Krag not battleworth?

[Shooter5]

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2012/04/james-grant/gun-review-m1903a3-rifle/

The (supposed) inadequacies of the Krag compared to the Mauser keep appearing over and again: Question - was the design and ammunition really poor compared to the Mauser or was the Krag sacrificed by the Army and Ordnance in order to cover up lack of training, preparation and poor tactical leadership in Cuba. In addition, to nationalist sentiment which demanded a domestic design (which ended up copying a foreign model anyway).
Discussion.

[Kragrifle]

Yes

[Michaelp]

It was an obsolete design from the beginning.
No amount of training will overcome the loading issue. Pretty big deal in combat.
How would tactics and leadership impact that?
Smoothest action gets no points.
A somewhat similar deal was the German M71.
Initially a single shot bolt action. Most were converted to tubular magazines, but meanwhile the G 88 was introduced.
The converted rifles went almost directly to surplus.
Lots of mint condition examples are found in the US.

[11mm]

You have to return to 1890-92 during which systems were being evaluated by the US Army for an honest appraisal of the Krag's adequacy. The article cited is superficial and, in some instances, misleading. For instance, the author makes it seem that the US Army went from muzzle loaders to Krags...obviously ignoring the Trapdoors and several other systems which were sampled, such as the Lee.
The 1891 Argentine Mauser which is (in my opinion) superior to the Krag as a system, was perhaps available for study at the time, as were the Gew88 and the Belgian Mauser. However, at the time, none of those systems were proven in battle. I think I would definitely prefer the Krag to the GEW 88, and I have shot and collected both of them. The nearest analogy to the first bolt action small bore battle rifles would have been the early automobiles made at the turn of the 20th century. Only some few systems proved their worth, but many were proposed and manufactured.
That the 03 Springfield is superior to the Krag in numerous areas, including the cartridge, is obvious. But it was adopted ten years later, and there was much experience in that decade to point the way to the best systems. Comparing the the Krag and the '03 and then trashing the Krag is historical revisionism, in my opinion.

[kragluver]

Concur 11mm! And yes, the Mauser was one of the rifles evaluated by the 1892 board.

Right or wrong, a lot of credit was given to the Krag magazine's ability to be topped off with the bolt closed. Also, ordnance was still enamoured with single shot weapons to preserve ammo expenditure. (They weren't the only ones - so were the Brit's but they saw the light by 1914.) This thinking obviously spilled over into the 1903 design. The surprising thing is that they kept the magazine cutoff in the latter 03's manufactured by Remington. You would have thought for economic and manufacturing reasons, they would have dropped the cuttoff after WW1.

At the time of the Spanish American War (SAW), the Krag and the Spanish Mauser were pretty close from a performance standpoint. Officers interviewed after the SAW generaly liked the Krag. Was the Mauser more robust and able to handle more advanced cartridges? Sure - and the decision to move forward with a Mauser based M1903 was a correct one. The Krag held its own in combat however.

Read Shockley's little book The Krag Jorgenson in the Service. The Krag held up well under very adverse mud and rust conditions.

[Dick Hosmer]

No amount of training will overcome the loading issue.


Please check out "stangskyting" on Youtube, and report back.

[5MadFarmers]

I think I would definitely prefer the Krag to the GEW 88, and I have shot and collected both of them.

We are not in accord. I also have examples of both and am quite familiar with both. I'd take the '88 in a heartbeat over the Krag.


But it was adopted ten years later, and there was much experience in that decade to point the way to the best systems. Comparing the the Krag and the '03 and then trashing the Krag is historical revisionism, in my opinion.

For that to pan out one would expect to see equal adoption of the two systems throughout the 1890s. That isn't the case as the Mauser was widely adopted during that time. Ergo many countries reviewed the available arms and the consensus was for the Mauser.


Please check out "stangskyting" on Youtube, and report back.

That too is a fallacy shared at the time. Wars are fought with drafted troops. Grab 10 kids out of a technical college and see if they can do that.

[11mm]

That too is a fallacy shared at the time. Wars are fought with drafted troops. Grab 10 kids out of a technical college and see if they can do that.[/QUOTE]

QUOTE=5MadFarmers;350105]We are not in accord. I also have examples of both and am quite familiar with both. I'd take the '88 in a heartbeat over the Krag.

Matter of personal taste, I guess.



"For that to pan out one would expect to see equal adoption of the two systems throughout the 1890s. That isn't the case as the Mauser was widely adopted during that time. Ergo many countries reviewed the available arms and the consensus was for the Mauser."

Yes, but it was not just the Krag against the Mauser. There were other systems. The GEW88 had nothing to do with Mauser....or more succinctly Mauser had nothing to do with it. Yet the German Empire bought millions of GEW88 Mannlicher style rifles, though they ultimately regretted it . Another Empire, the Austro-Hungarian, used Mannlichers, and the Russians used Moisins. There were lots of choices. The fact that the Spanish, Serbs, Turks, Boers and South Americans bought Mausers was not a crashing endorsement of Mauser, though I agree it is the better rifle considering the choices.
Two of the countries that actually fought wars (generally small colonial ones) in that period, were Britain and France. Their rifles at that time were not Mausers. I don't believe the Long Lee Enfield or the M1886 were better than the Krag, but they were probably in actual use more than any Mauser. In fact, I cannot think of a better salesman for the Mauser than the French M1886/93., yet there were lots of Lebels in use.

[Dick Hosmer]

The current Scandanavian sport referenced, where the Krag more than holds its' own against the Mauser, reloading included, is nothing more than what was taught to the British Tommies in WW1. Basically, you never let go of the bolt, and pulled the trigger with your middle finger. Did you see the targets, which were - IRRC - at 200m?

[jon_norstog]

I can visualize a modification of the Krag lunchbox that would allow loading from a stripper clip, especially if a rimless cartridge was developed. If the Kraq had been otherwise an overwhelmingly superior battle rifle, that might have been done. What was done was just to start over, and with a simpler, stronger design requiring far fewer machining operations.

jn

[ranger66]

I can visualize a modification of the Krag lunchbox that would allow loading from a stripper clip, especially if a rimless cartridge was developed. If the Kraq had been otherwise an overwhelmingly superior battle rifle, that might have been done. What was done was just to start over, and with a simpler, stronger design requiring far fewer machining operations.

jn

You don't have to visualize Jon. Here is a picture of a norwegian test rifle modified for clip loading. It worked well and only a minor modification was needed. http://digitaltmuseum.no/things/prvegevr-65x55-krag-jrgensen-1894/FMU/FMU.202340?query=prøvegevær+krag&search_context=1&count=33&pos=16
I have heard that a similar device was tested on the US krag.

[kragluver]

Springfield modified a number of US Krags to adapt the Parkhurst clip loading device. By that time however, it was ~1900 and the M1903 was already in development.

