m1 garand v.s. mauser

Haha, roger that. That pretty much sums up the way I handled that argument and it was indeed uncalled for on a public forum. So, to get us back on track, how about your own two cents on the topic? Anything I failed to mention that you can touch up on?

 

I've got some figures saved to disk. The 30-06 was made by Springfield, Winchester made the 308-Army the Garand uses I thought (both effectively 7.62mm just the later one became NATO standard, not the Springfield one, the 308-Army is a 180gr version of the Winchester 30-30 with better powder isn't it?). But I'm not up on guns like you guys so honestly I hardly know what I'm talking about, or what any of the nomenclature really means.

I've got figures for the Springfield round (specs) from 125gr to 220gr but dunno if that's relevant. The 308-Army is virtually identical specs to the .303 British in fact which is a very powerful rifle cartridge. We used them a bit and seriously powerful gun, good for big game and will go through a tankette without much trouble.

The Mauser 7.92 though? Retains 25% more energy in power-momentum according to the charts and has more than a thousand ft/lbs more muzzle energy. It is a monster.
A mate had a 6mm Mauser and that alone we used to shoot old boilers with. You know the burny bit in an old train. Goes right through, about a quarter inch plate metal both sides. I'd hate to see what its big brother would do.

Anyways the figures I have for the 7.92mm Mauser in a 98K are pretty much identical to a .338 winchester magnum, one seriously powerful gun.

 

I know because I've done the same thing when I first started posting here. I didn't intend to be rude but was perhaps a little overly aggressive. I was discussing an issue with another poster and thought that I was expressing myself properly but Brad (Formerjughead) let me know I was coming across as a "dick", his words. So, I corrected myself and apologized to the other individual and we actually became friends.

No, I think you nailed most of the information. I would like to add that most of the talk about ranges in excess of 500 yards is really irrelevant. The Marine Corps unlike most military organizations is a marksmanship culture. The training given to infantrymen in most military organizations doesn't develop the skill set necessary to hit targets at 1000 yards. In other words few infantrymen can get anywhere near the performance out of the rifle and/or cartridge that they are capable of. At Belleau Woods in WWI Marine rifleman were dropping Germans at 800 yards. The Germans couldn't believe it and thought they were up against some kind of special sharpshooter unit. The Marines were armed with 1903 Springfields and the Germans with the Gewehr 98, the longer version of WWII's Kar98. So in this particular case the Springfield outshot the Mauser but the factor was the shooter not any intrinsic superiority in the rifle or cartridge. (Ref: Alexander, "Through the Wheat")

Another quote on the same issue:
"The Marines opened up with machine-gun fire and with rifle fire—extraordinarily accurate rifle fire, thanks to U. S. Marine Corps training that emphasized accuracy of fire over speed. "The French told us," [Col Albertus] Catlin recalled, "that they had never seen such marksmanship practiced in the heat of battle."
Miracle at Belleau Wood by Alex Axelrod

(It should be noted though that the Commandant refused to allow Marines that wore glasses or had not fired expert to be included in the initial Marine Brigade sent to France).

When it came time to adopt the M1 the Marine Corps was hesitant change over from the Springfield because of fears that the new semi-automatic rifle would be less accurate than the bolt gun. Testing by the Marine Corps proved it to be robust, reliable and extremely accurate and it was adopted. You're also correct that accurized M1's firing match ammo and using iron sights did compete in the service rifle competition at the Camp Perry, until it was superceded by the M14 firing the .308 when that rifle became the standard service rifle.

You're right about the round not being steel tipped to expand but, there could be a little misunderstanding here. You have the Patr. s. S. round that was the standard 7.92 mm round, a lead bullet jacketed with copper and later due to shortages steel. Then you have the Patr. S. m. K. which was a steel cored bullet with metal jacketing. It wasn't for the purpose the other poster alluded to but was intended to be an armor piercing round. We had rounds of similar construction (steel core) in .30-06 for the same purpose and later on in .308 same-same.

