PDA

View Full Version : Krag-


emgun
October 10, 2012, 10:32 PM
I just aquired a 1892 Krag. It is in very good condition, bore is perfect, operation is absolutly smooth. I understand that back in the day this was used the smokless powders did not generate as much pressure as todays powders. Anyway, my question is who on the commercial market makes 30-40 that will be safe to shoot in the Krag.

Gary L. Griffiths
October 10, 2012, 10:50 PM
Any factory loaded .30-40 Krag ammo should be safe to shoot in your '92 Krag, provided it's in good condition. If you have any doubts, have it checked out by a gunsmith.

Unlike the .45-70, you don't find hot-loaded Krag ammo for the few Ruger single-shots and other modern weapons chambered for the old warhorse. :cool:

Jim Watson
October 11, 2012, 12:38 AM
The only thing I know of to look at on a Krag is the single locking lug bolt.

It should be examined for cracks, by Magnaflux, dye penetrant, or the Poor Man's Magnaflux, a gasoline dip.
Unobvious cracks or setback can be found by looking to see if the safety lug - the guide rib - is in contact with the receiver. On an American Krag, it should not be. (Norwegian Krags were fitted with it in contact for the hotter 6.5x55.)

McShooty
October 12, 2012, 01:34 PM
Unless a new load has appeared recently, and I can't image that, there are only two factory loads available, one by Winchester, one by Remington, both using 180-grain spitzer bullets. These are both good rounds, the Remington giving a bit higher velocity in my Krag carbine, around 2330 fps. Both brands are very accurate. Brass and reloading dies are readily available for the .30-40 and it presents no problems in reloading. With 180-grain and heavier bullets it likes powders in the W760, H414, IMR 4350, or IMR 4831 range. I load to around 2200 fps to keep pressure on the lower side.

sc928porsche
October 12, 2012, 10:18 PM
The old krag is a sweet shooting rifle. Action is very smooth and has a solid feel. Side magazine is a bit different, but easy to use. Not much to dislike about the old warhorse. It was the first military cartridge to be converted to smokless powder. I was known as the the .30 U.S.

Many were purchaced and sporterized for hunting. I have 2. One in original and one that was sporterized for me when I was young. It was my first deer rifle.

Dont sell this cartridge short. It has taken a lot of game. Balisticly it is about the same as the 7.62x54R which is quite capable of taking deer, elk, moose, and bear at reasonable range. Loaded with 220 gr rn, it is a real thumper. Usually 150 gr is used for deer, 180, for elk, and 220 for moose and bear. My Uncle used it exclusively for hunting for over 50 years. Heart shots seemed to be his specialty. Since he is gone, his grandson hunts with it and is successful.

Gunplummer
October 14, 2012, 12:51 AM
I had a few over the years and they all shot well. The last one was a beauty I picked up at an auction cheap. Nice blue job, Bishop stock, and a side mounted scope. It was unbelievable on a range. Easy held 1/2-5/8 inch 3 shot group @ 100 yards. I am just amazed when I think of what they had to work with back then. The only thing I had against them was weight. Even nicely shortened and sportered up it was like walking through the woods with a '57 Pontiac axle.

TX Hunter
October 14, 2012, 09:35 AM
Congratulations on your new Rifle, most factory amunition will be loaded to the pressure requirements of your 30 40 Kraig. Just like most 30 06 is loaded for the pressure required for the 1906 model 1903. You should be fine.
The Kraig Rifle as mentioned earlier was loved by Deer Hunters, it has a Silky Smooth Action, and is usually quite accurate. Remember we love pictures, on this Forum.:)

Willie Sutton
October 14, 2012, 05:54 PM
Likely the smoothest bolt action built, and the only one that allows the magazine to be topped up easially with the bolt closed. I've had several, and had one that had been badly sporterized re-sporterized many years ago into a full lenth Mannlicher-type stocked woods-carbine. It's reliable, smooth, more than adequate for deer, and hand loaded with heavy bullets I'd feel comfortable shooting just about any North American game animal that I could hit with it.

Interesting sidebar: Jeff Cooper used to wax happy on Kraigs as well. He knew good rifles.

They grow on you. Enjoy it!


Willie

.

olyinaz
October 21, 2012, 01:41 AM
It was the first military cartridge to be converted to smokless powder.

No. The French 8mm Lebel owns that distinction.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8mm_Lebel

The Krag, in both .30 US and 6,5mm Norwegian, is certainly a 1st generation smokeless rifle though. And fantastic to boot!

Oly

James K
October 22, 2012, 02:55 PM
The Krag was not the first smokeless powder military rifle. The French Lebel was issued in 1887 and the German Commission rifle in 1888, both for smokeless powder. The U.S. was not as far behind with the Krag as some books have led one to believe, especially since in the early 1890's there was little danger of war against a nation with anything better. (By 1898, of course, things had changed, but the crystal balls used by Army Ordnance worked the same as mine - with 20/20 hindsight.)

Jim

SIGSHR
October 22, 2012, 08:47 PM
A One War Rifle, but an important part of our military history. Some of its features, such as the side loading magazine, quickly became obsolescent but reflected our tactical thinking at the time. Hold it in your hands and you can find yourself at the foot of El Caney or San Juan Hill.

mete
October 23, 2012, 07:27 PM
The earliest ones were made in Norway where it was developed .After a few years we modified it and made it here. I would examine any old one for bolt lug cracks in case hot handloads have been used.

James K
October 24, 2012, 10:44 AM
While the Krag-Jørgensen was developed by Ole Krag and Erik Jørgensen at the Norwegian government's Kongsberg arsenal, it was first adopted by Denmark in 1889. The rifle was first adopted by Norway in 1894, two years after the U.S. adoption.

Both the Danish and Norwegian versions utilize dual locking lugs (though asymetrical); why the U.S. Army made its version with a single locking lug and a non-bearing safety lug is not, as far as I know, known at this point in time.

Jim

BlueTrain
October 24, 2012, 11:30 AM
I think the Krag was quite similiar to other rifles of the period in that it was a magazine rifle loaded one round at a time. The thinking at the time was that was good enough. Anything else would be wasting ammunition. It took a war to demonstrate that was not a good idea. Our war was the Spanish-American War, the British war was the Boer War. The other side in both was armed with Mausers that had charger loading. So after the war, you just had to have charger loading or you were hopelessly old-fashioned.

But the old ways died hard. The 1903 Springfield had a magazine cutoff and so did some of the Lee-Enfields. Even Jeff Cooper believed his ideal Scout Rifle should have a provision for a magazine cutoff. And you thought he was progressive.

James K
October 26, 2012, 08:27 PM
There has been a lot of misunderstanding about magazine cutoffs, some of it put out in recent books describing mules hauling tons of ammo through the mud and other, well, stories.

Back in the day, as they say, the "wastage" of ammunition in general was not the big concern, though of course it was (and is) always a consideration. The concept was to fire on the enemy in the single shot mode while "holding the magazine in reserve". In reserve for what? Well, remember that was the 1890s for the Krag and the very early 20th century for the 1903. At that time, the big concerns of infantry were a cavalry charge and a flank attack. Either required accurate rapid fire to avoid being overrun.

So the concern was not so much to save ammunition in general, but to keep it in reserve for specific tactical situations. It didn't matter how much ammunition was in the supply wagons, or in the crates, or even in the cartridge belts; when extra ammunition was needed in a hurry, the best place for it was in the magazine of the rifle.

Jim

Willie Sutton
October 26, 2012, 09:41 PM
"Even Jeff Cooper believed his ideal Scout Rifle should have a provision for a magazine cutoff"



From personal conversations with the Colonel, he believed that the Krag would make one of the prototypical actions for the scout rifle. He particularly thought highly of the ability to top off the magazine with the bolt closed. The unreconcilable problem was that it would not accept a .308 round from a strength standpoint and the .308 was almost a requirement from a standardization standpoint. He then moved to the CZ and Remington 660 actions as being possibles, then later to the Remington Model 7. I am lucky enough to have both a proto-scout made from a Krag and another true "first gen scout" made at Gunsite on a Remington Model 7, in The Colonels favorite, the .350 Rem Mag "Fireplug". The late 80's were halcyon years at Gunsite.