The other major shortcoming little discussed regarding the Krag was its cost to manufacture. I think this had as much to do with its replacemnt than anything although you will never find it explicitly mentioned. The M1903 had fewer machining operations and when compared in common dollars, was cheaper to produce. So was the M1917 - another Mauser based design.

Overall, I think the Krag was a good rifle for the time period it was adopted, but it was a dead end design. The Mauser was more robust, and had sufficient design margin to handle more modern cartridges - plus cheaper to produce. I don't think the loading system was so much the reason for the demise of the Krag (even though that was the stated reason). Documented interviews of officers and men returning from Cuba indicate otherwise.

Rifle types don't win wars. They certainly play in the outcome but logistics and artillery (and eventually air power) were king.

What's the old quote... "Novices argue tactics. Experts argue logistics". Something like that.

[5MadFarmers]

Matter of personal taste, I guess.

Single loading rifles gave way to clip fed rifles. Clip fed bolts gave way to magazine fed automatic weapons. Time marches on.


There were other systems.

Mauser, Mannlicher, and Lee were all in contention with the rest being also rans. Mauser won in the end.


The GEW88 had nothing to do with Mauser....or more succinctly Mauser had nothing to do with it.

You know better. You're just playing a contraire here and we both know it. The '88 is a Mauser with a Manlicher magazine. Really no other way to describe it. The bolt is pure Mauser.


Yet the German Empire bought millions of GEW88 Mannlicher style rifles, though they ultimately regretted it.

It wasn't due to technology - it was politics. The "Jewish rifle" was condemned due to not having "positive feed" for the cartridges. By that measurement the '88 is no worse off than the Krag in that the Krag doesn't either. Yet the bolt design of the '88 permits the swapping of the bolt head and it does prevent firing out of battery - the Krag and M-1903 are both susceptible to that as was noticed before the 1896 Krag even entered production. By that measure the '88 wins. The Mauser magazine loading system, stripper clips, is inferior to clip packs. Mauser was working around Lee's and Mannlicher's patents. The M1 Garand is much faster loading than the Mauser - as is the '88. The rifle does the work stripping the cartridges. Everybody has likely had a problem "stripping" a Mauser style clip at some time. That doesn't happen with an enbloc. "Topping up" is also nonsense but we're drifting.


The fact that the Spanish, Serbs, Turks, Boers and South Americans bought Mausers was not a crashing endorsement of Mauser, though I agree it is the better rifle considering the choices.

Sweden then.... :)


Two of the countries that actually fought wars (generally small colonial ones) in that period, were Britain and France. Their rifles at that time were not Mausers. I don't believe the Long Lee Enfield or the M1886 were better than the Krag, but they were probably in actual use more than any Mauser.

The Lee is superior on many counts. The box magazine was poorly used yet is superior to the charger clips and enblocs. M16 and AK47 right?


In fact, I cannot think of a better salesman for the Mauser than the French M1886/93., yet there were lots of Lebels in use.

The French would have adopted a Siamese made sharp stick before a German rifle.

None of them were terrible. Yet the Mauser was about the best of the lot. Wedding the Mauser bolt and Lee magazine, although logical, didn't seem to happen.

I really do need to get that book out. I have a big surprise in there for you all.

[psteinmayer]

I read the article, and I had to chuckle... Especially when the writer stated "With lessons learned from the Civil War, the US military needed to replace their aging stock of muzzle-loaders with a modern metallic cartridge-feeding long-arm. The solution came in the form of the Norwegian Krag-Jørgensen, reclassified by the US military as the M1892-99." Apparently, the writer forgot about the Trapdoor (unless he thinks they are loaded from the muzzle too)!

I also like how he described the loading of the Krag: " If you’re familiar with the way modern paint-ball guns are fed, you have a rough idea of the hopper concept used by the Krag. Free floating rounds were placed in a magazine well on the side of the rifle at a slight incline. As the user worked the bolt, it extracted the spent round and a fresh round rolled into the chamber." I didn't know that Krags were gravity fed, with loose rounds rolling UP into the bolt!

[blackhawknj]

The Krag was a First Generation design, like so many others, it looked great at the time-compare the Colt M1889 and M1894 with the Army Special-but like so many other First Generation designs, it was overtaken by superior designs and proved to be a dead end. Another was the tubular magazine-the Kropatschek and the Lebel.
The Krag was also the last US longarm produced as an infantry rifle and cavalry carbine.

[kragluver]

I'm looking forward to the book 5mad

[11mm]

Responding to FMF on the GEW88:
The Mausers we are touting here as superior to the Krag (and other rifles of the time) did not have a detachable (opposed lug) bolt head. Yes, the M71 and M71/84 Mauser had a detachable bolt head, but so did the Lebel and the Portugese Kropatscheck, or for that matter the Berthier. Those were not inspired by Mauser, as far as I know. The detachable bolt head is not a good idea in a combat rifle that has to be cleaned in the trenches. It gets lost, and it is also another part that needs to be made and stocked as spares. The advanced Mausers, the ones with which the Krag had to compete, had one piece bolts. The fact that the Germans saw fit to create the GEW88/05 for the first world war gives us an idea of the respect with which the packet clip was held by them.
The "judenflinte" indictment of the the GEW88 was just an example of traditional anti-semite behavior on the part of the usual suspects and had no technical basis in fact. However, the GEW88 was considered sufficiently expendable by the pre-WW1 German Army that they were surplussed all over the world. In fact, the surviving GWE88 rifles are available only because they were sold to Ecuador and such like and never modernized. The rest were converted to the 88/S and 88/05.
That said, I have about ten of the damned things...but they still don't hold a candle to the Krag.
And yes, you should get the book finished.

[5MadFarmers]

The fact that the Germans saw fit to create the GEW88/05 for the first world war gives us an idea of the respect with which the packet clip was held by them.

Where they gave the Brits hell at Gallipoli.... :)


In fact, the surviving GWE88 rifles are available only because they were sold to Ecuador and such like and never modernized.

Missing sight slides and bolt heads or some such.


The rest were converted to the 88/S and 88/05.

Let's not forget the "Z" marked guns. The Equadorian guns received a lot of replacement Czech barrels not bored to the standard.


That said, I have about ten of the damned things...but they still don't hold a candle to the Krag.

The carbines are simply cuter than the Krag carbine to boot. :banana100:

http://5madfarmers.com/images_2013/germs.jpg

Oddly enough two of those guns are marked for the Kaiser Alexander Guard Regiment. What are the odds?

We've drifted


And yes, you should get the book finished.

Need sunlight. The book. The book. Lots of books. 11mm. A book.

http://5madfarmers.com/images_2013/m2.jpg

Gotta have accessories.