 

No, the .30-06 wasn't made by Springfield, the nomenclature refers to the fact that it was designed for the Springfield produced M1903. Originally the M1903 fired the .30-03 which is a slightly longer, heavier, round-nosed version of the .30-06. When Army brass started realizing how much more effective lighter spitzer-nosed bullets were after the Spanish-American war it was decided to neck the cartridge down, lighten it up, and put a spitzer on it and the result was the .30-06. Also, .308 isn't at all related to the .30-30, it's just a necked down .30-06 with superior powder that results in almost, and I repeat ALMOST, identical ballistics. .308 Winchester is also known as 7.62X51mm NATO and no, it isn't identical to the .303 British, at all. I have no qualms with .303 British other than the fact that it's a rimmed cartridge which causes problems in magazine feeding weapons, but it is ballistically inferior to the above cartridges.

There is no .308 Army and the M1 fired no such cartridge. It was originally chambered for the .276 Petersen round but Army brass rejected switching to a smaller round and having to rechamber all available weapons and purge the massive stocks of .30-06 to do so, so they kept the .30-06 and John Garand proceeded accordingly.

Lastly, I know of no such loading for the 7.92X57mm round that would put it anywhere near a .338 magnum. Magnums are fat cartridges with a massive powder load and average sized bullet which propel them at extremely high-velocities and maintain energy over extreme distances. You can't possibly load a round for a 7.92mm that would be able to compete with that because the cartridge case simply isn't large enough and no weapon designed for the round could withstand the pressures involved in firing it. I'd like to see your tables because the ones I've been using have the 152 gr. M2 ball .30-06 clearly outdistancing the 7.92mm and only lagging behind in ft-lbs of energy by roughly 50 lbs.

Lastly, while I am interested in the ballistics aspect of this discussion, the main point we've been discussing is which is superior as a combat weapon and given the parameters of modern combat, this matter doesn't even apply. Also, I know from experience that a .308 carries plenty of energy to kill at 1000 yards and is more than capable of hitting at that range and that means the .30-06 is, as well.

 

My dad is the rifle expert in the family, but he just used his new M1 to hunt his deer this year. Got a nice one too at 150 yards on the run (using peep sights) and he says it is capable of 650 yards. He believes it has more velocity and more range and he owns the k98. His favorite is the A303 1943, because he feels it has the smoothest bolt action, low recoil and shoots right on the money. One of his longest shots with a deer was with this rifle and he got an elk through heavy timber. He would love to get on here and visit with everyone, he truly loves his military rifles and has quite a collection that he uses regularly to put meat on the table.

 

Not a personal challenge, just copying figures to the forum.

.303 british army chambering (.311 bullet size) @ 180gr, 2480mv, 2375me, 446 grain-feet per 1000 secs (power-momentum)

.308 Army/ 7.62 NATO (.308 bullet size) @ 180gr, 2475mv, 2370me, 445 power-momentum.

sorry, the US round is actually a shade weaker than the .303

Mauser 7.92mm (.323 bullet size) @ 197gr, 2800mv, 3340me, 554 power-momentum

.338 Winchester Magnum @ 225gr, 2800mv, 3450me, 600 power-momentum

the Mauser is a bit weaker, but much closer to it than it is to either a US 7.62 or a British .303 (fyi this was the 1942 complaint by german field officers, being way overpowered for general service use)
and mate no offence but I honestly can't see how you could possibly downgrade the 7.92 ca.1000 ft/lbs more muzzle energy than the US round, that you might have to explain without the showmanship.

colour me a simple man.

 

For starters, you're comparing a 180 gr. 7.62x51mm NATO rather than a 152 gr. .30-06 which was the original point of this discussion. Secondly, the standard infantry load for the 7.62x51mm round is 150 gr., not 180 gr.

Cartridge.................Muzzle Velocity........Muzzle Energy

7.62x51mm 150 gr. 2800 fps 2557 ft-lb

.303 British 180 gr. 2460 fps 2416 ft-lb

.338 WinMag 200 gr. 2960 fps 3887 ft-lb

7.92x57mm 197 gr. 2494 fps 2734 ft-lb

Sorry, those stats on the 7.92x57mm are f'ed.

