German Infantry weapons of WW2

[TwoRivers]

Have we forgotten that the Mauser's recoil lug is bedded against a steel crossbolt, or that the action is bedded with stock bushings ("pillar bedding", now all the rage), so that the thumb cut is of no consequence ?

The Germans used captured Russian sniper rifles not because they were better than their own, but because there weren't any German sniper rifles at the beginning of the war. Only after meeting the Russian sniper did the Germans set up a sniper program. The lessons from WWI had been forgotten. They then experimented with special dedicated rifles and cartridges using the Finnish 7.62mm bullet, but then discarded the idea, as these would have required a magnum action; and the report differing from that of the K98 would immediately give away the sniper.

The small long-eye relief scope sight was never intended for a sniper rifle, but was actually intended for general issue, though never produced in numbers sufficient for that. The whole rifle-carrying squad was intended to be "dedicated marksmen".

The number of Belgian barrels for Finnish M39 rifles was 20,000 according to one source. A gift from Hitler to Mannerheim. The Finns earlier also used barrels supplied by SIG in Switzerland, before setting up their own barrel production.

[timmy]

No, I haven't forgotten that. However, I would add that the Mosin Nagant's recoil lug is more substantial and also has a steel crossbolt in the stock.

Also, the metal sleeve between the M98 receiver tang, like that on the M1903 Springfield, does space the magazine from the receiver positively, but that sleeve is not glass bedded into the stock, so it does not act like a true pillar in a pillar bedding system. Sometimes, that sleeve can be pushed out and other times it cannot. So it does not positively position the receiver in the stock like true pillar bedding, it just keeps the top of the magazine from contacting the bottom of the receiver (which causes poor accuracy).

I would also add that the thumb cut is of quite a consequence, because the Mauser stock is not a very sturdy support between the guard screws. The Mauser magazine is a double stack magazine and it leaves very little wood on the sides of the magazine to resist bending. On the other hand, the Mosin Nagant single stack magazine leaves a lot of wood on either side of the magazine, making the stock much stronger. The small magazine cut in the receiver and stock allows a generous flat surface between stock and receiver from behind the recoil lug to the trigger. This flat surface makes a thick rail all the way across the bottom of the receiver.

The thumb cut in the M98 military action is one of its weak points. While the M98 action is very strong and safe, and offers excellent protection to the shooter from gasses resulting from pierced primers or failed cases (no other action offers this level of gas protection) it is not very stiff. The Mosin Nagant's receiver stiffness is what allowed the Finns to hang heavier barrels on it to good effect.

For whatever the traits of the M98 military rifle were, the fact remains that it was not particularly adept at maintaining a good zero, due to insufficient bedding. While many have criticized the M1903 Springfield for making the M98 design worse with "improvements" (and I have been one of them), one real improvement of the M1903 was a better underside of the receiver for bedding, a larger area on the recoil lug, and a stock that was of more substantial dimensions for stiffness around the magazine. The result of this is the well-known fact that a M1903 will shoot rings around a M98 all day long. The M1903 is known for accuracy, while the M98 is not.

One personal complaint about M98s that will not be shared by all: They are made for small people. (In this, they are similar to the Swiss K31). For a larger person like myself, I have found them MISERABLE to shoot, especially from the bench. A Mosin Nagant stock is sized much better for me, and the Finn M39 stock with pistol grip is just about perfect for my tastes.

[Vikram]

Also, Kar98 to is an excellent sniper weapon, but it failed against the Mosin Nagant of soviet union because the mosin had an upper hand in zeroing compared to the kar98. The mosin took some 3 rounds to to be zeroed and the kar98 took 5 rounds. Also, to calibrate the scope of mosin it was very easy compared to kar98. This gave an upper hand to the snipers in stalingrad against the nazis.
Thanks XL for share...enjoyed

It does not seem that you have a notion what the terms to "zero" a rifle, or to "calibrate" a scope mean. Your statement makes no sense at all. Your knowledge of the matter appears to come from movies.

I believe the gentleman was referring to the video aired by the History Channel. While analysing why Germans lost at Stalingrad, the curator of weapons at the Royal Armouries Leeds, Martin Pegler compares the sniper rifles used by the Germans and the Russians.I think INSAS556 was referring to this.

