m1 vs. k98 | Forums

[Ermac2008]

I've fired a M1 garand and they are just as accurate as any bolt action from that time. The 8 rounds plus semi automatic fire does make them superior to any bolt action at the time. And in the heat of combat I doubt you would hear the ping sound. So don't listen to any of these idiots who have no idea what they are talking about.

[M1_Maniac]

Having fired an M1 doesn't mean you can compare them to any bolt action at the time. If you want to make that statement, give us some actual tests that you have done to compare them.

(Ex: Go to a range, sight in an m1 garand and a k98 on 200 yards and compare groupings.)

Not trying to bash, I just don't think your statement has any concrete evidence.

-M1

[Ermac2008]

While I haven't fired a K98, I have fired a Springfield and the grouping on that was nearly the same as the M1 Garand. And I even found the M1 garand to have better grouping then a Mosin Nagant.

[thereddbaron]

To continue this current debate on wich rifle is better or not. i have here a youtube video that explains the best in the bolt-action rifles the K98 and the SMLE.

Lee Enfield SMLE and Mauser K98k compared
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5tyA645k4k

[JunoAssualt]

I prefer the Karabiner 98k over the M1 Garand because it's more accurate and packs a greater punch, and even though it is a slower firing rifle the way the basic german unit was made up helped to make up for its lack of a highrate of fire by placing a few men with the MachinePistole 40 and possibly and MG-42 into the mix

[dscottw88]

Originally posted by AMC_Pace:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Dori1234: the m1 must be far superior to a k98 because its semi automatic

in what way could it be "FAR" superior?
1. in a 1 vs 1 used on what distance?
ie. long range: the K98 can shot you a precise 3rd nosehole at a range of almost 1 mile so when you come along with your c rappy m1 your dead before you have even seen where it would have been coming from.

2. if the K98 would have been in anyway bad the germans would not have owned all nations in ww2 till 42 (in the begin of ww2 the K98 was the standart for the german soldier). ie the Brits which where useing the semiautomatic Rifle "enfield"

3. in a modern combat?
both guns would be more then useless, modern combat distance is about 50 - 150m Meters/ 55 - 164 Yards and fast paced. Both guns do not fullfil in anyway those needs. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

First of all, No K98 was accurate enough to give a 3rd nosehole at 1 mile. Thats an overstatement. Accurate enough to hit a torso-sized target out at 800 yards? Sure, if you had good enough ammo. All of it at the time was corrosive though, and left some accuracy to be desired.

Secondly, The M1 Garands Peep Sights are much easier for novice and experienced shooters to use than com-bloc style open leaf sights.

Thirdly, K98s were seeing extensive service as early as 1934.

Fourthly, The brits .303 Enfield was not Semi-Automatic. It was bolt action design that could be manipulated faster due to the bolts location next to the shooters hand.

And last of all, even a broken clock is right twice a day, Most engagements are well within 300 Yards. But recent engagements in Iraq and elsewhere in the Middle East show that our marine's are scoring many many kills out at 500 yards with their stock M16A4s. This is only helped by the Marines training, which includes qualification with irons at 500 yards, no optic included.

[dscottw88]

Originally posted by Raccoon_2:
)The Karabiner 98K has a bigge rpunch than the M1 Garand. There is no way you can ever find one of the 2 superior over the other.

There is actually one thing that makes the Garand better (superior has no place in this discusion anymore (imo) ): the Garand can be used for about 10 days in dusty, shallowed, difficult terrain without cleaning the interior of the rifle. (Maybe this info is wrong, I learned it form sombody else .)

The Karabiner is bolt action, yes, but the Garand had to be replaced in the 50's because of the 'ping'sound which betrayed his owner . BTW: The governement siad this, we all know there is no continuous ping, many times yuou don't hear it because of the others who fire.

I only prefer he K98K because it's German and ..... it is beautifull (which is actually the same for the Garand in my opinion )

The 7.62x63 and 8mm Mauser are on par when it comes to kenetic energy contained. Nobody will tell a difference when hit in the chest at any range.

