Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

K98 mauser

Discussion in 'Weapons & Technology in WWII' started by panzergrenadiere, Jul 11, 2001.

  1. Martin Bull

    Martin Bull Acting Wg. Cdr

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2002
    Messages:
    13,578
    Likes Received:
    1,487
    Location:
    London, England.
    I'll upset a few people here.

    Ok ; not my opinions - I'm quoting Brigadier Peter Young, DSO, MC from the foreword to 'World War II Small Arms' by John Weeks : -

    'It is interesting to see that the Germans were also capable of making mistakes. The production of the Model 98 Karabiner is a case in point. Having been missed by numerous German riflemen between 1940 and 1944, I have often wondered why the Germans, so skilful with mortar and light machinegun , should be such rotten shots with the rifle..'Unfortunately', the author writes, ' it was a relatively awkward rifle to shoot, and the bolt action was disappointing. The sight radius was short, which does not make for good shooting'. In No 3 Commando, which I commanded in Italy and Normandy, we were always glad to acquire Lugers or 'Schmeissers', and sometimes used the MG34. Nobody ever bothered to keep a German rifle. '

    And from Captain Christopher Shore in his book 'With British Snipers to the Reich' ;
    ' I fired a good deal with both the No 4 rifle and K98.... to anyone familiar with the crisp, easy bolt action of the SMLE and No 4, the mauser bolt was nothing but a headache, and absolutely hopeless for anything in the nature of rapid fire.'

    But then, maybe these contemporary actions are coloured by patriotism. But in highly-trained hands, the No 4 Enfield was terribly effective, as at Arnhem, for instance. . .
     
  2. Friedrich

    Friedrich Expert

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2002
    Messages:
    6,548
    Likes Received:
    52
    Sorry, Greenjacket. The Garand shot eight rounds. Agree. My mistake.

    No, it was not such a disadvantage to have half the ammo than a Lee-Enfield if you were a very well trained soldier who could fire 11 rounds per minute with a super accurate rifle. I know, more rounds and more velocity do always make a diference. But the K98 had fire power, soft and quick bolt action and above all, accuracy. It is light, well made and beautiful. That is why it is my favourite. But I think that many of you are not taking on account that the Mauser had a tactic to be used; a whole infantry squad with its centre in a heavy machine guns, several guys with sub-machine guns for close-range-fighting and like twenty guys with rifles in support. Do you realise that twenty rifles, excellent aimed and shot by expert shooters against you is lethal, much more than sub-machine guns and machine guns? Please, consider that.
     
  3. Greenjacket

    Greenjacket Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2002
    Messages:
    324
    Likes Received:
    1
    A German's 11 rounds to a British soldier's 30-40 loses every time. Yes, the K98 was an accurate rifle, but its sights were inferior to the Enfield's. An aperture sight as used on the Enfield and Garand make target aquistion easier than the open sights used on a K98. So not only could an American or British soldier acquire a target more easily than his German counterpart, he could also bring more firepower to bear against it, and in a shorter time, given the capacity and speed of their rifles.

    See above. The K98 is simply outgunned by the Garand and Enfield.

    Yes, the Mauser is an attractive, well balanced and well made weapon. A nice shooter's rifle, but simply not as good a weapon as the Garand or Enfield.

    I am aware of German tactical emphasis on machine guns. However, the ability of the soldier behind the rifle says nothing about the rifle itself. Twenty equally skilled soldiers armed with Enfields would be capable of twice as much, given their additional capacity.

    I can understand you liking the K98 for its quality and appearance. I agree with you on that aspect. However, surely you must agree that the Enfield and Garand are both superior fighting rifles?

    [ 15 July 2002, 05:07 PM: Message edited by: Greenjacket ]
     
  4. Friedrich

    Friedrich Expert

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2002
    Messages:
    6,548
    Likes Received:
    52
    Just a little thing here: A man with a Lee-Enfield could shot a maximal of 16 rounds per minute. Twenty is totally impossible. A Garand can shot 30 or even more but it is semi-authomathic and therefore, it cannot be inside this comparisson.

    The caliber of the Enfield is smaller than the Mauser's. The Lee-Enfield rifle was extremely unaccurate in bad conditions. Example: North Africa, where the sand and dust made the bullet change its course. The K98 did not have that problem. And certainly as a sniper's rifle, the Lee-Enfield is not very suitable for it in my opinion and the Garand, definately is not a sniper's rifle.

    Do you realise that Germany defeated Poland, France, the low countries, France, the Balcans and nearly the Soviet Union and North Africa with K98s, Stukas, Me-110, Me-109E, Pz I, II, III and IV? And we lost with V2s, Sturmgewehrs, MG42s, Panthers, Tigers, Me-262, etc.? That shows you that tactics and general strategic circumstances win wars, not the weaponry.
     
