98k for me

__________________

They both had their faults but the Garand was better.

Garand
pros: rate of fire, larger clip
cons: less powerful, bad reload system

Kar98k
pros: Higher fire, reload if needed
cons: slow rate of fire, long reload time.

how was the garand better tomahawk720

__________________

the important thing is that the german has a single bullet to own you, and if u are a G. I. u have an entire clip. I dont think that small firearms were decisive in the war anyways

Says who? There is no appreciable "accuracy advantage" in bolt action rifles over gas-operated semi-automatics. And when the actual marksmanship training of soldiers in any army is taken into consideration, almost all rifles of any kind offer far more accuracy potential than the average soldier can take advantage of.

In "Ordnance Went Up Front" by Roy Dunlap, a small arms expert and ordnance sergeant who served in many theaters during WW II, he explained why he chose a Springfield "03 over a Garand when he learned he was to be in an assault echelon during the landings in the Philippines; it was easier to keep clean! In matches between bolt rifles and Garands, the Garands frequently won. There may be lots of reasons to choose between bolt action rifles and semi-automatics, but "accuracy" isn't one of them.

The biggest reason why one might choose the K98 over the Garand or vice versa, is nationalism.

the russians liked the mp40

__________________

Mainly pearsonal prefrence but the Garand was more effective and had the better kill rate then the Kar98k. I love both guns still though.

Less powerful? I thought the 8mm mauser and 30-06 were virtually identical ballistically.

The bullets are practicaly the same but the Kar98k with it being a bolt action has a better stopping power.

While Germany is my favorite nation in the first half of the 1900's, I have to be objective and say the M1 Garand. Being semi-automatic and having a higher clip-capacity than the K98, it is obviously the superior rifle.

/Kommando

and a range advantige

__________________

not nessasarly

__________________

A range advantage? The Germans themselves decided that maximum effective infantry combat range was something like 300-400 yards. Both the K98 and the M-1 Garand cartridges exceeded that by several hundred yards. There was no effective "range advantage" for either weapon; both were over-powered.

The M-1 Garand is not significantly less powerful than the German K98; in fact both were over-powered as far as infantry rifles were concerned. There was nothing wrong with the Garand en-bloc magazine system, except not being able to easily top off a partially depleted magazine with single rounds.

I don't know what "higher fire" means, but as an advantage it sounds spurious. The K98 reloaded, as did almost every Mauser bolt action rifle, from 5-round stripper clips and was not "slow to reload". It could be reloaded as quickly as the Garand.

Do you have any sort of authority to back up this rather odd statement? The action type of a firearm has absolutely no effect on the "stopping power" of a cartridge. Bullet design and construction, weight, initial velocity, and ballistic co-efficient do. Geez!

M1 - Garand...

Gentlemen,

If you are going to make comments of an authoritative manner where weapons and ballistics are concerned, you either need to provide sources (preferrably) or have adequately presented yourself as knowledgeable, through a good history of informed, cogent posts.

Devil'sadvocate has met these standards, I'd like to see it from the others.

__________________
Best Regards,
JW

Even though the K98 has a slight advantage in weight (.5-1 lb) I chose the M1 Garand because of a larger mag, and faster rate of fire, despite the flaws soldiers commonly complained about (jamming fingers, seventh round ejection of clip in rain, unable to top off etc.)
Imagine the worth of this service rifle had they been able to successfully mount the BAR clip to it.
Just one of many opinions.

__________________
"Don't one of you fire until you see the whites of their eyes! Powder is scarce and must not be wasted. Fire low! You are all marksmen and could kill a squirrel at a hundred yards. Reserve your fire and the enemy will all be destroyed! - Israel Putnam, at the Battle of Bunker Hill, 1775
"War is a conflict of great interests which is settled by bloodshed, and only in that is it different from others." - Karl von Clausewitz

Mike,

I have seen two Garands, one a "tanker" version and the other a Navy .308, both of which were successfully converted o use larger box magazines. The "tanker" had been modified to take a BAR magazine and the Navy Garand used an M-14 magazine. So it is possible for these conversions to be made to work. I believe the reason the US Army didn't try to convert the M-1 in such a manner during WW II is because it was considered an advantage to have the magazine not extend below the line of the bottom of the stock. This allows the gun to be fired effectively by a man who is lying flat on the ground. An extended magazine requires the shooter to rise up a few inches off the ground, something not recommended in many combat situations.

Thanks DA. The extended Mag while lying on the ground was not somthing I had considered, however I had read that one of the major reseons the convertion was scrapped was that the reciever needed a complete redesign.

__________________
"Don't one of you fire until you see the whites of their eyes! Powder is scarce and must not be wasted. Fire low! You are all marksmen and could kill a squirrel at a hundred yards. Reserve your fire and the enemy will all be destroyed! - Israel Putnam, at the Battle of Bunker Hill, 1775
"War is a conflict of great interests which is settled by bloodshed, and only in that is it different from others." - Karl von Clausewitz

That may have had a bearing on the issue. The converted Garands I examined had what looked like standard Garand receivers with the floor plates cut out to accept the box magazines. It may be that the Army felt this weakened the receivers to an unacceptable degree. I don't know how much these converted Garands had been fired, if at all, but the actions seemed to function normally.

I do know that in the late 1930's, magazine capacity had not assumed the relative importance it enjoys today. The various Mauser military rifles, including the Springfield '03, got along nicely with a five round magazine. Enfields generally had ten round magazines, but this was considered unnecessary (and wasteful) in many militaries. It was still the practice in the US Army (and Marine Corps) to train soldiers to deliver aimed fire in most combat situations. It wasn't until selective fire weapons began to become the norm in the late '50's and early '60's, that large magazines gained in popularity.

i am not him , but i can back that statement he made, the 98k has all of the power going to the bullet , where the m1 garand has to use some of those gasses to expell the round and chamber another, therefore the mauser 98k is "technicly" more powerful.

__________________

It doesn't matter the mechanism for delivering the shot. You look at the muzzle velocity of the projectile. The Garand's muzzle velocity was around 2800 ft/sec while the 98K's was around 2500 ft/sec. So even though the Garand utilized a gas-powered recoil, it's muzzle velocity was still higher.

Your assumption is like saying a Ford will go faster than a Chevrolet* if you turn the air conditioner off in the Ford, because some of the engine power will no longer be used to power the the A/C unit. If one has a more powerful engine to begin with, it doesn't matter.

*This is not a comparison of Fords and Chevys.

__________________
Best Regards,
JW

ok, then say you were using the 1903 springfield or the m1garand what would you pick then?

__________________

If you stop to think about it, the M1 Garand was an excellent gun, but it was impractical in the field because repairs were complex and time consuming, the bolt action K98 was a simple field repair gun. Just for purpose of illustration, let's assume that the bolt on a Garand and a K98 break both at the same time. The Garand would require a full strip down of the action and removal of the bolt from the bolt carrier, then a replacement would have to be found and the gun would have to be rebuilt, an operation that could take up to 30 minutes or more during which the soldier would be vulnerable to any enemy attacks. The K98 would simply need the bolt pulled off, and a new one slid in, a 5 minute operation at the longest. So for basic field repair capability, I'd say the K98 would win, although it would be much simpler to just grab a different rifle, but it's still worth being able to repair the gun just in case no others can be found. For shot power, the guns are about even actually (the M1 gets better muzzle velocity, but the K98 actually makes a bigger hole) although much also depends on the individual gun and the state of wear/ presence of manufacturers defects. For fire rate, the M1 wins without question. Accuracy, I have to give the prize to the K98, because its range is a little more than double that of the M1, and almost quadruple with a scope mounted. For versatility, I have to say the M1 has it, because it can technically be engineered with selective fire (yes it's possible, even though no kits exist to do it... so it would take a rather talented gunsmith and some heavy modification). Having said all that, it's really down to the individual to decide which one suits them better. For me, I like the K98 a bit better because semi-auto rifles always tempt me to shoot as fast as I can...

__________________
"In war there is no good and evil: only survival and death" - unknown

"Grandpa, the German way is to lose two world wars and blame it on someone else." - Me