"Beginning" book on the Krag for a magazine article

[Rick the Librarian]

I'm doing a magazine article for our state collectors organization. It'll discuss what books need to be purchased for a small library on U.S. military firearms roughly 1900-1945. I'd like to recommend one or two on the Krag. Obviously, Brophy's and Mallory's books are out of sight for the typical beginning collector.

Your alternate suggestions, gentlemen?

TIA!

RtL

[jon_norstog]

Well, 5MF's book gets as deep as most collectors would care to go. "The Little War of Private Post" is pretty good for getting a feel for the Spanish American War, but is short on Krag notes as Post's unit (71st NY Volunteers) was equipped with trapdoors. Smedley Butler wrote letters throughout his service which have been collected into a book, including his early years in which he carried the Lee Navy, Krag and '03 Springfield. It might have some gun-related passages - I haven't read it. But maybe I will. It is kinda pricey, more so than the Mallory or Brophy books, in fact.

General Smedley Darlington Butler: The Letters of a Leatherneck, 1898–1931. Praeger. ISBN 0-275-94141-8.

jn

[IditarodJoe]

I started out with Poyer's book. At around $25, it makes a decent beginner's book.

[5MadFarmers]

I'm doing a magazine article for our state collectors organization. It'll discuss what books need to be purchased for a small library on U.S. military firearms roughly 1900-1945. I'd like to recommend one or two on the Krag. Obviously, Brophy's and Mallory's books are out of sight for the typical beginning collector.

Your alternate suggestions, gentlemen?

TIA!

RtL

Why not recommend the best beginner book? It's free.

https://books.google.com/books?id=YVoMAQAAMAAJ&pg=PP1

They were designed for the troops. They're government publications with no copyright. Online examples exist for most of the guns that were issued - to include the Nagants.

For the M1 the starter book are the Basic Field Manual and the Technical Manual. Ditto for the M14 and M16. Again, they're free and online.

So track down the link for those. Trapdoor, Krag, M-1903, M-1917, Nagant, and the FM and TM for the M1s. Carbine and rifle.

You said "firearms" so include the revolvers and pistols. Similar to the rifles the original manuals are online and free.

Frankly, if one had to purchase those as after-market books it'd be in the hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars. For a beginner that is the exact place to start.

[Rick the Librarian]

I admit I'm not so much interested in books on the "period", i.e. the Spanish-American War, as the rifle itself. I was aware a number of manuals were available online, but not aware that one of them was the Krag. Thanks to 5MF for bringing that to my attention. While it does have a surprising amount of detail on the major models, it still lacks a number of "collector" details. I will mention it as an online resource.

Unfortunately, it appears that Poyer's book, by process of elimination, is the only one out there available to the beginning collector.

FYI, the firearms I intend to cover will be the following:

1) M1 Garand
2) M1 Carbine
3) M1903 Springfield
4) Krag
5) Pistol
6) a "best of the rest" on perhaps 3-4 other military firearms

It'll be done as a "bibliographic essay". I will also mention the leading websites devoted to each, as well.

[5MadFarmers]

Krag
Navy Win-Lee
Remington Army Rifle
Pattern 14 ERA
Pattern 14 Rem
M-1903 SA
M-1903 RIA
M-1903 REM
M-1903A3 SC
M-1903A3 REM
M-1917 E
M-1917 R
M-1917 W
Nagant NEW
Nagant REM
Berthier REM
Mauser H&A

Doesn't include War Two and doesn't include hand cannon. Missing the Pattern 14 WRA, Ross, French RB, WRA Russian 1895. Getting there. Slowly but surely.

I'm aware the Spruce Army had lever action WRAs. Skipping them. Why? Whim.

[Rick the Librarian]

Yes, familiar (obviously! :) ) with all of those, but as this will be a short (2000-3000 words) article, it will not be feasible to cover them all. It will discuss just the ones I mentioned. The Navy Lee, for example, while certainly historical, would be rarely purchased by a new collector.

[5MadFarmers]

Yes, familiar (obviously! :) ) with all of those, but as this will be a short (2000-3000 words) article, it will not be feasible to cover them all. It will discuss just the ones I mentioned. The Navy Lee, for example, while certainly historical, would be rarely purchased by a new collector.