  5. mp38

    mp38 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2002
    Messages:
    178
    Likes Received:
    0
    Carl,

    Peter Young is a Brit, and therefore is going to be bias against the K98 and support the Lee/Enfield. It is funny that the Brits considered this "there" rifle, when in fact is was mostly designed by an American.

    As far as the sights on an Enfield go. It depends on which model you are shooting. If you are shooting a No. 1 Mark III, then the sights are open "v" notched, just like the K98. However if you are shooting a No.4 Mark I, then it has the rear apearature, and front peg sight simular to the Garand rifle. The Garands sights are very good, and I agree that they are a bit better than the K98 as for finding targets, and centering on the center mass. However, I don't agree that the Enfields where much better. The sight adjustments were very clumbsy, and easy to damage in combat, which would render the rifle useless 9except for making noise!). Also the Enfields' action is no where near as sturdy, safe, or reliable as the Mauser action. These two main facts along with the fact that the Enfield didn't make a really good sniper, leads me to the conclusion that the K98 was a little better than the Enfield.

    Lets drop that now. No one has even mentioned the other bolt action rifles of the war! :eek: What about the 1903 Springfield, The Nagant M39 or M44, and the Type 99 Arisaka. These were all very good rifles. The Springfield and Arisaka rifles where both Mauser copies (why didn't they copy the Enfield? :confused: [​IMG] ), and the Nagant was also a very sturdy and reliable rifle. Lets' talk about some of these!

    Matt :cool:
     
  6. Friedrich

    Friedrich Expert

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2002
    Messages:
    6,548
    Likes Received:
    52
    Very, very well, mp38. I wanted to discuss about the Moshye-Nagant too. I find it a very, very good weapon, very simlpy done and reliable. As many of the things the Soviets did. But I think its bullets do not have also a lot of power and the bolt-action is a little bit rougher than Mauser's or Lee-Enfield's. Still it is a very beautiful gun which I love to fire (my Opa and his guns collection, you know...).

    The Arisaka 99 is a very nice rifle too (the versions made during the 1930's and the first years of 1940's, because those rifles very late on the war very poorly made by kids and with awful materials). It is accurate, reliable in the terrible conditions of sand, water, mud and all the problems of rain-forest. As I said with the K98, the weather of the rain-forest did change bullet's course indeed, from normal rifles, but not Arisaka rifle. It had many practical accesories and nice stuff, it is also beautiful. Its only major failure is its size. With the bayonet one it is 1.90 metres lenght!!! The Japanesse average soldier was not taller than 1.60 metres!!! Even for giants soldiers it is a huge rifle. But it was strongly made and could bear the fight in sun, water, sand and mud. It was perhaps, the best Japanesse hand-gun of the war. Because their authomatic pistols were simply awful...
     
  7. Martin Bull

    Martin Bull Acting Wg. Cdr

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2002
    Messages:
    13,578
    Likes Received:
    1,487
    Location:
    London, England.
    Can't resist adding to this one - sorry !

    Why didn't Springfield and Arisaka copy the Enfield action ? It was harder to manufacture.
    The Mauser action was certainly stronger with its front locking lugs. The Enfield, with rear-locking, had a shorter 'throw' - so faster fire.
    'The Enfield proved to be one of the smoothest, fastest military bolt actions ever built. there's an old saying to the effect that ''the Mauser is a hunting rifle, the Springfield is a target rifle and the Enfield a battle rifle'' ' Another Brit source ? No, Garry James in 'Surplus Firearms' magazine, LA.
     
  8. Friedrich

    Friedrich Expert

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2002
    Messages:
    6,548
    Likes Received:
    52
    Yes, Martin. I agree about the soft bolt-action of the Enfield. It is soft and quick to reload, despite its ten rounds are better than five or even eight. But I still not liking the lower caliber. I have fired Enfields (from my Opa's collection) and I am still with the Mauser.

    The Springfield... nice, but... it has lack of class. I suposse because it is not from Europe... :D Sorry... :D
     
  9. Martin Bull

    Martin Bull Acting Wg. Cdr

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2002
    Messages:
    13,578
    Likes Received:
    1,487
    Location:
    London, England.
    I think the only way for this to be settled, Friedrich, is for you and I to meet : you, clutching your battered K98, me gripping my trusty Mk4 Enfield - grimly, we trudge toward each other across a frozen steppe . . . . . . [​IMG]
     
  10. Friedrich

    Friedrich Expert

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2002
    Messages:
    6,548
    Likes Received:
    52
    OK. We shall see. Volgograd, next Monday, 8.00 A.M. We will reenact Zaitsev-Königs duel. We change the Russian for a British and ready. Then we will know!!! (But I really don't think we have König's nor Zaitsev's style or class...) Whatever. It will be interesting to look at two drunk-joking-snipers kill each other. ;) :D [​IMG]
     
  11. C.Evans

    C.Evans Expert

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2000
    Messages:
    25,883
    Likes Received:
    857
    Matt--no problem. Im a bit biased as well on US and German weapons.
    --------------------------------------------------

    I simply love the ones I have owned and or fired--they are the best that ww2 had to offer. I used to have three Enfields--good sturdy rifles Garand wins against the Enfield and Mauser--in my opinion. Mauser a close second--first had it been semi-auto.
    --------------------------------------------------
    I think any kind of rifle that makes you take some attention away every time because of having to work the bolt back and fourth, makes it less and less comparable to the Garand.

