m1 garand v.s. mauser

Fair eough Ulrich, however you do have to say; the K98K is known more for it's infamous mauser bolt, but yes I do belive what you state here.

 

This sort of statement has to be taken with a grain of "salt". The stock design of the two diverged, but were from the same sort of "design philosophy", coupled with production cost.

During the interwar period, there was little development in M1903. In 1929, US adopted a modified pattern M1903A1, which was no more than the basic design with different type of stock, with semi-pistol grip instead of the straight, English-style grip. Few M1903A1 were made, however. With the outbreak of the Second World War US army again found itself short of rifles, and while the standard US rifle was already a semi-automatic Garand M1, it was decided that it must be supplemented by simpler and cheaper bolt-action rifle.

The Remington Arms company was set up to create a simplified for wartime production variant of the M1903. Adopted in 1942, the M1903A3 rifles featured a number of parts made by stamping instead of machining, receiver-mounted peep-hole sights instead of the leaf-type tangent sights, and, on some rifles, A1 type stocks with semi-pistol grips (so called C-stocks).

Goto:

Modern Firearms - M1903 Springfield

PS. Don't put an apostrophe in front of the "s", that implies something completely different from a "multiple".

 

Yes, fair enough Clint I do agree with you that I made a false statement here more or less, but both are good at diffrent thing's.

 

I´m not a huge fan to the K98k, there are better rifles out there, but it is no problem for it to compete with the M1903 or the M1 Garand, except the the disadvantage of beeing not a semi auto as the Garand. It will be sounding a bit strange but i think the better competitor to the K98 would have been the M1917. It is a great shooter and its bolt is moving like it were bedded in silk.

 

Don't feed the troll guys, he's gone and won't bother you no more!

 

"A funny guy he is!" would Yoda say.

 

In my humble opinion,the Garand has a better design.That's a dream for the eyes,when the Mauser is just another bolt action rifle,similar(for the look,i do precise) to numerous other rifles.
It is a real trophy for the ww2 diggers here in France to recover one M1,since it is very rare compared to the 98k.

 

I hate to be rude or condescending in my very first post on this board, but the amount of disinformation and outright ignorance/idiocy that I've seen in the first two pages of this thread actually compelled me to sign up for this forum. The M1 is a completely superior design to the Mauser 98 in nearly every conceiveable way.

Stopping power- While it is slightly smaller, the .30-06 is only marginally so and it has superior velocity. The large caliber AND increased speed of the projectile give it more accuracy and similar impact at all ranges, though both are certified man killing rounds.

Accuracy- They're both mass-produced combat rifles without any sort of of accurizing (free floated barrel, bedded receiver, etc) done to them and while conventional wisdom would say that the bolt action would be more accurate given the fewer moving parts it really isn't that simple. As someone with extensive experience shooting multiple examples of both weapons, I can honestly say that some 98s will be more accurate and some M1s will prove so. Surprised? Don't be. The M1 is an outstandingly accurate semi-automatic rifle as evidenced by its superb performance at Camp Perry in the service rifle category year after year. Now, this is all completely moot however, because we aren't discussing which rifle is better at hitting a stationary target 1000m away from a benchrest. We're talking about combat situations where more often than not the engagement occurs at 300m or closer and where a 3 MOA rifle is plenty sufficient to put rounds in the kill zone. Either way, the two rifles, particularly if left in field-grade condition, will be extremely competitive here.

Magazine Capacity- 8 rounds versus 5 rounds. Duh. Now yes, you can top off the 98k which is a big advantage but it's not like you're stuck with 2 rounds in the the M1 until you fire them. If you need to reload you pull back the bolt, press a button on the left side of the receiver, and then pop another one in, simple as that. Also, the absolute garbage about the "ding" giving you away as having an empty weapon needs to stop. For starters, anyone here who has ever been in a firefight knows that it's hard to hear yourself think let alone here a "ding" sound over the rest of the din and secondly, the loudness of that sound is highly, highly overrated by people who have never actually handled an M1. .30 caliber weapons are extremely loud and and clip ejection happens as soon as the rifle blasts out the last round. What do you think is louder, the muzzle blast or the clip ejecting? It isn't rocket science.