[jon_norstog]

Ranger,

That was an interesting rifle. I can see how that addition to the magazine works. It would be nice if the museum had shown some of the "patronklips" in use. And, add another 20 machine operations to producing the Krag!

jn

[kragluver]

There are pictures of the Parkhurst clip loading system in both Brophy and Mallory. It looks to me like an add-on piece to the loading gate that could have been fairly easily manufactured. I suspect it would have worked just fine. But as I stated above, it was already about 1900 and the winds were blowing towards a new rifle in the 1903. We had a long discussion on this same point on gunboards a couple years ago - here:

http://forums.gunboards.com/showthread.php?121310-30-40-vs-7X57-The-Span-Am-War-Refought

[ranger66]

Here is a picture of the US krag with the Parkhurst device. https://www.google.no/search?q=Parkhurst+clip+loading+device&client=opera&hs=ISn&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=Xn_hUvDyBYinyQPF64CIDw&ved=0CDEQsAQ&biw=1600&bih=784#facrc=_&imgrc=9-Wg1hEhMax2vM%253A%3BDLpwhBfeX3o1mM%3Bhttp%253A%252 F%252Fmedia.liveauctiongroup.net%252Fi%252F10387%2 52F11025877_3.jpg%25253Fv%25253D8CE3CDC7AB9FEA0%3B http%253A%252F%252Fwww.icollector.com%252FU-S-Springfield-Model-1899-Krag-Bolt-Action-Carbine-with-Rare-Experimental-Parkhurst-Loading-Device_i11025877%3B1500%3B626

[firstflabn]

I'm not a Krag guy, but do enjoy the enthusiastic and well informed exchanges here. Not sure if the info contained in the following document is new, but it struck me as odd that the War Department needed to issue a press release to stop being pestered about civilian sales, so thought I'd better pass it along.

http://s5.postimg.org/nwf2slvoz/Krags_on_hand_1915_80pct.jpg (http://postimg.org/image/nwf2slvoz/)

[jon_norstog]

Very interesting. So on Jan. 3 1915, the Army thought it had 344,959 Krags on hand or accounted for. It would be interesting to find the reports from the individual "arsenals" - or at least a listing of them. I assume the list would include state armories and weapons held by various federal agencies. I'll bet there were weapons that didn't get counted, for instance in shipboard gun lockers; and weapons that were supposed to be on hand but were not. I would expect that a lot of armories sent in unverified lists of the weapons they were supposed to have on hand.

jn

[ranger66]

First of all: I understand very well that the US army reviewed their whole concept after the lessons they learned from the span – am war. They learned that clip loading is better than single loading and magazine cut off. They learned that rimless cartridges is better than rimmed, and they wanted a more powerful cartridge than the 30-40 krag.
Some of these issues could have been addressed without changing rifle. Clip loading is not really an issue it can be addressed in several ways. It should have been possible to make a rimless cardridge for the same rifle. Now we know that the 30-40 has enough volume to support a 30 caliber bullet but the improvements in gunpowder and bullet design that would follow was not known then. The biggest problem was the single lug bolt. The action could have been made stronger by making the guide rib bear as on a Norwegian Krag, but still it would be a weak action.
As mentioned before Krag an Jorgensen had a two lug action ready in 1892. This was probably the strongest action around in the 1890s, but I can still understand that they went for a Mauser inspired action. As mentioned before: The Krag magazine is a redesign of his 10 shot magazine. But when the capacity is reduced it offers no advantage over the Mauser. It is interesting to see that one of the lessons they didn’t learn from the span –am war, was that bigger magazine capacity could be an advantage. Both Krag and Lee had working 10 shot magazines but it doesn’t seem that this ever was considered an issue. Even the Garand has smaller magazine capacity than a Lee Enfield. One can still argue that the ability to load the rifle with the bolt closed, offers a small advantage. First of all you have one round ready for an emergency. Then, if using 5 round clips, you can make your first reload after 4 shots and you will keep 6 shot cartridge capacity. It’s not possible to top of a mauser with 6 rounds using stripper clips. But this is probably not enough to justify the side loading gate of the Krag, and it is also a protrusion that will collect dirt and mud in battle.

But to say that the Krag wasn’t battleworth is still an exaggeration. The best indication of that is to look a the history of the Norwegian Krag. In 1940 the Germans attacked Norway with the improved kar 98, with improved loadings and spritzer bullets. Statistics from the battles shows that the Krag scored more long range hits than the Mauser. In battle rifle against rifle with no support, and with equal force size, the Germans didn’t manage to overpower the Norwegian forces. An example of this is the battle of Midtskogenhttp://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_midtskogen.

Another indication is that when Norway was occupied, the Germans ordered the Krag back into production. They didn’t order them to retool and produce Mausers. They wouldn’t have done that if they considered the design obsolete.

Then you also have that the Krag has been used in competitions against the Mauser for national match shooting since the end of ww2. It has also been used in rifle competitions against the Swedes and their Mauser based rifles.

After the war, there was a lot of surplus Mausers in Norway and soon they were allowed for national match shooting. After some time, The Kongsberg arsenal started to convert Mausers for sales to civillians, among them the m67http://http://www.oldkongsbergarms.com/vaapenbeskrivelser/mausere/M67.html. Still it offered no advantage over a similar sporterized Krag , and during th 70s ang 80s national championships was won sometimes with a Krag and sometimes with a Mauser.

So, mybe the Norwegian Krag is much better than the US? In some matters it is a bit better. The action is somewhat stronger and it takes advantage of using 6.5 mm bullets which has wery god bc. This gives a flat trajectory even with moderate loadings.

Still It’s hard to accept that the US Krag was not battleworth, and I wonder if those who claims this actually has shot with a Krag, or seen it in a competition.

[Parashooter]

. . . improved loadings and spritzer bullets. . .

Here we go again with the wine and seltzer! :eusa_wall:

[5MadFarmers]

First of all: I understand very well that the US army reviewed their whole concept after the lessons they learned from the span – am war. They learned that clip loading is better than single loading and magazine cut off. They learned that rimless cartridges is better than rimmed, and they wanted a more powerful cartridge than the 30-40 krag.

And the asymmetric nature of the receiver caused an odd horizontal trajectory which annoyed them greatly.


Some of these issues could have been addressed without changing rifle.

When I was a kid my dad had a 1964 Ford Fairlane. It wasn't fuel efficient, didn't have power steering or brakes, didn't have ABS, etc., These issues could have been addressed. Drop in a replacement engine, undercarriage, transmissions, etc., Might be easier to just scrap it and buy a Ford Focus though.


The biggest problem was the single lug bolt.

More likely that asymmetric receiver. That could be changed. While changing that to one with a symmetrical receiver why not add another lug to the bolt and shorten the barrel? Hey, the M-1903....


But when the capacity is reduced it offers no advantage over the Mauser.

And when capacity isn't reduced it still offers no advantage over the Mauser....


It is interesting to see that one of the lessons they didn’t learn from the span –am war, was that bigger magazine capacity could be an advantage.

Which is why the Brits won at Dunkirk, Singapore, and at Tobruk.


Even the Garand has smaller magazine capacity than a Lee Enfield.

And both of them have smaller magazine capacities than my Evans - ergo we should have replaced the Garand with the Evans right? A bolt action rifle is no match for a semi-automatic regardless of magazine capacity.


