K98k or M1 Garand

not nessasarly

 

A range advantage? The Germans themselves decided that maximum effective infantry combat range was something like 300-400 yards. Both the K98 and the M-1 Garand cartridges exceeded that by several hundred yards. There was no effective "range advantage" for either weapon; both were over-powered.

 

The M-1 Garand is not significantly less powerful than the German K98; in fact both were over-powered as far as infantry rifles were concerned. There was nothing wrong with the Garand en-bloc magazine system, except not being able to easily top off a partially depleted magazine with single rounds.

I don't know what "higher fire" means, but as an advantage it sounds spurious. The K98 reloaded, as did almost every Mauser bolt action rifle, from 5-round stripper clips and was not "slow to reload". It could be reloaded as quickly as the Garand.

 

Do you have any sort of authority to back up this rather odd statement? The action type of a firearm has absolutely no effect on the "stopping power" of a cartridge. Bullet design and construction, weight, initial velocity, and ballistic co-efficient do. Geez!

 

M1 - Garand...

 

Even though the K98 has a slight advantage in weight (.5-1 lb) I chose the M1 Garand because of a larger mag, and faster rate of fire, despite the flaws soldiers commonly complained about (jamming fingers, seventh round ejection of clip in rain, unable to top off etc.)
Imagine the worth of this service rifle had they been able to successfully mount the BAR clip to it.
Just one of many opinions.

 

Mike,

I have seen two Garands, one a "tanker" version and the other a Navy .308, both of which were successfully converted o use larger box magazines. The "tanker" had been modified to take a BAR magazine and the Navy Garand used an M-14 magazine. So it is possible for these conversions to be made to work. I believe the reason the US Army didn't try to convert the M-1 in such a manner during WW II is because it was considered an advantage to have the magazine not extend below the line of the bottom of the stock. This allows the gun to be fired effectively by a man who is lying flat on the ground. An extended magazine requires the shooter to rise up a few inches off the ground, something not recommended in many combat situations.

 

Thanks DA. The extended Mag while lying on the ground was not somthing I had considered, however I had read that one of the major reseons the convertion was scrapped was that the reciever needed a complete redesign.

 

That may have had a bearing on the issue. The converted Garands I examined had what looked like standard Garand receivers with the floor plates cut out to accept the box magazines. It may be that the Army felt this weakened the receivers to an unacceptable degree. I don't know how much these converted Garands had been fired, if at all, but the actions seemed to function normally.

I do know that in the late 1930's, magazine capacity had not assumed the relative importance it enjoys today. The various Mauser military rifles, including the Springfield '03, got along nicely with a five round magazine. Enfields generally had ten round magazines, but this was considered unnecessary (and wasteful) in many militaries. It was still the practice in the US Army (and Marine Corps) to train soldiers to deliver aimed fire in most combat situations. It wasn't until selective fire weapons began to become the norm in the late '50's and early '60's, that large magazines gained in popularity.

 

i am not him , but i can back that statement he made, the 98k has all of the power going to the bullet , where the m1 garand has to use some of those gasses to expell the round and chamber another, therefore the mauser 98k is "technicly" more powerful.

 

ok, then say you were using the 1903 springfield or the m1garand what would you pick then?

 

If you stop to think about it, the M1 Garand was an excellent gun, but it was impractical in the field because repairs were complex and time consuming, the bolt action K98 was a simple field repair gun. Just for purpose of illustration, let's assume that the bolt on a Garand and a K98 break both at the same time. The Garand would require a full strip down of the action and removal of the bolt from the bolt carrier, then a replacement would have to be found and the gun would have to be rebuilt, an operation that could take up to 30 minutes or more during which the soldier would be vulnerable to any enemy attacks. The K98 would simply need the bolt pulled off, and a new one slid in, a 5 minute operation at the longest. So for basic field repair capability, I'd say the K98 would win, although it would be much simpler to just grab a different rifle, but it's still worth being able to repair the gun just in case no others can be found. For shot power, the guns are about even actually (the M1 gets better muzzle velocity, but the K98 actually makes a bigger hole) although much also depends on the individual gun and the state of wear/ presence of manufacturers defects. For fire rate, the M1 wins without question. Accuracy, I have to give the prize to the K98, because its range is a little more than double that of the M1, and almost quadruple with a scope mounted. For versatility, I have to say the M1 has it, because it can technically be engineered with selective fire (yes it's possible, even though no kits exist to do it... so it would take a rather talented gunsmith and some heavy modification). Having said all that, it's really down to the individual to decide which one suits them better. For me, I like the K98 a bit better because semi-auto rifles always tempt me to shoot as fast as I can...

 

If you really knew anything about the M-! Garand, or gas operated weapons in general, you'd know that the amount of gas siphoned off to operate the action is so minuscule that it has practically no effect on the velocity of the projectile. In addition, the gas port on the Garand is so close to the muzzle that by the time a significant amount of gas has begun to bleed into the gas port, the projectile has already exited the barrel of the gun, so there is no effective drop in gas pressure as far as the velocity of the bullet is concerned.

As others have pointed out, it is the muzzle energy (determined by the velocity and weight of the bullet) which determines stopping power, NOT whether the action of the gun is bolt or semi-auto. Using standard military cartridges, the K98 is actually a tad less powerful than the M-1 Garand. This does bring up one small, insignificant advantage of a bolt action rifle; being manually operated, they are generally more tolerant of variations in cartridge loadings, being able to function well with more or less powder and lighter or heavier projectiles. In a military context, this is pretty much irrelevant.

