Krag not battleworth?

[ranger66]

Here is a picture of the US krag with the Parkhurst device. https://www.google.no/search?q=Parkh...7%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.

[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/..._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.c...usere/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!

[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.