K98k or M1 Garand

And if you want to compare semi automatics why not the G41 vs the Garand? They are closer in many ways. Both were semi automatics designed to take a standard rifle caliber round. Both were the first semi's used by their respective services. Design times were closer...

 

I have 3 K98's and one Garand. The Garand, hands down! No comparison.

 

I've one ought 3 Springfield, one K-98, but no Garand. I've fired them all and the Lee Enfield.
The Enfield appears to be easier to eject & chamber a new round and get back on target quicker. The K-98 appears easier to get the first round on target. The Springfield appears to more solidly put paid to what you shoot at.
Just my opinions.
The Garand is the better war gun, for obvious reasons.

 

I'd definitely say Garand is the choice for power or accuracy because with the K98 you have to re-cock every time you shoot it.

 

Iwould pick the M-1 ove anybattle rifle in the ETO that and a BAR 30 06 is all hell. MP44 is a good weapon but for knock down power and range the Springfield or the M-1 . I own a SS K-98 and I own a Springfield M-1 #`ed under a million trust me the 7.mm round at no joke hell nor is a .22 but I like the weapons we had better more reliable.
Best regards,
Spike

 

What drugs are you taking Spike? Edit post due to spelling, and still it is white noise.

 

Kar98:

Advantages:
Excellent accuracy, great range.

Disadvantages:
Bolt-action, not as good in closer ranges.

M-1 Garand:

Advantages:
Semi-auto, almost an all-purpose weapon.

Disadvantages:
"Ping" noise when clip is done, doesn't excel in any catagory.

Overall I say M-1 is better with more ammo, and semi-auto.

 

Not that crappy 'ping' mumbo jumbo again!!!! Anyone who talks about the Garand and mention that 'ping' haven't set foot on a battlefield. On the field you are lucky if even see the enemy, not to mention your own team mates. You are jacked up on adrenaline and scared shitless at the same time. So through the noise of machine guns, and the supersonic crack of incoming fire, artillery and your bloody sergeant shouting you're supposed to hear the ping of a Garand clip at a distance.

It's only in Hollywood that this thing ring true gents. I have been working with infantry tactics (squad and platoon) for a decade, and the Garand 'ping' story is as laughable as turning it into an advantage. You know that part too right? You snap the clip and make it 'ping', and good old Jerry thinks 'he is out of ammo' and pops his head up to shoot, and you shoot him in turn.

As for comparing different CATEGORY weapons, I have discussed that in an earlier post.

 

Heard the "Ping" story (even repeated it) from an American soldier talking about street fighting (can't remember where) on a documentary show. Without cobblestone streets, and a separate. mano e mano (away from all other battlefield noises) fight, I doubt it would make an (distantly audible) sound.
I've put over a hundred rounds through various Garands, and have yet to hear it. I was wearing ear plugs/w "phone" protectors over them.
Scared is right. Lucky to notice you're out of ammo, and remember to reload, correctly, quickly.
It is said that 35% of the troops in the Civil War were ineffective because of improperly, or multiple load weapons. Some troops just kept loading and never fired. One musket was found (after some battle) with "8" rounds down the barrel. Others rammed home bullet (mini-ball) first. Wet powder, half the powder, no (forgot the paper) wading, bad primer caps, on and on.
Ah yes...training, there is a need.

 

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