Swiss K31 vs. Mauser in Combat


PDA






Golden_006
August 27, 2010, 09:05 AM
Note:
Choice 3 means you would take a Browning BAR or something like that before an old bolt gun
Choice 4 means you would stay home unless you had a modern combat rifle.


Which would you rather have (in modern combat)? Why?

Seems like Mauser is still going strong on modern day cambat zones; even in industrialized countries i.e. Israel in 70s and former Yugoslavia in the 90's had wars where the mauser still was found on the battlefield. But is that because there were so many made and is the swiss just as good but not as readily available?

Just as good would mean higher rate of fire that would be more desirable than the range that a mauser has which is so World War 1. Of course several other wild cards are in play here which I leave you to make the call on which would be better.

If you enjoyed reading about "Swiss K31 vs. Mauser in Combat" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Mp7
August 27, 2010, 09:10 AM
lol ... youre gonna get some funny OT answers :_)


in modern combat ur muzzleflash will have some
heavy counterfire coming down on your position.

Oppressive fire with a bolt action seems difficult.

mongo4567
August 27, 2010, 09:31 AM
I would rather have an AK for a personal defense weapon, but I would feel very safe with either choice. I picked a K31 because they seem to be more accurate on the whole and the action is faster to cycle.

SlamFire1
August 27, 2010, 09:44 AM
Guns are unreliable. True action heroes engage the enemy bare handed. Preferably wearing a torn tee shirt and red bandanna.

While it is OK to shoot down helicopters with bows and arrows, guns are always a no-no.

GRIZ22
August 27, 2010, 10:10 AM
It's romantic to say you'd be willing to go into combat with a bolt action but I'd take an AR and a radio. Yes there are bolt actions in use all over the world but I can call in CAS and artillery with the radio.

CHEVELLE427
August 27, 2010, 10:17 AM
with the choice listed

i picked K31

i have a K31 and 2 Mauser's

i shoot better with the swiss at long distance open sights.

and i can hunt with both.

Golden_006
August 27, 2010, 11:16 AM
While it is OK to shoot down helicopters with bows and arrows, guns are always a no-no.

actually it was a rock. Although in the book he shot it down. I actually saw an avant garde play based on this book/movie.

Meanwhile armies still field it and have for the last couple of decades -- including industrialized countries -- so not sure what all the sarcasm is. Just because the US army has a gun with 50 doo dads doesn't mean they are going to win the war

jaybirdjtski
August 27, 2010, 11:39 AM
A modern army is going to come to you at night. They'll have the eyes and you'll be out in the dark without NV. Good luck! Better add a flash suppressor to whatever you are shooting.

amd6547
August 27, 2010, 11:50 AM
Yeah, jaybird...I guess that is why we are just kicking Taliban butt over in Afghanistan...Im surprised there are any left to shoot.

tinygnat219
August 27, 2010, 11:57 AM
I'll take the one that's actually BEEN in battle: The Mauser. It's proven. The K-31? It's big claim to fame is accuracy and never having been in battle.

Jimfern
August 27, 2010, 11:58 AM
I believe the 4th option should read, "I would be caught dead facing a modern army with ancient weapons."

ScratchnDent
August 27, 2010, 12:03 PM
I much prefer the sights on the K31.

BushyGuy
August 27, 2010, 12:16 PM
i rather have the .300 Winchester magnum in a Remington 700 bolt action, its way more accurate and at least has a recoil pad on the stock!:neener:

Palehorseman
August 27, 2010, 12:19 PM
Well, the Mauser has been proven in mud and blood battle for decades around the world. What is the proven combat record of the K-31? Answer, nada, as in "ZERO."

ForumSurfer
August 27, 2010, 12:53 PM
If all I had available were a mauser and a k31, I'd take the mauser. (Edit:: Only because I know how to strip it and I am far more familiar with it.)

Given my choices, I'd rather take a hunting rifle (rugged, ammo availability) and sneak my family off into the woods.

For anything else, we're talking mission specific stuff. A mauser would be awesome for defense at a distance. If I'm fighting indoors (as likely would be the case), that mauser is awfully long so I'd much rather bring an ar from home. Suppressive fire would necessitate a modern semiauto instead of a mauser....or at least a whole bunch of mausers and buddies.

Robert
August 27, 2010, 01:04 PM
If I were to go into combat, and I am not going to, I would use what I was issued. Fantasy combat and eotw threads are pointless.

Justin
August 27, 2010, 01:16 PM
If I was going into modern combat with a rifle like that, I think I'd defect and join the other side.

Seriously, this is silly.

fireside44
August 27, 2010, 01:26 PM
I think in today's world of auto loaders people forget what a skilled rifleman can do with a bolt action weapon.

Seriously, this is silly.

Silly is assuming a bolt action can't be used to deadly effect on a battlefield. See Afghanistan.

Robert
August 27, 2010, 01:31 PM
Silly is assuming a bolt action can't be used to deadly effect on a battlefield. See Afghanistan.
Silly is assuming that just because that one has a bolt action rifle and one has seen Red Dawn, that one would last more than 5 mins on a modern battlefield. I have several bolt action rifles and love them all. But they have not influenced the out come of a battle in almost 70 years. There are lots of internet commandos out there. These threads draw them like flies to a dead animal.

Justin
August 27, 2010, 01:35 PM
Silly is assuming a bolt action can't be used to deadly effect on a battlefield. See Afghanistan.

Are you talking about the bolt action rifles issued to modern snipers who are able to deliver shots with pinpoint accuracy at ranges out to and beyond 1000 yards, or the ancient ones wielded by illiterate fourth world Talibanis?

In the case of the first, I agree. In the case of the second, I suppose the occasional lucky shot is made, but it's a ridiculous stretch to assume that such engagements are an indication that old designs that were more or less obsolete in the 1930s, using inferior iron sights can hold a candle to a modern rifle sporting an ACOG.

Shadow 7D
August 27, 2010, 01:41 PM
Funny, seems the talibs have this funny habit, it involves heavy machine guns, AK's and IED, and goes something like an ambush, if they tried a stand up fight, they have this nasty habit of dying....

SO
the entire premise is SILLY

Yeah, I'd take the (other) option, as number four should be phrased

I would be dead facing a modern army with ancient weapons

HexHead
August 27, 2010, 01:43 PM
You use the Mauser to shoot the enemy and take his modern weapons. And use them to get the better ones. ;)

Cosmoline
August 27, 2010, 01:53 PM
The big advantage of a Mauser or K31 would be greater range than an AR type and better accuracy than an AK. Since the K31 shooting GP11 is considerably more accurate than a workaday Mauser, I'd say that would be the logical choice.

And I'll add that it's a VERY GOOD THING the Taliban have worn out two bit Khyber pass rifles instead of nice Swiss clockwork death sticks. It's also very good that few if any of them are trained marksmen. Let's hope it stays that way. Because in full body armor, AR 15 and a tank behind me I STILL wouldn't want to be standing anywhere inside of 600 meters of a skilled rifleman with a K31.

fireside44
August 27, 2010, 01:58 PM
Silly is assuming that just because that one has a bolt action rifle and one has seen Red Dawn, that one would last more than 5 mins on a modern battlefield.

Hate to break it to you, but if you think your AR is going to make all the difference between living and dying as a civilian caught on a battlefield you are mistaken.

Are you talking about the bolt action rifles issued to modern snipers who are able to deliver shots with pinpoint accuracy at ranges out to and beyond 1000 yards, or the ancient ones wielded by illiterate fourth world Talibanis?

Both. Even ancient ones wielded by illiterate fourth world Talibanis (why bring up their reading and writing skills?) have made the news. The distances involved are greater and so auto loading advantages are lessened, as aimed fire is more critical than volume/rate of fire.

In the case of the second, I suppose the occasional lucky shot is made, but it's a ridiculous stretch to assume that such engagements are an indication that old designs that were more or less obsolete in the 1930s, using inferior iron sights can hold a candle to a modern rifle sporting an ACOG.

A modern 5.56 AR with ACOG is more or less worthless beyond about 600 yards, especially the carbines. That is a limitation of the cartridge. This is the reason the military is scrambling to get more 7.62 NATO weapons to the field, because they need more weapons that can engage at great distance.

If someone is shooting at you, even inaccurately, from beyond 600 yards, most people want something that will allow them to effectively engage. A vintage military bolt gun, while inferior in terms of rate of fire is undoubtedly superior in terms of effective range.

HexHead
August 27, 2010, 02:10 PM
And I'll add that it's a VERY GOOD THING the Taliban have worn out two bit Khyber pass rifles instead of nice Swiss clockwork death sticks. It's also very good that few if any of them are trained marksmen.

These guys have been living in caves and have probably been hunting all their lives and you question their marksmanship? Compared to many of the US troops that never even held a firearm until basic training? Hubris is one of the reasons we'll lose in Afghanistan.

Robert
August 27, 2010, 02:11 PM
A vintage military bolt gun, while inferior in terms of rate of fire is undoubtedly superior in terms of effective range.
Longer effective range does =/= accurate. And an accurate rifle does not mean that the shooter is capable of making those shots.
Hate to break it to you, but if you think your AR is going to make all the difference between living and dying as a civilian caught on a battlefield you are mistaken.

Hate to break it to you. I do not own an AR, or any auto loading rifle at this time. But an (insert favorite auto loading rifle here) will give the shooter a better chance at putting a higher volume or sustained fire down rage. Even at ranges that render 5.56 a less than desirable choice. Aimed fire is very difficult if the air around you is filled with suppressing fire. You are correct that aimed fire is a very important part of shooting. But to assume that one can make a one shot hit at 800 yards with iron sights on a 70 year old rifle is well, silly. Can it be done? Sure. Can it be done when the other guy is turning your hill side into an impact zone? Doubtful. Both aimed and suppressive fire have their place.

HexHead
August 27, 2010, 02:15 PM
If someone is shooting at you, even inaccurately, from beyond 600 yards, most people want something that will allow them to effectively engage. A vintage military bolt gun, while inferior in terms of rate of fire is undoubtedly superior in terms of effective range.


A time honored strategy is using longer range weapons that can stand off and shoot at them before you are in their range. Jackson used it in New Orleans, and the Taliban are using it in Tora Bora.

Cosmoline
August 27, 2010, 02:15 PM
Not just me:

Last week, At War opened a conversation about Afghan marksmanship by publishing rough data from several dozen recent firefights between the Taliban and three Marine rifle companies in and near Marja, the location of the recent offensive in Helmand Province. The data showed that while the Taliban can be canny and brave in combat their rifle fire is often remarkably ineffective.

http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/04/02/the-weakness-of-taliban-marksmanship/

Don't assume that the Taliban are all crack shots from the hills. The word means "student," and most of their recruits are very young men or even children who have never lived a subsistence lifestyle in mountains, let alone hunted.

JHK94
August 27, 2010, 02:23 PM
For those of you who don't read it, one of the other main issues noted with Taliban marksmanship is the widespread lack of treatment for eye problems.

fireside44
August 27, 2010, 02:27 PM
Longer effective range does =/= accurate. And an accurate rifle does not mean that the shooter is capable of making those shots.

Please note that my original point was that many guys underestimate what a SKILLED rifleman can do with a "relic" like a bolt action rifle. Contrary to popular THR belief, the AR-15/M16 series of rifles are not the end all to military weaponry.

But to assume that one can make a one shot hit at 800 yards with iron sights on a 70 year old rifle is well, silly.

You are assuming that I am assuming these things. I am not.

The fact is that the ballistics of a 30-06, 8mm mauser, 7.5 swiss, 7.62x51 are inherently superior to the 5.56 for engaging targets at great range. In a place of wide open spaces, such as Afghanistan, the "superiority" of the AR is limited due to ballistics and so the advantages of the auto loader vs a bolt gun are lessened.

cougar1717
August 27, 2010, 02:28 PM
A bolt action rifle as the primary issued firearm hasn't been tried in quite a few years. Even so, I picked choice 4 since left handed people have a hard time shooting a right handed bolt action, let alone the K-31 which is a real pain (try it sometime - nearly impossible). At least even somewhat modern battle rifles and assault rifles are more ambidextrous. Look at the M1 Garand, M14, FN49, FAL, AK, AR, etc. Faster rate of fire, quicker reload times with the use of a magazine or clip, and there's at least some reduction in recoil due to the semi-auto action.

Wolfebyte
August 27, 2010, 02:28 PM
:confused: but wait.. my K98 Mauser IS my hunting rifle.. :rolleyes:

Justin
August 27, 2010, 03:50 PM
Hate to break it to you, but if you think your AR is going to make all the difference between living and dying as a civilian caught on a battlefield you are mistaken.

Here's the thing. I'm not all that invested in this discussion, because the notion that I would somehow find myself on a modern battlefield with a gun that came from my safe is so preposterous that the odds of it happening are about as likely that I'll be eaten by a shark. (I live in a landlocked, arid, western state.)

Both.

Yes, well, the methods employed by US military snipers are, I imagine, somewhat different than those employed by those they're engaging. Furthermore, the difference between a rifle like a Mauser K98 and a modern sniper rifle is about like the difference between a Model T and a Bugatti Veyron.

Even ancient ones wielded by illiterate fourth world Talibanis (why bring up their reading and writing skills?) have made the news. The distances involved are greater and so auto loading advantages are lessened, as aimed fire is more critical than volume/rate of fire.

You're assuming that accurate, aimed fire cannot be accomplished with a semi auto rifle. Furthermore, you're presuming that just because a cartridge has good ballistics that it is automatically more deadly at range. You're completely ignoring the platform the weapon is being launched from (old, iron-sighted, built using construction techniques that aren't as good as modern CNC machining.)

At those distances, at best, you're engaging in harassing fire, which was probably a cool thing back in the days of pith helmets, monocles, and volley sights, but doesn't work so well nowadays, which probably explains why the people we're fighting much prefer to use IEDs to engaging in actual firefights.

Justin
August 27, 2010, 03:55 PM
Please note that my original point was that many guys underestimate what a SKILLED rifleman can do with a "relic" like a bolt action rifle. Contrary to popular THR belief, the AR-15/M16 series of rifles are not the end all to military weaponry.

If so, then why is it the overwhelming choice for so many police, military, and competitive shooters based on Stoner's design?

If the difference between an old iron-sighted bolt gun and a modern, self-loading rifle with an optic is truly not as big of a leap as it would appear to be, then where are the guys showing up to tactical rifle or 3gun matches who are showing up all of the misguided AR kids?

Justin
August 27, 2010, 03:56 PM
The fact is that the ballistics of a 30-06, 8mm mauser, 7.5 swiss, 7.62x51 are inherently superior to the 5.56 for engaging targets at great range. In a place of wide open spaces, such as Afghanistan, the "superiority" of the AR is limited due to ballistics and so the advantages of the auto loader vs a bolt gun are lessened.

Superior ballistics become something of a moot point if the bullet is being launched from a platform that is sub-optimal, or being employed by a shooter with sub-par skill.

Golden_006
August 27, 2010, 05:09 PM
Justin, admittedly this thread involves philosophy and romance more than anything else but so what? I had a technical question about my k98 stock and it got answered in like 3 posts. what fun is that? Just a few points . . .

Cal penal and NYPD used a Ruger Mini not AR at least till a couple of years ago. So not sure on the math but both of those outfits are huge and call into question the overwhelming majority claim.

Further, you act as though the Mauser and Lee Enfield were locked away after WW2 and never seen again til Afganistan/Iraq. They've seen combat in all those intervening years and fought in wars the world over, along with m16s like in 'nam and AKs; along the way; with all modern guns in industrial countries and 3rd world.

Also your comment about the 8mm round doesn't take into account penetration of cover even in urban areas

That's not to say that the K98 is the better gun.

Cosmoline
August 27, 2010, 05:24 PM
If so, then why is it the overwhelming choice for so many police, military, and competitive shooters based on Stoner's design?

Marketing. And unquestionable superior firepower. But where suppressive fire is not needed, that advantage becomes moot.

fireside44
August 27, 2010, 05:49 PM
You're assuming that accurate, aimed fire cannot be accomplished with a semi auto rifle.

Not at all. How did you manage to conclude that from what I wrote? Where was it implied or stated?

Furthermore, you're presuming that just because a cartridge has good ballistics that it is automatically more deadly at range.

Yes, I am presuming that a larger more powerful full size rifle cartridge is, with an accurate shooter, more "deadly" at range in compared to a smaller, less powerful mid range cartridge. Yes, I think that is a pretty safe presumption.

You're completely ignoring the platform the weapon is being launched from (old, iron-sighted, built using construction techniques that aren't as good as modern CNC machining.)

Construction techniques that aren't as good as modern CNC machining? Are you saying a aluminum AR is superior to a Swiss K31 in terms of construction quality?

At those distances, at best, you're engaging in harassing fire, which was probably a cool thing back in the days of pith helmets, monocles, and volley sights, but doesn't work so well nowadays, which probably explains why the people we're fighting much prefer to use IEDs to engaging in actual firefights.

They use IED's because they have dated weapons, less trained personnel, and virtually no air power (the real kicker). And so IED's are an efficient and demoralizing way of fighting a war that they otherwise would not have a chance at winning.

As for harassing fire, it is harassing fire nonetheless and it has been widely reported and the military is attempting to act on it by obtaining more DM style full power rifle cartridge weapons.

If so, then why is it the overwhelming choice for so many police, military, and competitive shooters based on Stoner's design?

It's akin to saying the Mossberg 500 is the end all in shotgun home defense because there are more people who have them than other shotguns or that the Remington 700 is the last word in bolt rifle design. Just because it is among the most popular doesn't mean that there aren't other valid designs that have been or are being used.

There are plenty of excellent auto loaders to choose from. The AR is just one among many.

Superior ballistics become something of a moot point if the bullet is being launched from a platform that is sub-optimal, or being employed by a shooter with sub-par skill.

And as I stated at least three times in this thread already, my references were to a skilled rifleman not an untrained hack. I guess that went unnoticed.

John Parker
August 27, 2010, 09:25 PM
Are you talking about the bolt action rifles issued to modern snipers who are able to deliver shots with pinpoint accuracy at ranges out to and beyond 1000 yards, or the ancient ones wielded by illiterate fourth world Talibanis?


Taliban is the plural of the Pashto talib, so saying 'Talibanis' is incorrect.

:D

M39SKY
August 27, 2010, 09:42 PM
K-31 can have six round in the mag and one in the chamber, easier (for me) to shoot quickly. Of course, one has to take advantage of its full power ammo by using it at long distances. Plus, it can be had in nice walnut stocks which add to the romanticism of old rifles:neener:

Shadow 7D
August 28, 2010, 01:09 AM
OK, so anybody care to throw in why accuracy doesn't matter in a Kalashnikov and 7.62 soviet isn't a great distance round???

because casualties in war, FROM RIFLE FIRE is mostly produced by engagements of less than 100m....

And that is why we have the AK and the M-16, and yes they can reach out and touch someone, but, either a SDM or CAS, does the same job. You may dodge a bullet, but you aren't dodging a radio. Would I use a bolt on a battlefield, ??

from a fire base inside the wire, or with my company at my back, cause when the get inside 100m, you are screwed.

ScratchnDent
August 28, 2010, 02:14 AM
M39SKY, that is a beautiful collection!

Hatterasguy
August 28, 2010, 08:49 AM
The Swiss, because they never fight anyone. They prefer just to do business with all sides and make money off them.:D

Hatterasguy
August 28, 2010, 08:59 AM
A modern 5.56 AR with ACOG is more or less worthless beyond about 600 yards, especially the carbines. That is a limitation of the cartridge. This is the reason the military is scrambling to get more 7.62 NATO weapons to the field, because they need more weapons that can engage at great distance.

If someone is shooting at you, even inaccurately, from beyond 600 yards, most people want something that will allow them to effectively engage. A vintage military bolt gun, while inferior in terms of rate of fire is undoubtedly superior in terms of effective range.

Who needs to shoot past 600, that's what A10's are for.

Since WW2 army's have gotten away from K98 type rifles because the chances of landing a shot on an enemy at 600+ yards that's moving and doesn't want to be hit is so slim that its not worth the ammo to shoot at them. Its better to carry more smaller rounds to increase firepower at more realistic ranges. Its far better to scatter in a bunch of longer range weapons at the platoon level to take care of such rare shots when they present themselves. Prior to that commanders had hard ons for long rifles with 20in bayonets, heck the sights on my 1911 Swiss rifle don't even adjust closer than 300 yards. Such weapons are left over from Napoleonic tactics, which thankfully WW1 proved don't work anymore.

jpwilly
August 28, 2010, 09:59 AM
The straight pull bolt and accuracy of the K-31 may seem great at the range but there's no way that action isn't going to jam when dirt is added...Combat with a K-31? = NO THANKS. The Mauser is king of this discussion but I wouldn't take either into modern combat unless the alternative was a pistol or sharp stick.

Vern Humphrey
August 28, 2010, 10:47 AM
I'll take the one that's actually BEEN in battle: The Mauser. It's proven. The K-31? It's big claim to fame is accuracy and never having been in battle.
Amen.

As one of those saddled with the latest, newest but un-combat tested rifle of the time (the M16 in the '60s), I am a strong advocate of going with the devil you know. It's impossible to tell what flaws combat will reveal in a new weapon.

We might also point out that straight-pull bolt actions have never done well in combat -- the Canadian Ross being a shining example of what happens to such a rifle in the muck and mess of combat.

lencac
August 28, 2010, 11:59 AM
Hypathetical question of combat. Has anybody been in combat who has replied to this thread? Those are the answers that have validity, all others are just garbage. Interesting how these silly threads get the most response (yeah I guess I'll bite too:rolleyes:)
When the SHTF ........ and it will ............ soon ........... all you armchair combat soldiers may very well get put in a situation where you will either have to defend your property and family and put your money where your mouth is or are you going to stick your head back in the sand and go back to your Big Macs and porn sites?
I gaurantty when things start to get ugly, and they will, if you got a Mauser with ammo or a K-31 with ammo and that's all you got, both will look pretty darn good to you.
So here's my question instead of this hypathetical nonsense. When you wake up one morning and find out the dollar has crashed and is worth nothing due to the coming hyperinflation. And any cash or stocks or anything you have that is tied to the dollar is worthless and the groccery store shelves are no longer being stocked, what is your plan of action? Think about it :scrutiny:

Vern Humphrey
August 28, 2010, 12:41 PM
Hypathetical question of combat. Has anybody been in combat who has replied to this thread?
Yes. My first tour in Viet Nam, I was an adviser to ARVN infantry and my issue weapon was an M2 carbine, which got wrapped around a tree and thereafter I carried an M1 Garand I borrowed from the ARVN, along with my Colt M357, which I used twice.

My second tour, I was an Infantry company commander (A-1/61 IN) in Northern I Corps. My brigade was actually under the command of the 3rd Marine Division, so I can wear their patch, too.

I have used in combat the M2 carbine, my M357 Colt, the M1 Garand, the M16A1 rifle (early version) the M1918A2 BAR, the M60 machine gun, the Browning M2 HB machinegun and the accurized (pre-M21) M14 sniper rifle. If you count air strikes, artillery and mortars I called called in, armed helicopters and Spooky gunships, I have a fair amount of experience.

I have also had, but never fired in anger an M1 Thompson submachine gun and an M3 submachine gun, a Winchester Model 12 shotgun and of course the M1911A1 pistol (which I used to kill a humongous python.)

FIVETWOSEVEN
August 28, 2010, 12:52 PM
You use the Mauser to shoot the enemy and take his modern weapons. And use them to get the better ones.
Worked for the French!

Vern Humphrey
August 28, 2010, 01:00 PM
Worked for the French!
Yep. We all remember how the French crossed the channel, landed in England on June 6th, 1944 and drove the Nazis out.:p

Joe Demko
August 28, 2010, 01:24 PM
all you armchair combat soldiers may very well get put in a situation where you will either have to defend your property and family and put your money where your mouth is or are you going to stick your head back in the sand and go back to your Big Macs and porn sites?

porn sites and Big Macs...gun sites and surplus MRE's...paraphilias are more alike than they are different so yours involving milsurps doesn't impress me. What is your claim to expertise other than owning some guns?

Shadow 7D
August 28, 2010, 02:28 PM
How bout your post your military record

see veteran don't feel the need to post it on a thread like this, but for those of us who have been there and done that, questions like lencacs, are funny, he must be a 16 yo, dude real life is nothing like call of duty 1-3....

Joe Demko
August 28, 2010, 02:34 PM
OK, so you don't really bring anything to the table but a rough hewn writing style and cryptic references to a military past. Thanks for your time, but there are other people here who I'll look to for input on this.

fireside44
August 28, 2010, 02:40 PM
Who needs to shoot past 600, that's what A10's are for.

A guy who doesn't want to get shot at inside of 600.

The straight pull bolt and accuracy of the K-31 may seem great at the range but there's no way that action isn't going to jam when dirt is added...Combat with a K-31? = NO THANKS.

So you have tested this rifle extensively in simulated battle conditions?

happygeek
August 28, 2010, 03:21 PM
Good Lord, this again. Seriously, why is that every one of these threads I see says nothing about tactics, operations, rules of engagement, the application of assets like artillery, CAS & AWT, ISR, Predators, etc. etc. There is a LOT more to a war than small arms. The insurgents in OEF-A aren't stupid, at least not all of them. They learn from experience, they study the U.S.'s TTPs and ROE, and come up with their own TTPs in response.

Yet every time I see one of these threads, it seems like people think the Taliban is well served by using a K31 or a Mauser, hanging out 800m away from the U.S. position, and laying down accurate fire out of range of return fire from M4s. It's just not that simple.

Oh and to answer the poll, on a modern battlefield you'd be best off with none of the above. Learn how to make explosives from common stuff you can get ahold of, then figure out booby trap methods like pressure plates, trip wires, command lines, remote triggers, etc. You'd do a lot more damage that way then with a AR10 or a Mauser.

Vern Humphrey
August 28, 2010, 03:43 PM
Learn how to make explosives from common stuff you can get ahold of, then figure out booby trap methods like pressure plates, trip wires, command lines, remote triggers, etc. You'd do a lot more damage that way then with a AR10 or a Mauser.
I spent a year and a half at General Motors, training engineers and other technical personnel. At some point, someone decided the trainers needed to attend a course to learn about manufacturing. We "students" had to manufacture and demonstrate something.

I manufactured a field-expedient pull-release device for a claymore mine.

The instructor's comment was, "You scare me."

And my reply was, "And don't you forget it, Sweetheart.":D

happygeek
August 28, 2010, 04:44 PM
Best thing to come out of this thread (from the article someone linked to on Taliban marksmanship):

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2010/04/01/blogs/top-art-chivers/top-art-chivers-blogSpan.jpg

Everybody is on line, looks like their at some sort of makeshift rifle range, and one guy decided he'd just blow up the target with his RPG.

John Parker
August 28, 2010, 04:45 PM
Hypathetical question of combat. Has anybody been in combat who has replied to this thread? Those are the answers that have validity, all others are just garbage. Interesting how these silly threads get the most response (yeah I guess I'll bite too)


Yes. I've done a tour in Afghanistan and a tour in Iraq. And I'll tell you this: when fighting against an insurgency, if you are worrying about the type of rifle you've got, then you're asking the wrong questions and looking for the wrong answers. It's not about killing more of them than they do us. Insurgents don't win by killing the occupier, they win by helping to foster conditions untenable to the occupying force. Body counts really don't mean squat.

happygeek
August 28, 2010, 05:02 PM
Agreed, except for that last point. Body counts do matter. Do you really think that the public wouldn't be demanding an immediate and unequivocal withdrawal if we'd have lost as many guys as the Soviets did during their roughly 9 years in Afghanistan?

I was on Amazon, oh, about 6 months ago looking for books on the Soviet Afghan War. I was surprised I didn't find all that many. The first one I read was The Gamble (http://www.amazon.com/Great-Gamble-Soviet-War-Afghanistan/dp/0061143197/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1283028585&sr=1-2) which was a very good book, gave a broad overview of the war. The most interesting part of the whole book was actually the beginning, where the Soviets overthrew the leader of Afghanistan and put their puppet in. That part read like a Tom Clancy novel. Truth is stranger than fiction sometimes.

The other book was The Soviet-Afghan War: How a Superpower Fought and Lost (http://www.amazon.com/Soviet-Afghan-War-Superpower-Fought-Lost/dp/070061186X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1283028585&sr=1-1), which was a lot more technical and rather dry in some places, but an excellent read. It also gave a lot of insight into what life was like in the Soviet army of the 1980s.

There was a lot of things the Soviets did wrong in Afghanistan, but using the AK74 wasn't really one of them. If I had to pick the one thing Soviets really f*cked up, it's that they weren't nice to the populace. They were attempting to prop up an unpopular government, and they weren't doing anything to make anyone support them or that government. I'm no expert and I realize I am overgeneralizing a bit, but what the Soviets did on the strategic level was a pretty good example of exactly how you shouldn't conduct COIN.

I realize I'm getting way off topic and diving into politics and military history, but the point is that there's a LOT more to fighting and winning a war than small arms.

leadcounsel
August 28, 2010, 05:15 PM
Newsflash -

It takes a single shot from a hidden marksman to bring a unit to a halt, as we've seen in both Iraq and Afghan.

Single kill shots over time drop morale...

With all of our expensive hi-tech gear we have yet, after a decade, to decisively win in either 3rd world nations. In fact we are barely winning/won in Iraq and are seriously discussing withdrawal in Afghanistan (which would in my eyes not be a US victory, but at best a stalemate).

Back to the OP - I would take the K31. Faster followup shots and a higher capacity detachable magazine and better sights.

nathan
August 28, 2010, 06:30 PM
In terms of simplicity and robustness, the mauser shines. I d pick up the M 24 47 and several ammo bandoleers if in a STHF scenario.

lencac
August 28, 2010, 06:54 PM
Well, I guess some of you guys told me:o I have zero military experience. I also have rifles and I shoot rifles. I have Mausers, I have K31's and I pretty much hit what I aim at. But then again nobody is shooting back:eek: The original hypathetical question is without value or merrit. In a real combat situation the differance in the two rifles is insignificant and is more dependent on the pucker factor. I don't have to be a Navy SEAL or a Delta Force to understand that. I believe if you ask any of the combat vets in here they would agree. I'll hitch my wagon to the combat vet anyday because thay are the ones who will show you how to stay alive and not weather you have a Mauser or a K31. How rediculous.
My point was, while we so enjoyably talk out our behinds (with the exception of the combat vet) about some abstract useless question we forget that there is a real thief and real enemy right here in our own house. And you good Americans, you know what I mean.
The question is no longer hypathetical and is coming to a town near you .......... soon:uhoh: So wake up America:eek: The time for idle chit chat is over:fire: My comment was not intended to put anybody down but rather to invoke some thought about what we, as free Americans are about to face, the decisions we make and what we can do to come together and plan a course of action. Because things are going to get ugly relatively soon. And that's why I want to know what real folks who have been under the stress of combat think about what to do. Everybody else, me included probably are in the dark.
So I hope this soothes any ruffled feathers.
I thank God everyday for our men and women who serve this nation in the military, past, present and future:)
So are we, as Americans going to put aside our "look at me" attitudes and our petty differances or are we going to go down to the local Walmart and buy a Chinese made prayer rug? Oh, and remember ............. press "1" for english:neener:

happygeek
August 28, 2010, 09:01 PM
Newsflash -

It takes a single shot from a hidden marksman to bring a unit to a halt, as we've seen in both Iraq and Afghan.

Single kill shots over time drop morale...

With all of our expensive hi-tech gear we have yet, after a decade, to decisively win in either 3rd world nations. In fact we are barely winning/won in Iraq and are seriously discussing withdrawal in Afghanistan (which would in my eyes not be a US victory, but at best a stalemate).


While that's true, it takes more than marksmen with Mausers to win, otherwise the German army would have carried WWII. IEDs also have a habit of taking out 1 or 2 troops while stopping a vehicle and much of the convoy along with it. The key to IEDs is that if you use pressure plates, trip wires, or a couple other methods [I'm certainly not EOD, I'm sure they could list you all the methods], you don't have to be there when your weapon hits the enemy. For an insurgent that needs to blend into the populace and not stand out lest he come under vastly superior enemy firepower, that is a huge bonus. IEDs also have a rather detrimental effect on morale.

Much of our high tech weapons like air support is rendered worthless to the fight because the insurgents are smart enough to hang out next to civilians. You can certainly hit both, but that's kinda morally wrong, it's generally agreed to be counterproductive to COIN, and we've already seen the Russians try it in Afghanistan.

Again, I realize I'm over generalizing. I'm no COIN expert and I'm not even an officer. I guess the definitive way to settle the question would be to ask GEN Petraeus which bolt action rifle is best in Afghanistan. These threads are amusing, but it does seem kinda silly to argue about which bolt action is preferable in something as complex as waging an insurgency. Hell, I doubt the Taliban worries too much about that, I think they just use whatever they can get, and get ammo for.

jpwilly
August 28, 2010, 11:09 PM
So you have tested this rifle extensively in simulated battle conditions?

No sir, I haven't, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn last night.

Seriously though, my K31 has a very tight chamber and I have no doubts with the reduced leverage / cam-ming force available from the straight pull design debris or bad ammo could cause a serious issue. Especially with extraction just because I can shove a round in doesn't mean it's going to come back out without a mallet.

To be sure though, I may have do some testing. Maybe I'm wrong - I'm okay with that! Maybe my intuition is correct...I don't know.

That said, I have both and if I had to choose one today - no question it would be the Mauser K98.

bgrav321
August 28, 2010, 11:59 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Colenso

The Boers were equipped with the almost brand spanking new Mauser rifle. The British deployed their artillery around 6-800 yards from prone, concealed Boers without optics. They were cut to pieces by "antique" rifles shooting who knows what kind of ammo in the hands of skilled farmers. Obsolete doesn't equal useless. The Boers didn't use supressive fire the way we do now. They just shot people. They aimed at you, not where they thought you might be.

happygeek
August 29, 2010, 01:44 AM
Early on the morning of 15 December, Hart gave his men half an hour's parade ground drill, then led them in close column towards the Bridle Drift. However, his locally recruited guide, who spoke no English, led the brigade to the wrong ford, the Pont Drift at the end of a loop in the river at 2843′57″S 2947′16″E / 28.7325S 29.78778E / -28.7325; 29.78778. (The loop can be clearly seen to the right of the photograph at the head of the article.) Botha had ordered his men to hold their fire until the British tried to cross the river, but Hart's brigade jammed into the loop of the river was too good a target to miss. The Boers opened fire and Hart's brigade was to suffer over 500 casualties before they could be extricated. The battalions repeatedly tried to extend to the left and locate the Bridle Drift. On each occasion, Hart recalled them and sent them back into the loop.[10]

Meanwhile, as Hildyard moved towards Colenso, the two batteries of field guns under Colonel Charles James Long forged ahead of him, and deployed in the open well within rifle range of the nearest Boers. Once again, this was too tempting a target, and the Boers opened fire. The British gunners fought on even though suffering heavy casualties, but were eventually forced to take shelter in a donga (dry stream bed) behind the guns.

I'm not saying that you can win a war while not being able to hit the broad side of a barn or that marksmanship means nothing. I guess my point is that I keep seeing these threads about "would I fare ok with a M1 Garand on a modern battlefield" or "which bolt action would I rather have on a modern battlefield", and I never seem to see tactics or strategy mentioned.


According to Wikipedia, this was in 1899. The Mauser was hardly obsolete. Looks like the British used absolutely atrocious tactics too, right up there on the WWI tactic of mass charges against dug in enemies with machine guns, riflemen, and artillery.

Really, at least according to Wikipedia, looks like the British used such bad tactics [marching into a choke point and then bottling up in the kill zone, setting up artillery in rifle range and in the wide open with no cover, etc.] that they basically turned the battle into a day at the range for the enemy.

I'm not saying that you can win a war while not being able to hit the broad side of a barn or that marksmanship doesn't matter. It's just that I keep seeing these threads about "how would I fare on a modern battlefield with a M1 Garand?" or "which bolt action would be better on a modern battlefield", and tactics and strategy don't get mentioned.

Ignition Override
August 29, 2010, 02:01 AM
When riding a train in eastern Switzerland back in '89 or so, an older Swiss lady told me that there had been a battle or skirmish with German troops on the eastern border.
She did not say whether the location was flat or hilly.

Although I have never read about such skirmishes etc, the K-31 or predecessor could have seen limited combat.

happygeek: That seems also to have been a nightmare in Viet Nam.
According to author Lt. Philip Caputo in "A Rumour Of War", a large fraction of serious injuries/deaths were from mines, where the Marine rifle companies patroled on trails miles west of Da Nang. It must have been quite a factor throughout South Vietnam.

bgrav321
August 29, 2010, 08:19 AM
@ happygeek,

I am not saying I would be content with one in a modern situation. But in the hands of a skilled rifleman, even with open sights, a Mauser is very dangerous in the hands of a skilled marksman. Colenso is not the only place this kind of shooting occurred. And in the mountains of Afghanistan, with Humvees on roads in open terrain, there is opportunity for such shooting. I am NOT an armchair commando, just thought that an account such as that of Colenso (long range effective fire from Mausers) was pertinent to the discussion. I personally would never like to find out which one is better in combat :rolleyes:

Golden_006
August 29, 2010, 09:58 AM
I'm not saying that you can win a war while not being able to hit the broad side of a barn or that marksmanship doesn't matter. It's just that I keep seeing these threads about "how would I fare on a modern battlefield with a M1 Garand?" or

well why would they since this isn't a military tactics board? Also, if you're asking about using a bolt gun in a modern battlefield -- then I think the tactics would obviously be unconventional warfare.

i think i asked the question about a Garand also. It was a question within a thread about the Garand in general however not its own thread. I just think people get caught up in all this tech stuff when it's just overkill for the most part.