Rate of Fire- The biggest advantage that the M1 has is in this category. Once again, if we accept that combat generally takes place within 300m and often much, much closer than that, we also have to accept that being able to spit out more lead is certainly advantageous in such a situation. Having to reload after every shot disrupts your sight picture, leaves you vulnerable while in the process of manually loading the weapon, and inhibits one's ability to provide suppressing fire to the enemy. Also, in combat it is very rare to be presented with a perfectly stationary target. Most of the targets that you have an opportunity to fire at are enemies that are moving in short bursts from cover to cover which means that you have a small window of opportunity to successfully engage. I don't know who here has experience in firing at moving targets but calculating lead on a target that often changes speed and direction is no mean feat and to hit something in that moment on the first shot WITH lead flying around you is extremely rare. If you have to work the bolt after missing that first shot, the target has probably already sought and found cover. If you have the M1 in your hand all you have to do is recover from the recoil and put some more lead down range.

Sights- Some people prefer the v-notch of the 98 and some people like peep sights. I don't mind shooting either but one irrefutable fact is that v-notch sights are very difficult to properly align in poor light while the peep sight allows light in and is easily distinguishable. Peep sights are also quicker to put on target and switch from target to target because all you have to think about is front sight ears aligned on the outside and front post center, target six o'clock bull, fire.

Reliability- The 98k is more reliable because, as a bare bones design, there aren't many mechanical parts to go wrong. The M1, however, is NOT a weapon that fails often. The early gastrap M1s were finicky but the wartime design was as reliable as a semi-automatic weapon can be and the only problem that is consistently referred to occurs in extreme cold weather (which is the enemy of all self-loading weapons). Bolts can and will freeze but so long as proper lubricant is used, or you take a good piss on the bolt in a pinch, the weapon will continue to function.

A few things I noted while reading the thread that boggled my mind.

Anyone who said the G43 is superior is out of their mind or has never handled either weapon. The G43 is a crudely built weapon with poor fit and finish which lead to poor reliability, it's slower to reload, and, in my experience, has on average far less accuracy. While it's fully capable of hitting a man-sized target at normal combat ranges it leans towards decidedly average in the pinpoint accuracy category and the M1 is decidedly above-average.

Getting your thumb whacked by the M1 on reloading is very avoidable and if it does happen you won't lose your thumb in the process. It'll knock the nail off and give you a nasty blood blister, maybe crack it if you're slightly fragile, but it's not anything that can permanently damage you OR take you out of a fight.

 

Having Experience as a US Marine and Owning a K98 (1943 stamp and handed down from a family member who fought on ostfront) and a friend who has an M-1 i will correct you.
1) The 30-06 and 8mm Mauser are not similar rounds. The M-1 fires 30-06 and has superior velocity but its smaller and loses trajectory faster than 8mm. The 8mm mauser had a better trajectory and velocity at long ranges. The round also had a steel tip designed to spread upon impact and increase damage. Pretty much the 30-06 was better at short ranges while the mauser was better at long ranges.
2) The Mauser is far more accurate than the M-1. The M-1 is good at about 600-800m depending on the marksman. The Mauser was good at ranges beyond 1000m. I can hit targets at 900m all day with mine despite the amount of wear it has. The 30-06 as you said has higher initial velocity hence the recoil is harder to control than the mauser, added in the increased rate of fire and accuracy takes an even larger hit. There werent alot of snipers carrying M-1's. They carried 1903 or 1913 springfields. There were plenty of mauser snipers.
3) The M-1 had far greater ROF to the K98. It could be fired on the move and is a huge advantage for the weapon.
4) The sights of the Mauser are great. In fact all German sights are great. The sight on the M-1 is good for its purpose but the peep sight blocks your view of surrounding targets as you can only see whats in the peep forcing you to leave your sights to find another target (of course its not really needed to use your sights at such a close range if your experienced enough so this would not be such a dis advantage)
5) The G-43 was a better gun. As one said it combined the positives of both weapons. It fired a less powerful round (when using 7.92*33mm instead of 7.92*57mm) but gave it better accuracy than the M-1. The G43 was also used as a sniper rifle and was very effective. And "poor fit and finish" does not go hand in hand with any german firearm (this is a myth by the fact that a modern G43 is usually custom made by gunsmiths as German soldiers were instructed to destroy their G43's if to avoid capture). The M-1's powerful round resulted in less accuracy. The G43 was a good rifle.
With all that said the M-1 was a better infantry rifle while the K98 was a better sniper rifle. The M-1 had the ROF and power for common engagement ranges. The K98 had better accuracy and power at long ranges making it more ideal for a sniper. This is similar to the M-14 vs M-16. The M-14 is a better marksman rifle while the M-16 is the better infantry rifle.

