Was the Garand M1 battle rifle really superior to the German Mauser in 8x57?
Consider reliability, superior cartridge, maximum range, knock down power, and ease of take down for cleaning/repair?

Was the Garand M1 battle rifle really superior to the German Mauser in 8x57?
Consider reliability, superior cartridge, maximum range, knock down power, and ease of take down for cleaning/repair?


It was a good cartridge, with good stopping power and range, but the M1 had a much higher rate of fire than the K98 that is what made the difference. A semi auto against a bolt is a no brainer. The 30.06 cartridge that the M1 uses is different than the 30.06 that the '03 used. The 8x57 was actually a hotter round than the 30.06, but since the 8mm came out of a bolt action the cycle rate was much slower. I have some 1940's Portuguese ammo that is loaded to the same specs as German ammo. It hits over 2800fps easily.
While 30.06 M2 ball ammo is spec'ed at 2743fps

http://skyblu.wordpress.com/target-shooting/the-top-cartridge-of-the-last-century/30-06-history-performance-pg-1/

http://skyblu.wordpress.com/target-shooting/the-top-cartridge-of-the-last-century/30-06-history-performance-pg-2/

It was a good cartridge, with good stopping power and range, but the M1 had a much higher rate of fire than the K98 that is what made the difference. A semi auto against a bolt is a no brainer. The 30.06 cartridge that the M1 uses is different than the 30.06 that the '03 used. The 8x57 was actually a hotter round than the 30.06, but since the 8mm came out of a bolt action the cycle rate was much slower. I have some 1940's Portuguese ammo that is loaded to the same specs as German ammo. It hits over 2800fps easily.
While 30.06 M2 ball ammo is spec'ed at 2743fps

http://skyblu.wordpress.com/target-shooting/the-top-cartridge-of-the-last-century/30-06-history-performance-pg-1/

http://skyblu.wordpress.com/target-shooting/the-top-cartridge-of-the-last-century/30-06-history-performance-pg-2/
How so is the 30.06 round for the M1 different than the 30.06 round for the '03? The reason that the M1 is 30 caliber (originally designed to be .270), is that vast stocks of 30.06 were available and MacArthur pushed the disapproval of the .270 round. Therefore, there ain't no difference. The 30.06 round is different than the original round for the '03, hence the .06 designation. Those are the facts and easily researchable.

How so is the 30.06 round for the M1 different than the 30.06 round for the '03? The reason that the M1 is 30 caliber (originally designed to be .270), is that vast stocks of 30.06 were available and MacArthur pushed the disapproval of the .270 round. Therefore, there ain't no difference. The 30.06 round is different than the original round for the '03, hence the .06 designation. Those are the facts and easily researchable.


Hi sun shine, be nice! The military never tested the .270 for the M1 it was a .276 Pederson and if the ammo the M1 uses was M2 ball, What was M1 ball or 30.06? If you do more research MacArthur had nothing to do with the rifle or cartridge, except to officially accept them in 1936. M1 ball was 1st designed for the M1 Garand, but was determined to have to long a range, so the U.S. army went back to the spitzer bullet it used in its original 30.06 cartridge and redesignated it M2 ball. That bullet was the only thing that M2 and WW1 era 30.06 ammo have in common. The case, primers, powder all are different. Here are some links for you! I do beleive this is "research" and your "facts" are bogus.

http://www.surplusrifle.com/garand/index.asp
http://www.garandm1rifle.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Garand_rifle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Garand_rifle#History

Was the Garand M1 battle rifle really superior to the German Mauser in 8x57?
Consider reliability, superior cartridge, maximum range, knock down power, and ease of take down for cleaning/repair?

Jean, to get away from the "extra" stuff, it is going to come down to opinions. Here are mine.

The Garand being semi auto could send more ammo down range which is a good thing. But semi autos take more maintenance than a bolt gun. There at least to me is one of the biggest trade offs. That and the sights. The Mauser's sights are poor in the daylight because of the inverted V in an open V shapes. They are even worse in fading light. They very quickly become indistinct.

Then there is the story about how the Germans would listen for the metallic clang of the empty clip being ejected so they could pop up and shoot the Garand shooter. Having not been there, I don't know this to be true, but I can see how it could be both good and bad for the Garand shooter as it could give away your ammo situation or be used to lure a target into revealing themself.

Aside from that, the 98 action is robust, reliable and simple to use and maintain. That's why everyone has used it or copied it. Both rifles are heavy but the Garand is the heavier (9.5 lbs) of the two, no distinction there either really. (The Mauser spec'ed at 8.6 lbs.)

The 8x57 Mauser as loaded by the Germans was a very good round comparable to the 30-06. The .323mm JS round is the whole reason that the 30-06 round came into being after the original 1903 .30 caliber round. It was simple cause and effect so ammo considerations are 6 of one, half dozen of the other when it comes to performance.

Like I said, just my opinions. Both are good rifles and will definitely get the job they were intended for done.

Matters of opinion, Jean - just like Michael pointed out.

The K98 held 5 cartridges, the M1 Garand held 8 and the Brit Enfield held 10. The semi-auto could spread more lead faster, but a good bolt manipulator could be closely behind with the Brit Enfield. All three cartridges had similar battlefield ranges for accuracy.

The M1 had more parts, therefore, more prone to stoppage. It was/is a ruggedly built firearm, but could still malfunction under the right conditions - more so that the simple bolt actions.

This was the standard issue rifle during my military service and I wasn't particularly enamored with it. Heavy sucker and lots of parts to clean.

Well, the rounds are close to each other in full military loadings though if I had to pick, I'd give the edge slightly to the 8x57 in FMJ loads as it has a larger diameter and heavier bullet. Reliability, I feel the M98 edges there as well, as it's pretty hard to kill a Mauser. The worse part about Mausers is that sight ummmm "system". Even the best of the Mauser rifles, the Swedes suffer from the sight equivalent of a soap box derby steering system on an Indy car. Add in rate of fire, and if I were the infantryman I'd prefer the Garand, but would still be quite effective with an M98.

Eric

Well, the rounds are close to each other in full military loadings though if I had to pick, I'd give the edge slightly to the 8x57 in FMJ loads as it has a larger diameter and heavier bullet. Reliability, I feel the M98 edges there as well, as it's pretty hard to kill a Mauser. The worse part about Mausers is that sight ummm "system". Even the best of the Mauser rifles, the Swedes suffer from the sight equivalent of a soap box derby steering system on an Indy car. Add in rate of fire, and if I were the infantryman I'd prefer the Garand, but would still be quite effective with an M98.

Eric

My Turk Mauser must be different as I find the sights very good compared to other milsurp, the Mosin Nagant being an example. I nail em at 100 yards with no problem,

jean

Well, if you really want to simplify it, the winners were using garands, the losers were using k-98's

Hi sun shine, be nice! The military never tested the .270 for the M1 it was a .276 Pederson and if the ammo the M1 uses was M2 ball, What was M1 ball or 30.06? If you do more research MacArthur had nothing to do with the rifle or cartridge, except to officially accept them in 1936. M1 ball was 1st designed for the M1 Garand, but was determined to have to long a range, so the U.S. army went back to the spitzer bullet it used in its original 30.06 cartridge and redesignated it M2 ball. That bullet was the only thing that M2 and WW1 era 30.06 ammo have in common. The case, primers, powder all are different. Here are some links for you! I do beleive this is "research" and your "facts" are bogus.

http://www.surplusrifle.com/garand/index.asp
http://www.garandm1rifle.com/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Garand_rifle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Garand_rifle#History
I stand corrected, Patterson. I'm big enough to accept constructive criticism. You're right about the .276. I was just off a bit. However, I stand firm on the fact that the reason that the .276 was not accepted was the fact that the stockpiles of 30.06 were too vast to ignore. If you fire M1's competitively like I do, the history comes to light. Though the newer ammunition did have different powder and primers, I doubt that the case was different. I fire in a club and we use M2 ball in both the M1's and '03 Spfds all the time. Once again, thanks for the update, I think that we both learned something! After reading your retort a second and third time, though you were correct on some points, not all. Wikipedia is limited history and complete facts. Though I did refresh my memory with some useful knowledge, I conclude that you are pompous in your assessment of my previous posting.