Your list has a strange omission.

http://media.gettyimages.com/photos/14th-july-1942-general-charles-de-gaulle-presenting-medals-to-members-picture-id3427660

[Rick the Librarian]

You're right - left off the M1917. At least two of the books I plan to use on the M1917 mention the P1914, too.

[Dick Hosmer]

Leave it to the French to have a silly manual of arms. Cannot imagine a worse carry mode, even if only "on parade".

[5MadFarmers]

Leave it to the French to have a silly manual of arms. Cannot imagine a worse carry mode, even if only "on parade".

Jacques! Ze Americain just harshed de armee again!

http://www.wallpapermaven.com/i/people/48/Weeping-Parisian-d.jpg

Wonder if it had to do with balance based on the pig sticker's added weight in an awkward location.

[Dick Hosmer]

No, Pierre, it has to do with wobbling (something they are good at however) on a hard, relatively smaller diameter surface, with the point of control well above the axis of rotation. In a proper RSA position, the arm (especially without bayonet) will very nearly balance and rest naturally on the shoulder with minimal effort/fatigue - as pictured, not so much.

[Dan Shapiro]

At one time Eisenhower had an on-going issue with DeGaulle as the Frenchman wanted their '17's replaced with M1's. Ike didn't have enough at the time to issue his own people.

[jon_norstog]

DeGaulle should have been happy Ike didn't supply his units with rolling blocks.

jn

[5MadFarmers]

DeGaulle should have been happy Ike didn't supply his units with rolling blocks.

jn

Chucky was wrong and Chucky was right. More right than wrong.

The Frogs adopted a new bolt action rifle right before the war. They didn't adopt a semi-automatic until after the war ended. Thus demanding something beyond what they themselves had selected was getting a bit peacocky. Additionally, as the Frogs had taught us during War One, the main battle rifle is really secondary to the squad automatic. We gave them BARs which was our own primary weapon so they were good there. If it bugged them they could have asked us to turn over all captured MG42s and K98s and armed themselves that way.

They were right though. More right than wrong. In 1917 when we showed up we had a miserable excuse of a target rifle, no machine guns, no tanks, and no artillery of any usefulness. Of modern aircraft we had some drawings and not much more. The Frogs went out of their way to provide us with everything we needed and ensured it was the latest they had.

Ike deserved a humiliating kick in the crotch. Administered by all the doughs who had benefited from the Froggy generosity of 1917-1918.

[Dick Hosmer]

I REALLY shouldn't get into this, but will make a couple of observations:

(1) Not sure Ike should be personally blamed for the shortage of M1s

(2) Not sure anyone deserves thanks for handing out Chauchats

[twh]

Is the book by 5MadFarmers still available and if so where.

[Roadkingtrax]

Is the book by 5MadFarmers still available and if so where.

And for the new guys amongst us, what's the title?

TY

[5MadFarmers]

I REALLY shouldn't get into this, but will make a couple of observations:

(1) Not sure Ike should be personally blamed for the shortage of M1s

Um, what shortage of M1s? I'm not aware of any. Probably because there really wasn't one.

The Great Rifle Shortage of WW1 affected them greatly. They were ready in WW2. Three types of rifles are really wanted:
1) Main battle rifle.
2) Handy wee rifle for mounted troops.
3) Functional rifle for people who like to carry one but really won't be using it. Except on parade. Where they like to hold them in a funny pose.

1) The number of "Infantryman" is limited. Those are the men that want the main battle rifle. There were more than enough M1 rifles for them. 3 million made by that point.
2) The M1 carbine satisfied this need nicely. 6 million were made.
3) The M-1903A3s were used for this. MPs and such. Over a million made.

The production of M-1903A3s was stopped in 1944 off the top of my head. If they really wanted more M1s they'd have had RA and SC switch over to making them. SA could have provided the jigs. RA and SC already had the machinery to make rifles.

No shortage. None. WW1 was a lesson they learned.


(2) Not sure anyone deserves thanks for handing out Chauchats

Why not? You still believe that nonsense about the Chauchat not being a good gun right? Received wisdom from the decades. Why nobody actually goes back and reviews it for validity is a mystery.

Ever notice that, right after WW2, the Brits started bad mouthing the M4 tank? Quite badly. Why? Because the Brit tanks sucked so bad. Awful. If they held a design competition for "design and build the worst tank you can" nobody would beat the Brits and they weren't even attempting that. So what did they do? Bad mouth the M4. Why? Because when you suck really bad at something you blame somebody else. Try to tear them down.