 

I wish we would compare an apple to an apple.....an orange to an orange.....as I really like both mausers and m1 garands but do not consider them made to compete against each other in a class to class comparison. Autos and bolts do not function in exactly the same applications so one must wonder if we are comparing them for war or for sporting which further complicates things. Perhaps in the United States if you shoot bought ammo, a 30.06 is more powerful.....perhaps in Europe or other parts of the world you can buy 8 mm ammo that is just as powerful!!!! There are so many variables that make this comparison of rifles kind of away from their reality of purpose. Of course a great deal of fun can be had by comparing a privy to a flush toilet I suppose. What kind of paper do you carry in your wallet?(variation on the commercials we are smothered with today)

 

Ulrich,
I have both an '03 and a '17 and while I agree that I like the 17 better (the '03's front sight is not as easy to acquire quickly), in a long range contest it wouldn't work well as the '17's rear sight hasn't got a windage adjustment. So unless you are another Sergeant York with built-in "Kentucky windage" the '17 is left behind.
John

 

The round used by the Germans in WWI was the 7.92x57 IS (or JS) which fired a 192 gr. jacketed lead bullet at 2500 fps (& as far as what I've been able to find NO steel tip). The US used the Cal. .30 M2 (aka .30-06) which was a 150 gr. jacketed lead bullet at 2805 fps. The German bullet is a .312 dia. & the US is .308 dia. The only real difference in the performance difference in the two rounds is the German bullet would retain more energy at extended range. Being that the average combat distance in WWII was <200 yds. it really wouldn’t matter. Both rounds retain enough energy to kill at a 1000 yds. Someone hit by one would be just as dead as the other.
The M1 rifle would kick less than the Kar 98k. It weighed more (by about a pound), was gas operated rather than manual & was firing a lighter weight bullet.
The open sights of the Mauser may have been quicker to use at very short ranges than a peep sight but a peep is much more accurate over any distance beyond point blank range. The only combat rifles which currently use a sight similar to the Kar 98k are bullet hoses like the AK47.
The reason the M1 wasn’t used as a dedicated sniper rifle in WWII was due to the difficulty in mounting a scope & still allowing the ability to load & eject the en bloc clip used in the Garand. This was worked out before the end of the war & M1C & M1D sniper rifles were used in Korea & Vietnam. There were 1903 & 1903A3 riles used in WWII & there was a 1903A4 sniper rifle but no “1913” Springfield.
The G43 used the full size 7.92x57 round not the shorter 7.92x33.

 

I hate to be absolutely rude, but you don't have a damned clue what you're talking about.

1. Yes, they are similar and no, the .30-06 doesn't drop faster than the Mauser, it's the opposite. A high velocity round like the 152 gr. M2 ball is going to shoot flatter and longer than a fat 197 gr. 7.92X57mm IS round. At 500 yards the M2 ball drops 40", the IS drops 52. At that range the .30 caliber is travelling at 1992 fps and hits with 1350 ft-lbs of energy, the 7.92mm is going 1801 fps and hitting with 1412 ft-lbs. The Mauser hits a hair harder, but it's dropping much faster, going slower, which means that it isn't a better long-range cartridge. Lastly, the IS round is not "steel-tipped to expand". Expanding bullets are outlawed by the rules of warfare as established by the Geneva Convention and the IS round was just a plain jane FMJ. Moving on.....

2. No, a stock Mauser is not significantly more accurate than a GI M1 and I have multiple versions of both rifles to prove it. Unlike you, who is obviously pulling "facts" out of his ass which are more than likely based on your online video game experiences, I'm actually an adult and own firearms. It is my experience that neither is significantly more accurate than the other without significant modifications because these are factory-produced combat rifles that are built with fairly loose tolerances. The M1 is plenty accurate at 1000m, go to Camp Perry if you don't believe me. Since you've probably never heard of that I'll give you directions if you're interested. Also, snipers did use the M1 in two variants, the M1C and the M1D. Both are lovely weapons that do their job well. Lastly, there is no "M1913" Springfield. Once again, you're making things up. Also, the M1 is heavier and gas-operated, two things that give it LESSER recoil than the 98k. One more bit of evidence to suggest that you've never fired either weapon because the 98k let's you know that it's there, my ten year-old nephew can fire my M1 from a rest comfortably.

3. No ****.

4. No, they aren't. They're an average v-notch sight which I've already explained is not as effective as a peep sight for a variety of reasons. V-notch sights aren't bad, per se, I mean they're far better than the ladder sight on the 1903, but they aren't as combat effective as the peep sight. It's why our current weapons are all built with *gasp* peep sights. Ease of targeting, superior in low light, and an ability to line up on target very quickly are the basic points. Also, the M1's elevation and windage knobs are outstanding, extremely strong, and quick to adjust. The 98k's can't be adjusted for windage. And you're not a Marine or you'd never say something so damned stupid as "you don't need to use sights at close range". I guess on your video game you get a little red crosshair in front of your face when the weapon isn't properly welded to your shoulder.