My Turk Mauser must be different as I find the sights very good compared to other milsurp, the Mosin Nagant being an example. I nail em at 100 yards with no problem,

jean

Jean, I've got a Turk M1938 too. Lots of fun to shoot. It has the same inverted "V" front sight in a "V" cutout rear sight that the K98s, Vz24s, M24/47s have. In good light it is useable but as the ligth fades, the sharpness and the ability to find and see the top of the front sight compared to the sides of the rear drops off. It is not as easy for most people to see as a patridge style sight or better yet a peep sight.

I don't recall the Mosin sight offhand. I know I have looked at them. The carbines were on sale around here a couple months back for $95 in very good shape and I looked but didn't buy. Probably should have, but do I need another 7.62-ish rifle with power between .308 and 30-06?

Michael, in short, Yes you do. Great rifles!!

I've owned several of both rifles and I've used both in some pretty severe conditions. The M1 is VERY easy to strip down to the three assemblies (barrel/reciever, trigger, and stock assemblies). The mauser is not near as easy to strip down to get mud ot snow completely cleaned out. The M1 carries 10 rounds to the Mauser's 5. The garand is easier to shoot accurately for me. There are also a lot of other reasons for me to choose the Garand over the Mauser. My 2 cents worth.

DBox -

I'd be curious as to how you got 10 cartridges into the 8 round enbloc clip for the M1 Garand?

Jean, I've got a Turk M1938 too. Lots of fun to shoot. It has the same inverted "V" front sight in a "V" cutout rear sight that the K98s, Vz24s, M24/47s have. In good light it is usable but as the light fades, the sharpness and the ability to find and see the top of the front sight compared to the sides of the rear drops off. It is not as easy for most people to see as a partridge style sight or better yet a peep sight.

I don't recall the Mosin sight offhand. I know I have looked at them. The carbines were on sale around here a couple months back for $95 in very good shape and I looked but didn't buy. Probably should have, but do I need another 7.62-ish rifle with power between .308 and 30-06?

Mike:

Your right as to the sights as I don't shoot in the dark. It's always about noon or after that I shoot because of my eyesight. I am trying to continue shooting with open sights until I have to go with scopes. So far I'm able to hit small groups at 100 yards at a small coffee can cover! Of course I am strictly a bench rest shooter.

jean

DBox -

I'd be curious as to how you got 10 cartridges into the 8 round enbloc clip for the M1 Garand?


It must be the Pederson .276 test model! ;) or a typo.

My Dad is a WW2 combat infantryman, and while attending many reunion events with him thru the years I have had the opportunity to talk to hundreds of other veterans of combat in Europe and Africa. Not a one of them would have traded his Garand for a 98. They clearly recognized its few drawbacks and it's many advantages, primarily its vast superiority in rapidity and volume of fire. 'Nuff said, in my book...

Was the Garand M1 battle rifle really superior to the German Mauser in 8x57?
Consider reliability, superior cartridge, maximum range, knock down power, and ease of take down for cleaning/repair?


Back to the original question ....

The 8x57 from the 98 Mauser does have an edge over the '06 from the M1 "ballistically".

You loose a bit of velocity with the M1 working the action and the bullets are lighter and slower. The 8x57 fired a 196gr bullet, I think the spec was 2815 fps (going off memory so don't flame me too bad). No power lost to working the actions and the heavier bullet was being launched at a higher velocity. Thus speaking purely from a ballistics standpoint, the 8x57 from the 98 did in fact have the edge.

Now, looking at it from the grunt's standpoint, the M1 definitely had the edge as others pointed out the sights and rate of fire. The bigger, faster and heavier bullet of the Mauser may have the edge beyond 500 yards but at normal fighting ranges, you wouldn't notice the veloctiy or weight difference if either one was plowing a hole through you.

As for the comment about the German's listening for the sound of the clip ejecting .... get on the line with 10 other people shooting for all they had, no hearing protection and see if you can hear a clip eject. Add in some mortars and artillary and forget about hearing much of anything.

Add in some mortars and artillary and forget about hearing much of anything....ever again!

...ever again!

jb, what ya say, are ya saying something, I can't hear ya, heh, heh.:)

Jean, are you trying to mess with a "flat-lander"? :confused: LOL

Jean, are you trying to mess with a "flat-lander"? :confused: LOL

Now Pa. is not flat, Fla. is under water it is so flat! We have hills in the East compared to the Rocky's.

