Arisaka VS the Mauser

[Josh Beckett]

I think its time that we had a discussion on which is a better rifle. Personally, I believe the arisaka is a better rifle.

I would like to hear your opinions on this.

[bodes]

Josh, One just has to refer to the Ackley Tests....Mr. Ackley did testing on military firearms following WW2, and his findings were that the Japanese Arisaka action was the strongest of the bolt-action rifles....Although it was inferior in materials used, it was better engineered.....The metal distribution and heat treating in critical areas was superior to that of the German Mauser and American Springfield......

Of course the Arisaka was rediculed during the war, due in part because of it's crudeness and being made by the enemy.....Propaganda reasons alone would dictate that policy.....

And the Mauser was highly touted, due in large to the great numbers of countries who were supplied with their firearms......Bodes

[bodes]

double post

[merdock]

my vote goe's to the K98 as the Arisaka sucks on call of duty

[phild]

The question is like these surveys done on this forum "best rifle (or pistol or whatever) of WWII" or the weak series on History Int'l "top 10 tanks" or top 10 anything else......it really can not be answered. Even when different models of something (like different types of rifles) are measured against an established criteria....it rarely is a very meaningful outcome.

I have owned, extensivly carried (hunting) and fired both the 98 Mauser and the Arisaka for over 35 years. I also know that I prefer the 98 in almost every respect (assuming I'm not firing min-bombs out of it to blow the reciever.barrel apart!!), however I would in no way say a soldier armed with an Arisaka would be at any disadvantage against a soldier armed with a 98 Mauser.

I'm not sure what anyone means by the word "better". I will say that with either one I would take an example made in 1940 over one made in 1945.

[Johnny R]

I would prefer the 98K anyday of the week. I agree with Phil that the prewar and early war models are far superior and almost an entirely different rifle from those produced after 1943.

[robcox1]

Depends which model of Arisaka...

I would rather have a 98K Mauser than a Type 38 Arisaka because of the overall length, but I greatly prefer the peep sight on the Type 99 to the 98K. I have always shot better with the Type 99 than with any Mauser.

[bodes]

I would in no way say a soldier armed with an Arisaka would be at any disadvantage against a soldier armed with a 98 Mauser.

Exactly true......It's like saying which is better, a German Tiger tank or an American Sherman tank.....Most will readily say, the Tiger, but really it's not a fair question.....Both had advantages and disadvantages which contributed to their respected armies successes and failures.....Bodes

[phild]

I would rather have a 98K Mauser than a Type 38 Arisaka because of the overall length, but I greatly prefer the peep sight on the Type 99 to the 98K. I have always shot better with the Type 99 than with any Mauser.

The above is a great response because he quantifies something that has a true bearing on performance....i.e. the type of sight. I am a lot better with the 98k type of sight than with any peep type that I have used...which is most of them, but everyone has their preferences.

The important thing that is said here and usually overlooked is that when evaluating the qualities of an individual weapon it ALWAYS comes down to what a given individual can use to most effectivly.....and this aspect should also be bounced off of likley environmental conditions.

I love the feel and shooting performance of the SVT-40 (for instance) and in some conditions I would have preferred using it and depending on it over any other rifle made during WWII....obviously the Soviets did not see it quite the same way by the middle of the war and for general issue accross their Army. If I had been in the desert or the artic area my choice would not have been a SVT-40 and may not have been any semi-auto that was then in production.

[Günter]

I own several 98ks and an Arisaka Type 99 Short rifle (early, with chrome lined barrel).
And I’d have to say, although I’m a Mauser fan, I can’t really decide which one is “Better”, I guess it really depends on the situation, if the K98k was the M16, then the Arisaka is like a AK47. Here’s my analysis

In my opinion:

Appearance: I think the 98k is the winner here, beautiful German quality and workmanship really shows in most examples. The Japanese rifles are simpler and some what crude.

Action: Absolutely the 98k is the winner here; the cock-on-open is very smooth and comfortable for me rather than the cock-on-close straight bolt on the Arisaka. Smoother bolt = faster fire rate

Ammunition: I believe the Mauser has an edge on ammunition. The ammo has a bit more power and widely available across Europe. The Arisaka in the other hand could only get its source of ammunition from the homeland. The lack of availability on surplus ammo like the Mauser also is troublesome for Arisaka owners today.

Safety: I think the 98k has a slight edge on this feature; the 98k has the advantage of two different safeties mode: safety while is bolt locked or unlocked, While the Arisaka could only be put on safety with bolt locked. However I do find the Arisaka’s “Push Knob” method of turning on/off the safety easier then it is on the Mauser. Then again you can de-cock the mauser but unfotunantly not on an Arisaka.

Comfort: I think both rifles are tied here, I do like how the 98k is slightly shorter, however the Arisaka seems to be slightly lighter in weight

Accuracy: After test firing my Arisaka against all my Mausers, I believe that the Arisaka is a more accurate rifle, because of the superior rear sight and longer barrel.

Reliability/Durability: Absolutely the Arisaka is wins on this part. I had a friend who told me that he fired a wrong caliber (7.92mm IS) off his Arisaka (7.7mm T99), caused significant damage to the barrel but other than that, the weapon and its owner intact/survived.

Maintnance/Cleaning: Arisaka defeats the Mauser on this sector. Disassembling the Arisaka would only take a fraction of time then how long it would take to disassemble the Mauser. Taking down the bolt doesn’t require a bolt disassembly disc like the mauser, And the magazine floorplate is openable by via switch, while you would require a tool for the Mauser. Arisaka also has a longer cleaning rod that’s easier to take out (push button), and a less fouling on Chrome lined barrel (although these features are not present on late war rifles). A very soldier friendly weapon I believe. Sure the dust cover can be noisy but you can easily take that off.

[MauserKar98k]

I have to go with my namesake on this one. Mauser 98 all the way. Although I am a bit biased.

For sheer strength of the action, I'm pretty sure the Arisaka comes out on top. Almost everyone has heard the stories of bullets that were too big for the action being fired through an Arisaka with hardly any adverse effects.

Even so, I believe that the Mauser is a better rifle. Almost all modern production bolt action rifles are copies of the Mauser action or borrow at least one of its features, particularly its huge extractor and controlled feeding method. Are any modern rifles based off of the Arisaka? Not that I know of. Case in point.

Great rundown by the way Günther.

[bodes]

Even so, I believe that the Mauser is a better rifle. Almost all modern production bolt action rifles are copies of the Mauser action or borrow at least one of its features, particularly its huge extractor and controlled feeding method. Are any modern rifles based off of the Arisaka? Not that I know of. Case in point.

I think alot of that has to do with the pure asthetics of a Mauser action......Let's face it, who would want a hunting rifle made with an Japanese action (sporterized or not)?....They just aren't as purdy as a Mauser-style action......

Also, do not forget the Mauser action was sold all over the world from it's inception up until the end of the second World War.....Even the U.S. based their Springfield, on it's design.....So, I believe the Mauser had the luxury of being touted as the "best" bolt-action rifle, largely through pure sales bravado.......The Arisaka never had such luxuries.......Bodes

[phild]

Also, do not forget the Mauser action was sold all over the world from it's inception up until the end of the second World War.....Even the U.S. based their Springfield, on it's design.....So, I believe the Mauser had the luxury of being touted as the "best" bolt-action rifle, largely through pure sales bravado.......The Arisaka never had such luxuries.......Bodes

Actually the Arisaka was based on the Mauser action as well.

Arisaka cocks on the closing stroke and I find that a little inferior to the 98 as I do a number of other things about the Arisaka. Basic bolt disassembly my be a little easier on the Arisaka, but say that both rifles were dropped in water...or better salt water, the 98k would be easier for total breakdown than a 99. I'm illustrating why such comparisons are SO subjective.

[bodes]

Actually the Arisaka was based on the Mauser action as well.

This is true.....However I don't recall Nagoya or Kokura salesmen out there promoting their weapons for commercial sale.....Another testament to the geniuses behind the Mauser factory......Not only could they build them, but they knew how to promote them.....Bodes

[Bank Vault]

Never tinkered with a K98 but if they are about the same as the Yugo 24/47, I'll go with an Arisaka 99 any day! My Arisaka has superior accuracy!