Also the K98 isn't the same gun as the mauser from the Boer war. I think just the bolt is the same.

Hatterasguy
August 29, 2010, 10:49 AM
Newsflash -

It takes a single shot from a hidden marksman to bring a unit to a halt, as we've seen in both Iraq and Afghan.

Single kill shots over time drop morale...

With all of our expensive hi-tech gear we have yet, after a decade, to decisively win in either 3rd world nations. In fact we are barely winning/won in Iraq and are seriously discussing withdrawal in Afghanistan (which would in my eyes not be a US victory, but at best a stalemate).

Back to the OP - I would take the K31. Faster followup shots and a higher capacity detachable magazine and better sights.

The K31 is a fantastic rifle an I have no doubt it would serve well in combat.

Having said that its totally irrelevant to modern combat.

We have already lost the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan just like Vietnam and to a lesser extent Korea. Because we have this limited war BS mentality in our mind. We lost those wars the day they started.

I'm a big fan of the Sherman Doctrine. War is evil and should be avoided whenever possible. However when forced to go to war the only objective and the most moral one for both sides is total destruction of the enemy civilization; total war. Limited war is inhumane. All it does is drag the occupying country into the internal affairs of the nation its occupying, and a lot of people die to achieve nothing.

Whenever we stick to the Sherman Doctrine we win, ie WW2. Whenever we deviate from it we lose or cause "blow back" as the CIA likes to call it. IE every shooting war after WW2. WW1 was also a failure, since the Sherman Doctrine was not applied the road to WW2 was paved.

Interestingly the only application of the Sherman Doctrine post WW2 prevented WW3, the Cuban Missile crises. This was a perfect use of the Sherman Doctrine.

jpwilly
August 29, 2010, 02:16 PM
^^^ I was about to comment in one of my replies on a very similar note...not sure if it's appropriate for this thread but here goes.

It's not the high tech hardware that hasn't performed...it's doing its job. The kind of war it would take to truly win would be gruesome and most people don't have the heart for a non PC war. We would have to be like the Roman's, conquerers not the world police. We'd have to shed our image as tolorant liberators and invade to finish the war in other places...let's just forget about borders and call it the entire middle east. In the mean time we fight with our political hands tied much like in VN. We cannot conduct operations even when the enemy is plainly in sight. Anything less will be a failure.

John Parker
August 29, 2010, 03:42 PM
Agreed, except for that last point. Body counts do matter. Do you really think that the public wouldn't be demanding an immediate and unequivocal withdrawal if we'd have lost as many guys as the Soviets did during their roughly 9 years in Afghanistan?



I've also done plenty of work out at the Foreign Military Studies Office (FMSO) while doing my undergraduate work, and studied extensively with Les Grau, who is pretty much the subject matter expert on the SA War. If you read Les' books, the Bear went over the Mountain and the Other Side of the Mountain, you'll see 30 year old engagements that are almost exactly like engagements that you can read about today, if you have SIPR access and can get on CIDNE or HOT-R. Same tactics, same locations. And the debate about how many the Soviets actually lost continues. If they flew a wounded guy out of Afghanistan and he died the next day, then he wasn't called a casualty of the war.
And body counts don't mean that much. Unless you can isolate the insurgency, which the Soviets failed to do (although they almost succeeded in the winter of 85-86 by increasing the presence on the Pakistan border and systematically targeting the logistics bases of the Muj) and we are now failing to do, new recruits will just fill the shoes of anyone we kill. There are too many people around the world ready to become shahid.

fireside44
August 29, 2010, 06:24 PM
Seriously though, my K31 has a very tight chamber and I have no doubts with the reduced leverage / cam-ming force available from the straight pull design debris or bad ammo could cause a serious issue.

Any gun can jam given enough debris. Bad ammo? GP11 is some pretty lousy stuff, I agree.:)

But in the hands of a skilled rifleman, even with open sights, a Mauser is very dangerous

Tried explaining that a couple pages ago. In the world of super cool tactical guns and accessories what are you going to do with that mantle decoration?:rolleyes:

HB
August 29, 2010, 08:05 PM
This thread is interesting. It seems that a relatively high percentage of THR's believe that a .223 round just falls to the ground at 600m yet a 70 year old bolt action is accurate to the 2000m volley sights dictate.

HB

jpwilly
August 29, 2010, 08:17 PM
Any gun can jam given enough debris. Bad ammo? GP11 is some pretty lousy stuff, I agree.

Yes any gun can jam but we're talking about the K31 vs K98 Mauser in my case and the K31 is going to be a very different animal in regards to clearences and leverage for feeding and extraction. And I'm asserting that the K98 will take more debris or more of an out of spec / damaged round to put out of action...You seem to be quick on the draw with smart remarks but nothing to back it up.

KW
August 29, 2010, 08:30 PM
We lost the war in Iraq? Last I checked Saddam was dead, the democratic government we helped them build was in power, and our troops had mostly withdrawn. If that's a victory for Saddam or the insurgents, they must have had some really mixed up long term goals.

Anyway, back to the topic at hand. Is a K31 or K98 capable of killing people? Sure - the same could be said of a Sharps or even a crossbow. But that doesn't make those viable weapons on the modern battlefield. Were the Boers able to win a couple battles using long range rifle fire against incompetent British formations? Sure. But remember that ultimately the British Army defeated the Boers in the field, driving them to insurgency, and then won that insurgency. The World Wars and Korea demonstrated that long range rifle fire wasn't particularly useful outside of sniping or harassment. Once your targets are wearing camo, using cover and concealment, moving, and limiting their exposure to fire, those 600 yard shots stop happening on any regular basis. And god help you if those guys you opened up on at that range with your K31 happen to have an attached sniper team, or a GPMG, or a Javelin, or a radio to call some artillery etc.

Golden_006
August 29, 2010, 08:46 PM
You're really going to compare a crossbow to a Mauser on a battlefield? Further you're assuming everyone on your side would have one. And I never said that's the case. Look back at the photo eariler in this thread. I see AKs right next to a guy with Lee Enfield SMLE next to a guy with a rocket launcher. no crossbow or anything stupid. og and guess what no AR either! I guess that pretty much answers the question.