You're right, JP -

Years ago when hunting there with the wife's family, found those hills to be propped up on one side to make them steeper.

Guess that's why all Pennsylkukians all have one leg shorter than the other - to be able to skirt around the mountain sides! :D

You're right, JP -

Years ago when hunting there with the wife's family, found those hills to be propped up on one side to make them steeper.

Guess that's why all Pennsylkukians all have one leg shorter than the other - to be able to skirt around the mountain sides! :D

You can always tell what side of the mountain they were born on too.

Just check and see which leg is shorter. the right or the left. That'll tell you which side the mountain they are from.

DBox -

I'd be curious as to how you got 10 cartridges into the 8 round enbloc clip for the M1 Garand?
My Bad! I plead brain fart.

J,

Re: my "flat lander" comment. It's one of those terms the "maine-iacs" use to identify anyone who is not a native of Maine (maine-iac). Doesn't seem to matter that Maine is flatter than most east coast states .... I suppose it's just one of those things? LOL

Yep Fla is flat, just the way I like it! Hills here mean one of three things: 1- someone is getting ready to pour a concrete pad for a building; 2- Fire ant mound; 3- septic tank sand mound. All small enough to allow going around easily instead of having to climb over them. he he he

Mark, We have much bigger Hills here! Maine can't compete! Can you say Presidential range, Kancamungus, White Mountains, Monadonock region? :)

I know ... been there, done that, got the fuel receipts to show for it! LOL

J,

Re: my "flat lander" comment. It's one of those terms the "maine-iacs" use to identify anyone who is not a native of Maine (maine-iac). Doesn't seem to matter that Maine is flatter than most east coast states .... I suppose it's just one of those things? LOL

Yep Fla is flat, just the way I like it! Hills here mean one of three things: 1- someone is getting ready to pour a concrete pad for a building; 2- Fire ant mound; 3- septic tank sand mound. All small enough to allow going around easily instead of having to climb over them. he he he

Mark:


It's even worse than that. When I lived on one of the islands (Vinalhaven) about 18 miles offshore from Rockland, Maine they called people who didn't come from the island FLATLANDERS!!

I remember reading somewhere [and will try to find the source] that at the time of the introduction of the Garand, the "higher ups" in the military were dead set against the thought of a semi automatic rifle for a few reasons, and to paraphrase they were:
1. Relatively unused & unproven as a battle rifle besides machine guns.
2. Unfamiliar action to "citizen soldiers" who shot bolt actions and singles on their farms before being soldiers.
3. Training. The repeating bolt rifle training at the time of the start of the war was to treat each shot as if it was your only shot. [Make each shot count....gee, imagine that...] the idea of spraying rounds downrange was "evil" to the higher ups. It took forward thinkers and dedicated marksmen to show that the M1 could do exactly what a bolt could do, efficiently, at a better rate of fire.

There was some opposition at the onset of the war amongst the Marines too, who fought valiently to hold on to their trusted and tested 03's.

As far as the two cartriges were concerned, Jpattersohn is correct, the 8mm was faster than the M1-ball ammo, but with improving technology, the M2-ball ammo was intro'd later on, with improved components and better ballistic results, although still slower that 8mm.

there was also problems with extraction of M1 ball ammo in the Garand, and this site has a few early documents to show that there were extraction failures, noted by commanders, and requests for studies. Note that these letters are dated as early as 1939, which also dates Garands to the Gas Trap system, which in itself was eliminated all together.
It was quite a to-do at the time, and later on was coined "ammo-gate" (http://www.garandm1rifle.com/page3.html).

As far as the Garand being a superior weapon, I believe history speaks for itself, as well as the longevity of the 98 ring mauser also.

Both great firearms, that everyone who shoots should own!

Appreciate all the comments on the two battle rifles.

