Kar98k vs Mosin Nagant

Which weapons are better the kar98k or Soviet Mosin Nagant ? and why ?

 

Both weapons were bolt action rifles with 5 rd internal magazines that could fire maybe 15 rpm. The Nagant was in a lot of ways just a smaller version of the Mauser, it featured less wood and was lighter built in general, and featured the 7.62x54 cartrige instead of the Kar98's 7.92x57. Both were durable and respected weapons, and were in service for many years. The Nagant squeaked out a little more velocity than the Kar98, and had perhaps a better sighting system.

Personally, I would prefer the Kar98. I like the 8mm caliber a lot, and both of these guns will kick quite a bit, so why not go with the bigger caliber? I can deal with the sights on the Kar98, but I don't care for the rimmed cartrige of the Nagant, which I think jam easier when shoving five rds off a stripper clip.

 

Thanks for Information..

 

Having fired both on more than one occasion, the KAR 98. It is a handier weapon in terms of size (I alsdislike the M16, particularly the collasping stock ones on the same count). The quality of the workmanship on the kar 98 is also generally higher, the Mosin seems...sloppy. I'm not real thrilled with either's bolt action. Both tend to be a bit stiff for my tastes (but this is in comparison to the SMLE).
On the whole, the Kar 98 definitely.

 

I usually like the straight bolted rifles, but this time I prefer the kar. And yes, both bolts can be extremely stiff, but I also feel that the Kar is a better put together rifle.

 

If I was a sniper, and had a choice, I would go with the Mosin-Nagant.

 

Why?
The Nagant got a little better velocity, but I think the Kar would get better accuracy, (scoped) and the 8mm would have more knockdown when it reached the target.

 

Well for one, the Soviets had better scopes.... I remember watching an episode on the discovery channel about German and Russian snipers and a comparison was done by a few historians... If im not mistaken, it took the Russians only a few shots, 2-3 to align their scopes, it took the Germans more then 5 to do so.

The Mosin also had a more effective range then the Kar98k ( about 200 metres or so )this combined with the muzzle velocity and the scope is a deadly combination. Something tells me that Simo Hdyhd, would have also chosen this rifle as he had killed more then 500 Russians in a matter of 4-5 months using the same Mosin.

You say that the Kar98k would have been more accurate, why?

 

As sniping weapons I doubt there is much to choose between the two. Both run about 2800 foot seconds and have about 170 grain boat tail rounds. This means for all intents that they are accurate for sniping in a military setting to about 400 yards, maybe 600 at most. At 400 yards in rough terms the ballistic drop on either round is about three feet so the sniper's point of aim would be the top of a man's head. This will work down to about 200 yards below which the aim point shifts to the top of the torso.
At 600 yards the drop is now about six feet. Therefore the point of aim is now about three feet above the target's head. This becomes problematic to do. A really good shot might manage it. Your average military sniper of the period, probably not. Aside from that, it isn't often you even get a 400 yard shot in most military settings. Between terrain and the fact that your potential targets will be using cover whenever possible there isn't alot left to shoot at.

 

T.A.

There are many instances that show snipers using the Mosin and hitting their targets well over 600 yards.

The effective range of the rifle is at 1000 metres....

Would you disagree?

 

I shoot enough and have been to enough match shoots to know that you have to be really, really good with something in the .30 cal rifle sized weapons category to consistantly hit stuff at 500 yards let alone 1000.
When you throw in the lower accuracy of military rifles and non-match (eg., specially hand loaded rounds that were pre-sized for the rifle and each bullet matched in weight and ballistic characteristics, consistant powder and, loads etc.) military grade ammunition I ain't buying it. The Soviets, and others might have had a handful of really hot snipers who were already crack shots from civilian experiance but nothing more. Even these using standard military equipment are going to be hard pressed to consistantly hit a man sized target at 600 yards.
First, in the field they lack the advantage of knowing wind conditions. They do not get data on temperature etc nor do they get any ranging rounds. Not having a rangefinder or knowledge of the target's actual distance will also be a major problem. When you add partial targets, target movement, and the conditions of battlefields it is hard to buy that shots to six or seven hundred yards are consistantly possible.
This is why the sniper manuals of the day (at least the US and British ones) teach shooting to 400 yards and the use of rules of thumb rather than some more complex system where the shooter needs a considerable amount of experiance and training.
So, while a .30 cal weapon might be able to fire to 1000 or more yards it is not going to hit anything at that distance in use by your typical military sniper of the period.