One can still argue that the ability to load the rifle with the bolt closed, offers a small advantage.

One can argue that the moon is made of cheese but one won't get far.


It’s not possible to top of a mauser with 6 rounds using stripper clips.

Bullsheet. Takes M-1917 containing two rounds, loads the magazine from charger leaving a couple of spares one of which goes into chamber. Hey, I have a Mauser with a chambered round and 5 in the magazine. I must be Houdini!!! What specifically that does for me is unclear though.


Statistics from the battles shows that the Krag scored more long range hits than the Mauser.

Statistics show that choosy mothers choose Jiff. Statistics of that nature are less than worthless.


In battle rifle against rifle with no support, and with equal force size, the Germans didn’t manage to overpower the Norwegian forces.

And thus the German invasion failed? Oh, wait....


Another indication is that when Norway was occupied

How can that be when you just claimed the Krag was more effective than the Mauser?


the Germans ordered the Krag back into production. They didn’t order them to retool and produce Mausers.

They also had Norway continue M-1911 production. In France they had them continue making MAB and Unique pistols. I see a pattern here. They generally had the occupied arms factories just continue making what they made.


They wouldn’t have done that if they considered the design obsolete.

Unless the cost of tooling was more than they were willing to pay. Where did they use those Krags? Front lines of Russia? No. Second line arms for second line troops.


Then you also have that the Krag has been used in competitions against the Mauser for national match shooting since the end of ww2. It has also been used in rifle competitions against the Swedes and their Mauser based rifles.

Target shooting and military use aren't even remotely close to being the same. Before somebody wishes to argue I'd ask how effective poorly trained troops with AK-47 rifles have proven here and there. Mass of fire has a value all its' own. Russian usage of SMGs in WW2, and the German heavy use of those same Soviet weapons, is an indicator.


So, mybe the Norwegian Krag is much better than the US? In some matters it is a bit better. The action is somewhat stronger and it takes advantage of using 6.5 mm bullets which has wery god bc. This gives a flat trajectory even with moderate loadings.

Neither are Mausers.



Still It’s hard to accept that the US Krag was not battleworth, and I wonder if those who claims this actually has shot with a Krag, or seen it in a competition.

The Krags and Mausers were seen in competition when the Germans marched into Norway.

Then again rifles are strictly secondary in that work but one needs to look beyond rifles to see that. Looking at target shooting competition and trying to make some kind of case for military use is really missing the point.

Harshed you a bit? Perhaps. Perhaps not. Get out of 1900. Seriously. Quit thinking target shooting is the end all. Want one example? Grab a Krag. Have a friend grab a Mauser. Both start with empty magazines. While running 20 meters to a trench attempt to load the rifle on the run. Try it a few times. You'll be a mite surprised at the result. You shouldn't be.

Rimmed rounds can overlap on the lips. Debate on how common that is is pointless as it doesn't happen with rimless rounds. Period.

WW1 showed that the rifle was secondary to the automatic weapon. The French taught the US Army that. The Mausers in WW2 were secondary to the MG34s and MG42s. The M1 was secondary to the BAR. The SMLE was secondary to the BREN. They Germans didn't get upset at the K98s not being repeaters until towards the end of the war as the MG34s and MG42s were the main weapon. It's only when they discovered mass infantry attacks with SMGs at night were painful that they rethought that.

The Krag was battleworthy. That's not a debate. The Mausers were superior. It's just the way it was.

[Shooter5]

Reading thru the discussion leaves one wondering how much 'data' was compiled on which to form a basis for conclusion that determined the Krag wasn't capable enough: one major battle in Cuba doesn't seem like enough, hence, that might have been a straw argument. From the after battle reviews, it appeared the trajectory and pace of reloads was adequate. Later, if they wanted better ballistics and speed, simple fixes like a spitzer bullet and a charger device were very simple and cheap alternatives. The one lug debate seems spurious because the Mauser actually has 3 - 1 intact and 2 smaller; one lug is split, yes? Given the notion of magazine cutoffs (which was continued with the M1903) the Krag should have been able to stand on that alone. The rimmed round is another straw man augment, the 303 and 7.62x54 have proven that. As 5MF indicated, later wars proved the MG and artillery with tactics win the day. Rifle fire is secondary.
I am betting the Army was embarrassed at the poor performance of the force which was slapped together with pathetic levels of training and thrust into battle against a foe that was fortunately incapable of better performance - just a little bit better fight from the Spanish and the land campaign could have been a disaster, at least in Cuba. Ordnance was seething at losing out to a design not developed in house and jumped at the chance to slander a decent battle rifle - that is how it seems to was out to me.

[firstflabn]

Ordnance was seething at losing out to a design not developed in house

If it bothered Ordnance so badly, how did they handle the use of the Charleville in the Revolution; the Enfield, Belgian, Austrian, etc., etc. in the Civil War?

Prior to the Garand, was there any successful original major long arm used by the U.S. Army that was designed from the ground up by Ordnance (or by contractors)?

Imputing motives without evidence does a disservice to honorable men who did their best to defend their country.

[5MadFarmers]

The rimmed round is another straw man augment, the 303 and 7.62x54 have proven that.

Not equivalent - both of those use chargers. Not that the rimmed round was the sole reason - it was simply one of the reasons. The asymmetric receiver was the main straw on that camel's back.


As 5MF indicated, later wars proved the MG and artillery with tactics win the day. Rifle fire is secondary.

In the first Winter War the Finns pretty much handed the Soviet's their hat - proving that the Nagant was superior to the Nagant. In the "continuation" the result was reversed - proving that the Nagant was superior to the Nagant? Given the "fire unit" centered on the MG, the mortars available, the artillery banging away, the "defense is to offense as 3 is to 1" and other stuff I treat "statistics show this rifle was more effective in this battle" as pure fantasy. There is simply no way to isolate the rifle out. Excepting some corner cases where sniping at long range is effective. That's normally static war.


Ordnance was seething at losing out to a design not developed in house and jumped at the chance to slander a decent battle rifle - that is how it seems to was out to me.

That's exactly backwards. The Krag was the choice of the Ordnance Department. They foisted the trapdoor and Krag off on the rest of the army and the army had very little say in the matter. The Krag was the favorite of the O.D.. The M-1903 was genuinely liked at adoption as was the M1. The O.D. went back to their old ways with the M14 and that was the end of Springfield Armory. That wasn't the sole cause but the chicanery centered on the M14 definitely helped.

The Krag wasn't a Yugo. It wasn't terrible. It just wasn't as good as the Mausers.