EDIT- Just saw what you added. One, you still haven't seemed to grasp the fact that you're talking about the 7.62x51mm (.308 Win) rather than the .30-06. They're similar rounds but they aren't identical. And why did I "downgrade" the German round? Because what I listed above is what it has. Your stats are off. Also, I'm not up on Aussie lingo, "mate", but that last line about explaining without showmanship and "colour me a simple man" sounds suspiciously like a "personal challenge" even though that's what you said you weren't doing. Now, like I said, I don't speak your particular vernacular but that didn't seem particularly friendly to me.

.30-06 152 gr. - 2800 fps, 2700 ft-lb. (as fired from an M1)

EDIT 2- Saw you cleaned up your response a bit to remove some of the apparent hostility. Much better.

 

I don't have the table either but we can look at some basic physics. A previous poster stated:

And you previously stated:

So the 30-06 has lost ~800 fps and the 7.92 has lost ~700 fps. This suggest that at 500 yards the 30-06 will still have a slight velocity advantage. The mauser round is going to have a edge in both momentum and energy at that point probably 20% or more momentum and less in the energy range. Of course there's a real question as to whether that makes any difference and your point about the amount of bullet drop is valid. There were other things he got wrong as well but it's a good idea to demonstrate with facts why he was wrong. For instance if you have two guns of the same weight or even the same gun fireing two different loads it's worth remembering that it's momentum that is conserved and that's really what produces the kick. Thus the 30-06 round produces 420,750 grain*ft/sec while the "8mm Mauser" produces 480,000 grain*ft/sec. So in bolt action rifles of the same weight one would expect the 8mm round to kick more add in the heavier semiautomatic nature of the Garand and ....

I didn't mean to imply that you were either.

In this sort of discussion it's worth remembering that there are at least two different standards of "significant". If you fire enough rounds you will probably find that there is indeed a "statistically" significant difference in the rifles. However I have no problem at all believing that there is no "practical" significance to the results.

There's more to it as well. Is a Kar98 produced in pre war Germany as good as one produced in Turkey? or for that matter Germany during the war? How about condition? There are all sorts of variables to consider here. Of course it's still a good question as to whether or not there is a practically significant difference.

I guess my point is if someone says something that strains your credulity it's worth supplying enough data to either a) prove he is wrong or at least bring it to serious question and/or b) question whether or not it's even relevant to the topic at hand.

 

Challenging your claims isn't a personal challenge, and it is extremely suspicious that you took to it as if it were but it was my intention to reveal this when I suggested it. Every instinct I have and I've quite a few very well practised ones tells me you're entirely misrepresenting facts in order to be bullish about your personal opinion. And no, I don't respect that at all, I have nothing but contempt for it.

I've compared in action a .303 against a 6mm Mauser and that calibre Mauser was roughly equivalent. There is no way on god's little green earth the 7.92mm is not significantly more powerful than a .303

And I know this anecdotally too, that the Garand round is not significantly more powerful than the British .303, that's is the general consensus of aussie vets I've talked to. They love the .303, most kept them as pig guns after the war it's such a good gun. You can walk across australia right now and collect them up from farmhouses all over the country, they're hanging over people's fireplaces.

And the published figures I have support the contention. More than a thousand ft/lbs of muzzle energy advantage is not a misprint pal, neither is some 25% greater momentum-energy. These are ballistics figures, not opinions.

You want the 30-06 in 150gr, 2910fps and 2816ft/lbs. 165gr, 2800fps and 2868ft/lbs. 180gr, 2700fps and 2909ft/lbs. These are the highest figures I could find for the round, most sites rate it for 180gr at 2600fps and 2615ft/lbs. At the highest rated muzzle energy for the round using the best figures I can find, in 180gr it is still 500ft/lbs shy of the 7.92 Mauser and some 100~ grain-feet/1000secs shy of it (554 versus 468 in that column) over range. This reflects everything I've heard about them from german family and aussie vets. I grew up hearing how overpowerd the Mauser was, a weapon designed to kill from over a kilometre away.

I just don't believe you, I think you're skewing any accurate information and making up the rest.
I think this is inferred by your discount of published figures in preference for what you've presented as nothing more than a personal view, with no quantifiable backing besides your word and authority one should simply accept? When both vet accounts and published figures directly contradict you?