In any event... the Krag has a long and honorable pedigree. It's still regarded well by those who know.


Willie


.

BlueTrain
October 28, 2012, 06:17 AM
While what you say, Mr. James K., is correct, there was a certain resistance to machine guns (and later, sub-machine guns) because it was believed they wasted ammunition and that they had got by without them just fine. Of course, not everyone believed that.

Whether or not it was being wasted is one thing. But whether or not you can keep up with the ammuntion being expended is another. There were places during WWII (I wasn't there, you understand) where ammunition resupply was partly by mule. German mountain troops fighting in the Caucuses (against Caucasians, I assume) had to make do with mules, sometimes. There were no paved roads and vehicles when present would have to go through mud up to their axles. For machine guns in particular, and German machine guns could go through a lot of ammo real fast, it was a question of fire discipline.

At the time of the Krag, volley fire was still an infantry tactic.

SIGSHR
October 28, 2012, 08:09 PM
US tactical strategic doctrine when the Krag was adopted was almost exclusively defensive. So how did the Krag see its service-in a foreign expedition. Remember it was a time of very rapid changes in weapons and tactics. The British SOP for their Lee-Metfords was to have the soldier single load, and basically fire on command and change magazines when the magazine in the rifle ran dry, change it, they quickly adopted charger load and kept the magazine in the rifle. The tubular magazine was quickly proved unsatisfactory, at the Battle of Concon during the Chilean Civil War of 1891 it
was the Kropatschek rifle had a good rate of fire but was too slow to reload.
The U.S. Army relied on mules during the Italian Campaign in WWII, I have seen pictures of pack animals being used in the Phillipines during the rainy season. So some of the concerns about ammo wastage have some validity.

James K
October 28, 2012, 08:16 PM
I might note that "volley fire" is about the opposite of saving ammunition; it is inherently wasteful and rarely produced any positive result, even on enemy morale. But it sounded good when someone said it fast.

Sure, in some tactical situations, supply of ammuntiion (and everything else) can become critical, but I say again that ammunition usage, in general, was not a big consideration in rifle design; the German and Japanese rifles never had cutoffs, the designers feeling that clip loading allowed reloading fast enough. The British took the one off their SMLE; their Pattern 1913/14 and the U.S. M1917 never had one, nor did the U.S. M1 rifle. That was due to changes in tactics; had "wastage" of ammunition been a serious concern, semi-auto rifles would never have been issued.

Even so, small area shortages did exist, fire discipline needed to be exercised to save ammo; that was a command problem, not one of rifle design. Still, the adoption of the M14 was said by the Army to alleviate the condition in which soldiers armed with the M1 would fire off the remaining rounds in a clip and reload with a full clip when expecting action. So ammo wastage was not unknown or ignored.

Just to put things in perspective on ammo supply. In the period from late 1941 to mid-1945, one U.S. factory, the Army's Frankford Arsenal, produced 1.2 million rounds of .30 ammunition a day. There was no overall ammuntion shortage, even for the Germans. I knew a U.S. Army captain who was assigned, after V-E day, to inventory a German arms and ammunition depot. Among the stores was 5 million rounds of brass case 7.9mm ammo that had been turned back by the Luftwaffe as not up to their standards; it was being held for issue to ground troops, but the destroyed rail and road networks prevented it being shipped.

Jim

BlueTrain
October 29, 2012, 06:31 AM
I wasn't implying that volley fire was an economy measure, only that it was a practice from the same period as both single-shot rifles and magazine cut-offs on repeaters. It was mainly for long-range use, I believe.

The idea of wasting ammunition had not died out entirely by the beginning of WWII, only by then it was more in the nature of a reluctance in several armies to adopt submachine guns. There was just as much change in infantry weapons around 1940 as there was around 1900. As regards submachine guns, it was mainly battlefield experience that changed the general's (what the privates thought didn't matter) opinions of submachine guns. The Soviets in particular went in for them big time. But mostly the idea of wasting ammuntion was something from an earlier period, which it had not been confined to small arms either.

In wartime, everything is in short supply, and getting it to the front line soldier was the critical link, especially for overseas operations. Very likely the German navy destroyed as many US tanks as the German army.