[Shooter5]

The Krag was its choice but not designed in house at OD. That certainly rankled some in the USA to include Congress. The point is that one major "battle" is/was not enough to properly evaluate the design and then determine its fate: charger loading systems could have/were being designed and would have/did evolve as needed. Thus, a rimmed round should not have been a fair reason to have knocked it out-whether in part or as sole consideration.
The M16 went thru some serious teething deficiency problems so for comparison would it have been fair/rationale/cost effective to drop the weapon system after a short series of battles? The early M1 had problems, too, that had to be fixed. Dropping it after hiccups isn't good decision making procedure.
This is not to say the Krag is superior to a Mauser or Enfield design. What appears to be BS is dropping a weapon system only 9 years after adaptation and its associated development/production/fielding costs and then calling the rifle the problem after 1 battle when it wasn't entirely clear that is was, in fact, offering significantly less combat firepower and performance.

[Art]

This is one of those issues that never goes away, like low# M1903 safety and what rifle Alvin York used.

I essentially agree with 5MadFarmers analysis. The issue isn't whether the Krag was a serviceable rifle but whether it was one of the best available. By 1900 it was a general international consensus that the Lee, Mannlicher and Mauser systems, all of which by that time used simple clip loading systems were the best solutions to the battle rifle problem. By the end of WWI the Lee and Mauser designs had eclipsed the rest. Other serviceable designs persisted long after the dominance of Mauser and Lee's designs had reached ascendancy. The French still had large numbers of Manlicher-Berthier rifles in service many in their original configuration in service in 1939 and some units were still armed with tube magazine Lebels. Denmark and Norway still used Krags in 8x58r and 6.5x55 Mauser at the start of WWII.

Interestingly the Mauser design was so broadly assumed superior that the British had a replacement rifle in the works based on the Mauser design (the British shooting press in the first decade of the 20th century loathed the SMLE) and only completely abandoned the project because of the exemplary performance of the Lee design in actual combat at the opening of WWI. In that case performance in one or two battles sealed the future of the Lee design in British service for nearly 60 years.

Should the United States have held on to the Krag-Jorgensen design as long as the French held on to the Manlicher-Berthier and the Danes and Norwegians clung to the Krag or should it have cut its losses early? I personally think the right decision was made. I sure don't expect to change any bodies minds though.

I also want to add that no one alive today used a Krag in combat and darn few used any of the other bolt action designs. It does seem, from what I know, that there was no outcry to keep the Krag-Jorgensen design once the M1903 rifle was adopted.

[Shooter5]

Generally speaking, agreed. However, in the What Might Have Been department, the Krag likely would have don't just fine in WW1. This, given that rifle fire doesn't win battles and wars. Combined arms with artillery and machine guns plus fire and maneuver do. Oddly, its the Mauser that is deemed superior when sound arguments could just as easily conclude that it is the Enfield which is superior for combat!

[5MadFarmers]

This is one of those issues that never goes away, like low# M1903 safety and what rifle Alvin York used.

Those issues never go away solely due to wishful thinking on the part of M-1903 fanatics. Low serial number M-1903s are not safe and I have the reports which are very specific on why. Blame Julian Hatcher for the misinformation surrounding those. I do cover that in the book. That part is done.

York used the M-1917 rifle and I have the documents that are crystal clear on that. I can also have the percentage of Winchester made M-1917s in his division and it was very low. Sadly both Eddystone and Remington were owned by the same firm and thus those are grouped together and I can't tell which of the two it was. Likely the Eddystone but, as mentioned, the shipping records don't differentiate between the two.

Neither of those items is anything of significance when one removes the M-1903 goggles and digs into the documents of the era.


Interestingly the Mauser design was so broadly assumed superior that the British had a replacement rifle in the works based on the Mauser design (the British shooting press in the first decade of the 20th century loathed the SMLE) and only completely abandoned the project because of the exemplary performance of the Lee design in actual combat at the opening of WWI. In that case performance in one or two battles sealed the future of the Lee design in British service for nearly 60 years.

The understanding that machine guns were dominant played a part. Britain was perfectly willing to drop the SMLE for WW2, and were in the process of doing so, but spent considerable effort on the BREN and BESA.

The dropping of the Krag wasn't due to one specific item, or battle, but the aggregate effect of the situation at the time:

The Mausers came as a shock.

Flagler died and Buffington, then Crozier, took over. A change of horses can do wonders.

The issue of Trapdoors left the O.D., and Army, with serious egg on their face. The Krag was tarred with that brush in a general way.

Nobody, excepting a small group in the O.D., had been happy with the Krag. They loved their target shooting and the Krag wasn't anything to write home about in that department.

The Royalties were excessive.

And, as Stephen Bishop sings, on and on.

It was not one specific thing but a group of them all of which said: "finis."

[Dick Hosmer]

Also recall in these arguments, that the Krag was never called a Springfield during its' period of use - the stigma of foreign design never went away. The '03 was trumpeted as the "New Springfield" (the old one of course being the TD). There were in fact two sets of trials before the Krag was adopted - American designers/manufacturers/whatever were so incensed after the first round that a second session of testing was held - still with no American design being found "better" than the Krag. Of course, the outcome was predetermined.

[jon_norstog]

Somewhere along the line the Army tried out the actual '98 Mauser, officially. I know that because I saw a 7mm cal. 1898 large ring mauser with the U.S. Army seal as its receiver crest. The gun had been bubba-ed, but still had its original sights and original long barrel. I saw it in Ron Peterson's shop in Albuquerque, early '90s. I thought about buying it, didn't and regret it to this day. It would have been an easy restoration.

I don't know how many rifles were involved, but they had to have been ordered from the factory to get a crest ... someone was trolling for an order.

jn

[5MadFarmers]

the stigma of foreign design never went away.

20th century values on a 19th century weapon. Nationalism wasn't what it became during the 20th century. That the design was foreign didn't bother them - it was that it was a design not adopted by any major power. "You'll never get fired for buying IBM."


The '03 was trumpeted as the "New Springfield"

A Mauser design. The design had just been proven by the Spanish and there was no question that it was effective. Note that it too was a foreign design but that didn't bother them as it was proven.


American designers/manufacturers/whatever were so incensed

Is Poyer the originator of that fairy tale or just a propagator?

[madsenshooter]

Nice debate, but if things keep going the way they are, we might just get a chance to see how battleworthy they are! Nothing like field trials.

[5MadFarmers]

Nice debate, but if things keep going the way they are, we might just get a chance to see how battleworthy they are! Nothing like field trials.

You've hit the nail on the head. Fielding the Krag against more modern and efficient arms in the hands of the opposing forces didn't, and never will, go well.

[coastie]

The '89 Danish Krag has a simplicity of receiver that makes the Norwegian and U. S. Krags look like a machinist's dream....of extra work!
And the Dane's magazine was an "add-on" piece, making the receiver much easier to make. Too bad about the forward throw to the magazine door.
Now a Krag with a simple receiver, a bolt on magazine that might be subject to modification for extra rounds......ahh, a waste of history here.

What was the old saying?:
"An '03 Springfield for target,
A Mauser for sport,
And a Lee Enfield for battle."

Read that long ago in several articles.

Paul
Houston, Texas

[madsenshooter]

You've hit the nail on the head. Fielding the Krag against more modern and efficient arms in the hands of the opposing forces didn't, and never will, go well.

That's why I keep my Garand near the front of the locker after having to sell my AR. Not perfect, but a bit better than trying to do a modern battle with a Krag. Targets and hunting, they're good for.

[psteinmayer]

If I ever have to run for the hills... I'm taking the Garand AND the Krag! I'll use the Garand for rate of fire, and the Krag to hold em' off at a distance :)

[5MadFarmers]

When I heard the Amazon dude talking about making deliveries with drones I started thinking about 20mm pompoms. Then I remembered the M42 Duster that was up on eBay some time ago. Rearmed that'd be the ticket. Heading for the hills is easier with tracks and, before that happens, Amazon gifts would keep me occupied.

The discussion was good. It's good to put ideas to the acid test. It make me think about Crozier and his comments and another light bulb went off. So the discussions can get contentious but that's the acid that wears off the wrong coating things have.

Thanks dudes.

[da gimp]

Still like my old Win 95 flatside better than the Krag.... & one of those with clip feeder lips in .30-06 would give the 1903 a run...... but I never heard of any field trials where it ran against the 1903.............

[Dick Hosmer]

I believe they were tested against the Krag, and failed (but I'm not sure I want to go there in this thread) - I think the wood caught fire in the rapid fire test??

Also, the 1895 action was marginal with the '06. Not to say it was unsafe, though there were some failures, not all of which were due to the 8mm swap usually blamed for such mishaps; there was just no margin for error. Winchester lever actions, while superb for hunting, never seemed - beginning with the 1876 - to do well in the military functioning tests, as I recall.

[psteinmayer]

Outside of the Calvary, Indians and Cowboys seen in the movies... would anyone really ever shoot a lever action to the rate normally seen by infantry in the real world? Cycling a round while hunting is one thing. Repeated firing and cycling is quite another.

[kragluver]

Lever actions are not well suited to firing prone either. Tubular magazines were prone to damage and dirt. The 1895 with the box magazine was probably the best of the levers suited for the military (maybe too the Savage '99). Of course, the Russians and the Turks liked them!

[gnoahhh]

If it's that bad that I need to head for the hills, I'm screwed anyway so it won't matter what I take with me- so it might as well be a Krag as anything!

Are there any writings extant from soldiers who actually used the Krag in combat who commented on their 'battleworthiness'? I wonder what the attitudes were of the soldiers heading into battle with Krags on their shoulders felt about how they were armed. Probably scared witless and hoping to not have to get mixed up in it at all. Were even 1/4 of those guys even capable of evaluating their weapons against weaponry of the opposition? The odd 'old salt' gun crank/marksman may well have had an opinion, but I bet the rank-and-file guys b*tched more about having to clean it, stand inspection with it, and make trips to the rifle range, and would have done so no matter what they were issued.

[gnoahhh]

If it's that bad that I need to head for the hills, I'm screwed anyway so it won't matter what I take with me- so it might as well be a Krag as anything!

Are there any writings extant from soldiers who actually used the Krag in combat who commented on their 'battleworthiness'? I wonder what the attitudes were of the soldiers heading into battle with Krags on their shoulders felt about how they were armed. Probably scared witless and hoping to not have to get mixed up in it at all. Were even 1/4 of those guys even capable of evaluating their weapons against weaponry of the opposition? The odd 'old salt' gun crank/marksman may well have had an opinion, but I bet the rank-and-file guys b*tched more about having to clean it, stand inspection with it, march with it, and make trips to the rifle range, and would have done so no matter what they were issued.

[Art]

I wonder what the attitudes were of the soldiers heading into battle with Krags on their shoulders felt about how they were armed. Probably scared witless and hoping to not have to get mixed up in it at all. Were even 1/4 of those guys even capable of evaluating their weapons against weaponry of the opposition? The odd 'old salt' gun crank/marksman may well have had an opinion, but I bet the rank-and-file guys b*tched more about having to clean it, stand inspection with it, march with it, and make trips to the rifle range, and would have done so no matter what they were issued.

You are probably correct on your analysis of the regular soldier.

The real issues were sorted out afterwards by officers on the scene and in the War Department who were left to contemplate how. for example, two reinforced companies of Spanish infantry at El Caney held up an entire American division for a whole day and only retreated when they ran out of ammunition. There were a lot of variables and the Spaniards did have, as one Spanish officer put it, "the advantage of position." One of the variables was the rifles used in the engagement.

I'm personally not wedded to any weapon out of nostalgia, I do think the Spaniards had a superior rifle. How much difference that variable made compared to others is open to debate, and the "brass hats" are always reluctant to blame themselves.

[Dick Hosmer]

I agree; when two companies foil a division there is WAAY more at play than the relative merits of their rifles, unless one were comparing something as disparate as muzzleloaders vs. breechloaders - the small Mauser/Krag difference doesn't even come close to tipping the scales, IMHO.

[psteinmayer]

Amen to that. I would imagine that soldiers actually shooting at an enemy were more scared out of their minds than worried that their rifles might not be as good as the ones they are shooting at. I'm sure the guys shooting the Krags were more than thrilled that they weren't shooting Trapdoors!

[Shooter5]

two reinforced companies of Spanish infantry at El Caney held up an entire American division for a whole day and only retreated when they ran out of ammunition.
.
Hence, my original question. It seems bizarre to blame a rifle - which is what it appears happened -when the slapstick approach to the whole campaign was the actual issue. This question was posed in class to several military officers with a comparison to the modern era, something like this: would you deploy to Afghanistan in, say, 3 months from now with a random group of civilians?! Regardless of weapon, there are some serious risks to that approach! Here is a novel idea; what if the US Army had deployed to Cuba with…M1903s, or M93s…or M1 Garands…or M14s…or M16A2s! Whatever. Regardless, would there be any serious takers for a bet saying the US Army could take El Caney with a division of civilians led by political appointees motivated by jingoism and aspirations of colonialism?

[Shooter5]

It was an obsolete design from the beginning.
No amount of training will overcome the loading issue. Pretty big deal in combat.
How would tactics and leadership impact that?
Smoothest action gets no points.

Has/was this point been applied to study? If so, how and what parameters? From a back of the envelope calculation; before or without machine guns - most combat engagements with rifle fire occurred from 100 to 300meters, possibly more depending on circumstances. What was the sustained rate of fire - not the maximum - for a platoon using the Krag? IIRC, the manual for an M16 is something like 12-15 per minute although that may have more to do with overheating than availability of ammo but using that as a guide for consumption purposes; a platoon of 40 shooting 15 per minute for 10 hours = over a quarter million rounds! Didn't happen. Lugging all that ammo for one platoon alone would have required a pack train of mules 100 miles long. Hmm, I would guess that the average rate of consumption was more like a a few shots per hour per man interspersed with periods of high activity…and lulls of nothing. During high activity, the sustained volume of units providing covering fire was probably adequate to occupy the Spanish…except that they had terrain, battle works and buildings and were fighting against essentially civilians either unwilling to advance in the open under fire, were poorly led, or were trying to fight smarter not harder and avoid Gallipoli type situations.
Regardless, offhand it appears a Krag could and likely did provide the volume of fire necessary and adequate to the task at hand. In a apples to apples force on force all out charge, yes, a Mauser could load and fire faster but that is probably a dynamic that was not occurring in Cuba.