 

This is an argument I have never seen made in reference to the M-1 Garand, but in terms of actual field use of both guns, the parts that were likely to break on either weapon were not the kind that could be repaired in the field. Roy Dunlap, an ordnance sergeant who spent WW II repairing both US and Axis small arms, and wrote a book about his experiences called "Ordnance Went Up Front" mentioned several repair procedures for both types of rifle and claimed that the M-1 Garand, though more complex, was actually more reliable than the K-98. Neither army made a habit of carrying spare parts for either rifle because breakage was so rare that it would have been a waste of time. What was a common cause of wear or breakage was failure to properly clean the rifle and the most common repair was replacement of a pitted or worn out barrel. In 1944, when Dunlap was assigned to go ashore with an assault echelon in the Philippines, he could have chosen any weapon he wanted to carry; he chose a Springfield '03 because he liked the sights and he claimed it required less cleaning than the M-1 Garand.

I sure would be interested in seeing some factual data to support that statement because I don't think it is anywhere near the truth. The effective range, by that I mean the range at which a trained soldier could utilize the accuracy potential of either rifle, is about the same; 300-400 yards. Both rifles have the accuracy potential to consistently hit targets beyond 1,000 yards, but scope-equipped or not, it is a very rare soldier who has the skill (and training) to actually do so. The idea that the K-98 is more "accurate" than the M-1 Garand at any range is nothing more than a fantasy.

Selective fire? In an M-1 Garand with an eight-round magazine? LOL! I doubt the US Army ever considered such a ludicrous idea. Have you ever seen an M-1 Garand modified for selective fire? Can you cite an authority who claims the M-1 Garand was a candidate for selective fire? The US already had the BAR which fired the same cartridge as the M-1, and in it's original version, featured selective fire. The Army actually removed that capability from the BAR version manufactured during WW II to simplify production. Selective fire in a weapon as light as the M-! Garand would have been of very questionable practicality.

 

If the question modified to the M1 Garand and the 1903 Springfield, that depends I suppose on your duty. If you are a ground pounder "more fire laid down" is preferable. If you are a sniper, then accuracy and placed shots at distance, rather than number of shots would be the query.

The 2740 muzzle velocity on the 1903 Springfield is from shooting the round developed for it in ’06. That went out of a 24 inch barrel (same as the Garand), and used a modified Mauser action in the receiver (built under license I believe), using a pointed (Sptizer) 150-grain bullet rather than the 220 grain round nosed full metal jacket bullet of the 1903 original.

Its rifle twist is 1 in 10 " (same as the Garand), and some made during the war years had two rather than four grooves for faster/cheaper production runs. It weighted 8.6 pounds, loaded. Oddly enough when issued in 1906 the rimless cartridge held a 150-grain spitzer, flat-base cupronickel jacketed bullet with 2700 fps muzzle velocity. Then in 1926, to improve machine gun effective range, the bullet was replaced by a 172-grain 9-degree boattail design with the same 2700 fps at the muzzle, this was designated the "Ball, caliber 30, M1."

The velocity was reduced for a time to 2640 fps, but in 1938, as the gas-operated Garand came into service, the specs returned to the flat-base 150-grain loading, now called the "Ball, caliber 30, M2" round. This ended up being the most used "standard" round, i.e. not armor piercing, not tracer. So, I believe it gets down to application and need rather than "this is better than that"

If one compared the 98k to the 1903 Springfield in WW2, the 98k had a slightly shorter barrel, at 23.6 (or .4, I’ve seen both numbers) inches, but still managed to pump out its round at a respectable 2500 (2470) fps with a projectile weight of 197.5 grains in standard military issue. The unit itself also weighted 8.6 pounds, loaded.

All old military Mauser 98-type rifles, in 8 x 57mm, were rifled at one turn in 240 mm (which is 1 in 9.45") using four grooves. As such, they tend to shoot bullets from 180- 200 grains very, very accurately at amazing distances, but so could the 1903.


It would seen to myself that comparing and contrasting these two battle rifles would be like asking; "how do you like your eggs? Sunny side up or over-easy?"

 

Both rifles fire 170 to 190 grain bullets at a muzzle velocity of about 2700 fps. Both use a jacketed boattail bullet design. So, ballistically both are virtually identical in performance.
Within the context of WW 2 the K 98 would have been a poorer performer because of its round. The Germans were short on lead and copper. They substituted steel and gilt metal (a tin compound) for small arms ammunition. This makes their bullets much lighter (in the range of about 150 grains) than Allied equivalents. They also began to run short of powder as the war progressed so they cut the amount per round down by a small amount lowering muzzle velocity.
So, if you are using German wartime munitions in a K 98 you are firing a 150 grain (or lighter) round on less powder at roughly 2500 fps muzzle velocity (there is some variation here depending on who made the rounds of course).
What this equates to on a firing range is that at 100 yards the German round is now performing at the equivalent of roughly 200 yards against the full power full weight round.
Even powder variations, common to German ammunition, has an effect. One batch will not perform equally to another. The Germans also commonly mixed batches and remixed / remanufactured powder making its performance more variable too. They really had little choice. They had to use what they had and could get as they were short on resources.
Oh, there is also the little problem with steel cartridges. The Germans went to these instead of brass for small arms due to the same problem. In hot guns these can jam in the breech when they fire and slightly expand due to being similar metal to the breech itself (why brass was chosen for cartridges among other reasons).
In terms of WW 2, which is where and when we are discussing things on this board for the most part, the K 98 has alot of problems.

 

i am out of this thread after all of these post about how the m1garand was better than the mauser in every way posible, i think it has to do with Nationalitly at most , i have backed up all my post in this thread so cya.

 

The supporting data in your posts consists entirely of your not-very-well-informed opinions.

Of course, almost everybody who has any experience with both weapons would consider the Garand a better rifle than the '98 Mauser. The design of the Garand was almost forty years later than the Mauser; if you didn't want to hear the Garand was better, you shouldn't have asked the question.