Strangely, reading the period accounts of the men using the Chauchats doesn't show any negatives. So who was harshing it? Two guesses and the first doesn't count. The Ordnance Department was so incredibly bad that they did the only thing they could: try to tear down everyone else. Exact same thing as the Brits harshing the M4. It's a sign that you suck greatly when you try to cover your own ineptness by harshing others.

Strange data point: when the divisions were arriving in the summer/fall of 1918 with their BARs, the AEF had them taken away and they were given Chauchats instead. When quizzed over that Congress was told that it was "due to fear that the Germans would capture a BAR." That's as much bunk as it appears. If the Chauchat was so bad why were they issued instead of BARs? If they were so bad they would not have been.

The Ordnance Department. Trying to tear the others down to cover for their incredible ineptness.

The Chauchat was the right gun at the right place at the right time. Nobody can take that away from it.

Search the operational accounts. Try to find combat soldiers bad mouthing it. You will not find that. I know as I looked for it.

[Rick the Librarian]

I always thought the British tanks were awful (I've even heard Brits say that!) Them and French Firearms.

I believe there WAS an M1 Garand shortage in the early years. By the end of the war, like you said, 3 million M1s and counting. On the other hand, there were more M1 Garands being used than people thought. Most people thought the troops in the Philippines only had M1903s and M1917s; not true - over 7,000 M1s by the start of war.

[Dick Hosmer]

So no mud ever got into the nearly open-sided Chauchat mags, and, if by a miracle any did, it only served as a salubrious lubricant?

If Uncle Sugar had enough M1s, why were there significant numbers of 1903s in use at Guadalcanal?

[13Echo]

I've actually had the pleasure (?) of working on two Chauchat's (legal class 3s). Parts did not interchange without rework. For example the firing pins differed by 0.25" in length and were obviously hand fitted to each weapon. They weren't too badly made and the design looked feasible they were just not well made and are awkward. Finally got one to fire. Would usually go three rounds before jamming. Now admittedly I'm not a trained armorer for the Chauchat but if these were fair examples of the breed it was not ready for combat and that says nothing about the magazine issue.

[Dick Hosmer]

I've actually had the pleasure (?) of working on two Chauchat's (legal class 3s). Parts did not interchange without rework. For example the firing pins differed by 0.25" in length and were obviously hand fitted to each weapon. They weren't too badly made and the design looked feasible they were just not well made and are awkward. Finally got one to fire. Would usually go three rounds before jamming. Now admittedly I'm not a trained armorer for the Chauchat but if these were fair examples of the breed it was not ready for combat and that says nothing about the magazine issue.

My "knowledge" of the Chauchat is pretty much based on "The Machine Gun" by Colonel George Chinn. He didn't like 'em.

Of course, he was BuOrd (OD of the salty persuasion) so already may have two strikes in some circles.

[5MadFarmers]

So no mud ever got into the nearly open-sided Chauchat mags, and, if by a miracle any did, it only served as a salubrious lubricant?

The Garand couldn't be "topped up," it "pinged on an empty clip," etc., etc., etc.,

A quarter million Chauchats were made. It was the most widely used light automatic of the war. If the open sided magazines presented the problem that theory has them presenting, the French would have taken the time to make magazines with closed sides earlier than they did. They finally did in 1918 and that really points to the priority of that.

Theory is all well and good but the Chauchat was in heavy use for years in the trenches and did what it needed to. I'm not saying the BAR is a bad gun but I will state that it's more jam happy than it should be. Experienced it myself. Talked to a myriad of BAR gunners and they never claimed otherwise. One wonders if fear of the BAR performing poorly assisted in late use. Mind you I like the BAR. I like the MG42 better.

The Chauchat wasn't the piece of crap it's claimed to be. The U.S. contracted for Chauchats in .30-06 and provided incorrect chamber dimensions. I wonder who? Those Chauchats sucked. The higher power of the .30-06 didn't do them any good at all either. Most of the bad reputation of the Chauchat can be traced to a single source. The source that presumably provided those chamber dimensions. Not that there has been any evidence of the O.D. basically using sabotage against something they were working against...

The Chauchat was the right gun at the right time at the right place. Every account of the guys who used them is pretty clear that they were incredibly effective.

I wonder which edition Chin used in combat? French cartridge or U.S.?


If Uncle Sugar had enough M1s, why were there significant numbers of 1903s in use at Guadalcanal?

I was unaware that we were arming the French wholesale in 1942. Actually I don't think many were in the assault wave there.... I keed, I keed.

Want to hear a dirty little secret? The O.D. was pissed at the USMC's support of the Johnson and took it out on them. After the USMC agreed to adopt the M1 the Army ensured that all Army units, to include National Guard, had them before they worried about the Marines. You mentioned Guadalcanal, not me. When the Army reinforcements, National Guard troops from North Dakota, came ashore they had M1s. The USMC? Not so much.

By the time we invaded France, and they had access to a pool of military age men, it was 1944. June off the top of my head....

[5MadFarmers]

I've actually had the pleasure (?) of working on two Chauchat's (legal class 3s). Parts did not interchange without rework. For example the firing pins differed by 0.25" in length and were obviously hand fitted to each weapon. They weren't too badly made and the design looked feasible they were just not well made and are awkward. Finally got one to fire. Would usually go three rounds before jamming. Now admittedly I'm not a trained armorer for the Chauchat but if these were fair examples of the breed it was not ready for combat and that says nothing about the magazine issue.

The problem with examples like that, ages later, is it's not really a useful sample size. "I tried to start a GM Yukon once, damn thing wouldn't start." I might very well have taken the only one with problems...

Additionally, failure to feed is, sadly, common to all machine guns of any note right through WW2. The every popular Brownings used in aircraft use jammed like clockwork. And that was a good gun. Nature of machineguns maybe?

I suspect part of the love of Gatlings after the war had to do with the lack of problems from jamming.

Interchange of parts isn't something that other armies worried about greatly in the field. Hence the serializing of parts. Collectors do as collectors generally have a couple of arms laying about. When 20,000 guys are getting chopped apart all around you spare guns are generally not terribly hard to find if you break your gun. That was WW1 right? They ran out of men before they ran out of spare guns.

[5MadFarmers]

I always thought the British tanks were awful (I've even heard Brits say that!) Them and French Firearms.

I believe there WAS an M1 Garand shortage in the early years. By the end of the war, like you said, 3 million M1s and counting. On the other hand, there were more M1 Garands being used than people thought. Most people thought the troops in the Philippines only had M1903s and M1917s; not true - over 7,000 M1s by the start of war.

One of the books, or accounts I happened across, was from a guy who recaptured an M1 on the retaking of the P.I.. The Jap fired at him but the M1 didn't go off. Last trigger pull he got. Why the gun didn't fire likely has to do with Japanese care of an M1 in a tropical environment....

The M1 carbine is single handedly responsible for no gun shortages in WW2. Wonder gun. I'm also going to give due credit to the O.D. of WW2 for getting that right. They learned much from WW1 and were ready on most major fronts. Still screwed up much but at least they were functional.

Enough time has elapsed where modern Brits get that their WW2 tanks sucked. The books of the 1950s and 1960s on the other hand...

Enough time has passed where people don't get so worked up about it.

The Chauchat was the right gun at the right time in the right place.
The M1 rifle was the right gun at the right time in the right place.
The M4 tank was the right tank at the right time in the right place.

I can add.

The Spitfire was the right plane at the right time in the right place.

All of those share something. They were all the right items at the right time in the right place and in some regards that was bad. Gave the owners too much confidence in them. They all stayed at the party a bit too long. Except for the Chauchat. The French, post-war, got serious about MGs. As did the Germans when they got a chance. Well, as did everyone really.

[5MadFarmers]

Interchange of parts isn't something that other armies worried about greatly in the field. Hence the serializing of parts. Collectors do as collectors generally have a couple of arms laying about. When 20,000 guys are getting chopped apart all around you spare guns are generally not terribly hard to find if you break your gun. That was WW1 right? They ran out of men before they ran out of spare guns.

I'm a postbot - not really a human. Quoting myself quoting somebody else....

Spare parts. The O.D. liked to trumpet that as an advantage. As if soldiers were going to be fixing their guns and needed complete interchange of parts. Made sense in DC perhaps.

Two things that absolutely did not happen: stopping for wounded and stopping for a broken gun.