What is odd is that many of our troops, especially in the Italian campaign used the '03 all through the war!

jean48

not to be picky but the M1 cat is same as 03.remember both were in use at same time what was diferent was bullet the 06 had 150 gr flat base.after ww1 the 172 gr bt was introduced to get longer range for the machine gun.when ww2 came the military dropped the bt because the flat base was quicker to produce.the also dropped the pressure.
as to the bull about clip clang.you really cant hear it in battle.also there are others with you to cover while you reload.
HOW LONG DOES IT TAKE TO POP IN A CLIP.somebody should think about that.take your ear muffs of and shoot 50 rds and see what you can hear.

just reread a thread.8 X 57 X196 does not have vel.of 2900 it is 2300 as it was made as mg ammo.
the 06 was 2700?in ww1 with 150gr flat base then 172 gr bt at about that speed then the m2 was 150 gr at 2800.the 150 gr in the 8mm had 2800.

seeing that the sights on the k98 are hard to use seeing that it has a inverted vee rear sight with a non-inverted vee front sight would it make sense to put somekind of illuminating paint on the front sight to see it better when aiming or would it make it worse.

seeing that the sights on the k98 are hard to use seeing that it has a inverted vee rear sight with a non-inverted vee front sight would it make sense to put some kind of illuminating paint on the front sight to see it better when aiming or would it make it worse.

Actually it would make more sense to try a spot of cold bluing on both the front and rear sight as the "white metal" is what YOU DON'T see when you are aiming.

just reread a thread.8 X 57 X196 does not have vel.of 2900 it is 2300 as it was made as mg ammo.
the 06 was 2700?in ww1 with 150gr flat base then 172 gr bt at about that speed then the m2 was 150 gr at 2800.the 150 gr in the 8mm had 2800.


Depends on what factory and designation you look at as to what the particular loadings were.

The original "I" desingated (0.318" bore) ammo was loaded with 154gr bullets 2880 fps MV and this maintained with the "J" designation (0.323" bore) as well.

There were two primary "heavy" bullets, a 192gr and a 196gr and a third not-so-common 187gr, all of which were of the same design and the weight variations came from the core and jacket alloy composition differences available at the time of mfg.

There were two loads for the heavy's, the standard "I" load put the 196 at 2493 fps but the "J" load put them at 2760 fps which was the original load designed for the Luftwaffe machine guns. Info I have lists the 192gr ammo was produced in Austria and it was pushing 2795 fps.

It's also important to note the designation errors. As it is accepted here, "I" denotes the 0.318" bore and "J" denotes the later 0.323" bores. While this is a common reference, it is incorrect and does cause some issues. The original 7.92x57 I was the 0.318" bore. The 0.323" bore picked up the German designation "IS" adding the "S" for "spitzer" and also designating the 0.323" bore. The designation problem came from the confusion of "I" and "J" in the manner of appearance of the writing, both were in fact "I" but as with other things, sometimes incorrect terms are used so long, they become acceptable even if they are incorrect. I'm sure there are others here that know alot more about the actual designations than I do and I'll gladly accept any corrections to the info I have as it has not been verified but does come from a reliable source.

Was the Garand M1 battle rifle really superior to the German Mauser in 8x57?
Consider reliability, superior cartridge, maximum range, knock down power, and ease of take down for cleaning/repair?


just my (2 cents worth)!!! lets cover the criteria here. as for reliability tough argument. the garand is fine weapon in line of the elements rain cold ect. as for the k98- well its simplfied action manual that bolt. no problems with elements except i have heard in extreme conditions cold wise there were sketchy reports of firing pins freezing up. i would say for the durability and reliability they are equal match/ class wise... as for accuracy you the k98 will always rise to the top. eveyone knowes that autoloaders just don't have the ability to accuracy as the lock down bolt guns do. unless the autoloader has been doctored then its not fair comparson. as for range the k- 98 will again probably win out .. although understand the garand is throwing a long range round by the nature of its design. although limiting its capabilities by the running through the garand auto loading system. as knock down power thats i would say pretty **** even reaallyt the that 8mm will have shade more. but the coeffiencent on the 06 round will dive right in and give plenty of ummmmf to lay your target down. same goes witht the 8mm i think thats about equal in comparison ..... i think the garand wins on take down and cleaning the k-98 is pain in the *** for pulling that bolt apart. i know i owned one for while. as for the garand it pops apart prety easy i think .. so that my 2 cents worth ((((oh one mor ething by the way considering the options i d rather not use the weapons of the losers/ when my big fat neck is on the line!!! i sacrifice just teenie bit of range and accuracy for speed any day with good durability.... ))) sorry boys mr john browning set the right precedence ... those poor germans were 50 years behind on the rifle technology ... and look what it got them .... sorry fellows you all got whooped by a bunch of hillbilllies!!! american style.... later Karl J a.k.a joekid25

sorry boys mr john browning set the right precedence ... those poor germans were 50 years behind on the rifle technology ... and look what it got them ....