    I have a Garand--I can fire 8 quick and well-aimed shots at an enemy soldier who can only reply in kind with 1-2 shots if that, and providing he doesnt get killed by my 8 shots--as I am shooting at him. The Nagant also has a similar advantage over the Mauser and Enfield. Enfield, like the garand--has the advantage of a more powerful round and is therefore--at a slightly higher advantage than the Mauser--depending on who is behind the trigger.

    [ 17 July 2002, 04:07 PM: Message edited by: C.Evans ]
     
  12. mp38

    mp38 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2002
    Messages:
    178
    Likes Received:
    0
     
  13. Martin Bull

    Martin Bull Acting Wg. Cdr

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2002
    Messages:
    13,578
    Likes Received:
    1,487
    Location:
    London, England.
    Hmmm - one significant difference. The 'quarry' shoots back ! :eek: I guess that's when ten rounds over five comes in handy.....
     
  14. Jumbo_Wilson

    Jumbo_Wilson Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2002
    Messages:
    300
    Likes Received:
    2
    I seem to remember German WW1 comments that in 1914 they thought they were under machine gun fire because of the rate of fire the BEF threw out with the Lee-Enfield.

    It was an excellent bolt-action rifle, and if the Germans ever wondered why we went to war in 1939 with the same rifle we had in 1914 for once the answer was not penury: the thing worked.

    Friedrich: I never read anywhere it worked particularly badly in desert conditions. The slightly smaller calibre isn't really that big a problem, indeed as Vietnam experience showed larger calibres tended to go through the enemy, rather than stop him. Hence NATO reducing it's standard calibre to 5.65mm to get that tumbling effect.

    As for the Ross, god it was hated. The Home Guard got some in 1940 and some WW1 veterans knew what they were in for: awful weapon, collected dirt easily, pain to clean and awkward action.

    Is anyone going to make the case for the Mannlicher-Carcano or Mannlicher-Berthier?

    Jumbo
     
  15. panzergrenadiere

    panzergrenadiere Member

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2001
    Messages:
    506
    Likes Received:
    0
    My best friend has a G43. I've fired it before and I love it. I've also fired a garand and I think the G43 is better. Also no one has thrown the sturmgehwer into the discussion.
     
  16. Erich

    Erich Alte Hase

    Joined:
    May 13, 2001
    Messages:
    14,439
    Likes Received:
    617
    Good thread guys ! As to comparisons of several types of infantry rifles. One must also look at weather conditions, types of ammo used.....AP, ball, etc. Also the Wehrmacht by late 43 was realizing it was being out done in the matter of infantry rifle firepower and new concepts were on the drawign boards. The G 43/K-43 as example whcih has already been dealt with briefly as well as the rapid fire Sturmgewehr. My 1st Inf, Diviosn friends while on the Ost Front in Prussia in 45 would of given anything to have their assault parties equipped with more of the Stg 44 instead of an MP 40 or two and many karibiner 98's.
    Having only 1/2 Stg 44's was a bit disconcerting trying to defend old houses and then short brief ctirical counter attacks. One reason my waffenmeister friend made shure that his small assault unit had 4 mg 42's in hand and pleanty of Panzerfaust 100's to take on the T-34's and JS Stalin's. They did always mention that the K 98 never seemed to freeze up like other weapons. Easy to clean and strip in a matter of minutes.

    E
     
  17. Sniper

    Sniper Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2002
    Messages:
    291
    Likes Received:
    3
    Just caught this thread and thought I'd throw in my 2 cents worth.

    My brothers and I have owned and used all of the rifles you guys have been talking about.

    My favourite is the old K98. Mine was in near mint condition made in '43 at Oberndorf, and after the war used by the Israeli's. Amazingly, they missed removing all the eagle manufacturing stamps on my rifle (many K98's used by Israel had the stamps obliterated), and I loved it.

    We used to compete in military rifle competitions and having fired K98's, Lee-Enfields, Garands, Moisin Nagants, Springfields, Carcano's and even an Arisaka at various ranges and types of man targets, my favourite for accuracy, was always the K98, followed by the Lee-Enfield.

