Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Got proof ?
I've already shown that there's nearly no difference between the two's terminal ballistics..
Parsifal,
And as for shooting the K98K and Lee Enfield, Parsifal I own both rifles, and with iron sights they're just as accurate if you know how to use the V sights, many people don't which is the problem. I started out shooting with V sights, so I know how to use them. And there's nothing poor quality about the sights on the K98k at all! And that's fact! The iron sights on the K98k are sharply and precisely made, the tip of the front sight being very sharp which makes it great for long range shooting. (My K98k is a 1938 made model btw)
Parsifal,
I disagree with you, according to all my sources you're wrong about everything in your post really, and I'd like to see the sources you have which mention the weapon designated Mk43 that you're refering to. There was no such weapon.
The German designations for the weapon (StG44) were first MP-43 then MP-43/1, these were to get the weapons to the front despite Hitler's denial, and it worked when he saw the excellent combat reports of the weapon. Having accepted weapon in light of its excellent performance in the field Hitler himself named it the Sturmgewehr and the designation from then on became StG.44. I have the manual for the weapon as-well if you're still not convinced.
My sources are
WWII Small Arms, John weeks, Orbis Publishing 1979
History and Weapons of the Of the SAS, Ken Connor Cassell press, 2006
Infantry Training Handbook, The war office 1938
German Army order of battle - Replacement and Procurement, Compiled by Victor Madej, based on the OKW daily wartime reports
Sniper Weapons (dont have the publisher or author details...a friend has borrowed it).
Assault Rifles - WWII to present day (as above)
British American Infantry Weapons of WWII, Barker AJ Arms Armour Press, 1969
Military Small Arms of the twentieth Century, Hogg I Weeks J, Digest press 1972
German Infantry Weapons of WWII, Mclean DB, Normount Armament Co, 1968
Reynolds EGB, the Lee Enfield Rifle, Reynolds, London 1960
The Worlds Assault Rifles and automatic carbines, Musgrave Nelson, TBN Enterprises 1987
Infantry Weapons, Weeks J, Ballantine Books 1972.
I have not looked at your "sources" because I firstly dont have time, secondly, can straight away see that most of them are not worth looking at (dont believe half the rubbish you get off the net) and thirdly I dont believe you are intersted in finding out the truth , and therefore are likley to presente any old partisan rubbish inorder to try and win your point.
The abovementioned references are mostly from my own collection, but I have others, if you want ot argue the toss further. Beyond that I am twenty kilometres from the Australian war memorial and national archival library, and have a special researchers pass, so if you want to be further demolished, please, go ahead and say you dont believe me
Oh and Spec Ops in general don't prefer the .45 ACP over the 9mm, some do that's true and others do the opposite, liking the 9mm better. A matter of taste. The effect on the target is the same.
No you havent. What youve shown is that you dont understand how to calculate hitting power. Dont make claims that you cant substantiate
My sources are
WWII Small Arms, John weeks, Orbis Publishing 1979
History and Weapons of the Of the SAS, Ken Connor Cassell press, 2006
Infantry Training Handbook, The war office 1938
German Army order of battle - Replacement and Procurement, Compiled by Victor Madej, based on the OKW daily wartime reports
Sniper Weapons (dont have the publisher or author details...a friend has borrowed it).
Assault Rifles - WWII to present day (as above)
British American Infantry Weapons of WWII, Barker AJ Arms Armour Press, 1969
Military Small Arms of the twentieth Century, Hogg I Weeks J, Digest press 1972
German Infantry Weapons of WWII, Mclean DB, Normount Armament Co, 1968
Reynolds EGB, the Lee Enfield Rifle, Reynolds, London 1960
The Worlds Assault Rifles and automatic carbines, Musgrave Nelson, TBN Enterprises 1987
Infantry Weapons, Weeks J, Ballantine Books 1972.
Your position has changed. Previously you claimed that the 98 wa more accurate. Then I read in one of your posts that it was accurate out to 1000 metres, now you are saying it is just as accurate. So what is your actual position please
so if you want to be further demolished, please, go ahead and say you dont believe me
Really ?? Enlighten me please!
All I can say is I find it funny you disregard actual test illustrations of both rounds terminal ballistics, oh well...
