Krag not battleworth?

[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 Krag, their Krag, our Krag....

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.