First, John Browning didn't design the M1, John Garand did. Second the Germans did have several semi rifles avaivable, G41 and G43. We were behind in the assualt rifle catogery after the MP43, MP44 and MP45.

The Garand is a superior weapon also when used with tactics. Better sights and rate of fire to the K98. But then the assualt rifle is superior for you do not need the range or power at less then 300m.
Its been proven time after time that it is hard to see and determine what is a threat past that.

CD

As a man that free's the oppressed I do salute you. Yes, this whole tread is based on the firearm, but the tactics won hands down. The M1 did a better job of suppressive fire, the ability to flank your enemy. Much better sights and rate of fire. If you flood a line w/ withering fire, it will collapse, If you have the infrastructure to carry it through and take out their infrastructure. Jim

Let's take another step back to the Great War where it was a pretty even match-up between the rifles, tactics and logistics is what determined the winner and looser.

DBox -

I'd be curious as to how you got 10 cartridges into the 8 round enbloc clip for the M1 Garand?
Maybe 8 in the clip + 1 in the chamber? Not the usual way to load, but could be done. That 10th one though, may be tougher...

:confused:

Not sure there's room in the magazine well with the follower and the 8 round clip, whereas you could stuff one in the chamber and get the bolt to ride over the top of the 8th cartridge without it jamming against the base of the chambered round. Been a while since I've messed with one (never fell in love with the thing when issued to me) to remember if it could be done. Maybe a present Garand owner can verify if you can or not.

MarkW - Think the WWI was won more by available manpower and industry. When the Russians quit fighting the Germans so they could turn on each other, it released lots of German troops, but too late - the home industry had pretty much run dry. That's a topic that is already under discussion in another thread.

Not sure there's room in the magazine well with the follower and the 8 round clip, whereas you could stuff one in the chamber and get the bolt to ride over the top of the 8th cartridge without it jamming against the base of the chambered round. Been a while since I've messed with one (never fell in love with the thing when issued to me) to remember if it could be done. Maybe a present Garand owner can verify if you can or not.

MarkW - Think the WWI was won more by available manpower and industry. When the Russians quit fighting the Germans so they could turn on each other, it released lots of German troops, but too late - the home industry had pretty much run dry. That's a topic that is already under discussion in another thread.
Can't be done. I thought about it and then tried it with dummy rounds. I put a round in the chamber first, then loaded a full 8-round clip. The bolt will ram a round into the one already in the chamber, even while I was trying to hold them all down.

Turkish Mausers firing .323 1940’s 154gr FMJ Turkish ammunition chronographs at 2900 to 3100 fps depending on the year of manufacture.
I own both Mausers and Garands.
They are both very affective weapons. I think the Garand has the edge on accuracy due to higher quality ammunition,
Mauser has the edge on power due to bigger bullet with slightly higher velocity.
Shoot them both and love to do it,

Turkish Mausers firing .323 1940’s 154gr FMJ Turkish ammunition chronographs at 2900 to 3100 fps depending on the year of manufacture.
I own both Mausers and Garands.
They are both very affective weapons. I think the Garand has the edge on accuracy due to higher quality ammunition,
Mauser has the edge on power due to bigger bullet with slightly higher velocity.
Shoot them both and love to do it,

I'm with you 5150. There's nothing like touching off that old Turk!! I love it more than any firearm I have. Even with the crappy sights I can group pretty good at 100 yards because of the extra barrel length it has over the other Mausers.

My family owns a 200+ acre horse farm in southern Indiana.
I am able to shoot out to 350 yards in one of our fields.
It’s pretty cool laying on your stomach and firing off the old Turk and watching the grass part like the Red Sea from wind off the bullet as it goes down range.

the M1 cartridge was not made for the garand but to increase range for the machine gun.I was not aware the primer was changed as it was potasium based potasium clorate.I dont remember the powder being changed.but they did make several powders.#17 and then 3031 and 4895.but it was improved powders.they droped the M1 cart because of manufacturing needs.