Also, The garand had to be cleaned at least every other day when in use, just like the K98, both riflees used corrosive ammunition which, if left dirty, would let the salty residue eat away at the bolt face, chamber, and barrel resulting in pitting. This would result in your rifle not being able to hit the broad side of a barn while inside it.

The garand was officially replaced in the 1950s, but it was also unofficially in service half way through vietnam side by side with M14s, and M16s.

[dscottw88]

Originally posted by Dori1234:
I mean like a squad with all k98's and a sqaud with all m1's fighting to the death

1.an m1 rifle was very accurate but just not quite as accurate as a k98 becuase of it being semi automatic... but personally Id pick a semi auto over a little less accuracy.

2.The enfield was not semi automatic and the germans never in the course of the war "owned" the british,they never blitzkrieged the united kingdom. all they did was send v1's and v2's (1944)

3. I can see the k98 being useless in modern warfare but the army and the marines use the m1 garand in some cases still today heres a pic... I talked to the guy holding the m1 about it

http://img131.imageshack.us/img131/3108/m15ek.jpg

http://img131.imageshack.us/img131/3...055225l7gz.jpg

4.It wasn't really due to the k98 that the germans "owned" (blitzkrieged) Europe in 42' it was more due to suprise,superior manpower,tanks,and fast paced

That man is holding an M14. A cousin of the M1 Garand chambered for 7.62x51 instead of 7.62x63. The M14 is full auto, and also took detachable 20 round magazines. It is used today by some of our troops as a DMR, or Designated Marksman Rifle.

[dscottw88]

Originally posted by Dori1234:
The m1 has a bigger round, bigger punch and a bigger bullet.Have any of you watched black hawk down or read the book? Well the one of the two sniper rifles they were using was an m1 garand, They say the m1 has a perfect caliber projectile with a perfect FPS, Because the m1 fired at a human at distant ranges will lodge in the chest, torso, leg, whatever. Meaning it will go straighthrough there body, the bullet will penetrate and puncture vital organs and be left in the body, some of the other bolt action rifles on the market (excluding a k98) will penetrate right through and leave an exit wound, leaving the soldiers still charging at you with bayonet at hand, (bigger rounds). Now the k98's problem is the shell and the bolt action mechanism. Personally If you want a good squad level in WWII it would be the fast cycling m1 garand. if you want a good medium range sniper rifle it would be a fast cycling yet extremely accurate m1 garand. Its all around a good weapon (excluding weight haha).

And I was right about the blitzkrieging, sure if the Wearchment didn't have a weapon at all they wouldn't have taken all those countries but they wouldn't have tried tanking over all those countries without weapons that just stupid, are they gonna throw rocks? lol. that takes the rifle out of the category it was due to :

*suprise
*superior manpower
*tanks
* and a fast paced assualt

Again, Incorrect, that gentlemen in BHD used a M14, And although the M1's 30-06 had a longer case, the bullet's diameter was only 7.62, smaller than the 8MM mauser's 7.92mm Bullet.

Also, The heavier full-size rounds such as 7.62 NATO, 30-06, 8MM mauser, 7.62x54 and 7.7 Jap would generally pass straight through body tissue. Effective.

But today's 5.56 NATO fragments on impact and thats what makes it lethal. A 5.56 round will almost literally explode depending on what range it impacts the target resulting in tremendous wound damage. Very Effective.

[kalski]

Originally posted by AMC_Pace:
<LI> all others had tanks too (France double amount then germany), just not as good as the germans, well nothing germany to blame for, only the polnish, dutch, french, soviet engineers.

It is true that in 1939 the Polish Army was ill equipped to deal with the Germans and modern warfare. The Polish still had mounted cavalry as did the Soviets.

As fot the French. You are correct in the fact that they had superior numbers of armored vehicles. However you are incorrect with the assumption that they were inferior to the German AFVs. The French armor was far better than what the Germans had. The PzIII's 37mm gun was no match for any French armor sans the armored cars. The Chech 37mm was far superior to the German variation and that is one reason why the Germans adopted it. (Pz38(t) specifically)However it still had trouble penetrating the French Armor at ranges over 500m.

The problem with the French at that time was their reliance on the Maginot Line and having spread out all their armored forces along that same line. The Germans had concentrated forces coming though Belgium and they overwhelmed the spread out French.