And further our puppet gov't in Iraq has pretty much every rag tag militia in the mid-east challening them for power and control, and by the looks of things one of them will get it.

amd6547
August 29, 2010, 09:05 PM
The ideal insurgent unit would be made up of long range scope equipped marksman, short to medium range rifleman with automatic weapons, and yes, RPG's and IED's.
A K31 is excedingly easy to scope...mine is the most intrinsically accurate rifle I have owned.
If anyone thinks we have "won" in Iraq, they are watching too much evening news or listening to the White House...Yes, we have declared "victory", but what we have set up a frail house of cards and called it "democracy". It will blow down into chaos and dictatorship within a year of our exit.

fireside44
August 29, 2010, 09:19 PM
Yes any gun can jam but we're talking about the K31 vs K98 Mauser in my case and the K31 is going to be a very different animal in regards to clearences and leverage for feeding and extraction.

Starting to sound like an AK vs AR debate lol.

And I'm asserting that the K98 will take more debris or more of an out of spec / damaged round to put out of action

I'm not disagreeing with you.

You seem to be quick on the draw with smart remarks but nothing to back it up.

Could be worse, they could be dumb remarks with nothing to back them up.:)

jaybirdjtski
August 29, 2010, 11:23 PM
Afganistan is another war being run by politicians whom, I suspect, really don't want a victory, pretty much like the one I was involved in back in the early 70s. Well, let me put it this way, our political "leaders" want a victory but not for the USA. The closest thing they want to something resembling an American victory is simply keeping themselves in power. They might even want us to lose as some sort of twisted payback for supporting Israel.
If we fought in Afganistan without NV, out in the open, I fear our troops would suffer more deaths. NV gives us a huge edge. Now if the politicians would ditch the ROEs, we actually might succeed over there. Instead, we have a policy of trying to make a people who have hated the west for centuries actually like us and be our "best, good friends". Gimme a break.

leadcounsel
August 30, 2010, 05:17 AM
our troops had mostly withdrawn. Really? Depends on 'mostly' definition. 1/3rd of us are still here... Iraq is fragile.

Back to the OP.

The merits of any individual weapon system (K31 v. Mauser) depend on the tactics of the other Army. For a PC Army, insurgents are successful at hiding amongts civilians and taking potshots. It becomes a war of morale and attrition for the occupying Army. However, for a scorched earth policy Army, who would just lay waste to an entire city, then neither weapon would matter.

In any case, the K31 is a superior weapon regarding design, but the Mauser has had the longevity that, for some reason, the K31 has not enjoyed.

madcratebuilder
August 30, 2010, 07:32 AM
the Mauser has had the longevity that, for some reason, the K31 has not enjoyed.

The K-31 served the Swiss Army from 1934 to 1958. Not many rifles have that long of service record and remained unchanged, not even the M16.

As far as K31 v. Mauser, they are nearly the same rifles. Full stocked bolt actions with limited magazine capacity.

45Fan
August 30, 2010, 08:11 AM
While a bolt gun in the hands of a highly trianed sniper is a formidable weapon, seems alot of us fail to remember that sniper is almost always covered by a second, equally well trained sniper, armed with a select fire assult rifle or main battle rifle. Rate of accurate fire from a bolt gun can be immpressive in the right hands, but nothing to compare to a platoon sized force with automatic weapons and grenade launchers.

FX
August 30, 2010, 09:01 AM
The K-31 served the Swiss Army from 1934 to 1958. Not many rifles have that long of service record and remained unchanged, not even the M16.

As far as K31 v. Mauser, they are nearly the same rifles. Full stocked bolt actions with limited magazine capacity.

But the K31 have a removal magazine, not the K98.
The 7.5 Swiss is better. The K31 trigger is... perfect for a combat rifle.
Only the sights are poor for "old guys" for both rifles.

jimmyraythomason
August 30, 2010, 10:23 AM
To my way of thinking,if I were to take a bolt action rifle into battle against a modern army,it would be because it was all I had. In which case I would take whichever I had.

ZCORR Jay
August 30, 2010, 11:42 AM
I would totally agree with jimmyray. I also do agree with previous statments that people forget how effective a bolt action can be. Yes its no modern day weapon but don't count them out.

madcratebuilder
August 30, 2010, 12:21 PM
But the K31 have a removal magazine, not the K98.

Yes it does, but like the Lee Enfield the magazine was not designed to be change. On the k-31 it is serial numbered to the rifle and extra mags were not an issued item. In fact finding spare mags can be difficult for the K-31.

This Swiss issued ammo in cardboard/metal stripper clips and the rifle is reloaded with those.

dogngun
August 30, 2010, 12:36 PM
for regular unit (non-sniper or similar) use in a REAL ARMY was the Ishapore SMLE .303, made in India and used in India's war against the Chinese in the early 1960's. The bolt action designed in the 1880's went against the AK and other Chinese autoloading small arms. The Indians later made newer versions -the 2A1, designed for 7.62 NATO, and some are still in use today by Indian police units (I saw some being carried when that bomber struck in Mumbai.) BUT-India also went to a SLR for their main combat troops (a British FAL made in India) as they made the new 2A1's to use the NATO round and retire the .303 British cartridge. Both their SLR and the 2A1 used the 7.62mm NATO round.
FWIW, the 2A1 shoots flatter than the old .303 Enfield, and is really usable to 800 meters with irons.

I'd take the one I have over any other issue bolt rifle ever made by anyone.

It is smooth as glass, holds 12 rounds and has the best military rifle trigger I have used in almost 40 years of shooting surplus guns.

Mine was made in 1965, and it's a gem.

BUT-it I were not restricted to bolt rifles, I'd take an M-14...
I just hope they are not taking old men - I already had my turn in the barrel...


mark

added: When did we lose the war in Iraq..Last night when I was asleep?

Golden_006
August 30, 2010, 02:57 PM
Did Israel have the FN FAL in the 1967 war? I'm pretty sure they used a rebarreled 7.62 mauser; not sure when they stopped.

Also what guns were standard issue in the yugoslav wars? i know Mausers were there not sure if it was the issued weapon or if there was really such thing. And I'm pretty sure they were in unconventional style fighting.

earplug
August 30, 2010, 03:10 PM
I retired as a REMF and most of my heros had big rifles. I'll try the K31 in my hobbit hole.

Steve Marshall
August 30, 2010, 07:47 PM
How about one more non-sequitur? In 1914, Sgt. Snoxall hit a 12" target 38 times with an Enfield in one minute. Granted this was a world record but still. I suspect most of us would be hard pressed to duplicate this feat with ANY rifle. The average Brit soldier at the time, was required to fire 30 accurate shots a minute at 200 yards in a minute.

If you enjoyed reading about "Swiss K31 vs. Mauser in Combat" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!