[5MadFarmers]

Attempts to isolate the effectiveness of the individual rifle on the modern battlefield are useless as the other factors need to be added in to get the holistic result. By the same token attempts to isolate the tactical, leadership, and other force structure issues into individual silos is doomed to failure as the rules of complementary evolution are almost as fixed as the rules of thermodynamics.

The oft bandied "too much ammunition" assertion doesn't need to be heavily theorized as the load factors for individual issue and train supply are easily available as are the transportation capability figures for the standard transportation units. A "walk sideways" to engagements of a similar nature, before and after, are enlightening - specifically the Battle of Plevna.

The arbitrary leadership and conscript troop assertion requires two additional considerations for proper weight: enemy structure and analog comparisons. The "regular" U.S. army was there and heavily represented vis-a-vis the total strength of the army whereas the soldiers on the Spanish side were in fact conscripts. The "levy en masse" was an artefact of the French revolution and Napoleon didn't seem to have issue with regards to leadership or soldier performance.

The rules of complementary evolution are almost as fixed as the laws of thermodynamics and everybody ignores that aspect.

[PhillipM]

Attempts to isolate the effectiveness of the individual rifle on the modern battlefield are useless as the other factors need to be added in to get the holistic result. By the same token attempts to isolate the tactical, leadership, and other force structure issues into individual silos is doomed to failure as the rules of complementary evolution are almost as fixed as the rules of thermodynamics.

The oft bandied "too much ammunition" assertion doesn't need to be heavily theorized as the load factors for individual issue and train supply are easily available as are the transportation capability figures for the standard transportation units. A "walk sideways" to engagements of a similar nature, before and after, are enlightening - specifically the Battle of Plevna.

The arbitrary leadership and conscript troop assertion requires two additional considerations for proper weight: enemy structure and analog comparisons. The "regular" U.S. army was there and heavily represented vis-a-vis the total strength of the army whereas the soldiers on the Spanish side were in fact conscripts. The "levy en masse" was an artefact of the French revolution and Napoleon didn't seem to have issue with regards to leadership or soldier performance.

The rules of complementary evolution are almost as fixed as the laws of thermodynamics and everybody ignores that aspect.

Battle of Plevna, so much for the oft bandied remark that lever action Winchesters are too fragile for military use!

Little known today, and even less remembered, the the 30th of July, 1877, cast shadows which even now are still there for anyone with eyes to see. The great Russian army massed before the Turkish defenses of Plevna on the morning of that day stood in their might prepared to sacrifice themselves to the full, determined to storm the trenches ahead regardless of cost. They would not be halted; their front ranks would inevitably fall before the defenses of the courageous Turks. They were prepared for that. So thought General Todleben and his staff as they studied the quiet fields ahead on that fateful morning. In their trenches the Turks, barely half as numerous as the Russians, waited grimly, almost eagerly for the assault.

The Russian Guards soberly checked their Berdan rifles, their bottle-necked .42-caliber cartridges. Other units swung up the side-locking blocks of their .63-caliber Krnka breechloaders, confident that the modifications of the Bohemian Sylvester Krnka had provided them with the speed of loading necessary to match the American Peabody-Martini rifles in the trenches ahead of them.

Bugles sounded. Officers shouted. The men roared. In massed formations the long lines advanced stolidly, inexorably. The solid lines marched on until, suddenly, a cloud of smoke arose from the black-powder rifles in the trenches far ahead. Strangely and with terrifying accuracy, a plunging hail of lead ripped into the Russian ranks before the reports of the rifles reached them. The Russian staff stared aghast through their glasses as ranks thinned out before they could fire a shot. They claimed later that the slaughter began at a distance of two kilometers, some 2200 yards. Other observers on the Russian side claimed even more fantastic ranges for the Peabody-Martinis in the hands of the Turks -- as much as 3000 yards! Perhaps the observers were too excited to measure correctly. Perhaps they were seeking to alibi their terrible mistake in ordering massed men to certain death. But we do know the American rifles had shown deadly efficiency at 700 yards, and it is possible that massed plunging fire at 1000 yards may have decimated the advancing Russians. Riflemen of today armed with Springfields or Garands could not hit consistently at ranges claimed in 1877. Of one thing, however, we are sure, at a range considered far beyond that of a rifle of those days, the Peabody-Martini began chopping down the numerical superiority on which the Russians had counted for victory.

With the stoic calm of the true Slav, the Russian advance continued to ranges of 500 yards, 400, 300 -- 200. In the Turkish trenches there was a momentary pause. The Turks laid aside their single-shot Peabody Martinis. And the Russians charged madly ahead.

Russian Intelligence had duly reported the delivery of 30,000 Winchester repeaters to the Turks. Those were Tyler Henry's tube loaders with the new King patent side-loading gate, the first arm to bear the name "Winchester." The caliber was .44 rimfire Turkish. True, the arm had shown its merit in wild, far-away America, but what use would it be on European battlefields? Little if any, they surmised.

Russian Intelligence had not learned that the cavalry had been disbanded and that their Winchesters had been issued to the defenders in the trenches. They had not known the intensive drill they had been given in using the arms. They could not conceive what was about to happen. And so the charge went on.

At 100 yards the storm broke. All down the line a hail of rapid-fire lead burst from the muzzles of 30,000 Winchesters. "Each Turk," wrote General Todleben to General Brialmont in a letter dated January 18, 1878, "carried 100 cartridges, and had a box containing 500 placed beside him. A few expert marksmen were employed to pick off the officers ... the Turks did not even attempt to sight, but, hidden behind the trenches, loaded and fired as rapidly as they could ... the most heroic endeavors of our troops were without effect, and divisions of 10,000 men were reduced to an effective strength of between 4,000 and 5,000." But the General was a stubborn man. In the modern Rusian Army, he would probably have been shot at sunrise, and quite rightly, for his terrible failure. instead he lived to repeat the attack on Plevna with the same tactics - and the same results - on August 11, 1877! In all he admitted losing 30,000 men in the useless assaults!

The Winchesters broke the back of the Russian attacks in their closing phases, after the long-range Peabody-Martinis had whittled the advancing ranks down with harrowing fire. The "quick loaders" fastened to the sides of the Berdans and the Krnkas to hold cartridges ready for insertion in the breech were no possible answer to the true repeating arm.

A hush settled over the chancelleries of Europe that summer of 1877. Every European nation now set itself to re-arm with repeaters as rapidly as possible. The Turks turned first to Winchester for another 140,000 repeaters, then to Germany for a long secession of Mauser designs.

In the day of the nuclear bomb it is difficult to conceive the way the success of the Winchester then altered the economic planning and military thinking around the globe. The hush that began on the field of Plevna and spread throughout Europe was more than just another episode in the duel between Turks and Russians. It was a hush that presaged a development of arms and a course of diplomacy leading inevitably to years of strain that lay ahead.

Truly, the day of the single-shot military rifle was over.

[free1954]

PHILLIPM wrote" A hush settled over the chancelleries of Europe that summer of 1877. Every European nation now set itself to re-arm with repeaters as rapidly as possible. The Turks turned first to Winchester for another 140,000 repeaters, then to Germany for a long secession of Mauser designs."



do you know which countries issued lever action rifles ?

[5MadFarmers]

Battle of Plevna, so much for the oft bandied remark that lever action Winchesters are too fragile for military use!

Little known today, and even less remembered, the the 30th of July, 1877, cast shadows which even now are still there for anyone with eyes to see.

If one can only select one battle of the 1800s to study Plevna would be it. It was a Russian "war of expansion." The "Sick Man of Europe" was Turkey. The Russians used the "help the Romanians liberate themselves" as a land grab excuse - no different from the "help the Serbs" land grab which triggered WW1.

It wasn't "trenches" ala WW1 but "redoubts" outside of the town.

The Turks had no problem keeping their Winchesters fed for days yet, in spite of being on the defensive, the ammunition wasn't pre-located; the Turks had force marched to Plevna from another engagement at a distance.

The Turks marched far from support and were completely isolated and cut-off. Russian cavalry clipped their supply lines early on.

Much has been made of the long range fire from the Peabody rifles but a study of the weather conditions and a read of the personal accounts from those present paint a different picture as it was the rainy season with visibility obscured during many of the assaults.

Oddly enough there were Peabody rifles on both sides as the Romanians had them also.

It wouldn't be unfair to say the Turks "shot at" the Russians at long range with Peabody rifles and then "shot them" at close range with Winchesters.

The European armies studied the battle and a mad rush, as mentioned, to adopt repeaters ensued. The U.S. Ordnance Department, that narrative not fitting their notions, focused on the Peabody rifles and moved further away from repeaters with efforts to "prove" the trapdoor could hit a barn at 1,000 yards. Assuming the barn didn't move.

There is another overlooked aspect to that battle having to do with Winchesters and Spencers.

[Dick Hosmer]

Which all distills down into very few words: Men equipped with repeating rifles, firing from defensive cover, will whip a force, advancing, in or out of formation, in the open, armed with single-shot rifles.

Hell, the Turks might even have won with those miserable clipless Krags.

TACTICS!!!!

[jon_norstog]

Amen to that. I would imagine that soldiers actually shooting at an enemy were more scared out of their minds than worried that their rifles might not be as good as the ones they are shooting at. I'm sure the guys shooting the Krags were more than thrilled that they weren't shooting Trapdoors!

On the SpanAmWar website there is a letter home from a Michigan volunteer who said his unit was sent to the front lines to reinforce a unit of regulars. The regulars wouldn't allow the volunteers into the line with them because they were carrying trapdoors and the regulars feared the Spanish riflemen and artillery would home in on the black powder smoke.

As for El Caney, the only volunteer unit there was the 2nd Massachusetts. The rest of the American forces were regulars, including the very professional 25th. The "American division" wasn't a division as we usually think of one. Lawton's division included four regiments plus some artillery. The Cubans were there in numbers as well, but were doing their own thing. There were really two fights that day, the first for El Viso, a stone fort that guarded the approach from the south. Then there was the town proper, which had two fortified blockhouses. So El Caney had to be taken twice. And you can't read about that fight without getting the impression it was kind of a clusterf**k. Lawton's division was supposed to roll right over El Caney and be on the job to support the right flank of the attack on Kettle Hill. One reason the advance was delayed at the bottom taking losses until the unit leaders basically decided to charge with or without an order from Command.

One place the soldiers of the world did get together without killing each other was the China Relief Expedition. An officer of the 6th Cavalry wrote a lot about it, some of his book used to be available online. I remember one passage where he says the soldiers and marines all passed around their rifles, and that the Krag was one of the favorites of the troops from the other nations, but that the Lee was not so well regarded. I'm thinking the soldiers like the Krag for the same reasons we do - a work of the machinist's art, a handsome rifle, smooth action, and the carbines were really nice.

Just a few random comments.

jn

[Dick Hosmer]

As the proud caretaker of an SRS-listed 6th Cav CRE carbine (70210) I'd be interested in more info, Jon. Thanks in advance.

[jon_norstog]

It may have been included in the U.S. War Department's "Military Operations in China" but I'll keep looking. Damn! I should take notes when I find something good.

jn

[jon_norstog]

Here's a citation:

"Reports on military operations in South Africa and China. July, 1901"
By United States. Adjutant-General's Office. Military Information Division, Stephen L'H. Slocum, Carl Reichmann, Adna Romanga Chaffee

[Shooter5]

Dr Bleed from UNL conducted the first modern archeological survey of Span-Am battlefield sites in Cuba. Very neat website listed below. That the research was allowed and conducted at all is Surprising all the more so for Americans to have permission to go there…both from the Cuban govt and the US! This given the inanity of our sanctions program - how's that working out now after 50 years? Oh, it's actually a 'wait till Castro dies' policy and foook the other ten million. Apologies for the digression.

http://cubanbattlefields.unl.edu

[JohnPeeff]

All you have to do is lay prone and try to load your Krag out of the Mills cartridge belt you are wearing to appreciate and see the superiority of the clip loaded mauser as a battle rifle.Forget the ballistics of their respective cartridges, 2200fps vs 2400fps vs 2600fps, it is all the same if you are hit in the head by one.

[psteinmayer]

As I lay prone in the rapid fire COF at Camp Perry, I don't seem to have a problem with loading without a stripper clip. Now I agree that I'm not pulling single rounds out of a box or belt... but in the heat of battle, while I'm soiling myself, does it really matter? I'm betting that the Spaniards with the Mausers probably fumbled a few clips while reloading their rifles. I'm betting they were also soiling themselves and not really concerned with whether they had the superior rifle or not!

[blackhawknj]

Biggest mistake with the M1892 and M1896 Krags was the lack of windage adjustements on the rear sights, rather strange in light of the adoption of the Buffington rear sight and the Army's marksmanship emphasis at the time.
Again, the Krag-like the Kroptaschek and the Lebel-was a First Generation design, and an evolutionary dead end so to speak. Both lacked features that were found to be desireable-necessary, due to battlefield experience, and they could not be easily upgraded.

[coastie]

the five round magazine...
Should you ever find a Danish Krag, check how the magazine "box" fastens to the receiver.
It is not a far reach to consider a side mounted fixture with detachable magazines.
Sort of like a Johnson semi auto.
Lost causes and lost histories.

[coastie]

[and if you hear of 8x58DR [Danish] rifle rounds that don't exceed the national debt, I want to know the source.
Anyone traveling to Denmark in the near future?]