[youtube][/youtube]

INSAS, what you wrote needs to be taken in the context of how they were used in that theatre, and not on the inherent capabilities of the K98 and the Mosin-Nagant.It is just that the Soviets had a simpler yet effective zeroing system in place. That does not mean that the K98 is less accurate than the latter.

Best-
Vikram

[TwoRivers]

I would have to say that Martin Pegler is a moron who watched to many Hollywood movies where the sniper looks through his scope, makes some adjustments, repeats, and then proceeds to nail the enemy sniper between the eyes and drops him out of his hide in the palm tree.

The simple point is, the sniper does not "zero" his rifle while on a sniping mission. His rifle is zeroed beforehand, and the special adjustment tool prevents anyone but an armorer, or the sniper, from messing with the rifle's zero. He will simply adjust elevation for the given range, hold off, or use stadia lines if the scope is so equipped, but he is not going to play with the rifle's zero unless he's away from the front and can safely shoot at known range. History professors are not snipers, nor weapons specialists. Except possibly for elevation, you do NOT adjust a scope's zero between shots Any sniper "adjusting his zero between shots" would be a dead sniper in very short time.

[Vikram]

I would have to say that Martin Pegler is a moron who watched to many Hollywood movies where the sniper looks through his scope, makes some adjustments, repeats, and then proceeds to nail the enemy sniper between the eyes and drops him out of his hide in the palm tree.

The simple point is, the sniper does not "zero" his rifle while on a sniping mission. His rifle is zeroed beforehand, and the special adjustment tool prevents anyone but an armorer, or the sniper, from messing with the rifle's zero. He will simply adjust elevation for the given range, hold off, or use stadia lines if the scope is so equipped, but he is not going to play with the rifle's zero unless he's away from the front and can safely shoot at known range. History professors are not snipers, nor weapons specialists. Except possibly for elevation, you do NOT adjust a scope's zero between shots Any sniper "adjusting his zero between shots" would be a dead sniper in very short time.

While I completely agree with the specifics of the sniping trade that you wrote, judging Martin Pegler solely based on that little video could be a bit harsh. He is regarded by many as a world authority on snipers and sinper rifles,and penned many books on the subject. He was the Chief Weapons Curator at RAL and works with Huddersfield University on Arms and Amrmaments research.JMHO.

Just a few of his books.








3&keywords=martin+pegler



Best-
Vikram

[Skyman]

Bit off topic, do these countries still have the sniping culture alive? Have they evolved for the better?

[INSAS556]

Also, Kar98 to is an excellent sniper weapon, but it failed against the Mosin Nagant of soviet union because the mosin had an upper hand in zeroing compared to the kar98. The mosin took some 3 rounds to to be zeroed and the kar98 took 5 rounds. Also, to calibrate the scope of mosin it was very easy compared to kar98. This gave an upper hand to the snipers in stalingrad against the nazis.
Thanks XL for share...enjoyed

It does not seem that you have a notion what the terms to "zero" a rifle, or to "calibrate" a scope mean. Your statement makes no sense at all. Your knowledge of the matter appears to come from movies.

For your reference, attaching a link, hope this helps.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hjeCPX_4 ... 1361123295
its the skill that counts.

[INSAS556]

Also, Kar98 to is an excellent sniper weapon, but it failed against the Mosin Nagant of soviet union because the mosin had an upper hand in zeroing compared to the kar98. The mosin took some 3 rounds to to be zeroed and the kar98 took 5 rounds. Also, to calibrate the scope of mosin it was very easy compared to kar98. This gave an upper hand to the snipers in stalingrad against the nazis.
Thanks XL for share...enjoyed

It does not seem that you have a notion what the terms to "zero" a rifle, or to "calibrate" a scope mean. Your statement makes no sense at all. Your knowledge of the matter appears to come from movies.

I believe the gentleman was referring to the video aired by the History Channel. While analysing why Germans lost at Stalingrad, the curator of weapons at the Royal Armouries Leeds, Martin Pegler compares the sniper rifles used by the Germans and the Russians.I think INSAS556 was referring to this.

