Mauser 98 accuracy acceptance standard

Discussions on the small arms used by the Axis forces.
User avatar
Timber
Member
Posts: 115
Joined: 19 Nov 2004 16:27
Location: Europe

Mauser 98 accuracy acceptance standard

Post by Timber » 07 May 2019 22:35

So I ran across this on the wiki:
"For determining accuracy the German military fired a group of shots into a target and used statistics to calculate a hit probability. For this they drew a circle that disregards the hits on the outer part of the target and only count half of the hits (50% or R50) on the inner part of the circle. This dramatically reduces the overall diameter of the groups. They then used both the vertical and horizontal measurements of the reduced shotgroup to measure accuracy. When the R50 results are doubled the hit probability increases to 93.7%."

To me the above sounds like a misinterpretation of German data, as otherwise German rifles were almost twice as inaccurate as everybody elses, something we know from shooting these guns isn't true.

In the German documents I've read they mention "50% streung" and then give what appears to be the dispersion from MIP. Nowhere is it mentioned that half the hits were disregarded. Instead it says that doubling the figure would give you the 94% streung, which seems to indicate the diameter of the group. In that case the Gew 98 for example had a mean dispersion of 6 cm @ 100 m, or ~2.3 MOA. However according to wiki it would be 4.6 MOA, which sounds pretty ridiculous when it was 2.5-3 MOA for most other service rifles of the era.

Thus the question becomes, does "50% streung" refer to exactly? Were they calculating using a circle or a rectangle etc?

critical mass
Member
Posts: 602
Joined: 13 Jun 2017 14:53
Location: central Europe

Re: Mauser 98 accuracy acceptance standard

Post by critical mass » 08 May 2019 09:48

Thats a misrepresentation, indeed.
Accuracy was determined the same way from rifle calibre to major calibre, navy projectiles. They only disregarded wild shots, that are outliers, spaced away from the MPI more than four times the 50% zone in distance
Outlier rules existed for all accuracy definitions.

User avatar
Timber
Member
Posts: 115
Joined: 19 Nov 2004 16:27
Location: Europe

Re: Mauser 98 accuracy acceptance standard

Post by Timber » 08 May 2019 12:16

Well here's the response by the author of the text above:
https://www.arrse.co.uk/community/threa ... 705/page-5

John T
Member
Posts: 1167
Joined: 31 Jan 2003 22:38
Location: Stockholm,Sweden

Re: Mauser 98 accuracy acceptance standard

Post by John T » 08 May 2019 19:29

To me the other guys explanation makes sense.

You shoot 10 rounds then draw one line horizontal and one line vertical to cover the best 50% of the shots.
the other 50% are de facto ignored.
just a matter of how you explains it.

Cheers
/John

User avatar
Timber
Member
Posts: 115
Joined: 19 Nov 2004 16:27
Location: Europe

Re: Mauser 98 accuracy acceptance standard

Post by Timber » 08 May 2019 22:56

To me his explanation just doesn't seem plausible considering the standards of other countries, let alone actual comparisons between these rifles shooting WW2 milsurp ammo.

There's something which is missing here, and I think it's in how exactly these standards are defined.

User avatar
Timber
Member
Posts: 115
Joined: 19 Nov 2004 16:27
Location: Europe

Re: Mauser 98 accuracy acceptance standard

Post by Timber » 25 May 2019 21:50

Alright, having a look at the British standards for the Lee Enfield they do seem pretty much identical to the German ones:
http://www.allaboutenfields.co.nz/links ... -interest/

Apparently the acceptance standard for the Lee Enfield rifles SMLE & No.4 was 4.5 MOA with 4 out of 5 rounds at 100 ft, where'as for the K98 the acceptance std. was 4.6 MOA with 5 out of 5 rounds at 100 meters (328 feet).

As for the sniper rifles, for the K98 it was 2.5 MOA with 5 out of 5 at 100 m, and 2.5 MOA with 7 out of 7 for the No.4 @ 100 yards and 6 out 7 @ 600 yards. (It should be noted that there exists a report which notes that very late war K98's (1945) sometimes had issues meeting these demands, undoubtedly due to the hurried production at that point)

So it seems the acceptance standards for both rifles were near identical.

