Krag not battleworth?

[Shooter5]

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/201...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/prve...ount=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.