If you really knew anything about the M-! Garand, or gas operated weapons in general, you'd know that the amount of gas siphoned off to operate the action is so minuscule that it has practically no effect on the velocity of the projectile. In addition, the gas port on the Garand is so close to the muzzle that by the time a significant amount of gas has begun to bleed into the gas port, the projectile has already exited the barrel of the gun, so there is no effective drop in gas pressure as far as the velocity of the bullet is concerned.

As others have pointed out, it is the muzzle energy (determined by the velocity and weight of the bullet) which determines stopping power, NOT whether the action of the gun is bolt or semi-auto. Using standard military cartridges, the K98 is actually a tad less powerful than the M-1 Garand. This does bring up one small, insignificant advantage of a bolt action rifle; being manually operated, they are generally more tolerant of variations in cartridge loadings, being able to function well with more or less powder and lighter or heavier projectiles. In a military context, this is pretty much irrelevant.

This is an argument I have never seen made in reference to the M-1 Garand, but in terms of actual field use of both guns, the parts that were likely to break on either weapon were not the kind that could be repaired in the field. Roy Dunlap, an ordnance sergeant who spent WW II repairing both US and Axis small arms, and wrote a book about his experiences called "Ordnance Went Up Front" mentioned several repair procedures for both types of rifle and claimed that the M-1 Garand, though more complex, was actually more reliable than the K-98. Neither army made a habit of carrying spare parts for either rifle because breakage was so rare that it would have been a waste of time. What was a common cause of wear or breakage was failure to properly clean the rifle and the most common repair was replacement of a pitted or worn out barrel. In 1944, when Dunlap was assigned to go ashore with an assault echelon in the Philippines, he could have chosen any weapon he wanted to carry; he chose a Springfield '03 because he liked the sights and he claimed it required less cleaning than the M-1 Garand.


I sure would be interested in seeing some factual data to support that statement because I don't think it is anywhere near the truth. The effective range, by that I mean the range at which a trained soldier could utilize the accuracy potential of either rifle, is about the same; 300-400 yards. Both rifles have the accuracy potential to consistently hit targets beyond 1,000 yards, but scope-equipped or not, it is a very rare soldier who has the skill (and training) to actually do so. The idea that the K-98 is more "accurate" than the M-1 Garand at any range is nothing more than a fantasy.


Selective fire? In an M-1 Garand with an eight-round magazine? LOL! I doubt the US Army ever considered such a ludicrous idea. Have you ever seen an M-1 Garand modified for selective fire? Can you cite an authority who claims the M-1 Garand was a candidate for selective fire? The US already had the BAR which fired the same cartridge as the M-1, and in it's original version, featured selective fire. The Army actually removed that capability from the BAR version manufactured during WW II to simplify production. Selective fire in a weapon as light as the M-! Garand would have been of very questionable practicality.

If the question modified to the M1 Garand and the 1903 Springfield, that depends I suppose on your duty. If you are a ground pounder "more fire laid down" is preferable. If you are a sniper, then accuracy and placed shots at distance, rather than number of shots would be the query.

The 2740 muzzle velocity on the 1903 Springfield is from shooting the round developed for it in ’06. That went out of a 24 inch barrel (same as the Garand), and used a modified Mauser action in the receiver (built under license I believe), using a pointed (Sptizer) 150-grain bullet rather than the 220 grain round nosed full metal jacket bullet of the 1903 original.

Its rifle twist is 1 in 10 " (same as the Garand), and some made during the war years had two rather than four grooves for faster/cheaper production runs. It weighted 8.6 pounds, loaded. Oddly enough when issued in 1906 the rimless cartridge held a 150-grain spitzer, flat-base cupronickel jacketed bullet with 2700 fps muzzle velocity. Then in 1926, to improve machine gun effective range, the bullet was replaced by a 172-grain 9-degree boattail design with the same 2700 fps at the muzzle, this was designated the "Ball, caliber 30, M1."

The velocity was reduced for a time to 2640 fps, but in 1938, as the gas-operated Garand came into service, the specs returned to the flat-base 150-grain loading, now called the "Ball, caliber 30, M2" round. This ended up being the most used "standard" round, i.e. not armor piercing, not tracer. So, I believe it gets down to application and need rather than "this is better than that"

If one compared the 98k to the 1903 Springfield in WW2, the 98k had a slightly shorter barrel, at 23.6 (or .4, I’ve seen both numbers) inches, but still managed to pump out its round at a respectable 2500 (2470) fps with a projectile weight of 197.5 grains in standard military issue. The unit itself also weighted 8.6 pounds, loaded.

All old military Mauser 98-type rifles, in 8 x 57mm, were rifled at one turn in 240 mm (which is 1 in 9.45") using four grooves. As such, they tend to shoot bullets from 180- 200 grains very, very accurately at amazing distances, but so could the 1903.


It would seen to myself that comparing and contrasting these two battle rifles would be like asking; "how do you like your eggs? Sunny side up or over-easy?"

__________________
Happy Trails,
Clint.

Both rifles fire 170 to 190 grain bullets at a muzzle velocity of about 2700 fps. Both use a jacketed boattail bullet design. So, ballistically both are virtually identical in performance.
Within the context of WW 2 the K 98 would have been a poorer performer because of its round. The Germans were short on lead and copper. They substituted steel and gilt metal (a tin compound) for small arms ammunition. This makes their bullets much lighter (in the range of about 150 grains) than Allied equivalents. They also began to run short of powder as the war progressed so they cut the amount per round down by a small amount lowering muzzle velocity.
So, if you are using German wartime munitions in a K 98 you are firing a 150 grain (or lighter) round on less powder at roughly 2500 fps muzzle velocity (there is some variation here depending on who made the rounds of course).
What this equates to on a firing range is that at 100 yards the German round is now performing at the equivalent of roughly 200 yards against the full power full weight round.
Even powder variations, common to German ammunition, has an effect. One batch will not perform equally to another. The Germans also commonly mixed batches and remixed / remanufactured powder making its performance more variable too. They really had little choice. They had to use what they had and could get as they were short on resources.
Oh, there is also the little problem with steel cartridges. The Germans went to these instead of brass for small arms due to the same problem. In hot guns these can jam in the breech when they fire and slightly expand due to being similar metal to the breech itself (why brass was chosen for cartridges among other reasons).
In terms of WW 2, which is where and when we are discussing things on this board for the most part, the K 98 has alot of problems.

i am out of this thread after all of these post about how the m1garand was better than the mauser in every way posible, i think it has to do with Nationalitly at most , i have backed up all my post in this thread so cya.

__________________

The supporting data in your posts consists entirely of your not-very-well-informed opinions.

Of course, almost everybody who has any experience with both weapons would consider the Garand a better rifle than the '98 Mauser. The design of the Garand was almost forty years later than the Mauser; if you didn't want to hear the Garand was better, you shouldn't have asked the question.

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.

__________________


For the first time I have seen "History" at close quarters,and I know that its actual process is very different from what is presented to Posterity. - WWI General Max Hoffman.

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.

__________________
They shall grow not old as we that are left grow old Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn
At the going down of the sun and in the morning
We shall remember them. Lest We Forget

The Japanese seemed to do quite well with them.

__________________


For the first time I have seen "History" at close quarters,and I know that its actual process is very different from what is presented to Posterity. - WWI General Max Hoffman.

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.