5. No, it isn't and you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about here. The G43 fires the same 7.92mm round that the 98k does, it's the Stg.44 that fires the 7.92mm kurz round. While we've already established that you've got your head in your ass on these facts and don't even know the difference between the G43 and the Stg.44, let's address your point. The kurz round is far, far less accurate than a full-powered rifle round like the .30 caliber or the 7.92 IS round. By typing the drivel that you put above you're essentially saying that an AK-47 would make a better sniper rifle than a M40A3 because it fires a smaller bullet. That's goddamned ludicrous. And yes, the G43 is poorly made as were most of the so-called last ditch weapons of the Third Reich. German factories had taken a pounding from round-the-clock bombing, precious alloys for quality steels were in short supply, and the Wehrmacht was desperate for weapons that went bang when you pulled the trigger so, quality control was, shall we say, a bit lax. Moving on to one more of your ridiculous points, German soldaten were never instructed to destroy any of their weapons, even the amazing Stg.44, and they certainly wouldn't have been instructed to destroy an inferior semi-automatic rifle in the face of an army that is already equipped with a better self-loader. Another piece of abject stupidity in your post; if modern gunsmiths were recreating the G43 the weapon would be superior to its wartime incarnation because it would be handmade in small numbers, so how that would make for a myth about poor weapons, I can't for the life of me figure out. The thing is, "modern gunsmiths" aren't reproducing the G43 and you have made one more completely moot point. Anyone who agrees with you or can even follow your bizarre logic is, I'm sorry to say, a few fries short of a happy meal.

 

I see you are new here, but please watch your language when speaking to fellow member. You may disagree without being disagreeable. Your facts and figures uphold your argument without the "pull the numbers out of your ass", "head up your ass" remarks. While you just joined, I am going to warn you only nothing else at this time. You haven't been here long enough to get Personal Messages, or I would have kept this off the open discussion forum.

 

Well let's see.

If you look at the energy and velocity loss however the 30-06 looses it faster. The force of friction is porportional to the velocity of the object which means a higher velocity round experiances a greater force. Furthermore the acceleration (in this case decelleration) produced by a force is inversely porportional to the mass being affected which again means the heavier bullet is decellerated more slowly. At 500 yards it may not be noticable but somewhat longer ranges have been discussed in this thread. I would also expect wind to effect the lighter round somewhat more at longer ranges.

That is hardly proof. It is some evidence to that effect but without a well designed experiment is rather anecdotal. What constitutes "significant" is also rather problematic. I assume you aren't talking about statistical signifigance.

 

Hey guys,come on ,let's watch this dream Garand a friend of mine had for (zero) euros...http://www.ww2f.com/militaria/53985-finds-vicinity-mortain.html#post595444

 

My apologies, that was worded quite rudely, but I absolutely hate people lying and spreading disinformation to further an agenda or even if it is just out of ignorance. If you don't know what you are talking about, and it's quite clear the above poster I quoted didn't, it's a very simple task to be quiet, listen to people who do, and go on being a bit less ignorant than one once was.

I don't have a ballistic table for either of these rounds at 1000 yards but I do know I've never heard of a round comparison (unless we're comparing full-power rounds to poodle shooter rounds) in which one is already travelling considerably faster and dropping ten less inches than the other at 500 yards only to have the roles reverse after that range. If I'm wrong and you can find the table to prove it, so be it, but I don't think I am.

As for the anecdotal evidence, you're right, it doesn't prove anything because I might be making things up like my friend above. I'm not, however, but no one other than me actually knows that. I can, however, take two of each out of my collection to a 500m range, fire from a benchrest, and post up the groups. As for significant, I mean that service-grade rifles of either model are going to shoot in the 2-3 MOA range. That's not a significant difference. Can I accurize a 98 to a higher degree than an M1? Absolutely, there are no parts moving while the round is travelling out of the barrel which means that there are no impulses acting on the bullet until it's downrange. However, we're not talking about accurized rifles, we're talking about service rifles with service ammunition which are doing outstanding to shoot a 4" group at 200 yards.

 

I for one am glad you decided to heed Clint's admonition, he is one of the good guys! Your points were good and I think you'll be a valuable addition to the forum. I look forward to seeing more posts from you.

 

I wasn't about to go HAM on him because I could tell he was squared away from the way he approached the issue. I have a tendency to be blunt to the point of rudeness but I suppose I have to blunt that natural response, eh? Semper Fi.

 

Yeah, Clint is squared away, and he really knows his stuff. Don't worry about being blunt, it's just that you shouldn't talk to them like they're a Lance Corporal that's just done something really stupid.