Swiss K31 vs. Mauser in Combat

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?

Click to expand...

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?

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....

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.

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

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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."

Best thing to come out of this thread (from the article someone linked to on Taliban marksmanship):



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.

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)

Click to expand...

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.

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-...=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...=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.

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.

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.

Well, I guess some of you guys told me 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 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 So wake up America The time for idle chit chat is over 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

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).

Click to expand...

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.

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

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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 28°43′57″S 29°47′16″E / 28.7325°S 29.78778°E / -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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

@ 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

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.

Click to expand...

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.

^^^ 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.

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?

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

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?

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

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

Click to expand...

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.