[youtube][/youtube]


INSAS, what you wrote needs to be taken in the context of how they were used in that theatre, and not on the inherent capabilities of the K98 and the Mosin-Nagant.It is just that the Soviets had a simpler yet effective zeroing system in place. That does not mean that the K98 is less accurate than the latter.

Best-
Vikram

yes !!! vikram, i referred to the same video..... its the simplicity to work effectively under adverse conditions.
and yes, i do not claim that k98 was inferior. it is surely a good weapon......no offense.
Thanks, Vikram!!

[INSAS556]

Also, Kar98 to is an excellent sniper weapon, but it failed against the Mosin Nagant of soviet union

No Sir,
There is no comparison between a 98 Mauser and a Mosin. While both work, in my opinion, the average Mosin was a piece of junk compared to the average KAR 98 Mauser.
Sure, the Mosin is built tough but it had to be. The quality of the average Russian soldier it was designed for was rather poor. The Germans on the other hand were some of the best soldiers in the world (at the time). As far as toughness goes, the KAR 98 was no shrinking lily either.
Only someone who has never worked the actions of both rifle will rate the two as equal.
Sure you can accurize a Mosin but you can do the same thing to a 98. As far as sniping goes, its the man (or woman) behind the rifle, not the rifle so much.

Thanks for clearing up.....
and sniping depends mainly on the soldier behind the rifle, so does this mean that we need no comparison between the rifle??
so it is of no point to call mosin 'piece of junk??'
no bias against any weapon system!!!!!

[INSAS556]

It does not seem that you have a notion what the terms to "zero" a rifle, or to "calibrate" a scope mean. Your statement makes no sense at all. Your knowledge of the matter appears to come from movies.

Sure i do watch movies..... but try to apply a bit of logic. It happens sometimes that logic may not turn out as we expect, our operating system always have bugs .
as i do not have that 'big' exposure to lots of guns as you might have but i deduce some of my conclusions from reading and i turn out to believe that a weapon which is rugged and works effectively under the most nasty conditions is a good one.
I dont say that K98 is inferior, but it felt short. it is in my own opinion. P.S. No offence.
and yes, the germans retreated from USSR because, they couldnt bear the deadly cold conditions of USSR. and several other factors which went against the nazis.

[timmy]

so does this mean that we need no comparison between the rifle?? so it is of no point to call mosin 'piece of junk??'

as i do not have that 'big' exposure to lots of guns as you might have but i deduce some of my conclusions from reading and i turn out to believe that a weapon which is rugged and works effectively under the most nasty conditions is a good one.
I dont say that K98 is inferior, but it felt short. it is in my own opinion. P.S. No offence.
and yes, the germans retreated from USSR just because, they couldnt bear the deadly cold conditions of USSR. and several other factors which went against the nazis.

No, the Mosin Nagant is certainly not a piece of junk. Nor is the M98, nor the SMLE, or the Springfield M1903, Carcano, Greek 1903, or Japanese Arisaka.

Each of these rifles had good points and bad points.

You must take them in the context of the times and the nation that chose them. XL is right, in that the Mosin Nagant was used by a nation that did not have a high percentage of professional soldiers, but used frontal assaults and mass infantry tactics and stressed the bayonet. The Mosin Nagant was ideal for this purpose. It was rugged and simple, easily used by largely uneducated troops. Perhaps on could say that its inherent accuracy was a serendipitous element in the design.

The M98 had nothing at all to do with the German defeat by the Soviet Union. It is somewhat pointless to discuss M98 accuracy, since that was not the rifle's primary purpose in German infantry doctrine. (Here, I would note the pernicious influence of sporting magazines and we, who love fine rifles. These are military rifles, not made for sporting use. Yes, they could be and were, but that was not the purpose of the design. Keep your eye on the purpose of the design and the doctrine of the force that used the rifle as a key element in forming your opinions, and put away the notions of beautifully engraved toothpick-stocked German sporters or luscious British guns based on the M98 made for African hunting. We're talking military use here!) The Germans in WW2 based the squad, the basic infantry formation, on a pair of M34 or M42 machine guns. Their squads were not based on the individual rifleman, like the forces of other countries. This, along with superb German training from the time of youth, is what made their infantry so fearsome and effective. The M98 didn't have to be the best battle rifle (which the M1 Garand was), or even best bolt action battle rifle (which the SMLE was) -- superior German tactical doctrine based on a pair of machine guns supported by riflemen carrying M98s made "the best battle rifle" something which was not the main point!