When men are permitted to become instant "wounded helpers" you've got a problem. Forest Gump taking Lieutenant Dan back. That was a shooting offense in many armies. If that kind of thing is permitted one will find everybody looking for wounded to take back to the safety of the rear. Even in the period U.S. manuals it was clear that was a no-no. Same for a broken gun. If broken guns are permitted to be any kind of excuse they'll all be broken. You'd better take care of your gun. Because if it's not functioning you'll be going over the top with a metal and wood stick. Looking for a working one. Which you'll only get from a dead dude. So fix bayonet and hope the for best. Because you're damn well not going to sit in the trench because you're gun is broken.

They were tougher back then. Had to be.

Not as tough as the Soviets though. Gun shortage. So the second row was unarmed. "Take a gun from the dead." In that environment I'd not be able to help it. I'd be running next to a guy with a gun screaming. "Shoot him! I want his gun!"

[Rick the Librarian]

I've enjoyed the discussion (I think we haven't gotten off on just a "rabbit trail" but a rabbit HIGHWAY!!

Now about my original question -- a "nuts and bolts" book on the Krag - is Poyer the only choice for my article??

(P.S. Regarding that M1 - it also could have been a guerrilla rifle. Some of the guerrillas scoured the Bataan peninsula and picked up quite a few discarded firearms, including M1s. Running around the jungle with the Japanese on your tail isn't conducive to firearms maintenance! :) )

[Dick Hosmer]

I'm afraid that Poyer - with all its' "faults" - probably IS the best source for the guy who basically knows nothing. Nowhere else can you learn so much for $20. 5MF's work - at twice the price - is definitely more accurate, but the somewhat unconventional writing style is, in my opinion, a bit of a turn-off. Mallory and Brophy are expensive for the beginner, and really bring no special value to offset their price. They were the pioneers, but better research by 5MF has rendered them a bit dated. Just my $.02 - YMMV.

[Rick the Librarian]

Thanks, Dick ... that is pretty much the conclusion I came to ...but just wanted to make sure I understood. Thanks to everyone who participated in this thread!

[StockDoc]

I REALLY shouldn't get into this, but will make a couple of observations:

(1) Not sure Ike should be personally blamed for the shortage of M1s

(2) Not sure anyone deserves thanks for handing out Chauchats

Don't forget, without the French, we would not be a country

[butlersrangers]

"Rick the Librarian" - FWIW:

Not specifically a 'Gun Book', but, still an interesting 'read' for the U.S. Military Arms Student (and available 'used' at modest cost) is: "The Krag-Jorgensen Rifle In The Service", by Col. Philip M. Shockley.

Shockley was born in Manila in 1901. He recounts memories of things seen and conversations overheard during his childhood and youth, as the son of a U.S. Army Surgeon. It is a rambling and imperfect history of events and arms, but, it does capture some of the flavor of a past age and U.S. Military service.

36626

[Rick the Librarian]

I'll certainly give it a look - thanks!!

[Dick Hosmer]

Shockley may be good for the "flavor", but don't pay much attention to ANY of his 'detail' information about the arms themselves - pretty sucky, with all sorts of folk tales and non-existent models.

[5MadFarmers]

but the somewhat unconventional writing style is, in my opinion, a bit of a turn-off.

Did what it was intended to do. Wouldn't change a thing.

When I put that out there it was with the clear understanding that "books," as are being discussed, are dinosaurs. Everything has been going electronic and that trend is increasing. Borders, probably the largest book chain, folded up like a house of cards. What's notable is what they did before folding up: invested heavily in music sales. With the sales of paper books drying up they moved into CDs and DVDs - just in time to see the web eat those markets as well.

Part of that is generational. That will only increase. What would be the best beginner book for Krags? "Electronic." Doesn't exist yet. Provides for as many color images as one would like. So not an e-book but a reference like wikipedia. Paper books have an extremely limited market - one which is shrinking daily.

http://5madfarmers.com/images_2016/boardsight.jpg

Line drawing isn't going to give you that. :)

[Kragrifle]

Nice BOF rifle.

[5MadFarmers]

Nice BOF rifle.

Thanks. Computers. The ability to store and present as many images as one wants. As bandwidth increases the quality of the images does as well. We're still reducing image quality from what the cameras can do. Computers have changed what a "book" is.

Which is appropriate as the strange ability to make computers do everything short of tap dancing across the table paid for that rifle.

The modern generation likes their computers. Which are now parading as telephones. In addition to those phones they like black plastic furniture guns. Time moves on.

[jon_norstog]

Don't forget, without the French, we would not be a country

Viva la France!

jn