How so is the 30.06 round for the M1 different than the 30.06 round for the '03? The reason that the M1 is 30 caliber (originally designed to be .270), is that vast stocks of 30.06 were available and MacArthur pushed the disapproval of the .270 round. Therefore, there ain't no difference. The 30.06 round is different than the original round for the '03, hence the .06 designation. Those are the facts and easily researchable.Get Hatchers Book on the Garand it explains the development and everything you'll ever want to know.

I ran the 'the bad guys could hear the clip eject' theory past some WW2 infantrymen a while back...they thought it was pretty funny. One comment was 'You could reload fast enough that the Kraut would be one step away from his hiding place when you shot him.'
It might be worth remembering that the Germans tried 2 different semi auto rifle models to compete with the Garand- both were failures. That suggests to me that they thought they were at a disadvantage with the bolt action.
No question that the 98K was rugged and easy to maintain. But, the Garand proved to be, too, in about any climate conditions.
As far as accuracy, the Garand sights are so much better than the 98K sights, I'd give the practical accuracy edge to the M-1.
Having fired both in their original military configuration, I'll take the Garand to battle, and either collect or make sporters out of the 98.
The history of battle rifle development in the 20th century really tells you which system was more desireable- no bolt actions were introduced to main line service after WW2, lots of semi autos, and then full autos have been.
My .02$, and worth every penny you paid for it.

I've talked to one WWII vet that said they would throw handfuls of clips into the air, and when the Japanese heard the clips bouncing on the rocks, they would charge.

Wasn't there, can't verify, but that's what I was told. Interesting, anyway.

For what it is worth, there has been friendly competition between manual and semi-auto action owners at Gunsite's rifle and shotgun classes for years. These classes include a shoot-off at the end of each class which tests speed and accuracy in combination in an elimination tree designed by The Duchess. I think there has been a general sense that the semi-autos do shade the manuals (bolt or pump, respectively) on speed and tend to win the shoot offs, absent malfunctions. The manual actions are considered more reliable and easier to clear and to put back into action in the event of a jam or malfunction.

Kiddekop is right on Hatcher's book. But, basically, the Ball, Caliber .30 1906 was a 150 grain bullet over Pyro Double Graphite Powder. M1 Ball with 172 grain (actually 174.5 grains +0/-3 grains, despite the name) boat tail bullet was created in the 20's to add machine gun range and increase knock-down power at distance, which experienced WW I military officers thought inadequate. The new round used the then-new IMR powder. In the late 30's the National Guard asked for more of the old 1906 ammo to be made up because the M1 had greater extreme range than Guard practice ranges could safely accommodate, and because they were still shooting the Springfield ’03 and ’03-A3 rifles and the men complained of M1 Ball's higher recoil in those guns. The Army then created M2 Ball with a 152 grain bullet and IMR powder (Pyro DG was by then obsolete) to mimic the older round. The M1 Garand had already been ordered to be compatible with the M1 Ball of which stockpiles existed. Meanwhile, the machine gun people decided the longer range of M1 Ball wasn't a good trade-off against the higher arcing trajectory of 1906 and M2 Ball because the arcing trajectory allowed them to strafe a back slope more easily. For combat, it was also concluded that more penetration and effectiveness against light armor, vehicle tires, and etcetera was required. So, M2 AP, with 168 grain bullet was introduced and went on to become standard issue for combat. M2 ball made after the creation of M2 AP was loaded 100 fps warmer than 1906 to match the trajectory of M2 AP, so it could be interchanged with it in practice.

Get Hatchers Book on the Garand it explains the development and everything you'll ever want to know.
Thanks for your input. Hatcher is indeed a good source. I refer to Canfield and Duff for info. Though I stand corrected on the difference between M1 and M2 ammo, the bottom line is that during WW2, M2 ammo could be and was, fired through the '03. So the facts about '03 rounds having different brass, primers, and powder are moot. That was my point, not one that generated everyone to plug his favorite book or website. I beleive that Patterson's initial appraisal of 30.06 ammo was misleading, and frankly said so. To get beat up over a posted response is ungentleman like and not suitable for this forum.

While all these posts have been informative, and we have all learned tidbits of info that we never knew about the Garand and Mauser, I believe this thread has indeed run its course.
Let's ALL not forget that being courteous is the trademark of this forum, and submit our responces accordingly.

Thank you all for your contributions, thread is closed.:cool: