Kar98k vs Mosin Nagant

I would go with the k-98 cause the mosin nagants action is pretty tough to work personal firing experience but the mosin nagant has a small amount of recoil depending on how tight you hug it into your shoulder so either ones good

 

According to a firearms afcinoado, Mossin-Nagant's irons are a bit crude, action stiffer than the Mauser, and the bolt was not as durable. Combined with poor Russian gunpowder, I doubt Mossin-Nagant will be more accurate than Mauser. That is not to say that individual Mossin-Nagant rifles would not outshoot some Mausers, as manufacturing variances is natural in any machine. If my recall is correct, sniper rifles were often hand-picked specimen from a lot of rifles.

They say that Tsarist Mossin-Nagant's quality of craftsmanship was much better than the later M44 carbines manufactured at wartime.

 

well since the mosin nagant was introduced in 1891 they had a lot of time to kill and get there weapons made better thats probably why the m44s made later in the war looked more crudely because they needed to be made more quickly.

 

When The Japs made the "Emerceny" versoins of their rifles towards the end the were as likly to explode in you hand as fire.

That said I would think that the KAr 98 would be of higher class of constant quality then the Nagant's also I would want my gun jaming in a fire fight

 

Kar98K for me...... With the Mosin it's.... hard to pull the trigger.... It is hard to work the bolt.... and the safety is a bear (that is why I chose the K98K).

 

well also the karabiner 98 k using the 7.92 kurz cartridge was a better because it had a smoother action and the safety was better the bayonet could double as a standard combat knife the cartridge had good stopping power and was better made and probably more accurate now and also the kar 98 k had a grenade cup that you could use the mosin nagant was very crudely made and used the 7.62x54 rimmed cartridge and I hate this rifle personally cause it sucks but is reliable but it,s bolt has some sharp edges providing a hazard for the user the action is hard to open the safety was not that great and the barrel could overheat and since the russians were kamikaze and there rifles usually ended up burried and that prompted the manufacture of even more mosin nagants and this just wasted materials that could have been used on something else like tanks but like i said I hate mosin nagants but being fully said I would prefer the karabiner 98 k for reliability knockdown power and having a grenade launcher of it,s own and it is really accurate in my point of view the score is k98 10 mosin nagant 0 so there you go that,s my full opinon of which rifle I like better .

 

Personally over iron sights I always shoot better with the Nagant then the K-98. The Mauser is though better made. As for Russians using AT Rifles that is something from Call of Duty 5 one of the many reasons that game disappointed me so.

 

don,t rely on videos games for information cause most of the time they are not right

 

It is interesting to note, though, that Sloniskp saw an documentary that claims the Russians built better rifle scopes, because I have myself heard from someone who handled a WWII era SVT and was very impressed with the crispness of the optics on the gun.

If they could build great riflescopes, than there is no reason that their tank gun sights would be inferior after they get past the bullet-proof optics nonsense. As a side note, according to Larry Vickers who was a US SF veteran and one of the best gunsmiths in America, he finds that in his experience, not even the best marksman can shoot better than half of his weapon's accuracy potential in a gunfight. It is not surprising at all that sniper shots were taken at a range of 200-300 meters in Stalingrad, and now I have little doubt that this relative short range is the norm of sniper combat in relatively well urbanized and reasonably variable terrain.

 

yeah but russia did,nt have a huge break out effort they just fought little wussy battles until they could break themselves out

 

I think it has been discussed on the forums before that for operation Foxley (an assassination attempt on Hitler's life that was never carried out) the Mauser would have been the chosen weapon to take the shot. Seeing as how the allies would have had their choice of the best sniping technology during the period, and chose their enemy's weapon, I would say that is a testament to the quality and performance of the Kar 98.

...Honestly if you cant find a better weapon to kill Hitler than the one HE carried during the first World War.

If its good enough for the allies... Mauser beats all.


Also as for the TV program Sloniskp is referring to... I saw the same program and was very interested. However i don't think the number of shots required to sight in your rifle would be very critical in a combat situation. A trained sniper would be going into battle with his rifle sighted precisely to his own standards and had plenty of practice with it. His first shot would probably be as accurate as any other.

 

I believe that Discovery channel program stated that the system that the Soviets used to zero the rifle was faster than the German system. It was also noted that it was easier to correct for windage and elevation with the Soviet scope. I do not believe they stated which optic actually had higher quality.

In my own experience I own a BNZ 41 Kar98k and a 91/30 Mosin and the Mauser is generally a better shooter. The Soviets aren't one for creature comforts although I do like my AKs far better than my ARs. I can easily get 10" groups with irons at 350-400 yards with the Mauser using crappy 50s Yugo 8mm. The Mosin probably would do the same but I just can't get into the rifle as well.

 

I have both the Mosin Nagants (Carbine and long barrel) and a K98. The Nagant's bolt is always 'stickier' than the K98. Often you have to 'bang it' upwards rather than simply lift it.

The over all length of the Nagant is a problem (let alone with the bayonet fixed!).

As for the arguments about effective range - do 30 push ups before firing to simulate physical fatigue and fear, then shoot. You are lucky to hit anything beyond about 250 meters!

The SVT-40 is more pleasent to shoot than all of them.

 

I have a Mosin Nagant M44 carbine.

 

They were both worthless since at this point, both sides had completely ignored advances in rifle tech. There is only one army that fielded a decent rifle in 1941 and that was the USA. The Garand served for 20 years with few complaints and if the Germans had started the war with such a rifle, history might have been different. argue what you will, a semi auto beats a bolt action every single time.

 

What about the SVT-40? What about the Gewahr 43? What about the STG44?

There is only one army that fielded a decent rifle in 1941 and that was the USA



We were not even in the war in 1941... BTW, if the US had the M1 when the war started...Then why were we still using Springfields in Bataan?..

 

We (America) had started producing the Garand, but had not as yet fully supplied the standing army with them. The production eventually caught up with the need, and as the armed forces grew even more they gradually replaced most of the bolt action Springfields (execpt the sniper's choice). The USMC (being always on the far end of the supply chain) was the last to replace their Springfields with Garands. They (the upper levels) even complained about doing that, while I believe the "mud marine" on the line appreciated the semi-auto over the bolt.

The M1 was adopted well before WW2 broke out, but had not yet produced enough of them for the troops when we did become involved.

The inventor John C. Garand (Canadian, then living in USA) began to develop a semi-automatic (or self-loading) rifles. He worked at the government-owned Springfield armory and during the 1920s and early 1930 developed a number of designs. Early rifles were built using somewhat rare system of the cartridge primer blowback, but due to some reasons this system was unsuitable for a military rifle, so he switched to the more common gas-operated system. He filed a patent for his semiautomatic, gas operated, clip-fed rifle in 1930, and received an US patent for his design late in 1932. This rifle was built around then-experimental .276 caliber (7mm) cartridge. At the same time, his rifle was tested by the US Military against its main competitor, a .276 caliber Pedersen rifle, and was eventually recommended for adoption by US Army early in the 1932. But a little bit later, US general MacArthur stated that the US Military should stick to the old .30-06 cartridge. Foreseeing that, Garand already had a variation of his design chambered for 30-06. Finally, at the 6th January, 1936, the Garands' rifle was adopted by the US Army as an "rifle, .30 caliber, M1". Early issue rifles, however, showed a quite poor characteristics, jamming way too often for a decent military arm, so a lot of noise was raised that eventually reached the US Congress. In the 1939, the major redesign was ordered, and Garand quickly redesigned a gas port system, which greatly improved the reliability. Almost all M1 rifles of the early issue were quickly rebuilt to adopt a new gas system, so very few "original" M1 Garand rifles survived to present days, and those are extremely expensive collectors items. When the USA entered the World War 2, the mass production of the M1 rifles was set at the Springfield armory and at the Winchester. During the war, both companies developed about 4 millions of M1 rifles, so M1 Garand is a most widely used semi-automatic rifle of the World War 2.

See:

http://world.guns.ru/rifle/rfl05-e.htm

 

Marc870, is that crickets I hear?

 

What was the first battle that the M1 was used in?

 

Why would you want a mosin or a k98 if you can get a barret m95 nowadays it crushes both rifles in every way...