Swiss K31 vs. Mauser in Combat

lol ... you´re 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Yeah, jaybird...I guess that is why we are just kicking Taliban butt over in Afghanistan...Im surprised there are any left to shoot.

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.

I believe the 4th option should read, "I would be caught dead facing a modern army with ancient weapons."

I much prefer the sights on the K31.

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!

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."

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.

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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

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

Click to expand...

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.

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

Click to expand...

You use the Mauser to shoot the enemy and take his modern weapons. And use them to get the better ones.

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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?

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Cosmoline said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.