Gunboards Forums banner

Mauser vs. 1903

3K views 29 replies 20 participants last post by  Ronbo6 
#1 ·
Hey Guys

Had an interesting discussion with a National Match shooter the other day. (ChrisFTK knows exactly who I'm talking about). He's a bit of an advanced collector of 1903's and M1 Garands so he may be a tad biased. But his competition record does give his opinion worth listening to. He's extremely extremely good on the range.

But he was arguing ballistics, design features and sights and stated very boldly that the 1903 Springfield will out-shoot the Mauser (whether it be Gewehr 98 or K98) any day.

Now he wasn't arguing on the characteristics of being a battle rifle, merely accuracy in the realm of competitive shooting.

So as a range rifle and competitive shooting (omitting design flaws on the battlefield or advantages) who has the competitive edge: the 1903 or K98 (lump the Gew98 in there as well for simplistic reasons)

I posted this same exact question on the K98 forum to see their responses. I'm anxious to see the posts. Should be some extremely interesting arguments.

Personally I'm a decent shooter but by no means National Match material so I'll leave my opinion out of it because it just doesn't carry much weight but I'm curious to see other opinions out there.
 
See less See more
#3 ·
Stands to reason considering the 1903 Springfield was based off of the Mauser 1893 fielded by Spain...
 
#5 ·
M1903 has the advantage: windage adjustable sights.

Disadvantage: the two piece firing pin. Of course, the U.S. ended up paying the Mauser brothers royalties for the, erm, "design similarities."
As for a very good account and history of the rifle's adoption: Alexander Rose, American Rifle: A Biography (Delacorte, 2008), Chapter 8 "Roosevelt's Rifle."
 
#9 ·
I own that book and absolutely love it! I've read that chapter multiple times because I always seem to forget and need to remind myself of small tidbits of the 1903 story.

As far as the two piece firing pin. Now you're getting into almost armorer and gunsmith knowledge and over my head. Does that affect accuracy one way or another? I really don't know.
 
#7 ·
One thing to keep in mind on accuracy claims between the 2 rifles is the huge selection of match bullets and ammo available for the 03. There was even military match ammo. In the US the 03 has been used in competition for decades out to 1000 yards, but you only hear of g and k 98s shot in vintage matches.
 
#8 ·
I'm also willing to bet that the U.S. military emphasized marksmanship to a much greater extent than the German. Certainly in WWII the vaunted Wehrmacht landser, arguably the most highly-trained and disciplined soldier of the war--at least at the start--actually fired his 98k about sixty times a year.
 
#16 ·
Regarding "Marksmanship Training" of the U.S. soldiers versus the German soldiers in both World War I and World War II, American soldiers were better trained, there is no doubt about that. I recall reading the memoirs of a German that went into the German army in the late 1930's, before the war started, and he stated that in training, he fired ONLY 5 rounds from his issue Mauser!

Actually, the impetus to train American soldiers in basic marksmanship skills started in the late 1860's and early 1870's possibly because of the havoc that Confederate Sharpshooter Battalions in the Army of Northern Virginia had wreaked on the Union Army of the Potomic in the last two years of the war.

Then in the 1870's concurrent with the founding of the National Rifle Association [originally designed to foster better marksmanship skills in the National Guard] shooting contests became a very popular form of recreation witness the matches at Creedmore.

Active duty army units engaged in marksmanship contests, so an emphasis on marksmanship skills took place in the U.S. Army in those last decades of the 19th Century. This led to the establishment of the National Matches at Camp Perry.

My point? American soldiers in both World Wars were much better trained in marksmanship abilities than their German counterparts.
 
#17 ·
The range of windage and elevation adjustments available in the 1903 sight make it better as a target rifle than the 98 Mauser, the rather fragile construction of the sight aside.
If German soldiers put in less time at the range - and I don't know if they did or did not- that could reflect a basic difference in doctrine from the US Army. In the US Army, the rifleman was primary. The machine gun was there to support the riflemen. The Germans, however, saw the machine gun as the primary weapon, with the riflemen there to support the machine gun.
 
#18 ·
Stepping back a few clicks for a broad view.
I see several analysis areas emerged. First is one primarily of training. Another which speaks to sighting equipment. Both highly relevant in 'human factors' considerations. Yet the former perhaps a very broad footprint for core analysis of the "design" and the sighting details susceptible to relatively easy production alterations.
The third, a result oriented approach, which speaks to the de facto matter of varying quality of production over such as decades, economic upheavals and vicissitudes of wartime conditions.
The last which speaks to design and perhaps here fundamental design. Within the latter such considerations as technology, engineering, production complexities/facilities, availability & choice of materials and workmanship/skilled labor supply. And... there are more!
Within all of the categories are the practical yet highly cogent matters such as cost/benefit ratio and external overlay factors such as politico/economic issues.
All these things ostensibly framed within the wider context; principally of the business of fighting war(s) (including such as battlefield conditions, weapons support, logistics, etc., centered within early Twentieth Century 'war models'.
Thus (and I'm not saying anything new here) a panorama of highly interrelated factors which, independently set in a vacuum, can hardly portend to offer a realistic 'which is better' conclusion. The qualifiers fall within the fundamental issue(s) of: Better in what context? We have the clear advantage of historical perspective, but the issues remain myriad.

Just another "Whew" perspective and...
My take.
 
#20 ·
My OPINION is that without factoring in training ect... and just looking at the 2 rifles in a side by side shoot there is no real appreciable accuracy difference.

