Swiss K31 vs. Mauser in Combat

fireside44 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Longer effective range does =/= accurate. And an accurate rifle does not mean that the shooter is capable of making those shots.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

but wait.. my K98 Mauser IS my hunting rifle..

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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?

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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

Click to expand...

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

You're assuming that accurate, aimed fire cannot be accomplished with a semi auto rifle.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.)

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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?

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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...

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

I'd say K-31

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

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.

M39SKY, that is a beautiful collection!

The Swiss, because they never fight anyone. They prefer just to do business with all sides and make money off them.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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)
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

Hypathetical question of combat. Has anybody been in combat who has replied to this thread?

Click to expand...

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.)

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

Click to expand...

Worked for the French!

Worked for the French!

Click to expand...

Yep. We all remember how the French crossed the channel, landed in England on June 6th, 1944 and drove the Nazis out.