Do you have quantified, published figures downgrading the Mauser to be 500-1000ft/lbs less than it apparently is according to any reputable reference I can find, thus showing that the Garand is superior or equivalent rather than in fact quite a bit less powerful?
I should think this a rather simple, point blank question. I trust you'll address it simply and directly, rather than go all the way to an ad hominem or some other pointless memoiré, both somewhat distracting.


And no, I don't like you at all.

 

If this thread ever terminates for fatigue of comparing two unlike arms, we can always try to compare the British Nagant Pistol to the German Luger for another comparison that could go on forever as they are "equal" to the garand and 8MM in dis-similarity which seems to make us contribute comparison.

 

Bolt Action Rifles by Frank de Haas, published 1971 by DBI books Inc., Page 44, beginning at the bottom of the middle column and extending to the right hand column.

"Later on, a heavier spitzer bullet with a boat-tail base was adopted and the 8x57 case loaded with this bullet became the standard German military cartridge designated as the 8x57sS. This bullet weighed 198 grains and had a muzzle velocity of 2476 fps at a breech pressure level of nearly 50, 000 psi."

Janir: Sir, your figure of 2800 fps as the muzzle velocity for the standard 7.92 X 57 German military round used during the 2nd world war is simply incorrect.

Handloads.Com has a ballistics calculator that I used to compare the 30-06 round fired by the M1 Garand (152 grains @ 2800 fps) to the 7.92 German round (197 grains at 2476 fps).

Somewhere between 400 and 500 yards the velocity of the 30-06 round falls below that of the of the 7.92. The 7.92 retains that advantage out to 1000 yards; i did not calculate beyond that distance. The heavier, boat-tail 7.92 bullet retains velocity at distance better than the lighter, flatbase 30-06 bullet.

at 1000 yards: 7.92 - -> 1200 fps
30-06 --> 1068 fps

If both rifles are zeroed at 500 yards, the 7.92 bullet will be 303 inches low at 1000 yards and the 30-06 bullet will be 322 inches low.

 

I find it hard to compare different rounds fired from different weapons to try and decide which is the better weapon.

I have fired 7.62mm NATO rounds during a firepower demonstration from British SLR (FN FAL) and German G3 rifles with the US AR15 5.56mm as a comparison.

The target was a cavity brick wall at 100m

The SLR fired through the wall with one shot, the G3 took two shots to penetrate (same batch of rounds), the AR15 did not penetrate all the way through the wall with 5 rounds it took nearly 10 to batter its way through.

From that it demonstrated that the same round from different weapons will have different abilities.

Does the 30-06 round perform identically fired from the M1903 and the Garand?

 

You readily admit that you don't know anything about firearms and ballistics and then you go pigheaded stubborn in proving a fact that a post below yours already refuted. That's not even an intelligent stance, "pal", and I really don't like your tone. I'm going to take the high road and not reply as I would like to because I've been warned that I can't speak to chronic foul-ups the way I would choose, but I will say that you are completely ignoring fact and other more knowledgeable posters in favor of your cooked numbers and factually incorrect tables. Where you got these, I don't know, but a simple Wikipedia search would show you that the muzzle velocity of a Kar98k is 2,493 fps. The M1's muzzle velocity is 2800 fps. 7.92x57mm IS is not even comparable to a magnum round and a simple google search would yield the information you want. However, since I'm not certain that you're even capable of utilizing a search engine I'll aid your cause considerably and just link you to a very informative page. 8mm, Mauser, 8X57, 7.92X57, 7,92X57, 7.8X57, 7.8, 7.90, 7.92, Springfield, .30-03, .30-06. 8X57R, J, S, JR, JRS, Special, Remington, Winchester, Norma, RWS, DWM, German, Turk, Turkish, Turkey, Equador, Equadorian, Yugolavia, Yugoslavian, Czechoslovak

There are the definitive statistics on the IS round. If you'd wish to find out about the US .30 M2 ball and .303 British rounds simply Google those two rounds or go to Winchester Ammunition's website as they have an outstanding ballistics calculator that you can compare multiple rounds with. Here are the definitive stats;

M1- 2800 fps muzzle velocity, 2,820 ft-lbs muzzle energy

Enfield No. 4- 2,441 fps muzzle velocity, 2,418 ft-lbs muzzle energy

Kar98k- 2,493 fps muzzle velocity, 2,734 ft-lbs muzzle energy

Now, have a look at this lovely quote from yourself.

Heed your own words and have a nice day, sweetheart.

 

No, they both have 24" barrels. If firing the same cartridge (Cal. .30 M2 Ball) the bullet should be at a nominal speed of 2805 f.p.s at the muzzle. The gas operated mechanism of the Garand doesn't "siphon off" any pressure from that propelling the bullet, it is using "exhaust" in a manner of speaking.

 

When comparing "which rifle is better" one should realize that every battle rifle caliber used in WWII had sufficent energy to kill a human at any range from point blank to 500 yds. From the 6.5x50mm of the Arisaka to the 7.92x57mm of the Mauser, they were all lethal. Yes, some were "better" than others but there are soldiers buried all over the globe because of each of these rounds & there are others who lived to ripe, old ages after being shot by them.
Another thing; when comparing cartridges stick to the load that was nominally the one issued by that power in WWII. Standard ball cartridges... the US issued the Cal. .30 M2 Ball, the British the .303 Mk. VII & the Germans the 7.92x57mm IS. Any differences in the ballistics of these artridges has to do w/ 2 things; projectile speed & weight. The fact that the bullets used were of diameters of .308, .311 & .323 really has nothing to do w/ which one was "better". Bringing in data for commercial cartridges or reloading manuals can put a spin on things. Someone menioned the 7.62 NATO round w/ a 180 gr. bullet. The NATO load for ball cartridges is a 147 gr. bullet & never called for a 180 gr. Adding to the confusion is that while the casings for the 7.62 & the commercial .308 Winchester are identical the NATO round has a max. pressure of 60200 p.s.i. & the .308 is max. 62000 p.s.i. And the 7.62/.308 wasn't developed until after WWII.
Bullet energy is calculated by this formula:
Speed (f.p.s.) x speed (f.p.s) x bullet weight (grains) divided by 450240
As long as you have the nominal speed & weight you can calculate & compare any round's muzzle energy to another. No magic, no opinion, the math doesn't lie. It doesn't even care if you like it or not.

Edited to add: The above formula will give the result in ft. lbs. One can multiply ft. lbs. x 1.348 to convert to joules of muzzle energy.

 

Thank you for reiterating what I've been trying to get across the whole time. The neglible difference in stopping power in these rounds renders any discussion on the topic moot as they are all mankillers. Prepare for this vanir guy to tell you that your math is wrong and that you're deliberately misrepresenting facts because you have a dog in this hunt.

 

just my observation: stamped steel parts never provided sufficient reliability equal to forged and machined parts until perhaps the AKM came out in 1959.

having said that i'll pin my fate during WWII on a reliable bolt action weapon with solid forged and excellently machined parts.

 

not to mention what michael cain said about baileys:
"you mean those precisely machined steel structures that are the marvel of the civilized world?"

 

The major compenents of the Garand are forged & machined. A dare say that even a late M1 had as high a percentage of forged & machined as the Kar 98k. I really doubt if a late war Kar 98k built by slave labor could be said to have "excellently machined parts" in comparison to any Garand, even a WRA Co. rifle.

What are the reliability issues you attribute to the Garand due to the use of stampings?

 

you're right about the garand of course. the crucial parts that need to be of machined steel IMHO are the internal surfaces of the receiver, and all connected moving parts from the gas piston all the way to the bolt.

regarding the garand, it does have a quirky action. the semi-rotating bolt could get stuck and the bearing surface of the bullet feeder underneath that holds the bolt open when empty (you close the bolt with just a slight push) tends to wear easily. a lot of garands have jammed in my hands. in almost all occassions it entailed a fired/unfired round failing to eject and gets stuck (i never understood why it should happen) and i have to set the butt on the ground and push the bolt back with the heel of my boot.

a more classic example of machine part superiority over stamped is the AK-47. fortunately, soviet factories had an extensive machineries complement (adapted from mass-producing the mosin) to allow mass production of the AK. the AKM is probably the first practical firearm made with a lot of stamped steel sheets.