    I always found the K98 "fitted" into my hands easier. The Lee was a bit bulky for comfort. The Garand was fine as a semi auto, except you couldn't reload mid magazine, you had to wait until the clip was ejected before reloading.

    The Springield was a good rifle too, balanced like the K98, easy to handle. The Moisin Nagants, Carcano's and the Arisaka, were good solid rifles, accurate, but,I found slower to fire and reload than the K98 or Lee.

    And yes, I had a G43 (sniper) also, and a Tokarev semi auto. I loved the G43, it's only drawback was the extractor. Mine had the extractor but no extractor retaining pin. Had to have one made up and unfortunately it wasn't quite up to original standard. Every 10 shots the retaining pin would jump out, and so would the extractor. Pain in the you know what.

    The Tokarev was very accurate, but the ammo was disgusting. Russian ammo was very dirty and left a heap of junk in the barrel and receiver. So much so that after several shots, this russian semi-auto rifle turned full auto, and needed a good clean before returning to semi auto. I would not have wanted to go into combat with it, way too susceptible to dirt getting in the wrong places.

    Overall, the K98, despite it's 5 shot mag, proved to be the easiest rifle to handle, reload and shoot.

    Currently, I am on the look out for a K98 sniper, in good condition, in 7.92 calibre. Very hard to find, most K98's around (at least in Australia) seem to have been re-chambered for 7.62.

    As an aside to the smaller modern calibres. It's true, the modern calibre weapons are designed so that the bullet stops at it's target and doesn't go through. But, a friend of mine was a sniper with the Australian Army in Vietnam, and used to patrol with US forces occasionally. He has said that quite a few US soldiers were not happy that it took several shots from their M16's, with their smaller calibre, to stop a Viet Cong, where as my friend firing his SLR in 7.62 could stop them cold with one shot.

    Mind you his favourite story is the one were they ran into a VC ambush. Once they had the VC beaten and on the run he started to pick them off one at a time as the they across a rice paddy. There was one VC he fired at and who just kept running, so he fired again, and again, and again. Now, my friend was very good sniper, and couldn't understand why this particular VC wasn't being hit. Eventually the VC fell, after 5 shots, and my friend went over with the other soldiers to check it out. Turns out every shot had hit, it wasn't the VC running, it was the impact of the SLR's bullets pushing him along, that kept him moving.....

    There's something to be said about a heavy calibre. Give me a weapon that will stop the enemy first time.
     
  18. vonManstein39

    vonManstein39 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2002
    Messages:
    62
    Likes Received:
    0
    Agree about the k98 sights, they're a pig to use in poor light. Takes practice to work the bolt quickly - it can be done but you have to move your head slightly each time.

    I'm amazed that the German and British generals didn't press for the development of the automatic rifle between the wars. The M1 Garand is just so superior to the k98 and Lee Enfield. Both Britain and Germany make excellent guns, they could have done it if they had tried earlier.

    Having an automatic rifle when the enemy has a bolt-action model gives you the same kind of advantage that the Prussians had with the needle rifle over the Austrian muzzle-loaders in 1866 - you can fire two or three times as fast!

    Germany could have had the StG44 much earlier too.

    Unfortunately the American generals were so impressed with the Garand that they downplayed the need for light machine guns, and had too few of them, relying on the BAR at squad level for fire support. The German MG42 more than made up for the k98's deficiencies.
     
  19. vonManstein39

    vonManstein39 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2002
    Messages:
    62
    Likes Received:
    0
    Oh, Sniper, talking about large calibre weapons, have to come back with another Vietnam story, by a US Marine in '65.

    His platoon were being terrorised every night by what they called 'the boom-boom sniper'. The rounds fired by this guy didn't crack, they BOOMED! Bamboo was being cut down all over the place. Never hit anyone, but scared the hell out of the Marines.

    So they went after him one night. From a good position of hiding, they saw this NVA sniper raise this ENORMOUS rifle to his shoulder and fire it at very long range, and the recoil literally knocked the little guy off his feet. There was an officer with him and they just fell about laughing after each shot.

    The hidden Marines opened up and killed the two Vietnamese, before having to run for it back to their own lines. They took an expended shell from the sniper's rifle with them, and get this - it turned out to be from a Russian anti-tank rifle of approximately 14.5 mm calibre!

    The ultimate sniper weapon? ;) One hit from that would put a hole in a Marine you could shove a football through! If you could hit him, that is.

     
  20. Friedrich

    Friedrich Expert

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2002
    Messages:
    6,548
    Likes Received:
    52
    Well, we have discussed that a lot. That the K98 was used because it was fitted for support to the machine guns. Certainly, the German soldiers did not need semi automatic rifles with the average infantry tactics.
     

Share This Page