Third Party Press

NOOB Mauser Question -

Nobody

Nobody

Well-known member
What (if any) difference is there, between a Gew98 receiver and a Kar98 receiver? I thought the receivers were the same? I was reading a recent post here, and it referenced a "Kar98 receiver."

I own a 1915 Gew98M. (S/42G) Came here (originally) researching it.

Just curious. Thanks.
 
Nobody said:
What (if any) difference is there, between a Gew98 receiver and a Kar98 receiver? I thought the receivers were the same? I was reading a recent post here, and it referenced a "Kar98 receiver."

I own a 1915 Gew98M. (S/42G) Came here (originally) researching it.

Just curious. Thanks.
Click to expand...
Big differences.

The Gew98 is a "large ring"

The Kar98a is a "small ring"

Different size and shape. While bolts are interchangeable, stocks, triggerguards, trigger groupings and barrels are not.
 
Another stupid question. Large Ring receivers are able to handle higher pressures?
 
Nobody said:
Another stupid question. Large Ring receivers are able to handle higher pressures?
Click to expand...

The more technically minded here would likely be able to answer this question better than I, but in short I think the answer is “yes”. But I don’t high enough pressure rounds were ever used where a difference like that would have really mattered. Gewehr 98’s and K98a’s used the same ammo and went through the same kind of proof testing…so it’s not really something that would ever be an issue.
 
A bit of technical to get clear....

The Karabiner 98, used a standard length, small ring, large thread receiver. This is significantly different from a small ring, small thread receiver.

I've never been able to corroborate this with primary source documentation, so take it with a grain of salt. A well known rifle maker from the 60's to the 90's was a true Mauser nut. He managed to track down and meet several people who lived in the US that had worked at DWM or Mauser. Supposedly, he claimed, the German military found with the Kar 98's that over substantial use, the receiver ring would "stretch", causing headspace problems. It was because of this stretch that they never continued the use of a small ring small thread receiver.

In regards to being able to handle higher pressures, yes the large ring will handle higher pressures, but the ring is rarely what fails. In an over pressure event, the bolt lug abutments or seats will set back. The extractor will break, the standoff lugs will break, and the chamber will stretch. The point being, if you subject a Mauser to enough pressure that it would balloon the ring if it were a small ring, you will have numerous other issues, having the large ring vs the small ring isn't really going to save the receiver and bolt being damaged.
 
Thank You @Fal Grunt. I am guessing here, (a simplification) that they figured out the "Large Rings," were "Over Engineered" and that they could save $$ by reducing the amount of Steel and at the same time, reduce the weight of the Firearms, by going with a "Small Ring."

I figured the Small Rings, went from the 7.92X57 round to the 7X57 round. Obviously not the case, since the 7.92X57 round was also used in the Small Ring receiver Firearms.

Learning all the time here. Not a Firearms NOOB, but a Mauser (intricacy) NOOB. Thank You.
 
Nobody said:
Thank You @Fal Grunt. I am guessing here, (a simplification) that they figured out the "Large Rings," were "Over Engineered" and that they could save $$ by reducing the amount of Steel and at the same time, reduce the weight of the Firearms, by going with a "Small Ring."

I figured the Small Rings, went from the 7.92X57 round to the 7X57 round. Obviously not the case, since the 7.92X57 round was also used in the Small Ring receiver Firearms.

Learning all the time here. Not a Firearms NOOB, but a Mauser (intricacy) NOOB. Thank You.
Click to expand...

I don't know why they went with the small ring on the Kar98a, but it's worth noting that the WW2 era K98k is back to having a large ring receiver. Really it's a development of the Gew98.

The weight difference is pretty negligible, and I can't imagine the cost savings on that little steel would be worth the trouble. I suspect that whatever their reasons were for developing the small ring, it had to do with something besides cost.
 
Cyrano4747 said:
I don't know why they went with the small ring on the Kar98a, but it's worth noting that the WW2 era K98k is back to having a large ring receiver. Really it's a development of the Gew98.

The weight difference is pretty negligible, and I can't imagine the cost savings on that little steel would be worth the trouble. I suspect that whatever their reasons were for developing the small ring, it had to do with something besides cost.
Click to expand...
Glancing at Storz, he is of the opinion that the small ring was for weight savings with dismounted cavalry. He specifically cites a different numbering scheme used on early trials rifles to support the argument that it was intended as a replacement for the Gew 91. The m98 short carbine had a large ring receiver and he argues that the small ring receiver was to offset the weight from the increased barrel length. I'm curious how much weight would actually be saved that way, and am a bit skeptical that a couple ounces alone would explain a redesign of the receiver.

It's a pity that the documentation presumably doesn't survive. If anyone would have access to it it's Storz, and if he's reduced to (highly educated) conjecture you can bet there aren't any good archival sources to explain it.

That said, it wouldn't be the first or the last time a weird design decision was made based on some overly-rigid requirement from the German military bureaucracy. That's a pretty solid leitmotif for Prussian/German weapons design from at least the Gew71 through the G/K43. Frankly I suspect you can telescope that out both forward and back, but I'm just not as aware of those eras.
 
Cyrano4747 said:
Glancing at Storz, he is of the opinion that the small ring was for weight savings with dismounted cavalry. He specifically cites a different numbering scheme used on early trials rifles to support the argument that it was intended as a replacement for the Gew 91. The m98 short carbine had a large ring receiver and he argues that the small ring receiver was to offset the weight from the increased barrel length. I'm curious how much weight would actually be saved that way, and am a bit skeptical that a couple ounces alone would explain a redesign of the receiver.

It's a pity that the documentation presumably doesn't survive. If anyone would have access to it it's Storz, and if he's reduced to (highly educated) conjecture you can bet there aren't any good archival sources to explain it.

That said, it wouldn't be the first or the last time a weird design decision was made based on some overly-rigid requirement from the German military bureaucracy. That's a pretty solid leitmotif for Prussian/German weapons design from at least the Gew71 through the G/K43. Frankly I suspect you can telescope that out both forward and back, but I'm just not as aware of those eras.
Click to expand...
I believe it was infact done for weight savings. Or the idea of weight savings. We see this again during the second world war when the germans adopt the 33/40. Which is essentially a kar98 receiver with even more milling work done to it to save weight. In my experiences with germans, they are the kind of people would go out of there way to design a whole new rifle if they thought they could save a ounce of weight.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Military Rifle Journal
Back
Top