James K
October 29, 2012, 03:50 PM
I think the Soviets went big for SMGs for the simple reason that they were cheap and easy to produce. Reportedly, they made SMG barrels by cutting worn barrels from M91 rifles to get rid of the worst corroded/eroded parts, accuracy not mattering much with an SMG.

FWIW, volley fire was not fire "aimed" at something like a line of enemy troops; it was aimed at an area that might not even be visible, like a railroad depot on the other side of a hill where enemy soldiers were detraining. The distance was determined by map, the aiming point would be something in the right direction that was visible, like a steeple or a prominent tree, and a whole company or regiment would fire on command. Did they hit anything? Maybe, although pretty much by accident. But the idea was not really to kill masses of the enemy, but to demoralize troops who had no idea if they would be next to be struck by an unseen bullet from an unseen enemy.

Jim

jimbob86
October 29, 2012, 03:58 PM
The SMG was at best a stopgap measure, at worst a step backwards.

Compared to the assault rifles of the mid-20th century, they were heavy, underpowered, and hard to keep fed..... and best suited to conscripted troops.

You don't see them issued anymore to combat troops because there are better options.

BlueTrain
October 30, 2012, 07:12 AM
I agree that the modern intermediate cartridge assault rifle has made the sub-machine gun mostly obsolete. But I see the old attitudes are still alive and well. Their only disadvantage was the lower power of the cartridge. True, they were heavy but so are most assault rifles, including an M4 carbine with all the gadgets attached. In comparison, an M1 carbine is quite light. Please note that I am not calling an M1 carbine either a submachine gun or assault rifle; only that it is relatively light.

How are submachine guns "harder to keep fed?"

And Mr. James K, volley fire was aimed fire. That's why those old rifles had sights that went up to high ranges. Volley fire is not indirect fire.

jimbob86
October 30, 2012, 08:08 AM
How are submachine guns "harder to keep fed?"


High cyclic rates= high ammo consumption.

Heavy bullets + high consumption = logistical headache

A .45 ACP cartridge weighs almost what an M-2 ball does add the weight of the magazines and the .45 loses...... and gets shot up much faster.

How long would a Tommy gun armed soldier take to burn up his basic load?

BlueTrain
October 30, 2012, 08:11 AM
About as long as a man with an M-16.

jimbob86
October 30, 2012, 08:30 AM
About as long as a man with an M-16.


Really? Considering that the m193 weighs half what a .45 ACP cartridge does, making a basic load of equal weight allow for twice as much ammo?

BlueTrain
October 30, 2012, 09:26 AM
Where are you getting your basic load figures and why are you assuming .45 ACP? And who goes into combat with just a basic load?

James K
October 30, 2012, 08:47 PM
I was using indirect fire as an example, but yes, volley fire was used that way. It was used in direct fire as well, but as for aimed fire against a specific individual soldier, I doubt any army ever used volley fire that way; it is about impossible to even see a man-size target at over 2500 yards, let alone score hits.

FWIW, the standard combat load for the Thompson was five 20 round magazines, two 50 round drums, or six 30 round magazines; for the M3/M3A1 SMG, it was six 30 round magazines. In practice, many SMG-armed soldiers carried as much ammo or as many extra magazines as they could manage.

American troops were not generally issued drums, in part because they won't fit the M1 and M1A1 Thompsons; the British used 50 round drums, but AFAIK, no 100 round drums were issued by any army in WWII (though certain Chicago "soldiers" were said to like them). BTW, the TSMG magazines are designated by rounds in Roman numerals, XX, XXX, L, and C.

Jim

BlueTrain
October 31, 2012, 05:58 AM
2500 yards sounds a little far even for volley fire. That's nearly a 1 1/2 miles. I've never read of an instance of where volley fire was actually used, that I can remember. But it was shown in the movie Zulu Dawn. You may remember them setting out the range markers.

Volley fire and wasting ammuntion aside, the period of the Krag was also a time when longer range aimed fire was an expected skill. It is another question as to how many soldiers were up to expectations but the Boers, using issued Mausers, mostly, taught the British a thing or two about shooting during that war, chiefly the value of marksmanship and rapid fire. American soldiers during that period had no such experiences in Cuba or the Phillipines but nevertheless adopted a clip-loading Mauser.

Everything I've read about basic loads suggest that a typical basic load for a submachine gun armed man was something over 200 rounds, or about the same as the basic load for an M16 armed man (seven 30-round magazines). Oddly enough, photos suggest that Soviet and Finnish soldiers armed with submachine guns did not carry more than one additional drum magazine. I don't even recall seeing a photo of a Soviet soldier armed with a submachine gun with a stick-type magazine who had anything for additional magazine, though undoubtedly they used something. Even now, Russian soldiers do not seem to carry the number of magazines carried by US or British soldiers.

The British took to heart the idea of rapid fire during the period leading up to WWI and the basic ammunition load using 1908 webbing was 150 rounds in the pouches, which was even greater than the 80 rounds in pouches for the M14 when I was in the army.

James K
November 1, 2012, 08:45 PM
2500 yards was my average, and is actually short. The Pattern 1914 long range sight ("volley sight" or "dial sight") went to 2600 yards; the second sight for the M1903 Springfield went to 2800. How often rifles were actually fired in combat at such ranges, in volleys or not, I don't know (movies don't count), but it seems that the military at least wanted long range capability.

The machinegun, of course, made volley fire obsolete. A few machineguns would put out more firepower faster than a body of infantry with rifles, and indirect fire was soon taken over by new field guns. By WWII, there was not much need or desire for long range rifle fire and new rifle sights were once again made for shooting at visible targets.

Jim

sc928porsche
November 4, 2012, 12:29 PM
Correction............first U.S. military smokeless.

BlueTrain
November 5, 2012, 11:17 AM
Indirect fire by artillery had been around for a long time by the time machine guns became standard issue for the infantry. There were even mortars used in the revolution as well as howitizers, both intended for indirect fire, usually. I still doubt volley fire with rifles was ever used for indirect fire (target unseen) but machine guns were later used for indirect fire (in some armies), expending huge amounts of ammuntion.

While a howitizers are typically employed for indirect fire, training with direct fire on a moving target was still included when I went through artillery training in 1965 at Ft. Sill.

jimbob86
November 5, 2012, 11:41 AM
While a howitizers are typically employed for indirect fire, training with direct fire on a moving target was still included when I went through artillery training in 1965 at Ft. Sill.

While we were still calling them "Howitzers" in the 80's and 90's at Ft. Sill, the barrels of the M109a3/a4 amd M110a2 "howitzers" had been lengthened and the recoil systems upgraded to the point they were no longer low velocity/high angle howitzers at all, but field guns capable of long range low angle (min flight time) fires and direct fire. Direct fire was part of many of the LFX's I went on....... no moving targets, though.

44 AMP
November 8, 2012, 02:01 AM
Both the Danish and Norwegian versions utilize dual locking lugs (though asymetrical);

Just checked my Norwegian Krag (6.5x55mm mfg 1895 ser# 3xx), and it has one locking lug at the head of the bolt, and a second, much smaller lug on the body at the rear, which bears on the rear reciever ring.

Volley fire is a concept pre-dating machineguns. It was used two ways, defensively, as shown in the movie Zulu, the firing of squads by volley to repel an attacking charge, and by units (squad/platoon/company) against area targets at long range.

These targets were most often groups of enemy soldiers, cavalry, wagons, etc. Things in the open that could be seen. When you don't have machineguns, volley fire is your alternative for suppressive fire, at least until you can get artillery on target, assuming you can...

Never heard of rifle volley fire being used as indirect fire, but I suppose someone did it sometime, somewhere.

Many military concepts & tactics were retained long after improved technology rendered them obsolete. Volley fire is just one among many.

As to concerns about "wasting" ammunition, one can find this brought up (and often) in many militaries from the beginning of the repeating rifle era. Several nations retained single shot rifles much longer than necessary, simply due to the concerns about soldiers wasting ammunition, which, after all, cost money! And money is important, until you are actually fighting a war, and sadly, sometimes, even then.

The history of arms for the last century and a half or so is rife with examples of troops (of many nations, ours included) having less than the best, most effective weapons, because they were equipped in peacetime, and cost was a more significant factor than the lives of the troops.