If I were to fault a design used in WW2, it would be the Arisaka. They were strong and clumsy, somewhat like the Mosin Nagant. The problem with the Arisaka is that the Japanese retained a very long rifle used by relatively small soldiers. With the bayonet, which was usually attached, an Arisaka was about as tall as the average Japanese soldier. I think a shorter weapon would have been more effective.

Along with sporting rifle standards, it's best to dispense with the concept of "junk" in such a discussion, as well, since it just doesn't match with a reasonable discussion of this subject.

[TwoRivers]

as i do not have that 'big' exposure to lots of guns as you might have but i deduce some of my conclusions from reading and i turn out to believe that a weapon which is rugged and works effectively under the most nasty conditions is a good one.
I dont say that K98 is inferior, but it felt short. it is in my own opinion. P.S. No offence.
and yes, the germans retreated from USSR because, they couldnt bear the deadly cold conditions of USSR. and several other factors which went against the nazis.

Yes. Being unprepared for the cold before Moscow, no winter clothing, no familiarity with what those temperatures can do to motorized equipment and weaponry requiring lubrication, certainly contributed to the German defeat and retreat from Moscow. But so did extended supply lines, exhausted troops, a well prepared defense, and fresh Russian divisions from Siberia.

It's been a long time since wars were decided by the qualities of respective rifles. To try to attribute victory or defeat to a rifle is naive at best.

Perhaps, instead of fighting wars, we should convene an expert international panel of historians and curators. Before a war breaks out this panel would then expertly evaluate the rifles submitted by the opposing nations. Upon the finding of the expert panel as to which rifle is more quickly zeroed in combat, the losing side would concede.

[Vikram]

No, I am not saying that. In fact, the documentary discusses all the aspects, that you mentioned in your post, of the Stalingrad theatre that resulted in the defeat of the Germans. All I am saying is that, that three minute video clipping is not enough to judge Pegler's knowledge of arms and tactics.After all that man himself shoots a lot and makes his living as a firearms consultant and a historian.One does not get there by making silly claims as that video clips brings across.

Best-
Vikram

[Sakobav]

I agree with tworivers timmy et al that the WW2 and others were not decided by infantry weapons but as they say wars are won and lost in generals command post or by quality and quantity of material. Maybe going OT I read an article by an Indian air force officer who debunked the theory that had IAF been used in Indo China war in 62 result would be different fact is IAF had no training nor SOP for bombing or operating in such mountain terrain. He also mentioned that in WW 2 what Allies were always in awe of was General Staff corp officers of Germany Army who could plan operations and then execute them to T or the staff officers of Gen Patton who afforded him the ability of turning army in 90 degress and then driving great distance to take care of Battle of Bulge - common thing between both was training and doctrine for their armies. Now this IAF officer was son of Gen Bewoor of Indian army so knows something.
The war that was decided to a large extend by a superior infantry weapon was Pattern 1853 Enfield rifle in 1857 revolt being rifled barrel this gun was more accurate and took heavy toll on native troops. I pakistani army officer had a detailed analysis on this...

[TwoRivers]

[



If I were to fault a design used in WW2, it would be the Arisaka. They were strong and clumsy, somewhat like the Mosin Nagant. The problem with the Arisaka is that the Japanese retained a very long rifle used by relatively small soldiers. With the bayonet, which was usually attached, an Arisaka was about as tall as the average Japanese soldier. I think a shorter weapon would have been more effective.

.

What exactly, besides length, makes the Arisaka clumsy ? And they did lop off a few inches of barrel with the 7.7mm Type 99.
Clumsy, unfortunately can mean different things. Clumsy overall, or clumsy action ? Pre-war Type 38s were finely finished and smooth.

Good post otherwise.