Probably not a popular stance, but if you look at the military (acceptable) accuracy requirements they are both on a par.
I have shot both guns at the same range session before and to me they both grouped and handled about the same (in a general way) the sights on the 03 were nicer and the 8mm seemed slightly milder to shoot. As far as competition, the European countries generally do not allow military chambering for civilian competition, this would leave the 30-06 used by all US shooters to compete in any match.
 
#22 ·
I have a M1903 that will print sub MOA groups all day long. I have a scoped VZ-24 that's also pretty darn accurate, but not as accurate as the M1903. I shoot the '03 better with iron sights than I do the VZ-24 with a vintage 3-9 Redfield. However, that VZ-24 is responsible for a lot of dead whitetails. Not bad for a rifle I bought in the early 90's for $75 sans scope. Scope plus mounts plus bore sighting cost me another $75. Bolt handle was already turned down by the old German guy who hunted with it before he died and his grandson got ahold of it.

The Mauser shot terrible groups with the German WWII surplus ammo I got along with it. (like 3 foot groups) Then I tried some S&B 8x57JS and what a world of difference that made!
 
#23 ·
I've seen several comments regarding that there is no possibly conclusion. Too many variables due to ability of the shooter, powder load, etc.

this was never meant to be something to take to the bank and borrow on. Just exchange some ideas and open discussion based on research, reading and personal experience at the range. Nothing more. I thoroughly enjoy the comments posted on everyone's own experiences. I've learned a lot!
 
#24 ·
As to marksmanship training, the British, after the experience of the Boer War, really emphasized it with the well known results of the BEF in 1914 astonishing the attacking Germans with the rapidity and accuracy of fire from the issue SMLE. Of course, when a newer iteration of the BEF had to be recreated after the fearful losses on the Western Front, training was, erm, "streamlined" a great deal. I've read portions of a VC winner who signed on during the Kitchener "buddy battalion" period, ca. late 1915 who fired only 15 cartridges from a Lee Metford "long lee" before shipping out to Flanders.

I have a PDF file of the 1943 instructional booklet, part rifle instruction and marksmanship primer, part propaganda, from the U.S. Army. In it, the inability of the German rifle to have windage-adjustable sights was seized on to demonstrate the presumed superiority of comparable rifles... By '43 as you might imagine, it is the Garand after all that is being compared.

I think the oddest features of the Springfield '03 are the two-piece firing pin, and especially the retention of the magazine cut-off. In my limited experience, the Springfield is fast to operate with the turned down bolt, but is one bear of a rifle, recoil-wise. Straight stock like a Russian Mosin-Nagant is a contributor there. Using the same .30-06 ball ammo in a Garand and a Springfield '03 really demonstrates how the self-loader attenuates felt recoil. (It is also a heavier rifle, of course.)

I think both can basically be thought of as Mauser variants: The "U.S. Mauser" aka. Springfield and the "German Mauser" aka. 98k. Certainly the decision of U.S. Ordnance officials to opt for a "short rifle" design well before WWI and not keep things as lengthy as the Canadian Ross, the German Gewher 98, the French Lebel, or the earlier U.S. Krag-Jørgensen rifle for that matter, showed much forethought and innovation for the time.
 
#29 ·
I have a PDF file of the 1943 instructional booklet, part rifle instruction and marksmanship primer, part propaganda, from the U.S. Army. In it, the inability of the German rifle to have windage-adjustable sights was seized on to demonstrate the presumed superiority of comparable rifles... By '43 as you might imagine, it is the Garand after all that is being compared.
And the Army also told the 'grunts in training' at the same time that the MG42 wasn't all that good, or effective!

They needed to convince the typical grunt that charging that German machine gun nest defended by four additional soldiers with their Mausers wasn't going to be a suicide mission. It worked, too.
 
#25 ·
Like you got schooled on the other forum.
The clear deal breaker is the sights.
The k98 is a plain Jane military affair designed to get a bullet into a man size target easily at 500 meters.
About all that is needed in practice.
The 03, with either type is hands down superior with the later version being the best.
These sights allow a competition shooter to dial in his shooting which is a huge waste of time in combat.
It will get you killed.
But as far as targets go, there is no comparison-seems pretty obvious, overall.
 
#26 ·
I wonder how much of our appreciation of the 1903's accuracy comes down to not only the quality of its sights, but to the barrels.

Indulge me here- None of us take 1903's with worn-out barrels to the range. We've been kinda pampered.
If we do have a worn or abused barrelled rifle (like a drill or parade), we re-barrel them, use them for parts, or leave them in a closet.
Many of the 1903's that made it to the civilian market were in great shape. Even many/most of the late CMP Springfields had great bores.

With K98's we shoot whatever we have.
The surplus K98 rifles were all "used and abused" to some degree by 1945 and many more suffered in foreign hot-spots and hell-holes for decades before winding up stacked on pallets in a shipping container heading for America.
Now oftentimes folks would rebarrel a K98 action, but they didn't retain its configuration as a true K98, they were made into "sporting rifles."
 
#27 ·
A gunsmith that is local to me and not a collector took out a 1903 that was gorgeous with a bore that looked like a gravel road. He was shooting sub MOA all afternoon. Now he might be extremely goodbut he told me first time he shot a 1903 and was thoroughly impressed. I did not ask him what ammo or loads he was using though.
 
#28 ·
Capt E.C. Crossman, who probably authored the first general interest book on the M1903, observered that the celebrated reputation the 03 had in early international competitions was probably due as much to the excellent match ammunition loaded for it as to the rifle itself.

The opening chapter of the book is a good analysis of the 98 vs the '03.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top