Doctrines that seemed perfectly good during peacetime maneuvers often became instantly obsolete (and the weapons employed became less than the best possible) when combat showed the enemy wasn't operating by the same assumptions as our side.

WWII is a perfect example in hundreds, if not thousands of ways. With exceptions, the Axis pretty much stomped the Allies for a few years, before we caught up technically and tactically and finally won out.

back to the Krag...
a fine rifle for its day, and hugely superior to the rifle it replaced. Overtaken as a prime miliatry rifle by the Mauser design, the Krag still became a well loved and respected rifle, because of that. Large numbers of Krags were sold as surplus (at something like $1.50 from the DCM, and only a little more at retail) and the .30-40 round proved to be a big stick in the deer woods.

you could get a Krag and a LOT of ammo for what a Winchester or Marlin .30-30 cost, and the 180gr load for the Krag leaves the .30-30 well behind in lots of ways. One of the reasons so few "issue condition" Krags are around is because so many were sold to civilians, and "sporterized" by removing excess wood, and sometimes barrel as well.

The 220gr FMJ RN military load penetrates like you have to see to believe, and the 180 is no slouch in that either. Sedate by today's velocity standards, back in its day, it was fast, and powerful. The Krag killed dead everything that walks in North America (including the biggest record Grizzly) and did it as well if not better than anything else common at the time. Eclipsed eventually by the .30-06 in the sporting area as well, and never chambered in many rifles other than the Krag rifle (Win 95, and some single shots) the .30-40 Krag cartridge is still a favorite nostalgia round, and works as well today as it did way back then.

I've owned several Krags, and likely will get another .30-40 someday, but for now, my Krag rifle is a Norwegian 6.5mm, and my .30-40 is a Ruger No.3.:D

BlueTrain
November 8, 2012, 09:53 AM
Interesting that Ruger chambered the No. 3 in .30-40 (.30 Government) but mine was in .223.

My late father-in-law had an original full-stocked Krag that he had cut the barrel down some, intending to sporterize it but he never did. He lived in a humid area right by the Chesapeake Bay and by the time he died, it was rather rusty.

Volley fire does not necessarily imply long range shooting, of course, however you define "long range." But as the range becomes longer, it would suggest that volley fire would be more for area targets than for point targets, although that could be a mistaken impression. I still haven't found any old manuals that cover the subject. While the older rifles (and some pistols) had sights that went out to rather optimistic ranges, it doesn't follow that the average infantryman was able to make hits firing at individual targets at those long ranges, hence the gradual shift in the last fifty years to less powerful rifle cartridges. You may be aware that some Japanese bolt actions had sights that incorporated "wings" or extensions on the rear sight for use in firing at aircraft.

SIGSHR
November 9, 2012, 12:45 AM
IIRC volley fire was used to create a "beaten zone" at long range-I saw the same thing in manuals for the M-60 machine gun. Also with adoption of first the rifled musket then breech loaders and smokeless powder armies were obliged to adopt more open formations and greater emphasis was placed on individual marksmanship. I read that when Prussia adopted the Dreyse needle gun they started encouraging individual marksmanship and tactics that emphasized firepower to defeat massed attacks, and of course the Dreyse allowed the soldier to reload while kneeling, lying down and taking cover.
One of the anomalies of the US Krags is that for all the emphasis on marksmanship in the Army of that time, their rear sights had no windage adjustments.

44 AMP
November 9, 2012, 02:01 AM
Interesting that Ruger chambered the No. 3 in .30-40 (.30 Government) but mine was in .223.


The first few years of No.3 production was in "nostalgia" cartridges, .45-70, .22 Hornet, and .30-40 Krag. .45-70 was most common. I have heard (but cannot verify) that for every 10 .45-70s they made one Hornet, and for every 10 Hornets, one Krag.

later, they added the .223, and the .375 Win chamberings, and I have heard (but never seen one) a .44 Magnum chambering as well. I have a .45-70, a Hornet, and a Krag. The Krag is marked "200th year of American Liberty" (1976).