Hisname
Member
Posts: 105
Joined: 01 Sep 2018 15:48
Location: RF

Re: Mauser 98 accuracy acceptance standard

Post by Hisname » 26 May 2019 16:43

The deviations of three bullet hits should not exceed 10.5 centimeters from the midpoint.
Shooting is conducted from a distance of 70 meters. I don’t know how to translate this into human language)))
Снимок экрана от 2019-05-26 22-40-05.png
Снимок экрана от 2019-05-26 22-40-31.png
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
Timber
Member
Posts: 115
Joined: 19 Nov 2004 16:27
Location: Europe

Re: Mauser 98 accuracy acceptance standard

Post by Timber » 26 May 2019 21:52

Not sure what that is, but 10.5 cm at 70 m is quite abit worse than the minimum requirement for the K98 or Lee Enfield No.4.

Stiltzkin
Member
Posts: 1068
Joined: 11 Apr 2016 12:29
Location: Germany

Re: Mauser 98 accuracy acceptance standard

Post by Stiltzkin » 27 May 2019 00:38

Yes, such misinterpretations happen frequently (benefit of the doubt aside, I do not exclude politics), but do note that the intrinsic accuracy of the weapon/ammo system =/= hit probability. RSD is also superior to FOM when working with shot groups (e.g. below 3-5). Excluding outliers can be a problem though, when working with burst fire.

User avatar
Timber
Member
Posts: 115
Joined: 19 Nov 2004 16:27
Location: Europe

Re: Mauser 98 accuracy acceptance standard

Post by Timber » 13 Jun 2020 12:53

So what is the take away from this?

Asking because having fired these rifles they really don't seem much different accuracy wise, if anything I'd say the K98 seems to group tighter with the std. s.s. bullet than the No.4 Enfield does with Mk.VIII ball, at least at 200 m.

chitoryu12
Member
Posts: 10
Joined: 10 Jan 2020 20:55
Location: Florida

Re: Mauser 98 accuracy acceptance standard

Post by chitoryu12 » 15 Jun 2020 05:18

9-Hole Reviews has done a practical accuracy test of the Kar 98k, requiring it to make 2 hits per target from 150 to 500 yards (a total of 16 hits minimum with a maximum of 40 shots allowed). A standard rifle with iron sights accomplished it in 31 hits, with a shooter that is unfamiliar with the sighting arrangement.

https://youtu.be/AnMjxbbq2Aw

For comparison, other rifles from the era with iron sights:

Mosin-Nagant 91/30: 27/40
Enfield No. 4: 24/40
Swiss K31: 23/40
Finnish M39 Mosin-Nagant: 21/40

While not exactly the same as a grouping test, there have been other complaints about the barleycorn-style sights of the Kar 98. This may affect the practical accuracy of the rifle as the sights themselves could be causing issues for unfamiliar shooters despite the rifle being mechanically as accurate as other rifles.

chitoryu12
Member
Posts: 10
Joined: 10 Jan 2020 20:55
Location: Florida

Re: Mauser 98 accuracy acceptance standard

Post by chitoryu12 » 15 Jun 2020 17:18

Also, on that note, I should point out that there are far more factors to a rifle's "accuracy" than its mechanical accuracy. By the 20th century, you could reasonably expect any mass produced service rifle to be at least as accurate in terms of firing a bullet straight out of the barrel as any of its competitors. But benchrest testing only proves that the gun will shoot straight.

As you can see if you watch practical accuracy reviews (the 9-Hole series is best), the raw accuracy of the weapon in the hands of a shooter in combat is going to be a minimal factor out to its intended effective range. You're much more likely to encounter issues with the trigger and especially the sights that prevent the shooter from hitting the target as they want to. In particular, a rifle with sights that can't be adjusted for range easily (such as an M16 or FN FAL) are excellent for close range shooting but quickly lose their ability to shoot beyond around 400 meters because you can't actually place the sight on the target to hit it. 9-Hole had a FAL Para fail the challenge when multiple assault rifles with iron sights firing less powerful rounds passed.

Stiltzkin
Member
Posts: 1068
Joined: 11 Apr 2016 12:29
Location: Germany

Re: Mauser 98 accuracy acceptance standard

Post by Stiltzkin » 15 Jun 2020 20:47

In the definition in "Artillerie und Ballistik" (Kritzinger, Stuhlmann), p.322ff from 1939 the following radii are listed:

K98 (military standard), firing the s.S.:

radius of the circle, 3 cm for 100m
6cm for 200m
10cm for 300m
14cm for 400m
18cm for 500m

K98 Mauser Streukreis 50% Streuung Definition.jpg
Assuming a normal sized target in cover (e.g. 1/3 of 1,70) and utilizing for instance, a Rayleigh distribution, we could still expect a pH of ~40-50% @ 500 meters, normal clip (without simulating the influence of battle stress of course, the value would drop considerably below 25-17% and without adequate calibration and sights you would probably hit nothing).
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

Return to “Small Arms”