K98k or M1 Garand

Better of the two in my opinion would be the M1. However I've fired the K98 on several occasions and I enjoyed shooting it so I'd prefer that.

 

The K98 is a very accurate weapon, withouth a doubt. But hands down, the M1 wins this argument.

 

M1 Garand personally. Easy reload and much faster than a bolt-action.

 

No doubt about it-- the Garand!

re: M1 vs. G43
The Garand still wins this one. The G43 still had many bugs to fix. It was intended to fully replace the K98k. Hitler loved any new design that still fired 7.92x57. He actually told Goering that the victorious post-ww2 German forces would all be armed with the FG42. That is another reason the MKb42 program was drawn out. Whenever he would come close to approving the switch to 7.92k, a new 7.92x57 firing rifle would be shoved in his hands.

Production problems and technical deficiencies are the reason G43 numbers are so small. The end result was for one to be issued per squad. Guderian issued an order in Oct '44 allowing local commanders to pool them all into a platoon for use as tactical reserves. This helped offset the lack of manpower with firepower.

 

Or another question raised about comparable weapons: which bolt-action service rifle between the Mauser Kar98k and the M1903 Springfield is better? I'd have readily voted for the Springfield M1903, which was an excellent bolt-action service rifle, and is still a great sporting arm. Bolt-action magazine rifles (for sporting shooting) still hold a fascination for me.

 

for mobillity and fire rate i would go for m1 garand but for fire power and lightness i would go for k98k

 

I thought mobillity of a weapon is the lightness.Or do I get it wrong?
But in the field the garand is better because it holds more rounds and fires faster.The K98K is better as a sniper because of the accuracy and also as a hunting rifle because reload speed and RoF isn't that important for hunting and the accuracy bonus is a bit important.

(sorry if my English isn't the best)

 

Kind of but it is also how easy it is to use.

 

The K98 is a fantastic hunting rifle. I have used one with some success the last few years hunting white tail deer. The M1 is a superior weapon though.

 

I think that it is unfair to compare such an old rifle at the time with a very new design at the time, in addition to the bolt-action vs. semi-automatic, but I would choose an M1 Garand if it was actually for fighting wars, and a K98 for personal ownership.

 

Tommy, as fas as personal ownership, buy both!!

 

Many snipers rather take bolt and some rather take semi-automatic.

Even the US Army snipers gave up an M-14 semi-automatic derivative in favor of a bolt action.

 

Isn't the Springfield a derivative of the Mauser? Is there as great a difference? To be honest, I've never seen any one of the two in reality.

 

Yes, the idea for the springfield was inspired by the mauser. however, it is not an exact copy.

The Americans built the Springfield as a response to the introduction of Bolt-Action, repeating rifles used by the Spanish during the Spanish American war (the Spanish were using the Mauser). So although it is not a copy, it was largely influenced by the mauser, mainly in the bolt-action design because it was so new at the time.

 

The M1 is a better weapon on paper, however, the K78k killed about 50 times more people. So I stay with the K78k.

 

That's absurd. By the same logic, you'd prefer a French Lebel to a nuclear bomb.

 

The main reason why the K-98 killed more people is because of the nazi's war crimes. The M1 Garand in combat was MUCH better.

 

Actually the Springfield Armory paid royalties to the Mauser firm as many parts of the receiver were direct license built copies of the Mauser designs. I'll have to do some searching, but I have the list and the amounts saved in some file somewhere.

It was in 1900 with the US government owned Springfield armory which was tasked with building a new rifle for the infantry. This was to replace the Krag-Jorgensen design which had been shown inferior to the Mausers in the Spanish/American war. So, based on the battle-proven Mauser design, Springfield entered into negotiations with the Mauser company and finally acquired the rights for the excellent Mauser bolt action for a license payment of USD $200,000 which was quite a sum at the time, and royalties on each unit produced.

They also had to pay for the reloading system which was as revolutionary as the action itself. The five-round stripper clip charger made reloading the magazine something that was done in about the same time as one could load just one round at a time. The US government continued to pay these royalties up until the outbreak of WW1.

 

I didn't know this. Thanks for the info

The British, on the other hand, made the Lee-Enfield No.4 rifle just in time for the Boer war, and British troops hated it. The British were about to design another mauser-inspired rifle before WWI broke out. So they had no choice but to issue the troops the Lee Enfield.

I've wondered: why did the British soldiers love the Enfield in WWI, but hate it in the Boer War? Was it because of the climate?

 

The rifle was actually the Mark 1 in the Boer War, and was slightly altered between those two conflicts, becoming the Mark 1 (SMLE) in WW1, and I wouldn't doubt it was due to "battlefield input" data. It didn't become the No.4 until WW2.

In 1887 the British Arms Committee recommended the adoption of the Lee bolt action magazine rifle with a reduced calibre. The thoroughness of this Committee's work is exemplified by the fact that Lee's action and magazine, with only one minor modification, proved completely adequate from the South African War until well after World War Two. The Lee Enfield magazine rifle Mk 1 (1895) was used during the Boer War and, as a result of this experience, it was shortened and modified in minor ways and re-issued in 1902 as the short magazine Lee Enfield Rifle No 1 (SMLE). It remained virtually unaltered for 40 years and had the fastest bolt action of any bolt action rifle of its type.

Just prior to World War Two further modifications were made, mainly to the stocking and sighting arrangements and it became known as the No 4 Rifle; a shortened pattern, designated the No 5 Rifle, was produced and used for jungle warfare.

See:

REME Technical Notes on Weapons Collection - Rifles


Here are a couple of the differences I could find on just a quick look, the rifle was shortened in overall length from 1,260 mm (49.6 inches) to 1,129 mm (44.45 inches), and lightened slightly from 4.19 kg (9.24 lbs) to 4.11 kgs (9.06 lbs). The British also eliminated the bothersome "dust cover" which was attached to the bolt on the old "long" version of the Boer War, and also added guides for the charger clips to follow into the magazine.