BlueTrain
November 9, 2012, 07:39 AM
There is available on-line in the complete version, the Infantry Drill Regulations of 1892 (and other editions, too) that do mention volley fire. It is covered in about a page and a half of text. It doesn't use the expression "beaten zone," although I believe that term probably originated during WWI. The instructions, though brief by modern standards, are still quite interesting.

It said in so many words that volley fire would be used at 800 yards at a line of a squad, 1000 yards for a platoon, and 1200 for a company, referring in all cases to the target. The instructions were for the squad as a firing unit. It went on to say that if ammunition were ample and the men not too tired, then volley firing could be used at "extreme ranges," defined as between 1400 and 2000 yards, if the enemy were numerous. It also said that no more than three volleys be fired without a rest to prevent ammuntion wastage.

Less than 300 yards was considered short range.

One could say that virtually everything about the infantry was different but after all, that was 120 years ago.

F. Guffey
November 9, 2012, 09:39 AM
“Army made its version with a single locking lug and a non-bearing safety lug is not, as far as I know, known at this point in time”

Springfield built the Crag with one lug because they did not know how to build it with two lugs, Springfield built single shots, they could have had a Mauser. Remember, Springfield built 800.000 plus rifles after the Crag that are and were suspect, so it could be said Springfield was working WWHUA for 20 years +/- a few. The British were sent to the Orange Free states with the 303 Enfield, the farmers of the Orange Free states had the Mauser, the British suffered. We went to Cuba with the Crag, the Spanish had the Muaser, we suffered.

Springfield was not accountable, they answered to no one, Browning as in John was just down the Interstate from Springfield, even then it was just a buggy ride, Browning would not allow the Model 94 to be released, the 94 was to be used with smokeless powder, for Winchester it was a matter of changing powder and instant success, Browning disagreed, smokeless powder wore the Model 94 out, Browning was not a home boy, he traveled, he got out of town and unlike Springfield, Browning had no problem finding the patent office. In his research he found a patent for sealing case iron, preventing case iron was important for refrigeration. Instead of WWHUA Browning used the same process for preventing case iron from leaking on the Model 94 parts that showed failure caused by smokless powder, the Model 94 was released in 1895. The process Browning used was discovered by Springfield 30 years +/- a few in their NS version of the 03. That was 10 years +/- very few after the manufactures of the M1917 found the process.

I am not complaining, if it not been for the British and their design of the P14 and their equipment we would have gone to WW1 with an 03 served by a 10 man crew, or we could have purchased Mausers. In my opinion we would have been better off had the US fired Springfield and hired John Browning.

http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/nica.html

http://www.cowart.info/Florida%20History/Dupont/Dupont%20Biography.htm

F. Guffey

F. Guffey
November 9, 2012, 09:46 AM
After Springfield, the manufacturer of single hot shooters found the only way they could build the Crag with 2 lugs was to hand fit the receiver to the bolt, then! they came up with a better ideal. They declared the Crag did not need two lugs. And during that time Browning was telling Winchester the Model 94 would go into production when he said it was ready.

F. Guffey

BlueTrain
November 14, 2012, 07:59 AM
I just wanted to add the my earlier comments some additional notes from the day of the Krag, in the 1890s.

In the same place in the Infantry Drill Regulations of 1891 (and 1892) where instructions regarding volley firing is found, there was mention of sharpshooters also. They could fire at extended ranges if permitted by an officer. No mention, at least there, of what a sharpshooter was but I gather from other pages that the term merely referred to the better shots. In another place in the book, it says that officers may specifiy individual men to continue firing on the enemy when the others have been ordered to cease.

The Infantry Drill Regulations at the time (from the Civil War to the early part of the 20th century) were more than just parade ground instructions for marching but were for pretty much everything the infantry did. The regulations themselves (the 1891 edition) were largely written by the same man who wrote the 1867 edition, although he had died by 1891. They were officially the work of a board of officers, not all of whom were infantry. A quick reading shows that not a great deal had been changed in the previous 30 years but the breechloading repeaters did allow (and require) the infantry to make greater use of cover but battlefield movement was still essentially marching from one place to another.

Horses were still the prime movers during that time, too, and instructions were that for artillery during movement, the horses should be the target.