Killing Power must be a function of work, rather than a function of Kinetic Energy. The reason is simple> KE= 1/2mv2 and a bullet does not continue to accelarate for long after it leaves the barrel, or if it does, it is only fractional compared to the initial velocity on leaving the barrel
Work is a function of momentum, where P=mv. Now if you compare the formaula for work, to the formaula for KE, you immedialy see that theffect of the mass is doubled, whilst the effect of the velocity is square rooted.
The problem with heavy projectiles is that they tend to have heavy recoils (again a function of work, and not KE) and will tend to lose velocity quite quickly. I never discussed, incidentally, the effect of range on the .45.
I sense a hint of lying here Parsifal! But to give you a chance show me just a SINGLE reference to the StG44 EVER being designated Mk43.
Watch who you call a liar you little twirp
One source....okay John Weeks, Small Arms, Orbis Publishing Page 29 Armour Press . have scanned the relevant page and hopefully it will attach (not familiar on how to do that
My position hasn't changed at all. The K98k is a more accurate rifle, when you put a scope on it that is, otherwise it's the same, unless shooting at very long ranges where the K98k is better with iron sights as-well owing to its superior ballistics. Actually you'll find it very difficult to find any meaningful differences in accuracy between most of the rifles of WW2 if you're shooting them through iron sights.
Watch who you call a liar you little twirp
One source....okay John Weeks, Small Arms, Orbis Publishing Page 29 Armour Press . have scanned the relevant page and hopefully it will attach (not familiar on how to do that
So...are you arguing that the 98K was as accurate over open sights or not???
Thanks Wildcat. Do you know people in Adelaide. One of my best mates is Kev Reid, recently retired from the RAAF, a W/O, was a loadmaster serving in the C130 J sqn?
I see as usual that people are nominating the mauser. There is no easy way to put this, its a terrible gun, very nasty. Not outstandingly accurate (at least the 1935 98K, mostly because of the short sight radius), slow and cumbersome in the action, hard to build relatively, at the end of the war suffered from QA problems, small magazine.
The 98K was the standard issue weapon of the Wehrmacht
Whereas Allied soldiers were often only too willing to use other captured german weapons (like pistols smgs and the like) there are very few examples of the Mausers being employed in this way....reason, poor performance.....
The Mauser 98 was basically the AK-47 of its time, bought, licensed by dozens and dozens of countries. The Springfield is basically an Americanised Mauser, for example. It was just an increadibly successfull design, and the famous `98 Mauser system is still widely copied, its very good, strong and smooth indeed! The British planned to replaced the SMLE with a Mauser system bolt action rifle as well, but, WW1 intervened and they needed rifles fast, hence the SMLE stayed.
The SMLE was planned to be replaced during WWI principally because of the rough handling it had received with the Boers. Basically the british were terrible shots. Having made the decision to stay with the Enfield, the British concentrated on improving the marksmanship of the tommys. After Mons, there was never any doubt in the british minds that the decision to stay with the Enfield was the right one
As to criticism like small magazine, short sight radius - I can`t really understand this, the Mauser 98 shares the 5 round clip magazine, relatively short sight distance with the majority of bolt action rifles of the time, so I don`t really get why to pick at the `98 because of that. It`s a nice, compact and handy, reliable bolt action rifle of which what, something like 100 million+ was built..?
The sight distance argument is a relatively minor issue (although you wouldnt believe that from my previous posts). The five round clip size is okay when compared to most contemporaries, eg the Berthier, the Mannlicher Carcano, the Lebel, and the Moisin Nagant (to name the main opponents). Against the Enfield, with its ten round magazine, and higher rate of fire (good as the action was in the 98k), the enfield was about twice as fast in terms of its effective rate of fire.
Its obvious to me that the references to MP-43, and MK-43, and Stg 44 are, for practical purposes, refernces to the same design. There is little further to be gained by further arguing that strand of the debate in my opinion.
My question is this: Whenever a thread does get closed why is it usually a thread that Soren is involved in?[/b]
Whereas Allied soldiers were often only too willing to use other captured german weapons (like pistols smgs and the like) there are very few examples of the Mausers being employed in this way....reason, poor performance.....