be interesting to look at two drunk-joking-snipers kill each other. [img]smile.gif[/img]

__________________
"War is less costly than servitude, the choice is always between Verdun and Dachau." - Jean Dutourd, French veteran of both world wars

"A mon fils: depuis que tes yeux sont fermes les miens n’ont cessé de pleurir." - Mère française, Verdun