 

Now that is exactly what I wanted to hear. Sure most snipers from both sides couldnt hit the target at such range. The ones that could were like you said, from a civilian poplulation and were usually hunters, in most cases excellent marksman who would shoot squirrels in the head in order to not ruin the fur which they would then sell.

Those were always the most feared snipers. As there were a greater number of Soviet snipers which shot at such a range, German snipers were also recorded at hitting targets greater then 6oo yds. Granted most from both sides did not have such a talent.

 

Well, in general, what I have read tells me that accuracy is a toss up between the two, maybe giving a slight edge to the Kar. I think the kar was manufactered better and with more care, therefore aiding its accuracy. Finally, it has been my experience with mine that the kar outshoots the Nagant.

Shooting out beyond 500 yards or more and you need to be set up properly. At longer ranges, crosswinds, heat mirage, and things you wouldn't even think of become a factor to the shot. If you are serious at shooting longer ranges, you should probably look into a .50, and if you have the optic capabilities, a 20mil sniper rifle.

Slonik: It is not that hard to shoot a squirrel in the head. It is the quickest way to take them out and ruins no meat or the pelt.

 

I agree with T.A. on this one.

Without a scope, starts to be hard to hit a human sized target past 200 meters, and it takes a sharpshooter and a very long and steady aiming to hit a static person at 500 meters (which means you have to be static, prone is the best, take the time to aim and correct the aim, hold your breath etc etc).

Even some modern assault rifles have effective range up to 800 m or more, but this measures only the performance of the bullet. For example IIRC the effective range of a M-16 is about 800 m, but I wish you luck if you expect to hit a person at 800 m without a scope.

With scope I can't tell, I've got no experience.

Back to the thread subject, most of the WWII main rifles were very close in the way they were operated, and had overall very close characteristics.

They all were proven designs and good rifles, which is due to the fact they were not innovative at all, so I don't think there's much difference between a Kar98k, an Enfield, a Mosin Nagant or an Arasaka, besides personal tastes.

IMHO the only WWII "main" rifle standing out was the semi automatic M1.

 

As a rifle is only as good as its user, the answers should reflect the quality of the training of the men using them. Even the most accurate and long-ranged weapon is useless if a soldier doesn't know how to use it properly.

Taking that into account, for most of the war, the Germans had better training on marksmanship and rifle care, and so I would say the Kar.

 

So was the SMLE, the mosin and the Arisaka (I think)

 

At 800m, it would be difficult to even see a person, under ideal conditions. Through the woods, forget it, you need a scope to shoot past 500m. The .223 should not be used beyond 500m unless you absolutely have to, there should be some bigger rifles in the squad, but I won't get into that. With the .223, your drop is going to be so much out past 500m that many things will be effecting it and it causes your accuracy to falter. Your average rifle-man should be able to hit with open sights out to about 300-400m. But it would take some significant skill to do much past that.
I also agree that the rifles were similar, and it definately depends on the user. Which rifle was better overall? Thats hard, but with me it comes down to the caliber, and I tend to prefer bigger, slower moving, bullets to the lighter faster moving ones. Its difficult to say which was better, but I would lean towards the Kar98k.

 

In my humble opinion... how many other weapons copied the Mauser action versus the Moison? Then there's always the Springfield '03 and the M1 Garand sniper version. But that's another thread. I don't own either (though I'd love to own them) nor have I ever fired either. Still trying to convice the wife that I need them.

 

Unless you are firing at a group of people.

From what I've heard the French had a system in WWI (or maybe it was the Franco Prussian War) that got fairly good results with their service rifles at ranges well over 500m. However it relied on groups (like companies or battalions I believe) all firing at set angles. Basically indirect fire with rifles. It also consumed a lot of ammo per hit but rifle fire seams to do that.

Did Soviet snipers use AT rifles for their longer range work?