Krag not battleworth?
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.
Senior Member
Yes
Senior Member
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.
Senior Member
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.
Last edited by 11mm; 01-22-2014 at 07:10. Reason: usage
Senior Member
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.
Very Senior Member - OFC
Please check out "stangskyting" on Youtube, and report back.Originally Posted by Michaelp
Senior Member
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.
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.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.
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.
Senior Member
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.
Last edited by 11mm; 01-22-2014 at 11:30.
Very Senior Member - OFC
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?
Senior Member
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
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote