why was the krag adopted, if i read my history right the best rifle at the time was the mauser. and it shot a better bullet, so why did the us adopt a (imho) 2nd best rifle
Printable View
why was the krag adopted, if i read my history right the best rifle at the time was the mauser. and it shot a better bullet, so why did the us adopt a (imho) 2nd best rifle
Or the Remington Lee, with or w/o a mag cutoff? And No foreign patent fights!
Likely the same reason they left all the Lewis guns in the US and used that French POS excuse for a machine gun in WWI?
At the time the Krag was adopted (1892), it was not yet clear that the Mauser was the best bolt action design. Remember, in the early 1890s, all bolt action designs were brand new and there was not yet a need to push chamber pressures above 40KSI. The Army still put a lot of weight on the ability to single load the rifle and the concept was to utilize the magazine in reserve. This coupled with the fact that the Krag magazine could be topped off with a round in the chamber (which the Mauser could not) helped win the day for the Krag. Also, the Mauser as tested (circa 1892) did not perform as well in the various durability and reliability tests as the Krag. Incidentally, the Lee Enfield performed well in those same tests and if you read between the lines of the reports, most likely placed second in the magazine rifle trials. However, Lee had got cross-ways politically with the powers that be at US Ordnance and there was no way "his" rifle design would win:( The Krag was a good and functional design - is the Mauser better? Yes, but that wasn't so apparent in 1892.
My understanding is that the brass didn't want troops to waste ammo with new bolt action rifles. Then they had to fight in Cuba against troops armed with Mausers and reconsidered. Thus the 1903 was developed.
-Jeff L
Kragluver is on it and could probably write a short novel on the subject. I'll help out and add some.
There are a lot of factors you have to take into account such as the experiences and thinking of the men responsible for choosing the new rifle.
Small arms technology was traveling at a speed unequaled at any other time in history.
In a 40 year time span, the US went from smooth bore muskets, to rifled muskets, then the breech loader and finally the smokeless repeater. 40 years ago we were using the same rifle we are using today!
Some noteworthy points:
The Chief of Ordnance was a Civil War Veteran.
The Krag literally blew away the Mauser in the dirt tests-only wiping action of the Soldiers hand was permitted to clear the fouled weapon.
The Ordnance Corps specified rimmed cartridges. The Mauser did not work well with them.
The ability to have the weapon ready to fire while reloading was preferred-still is today.
Ability to fire as a single loader. The Krag has a machined tray above the magazine that made it superior for this.
I do not agree with all of this, but it was the thinking of the day.
If you ever get a chance to see "The History of the Gun", Ian Hogg spends a lot of time railing against the Krag, as if trying to ensure future generations will view the Krag as a complete and utter failure on the part of the Americans for being an inferior design and how we learned our lesson against the Spanish that were armed with 7mm Mausers, culminating in us copying the Mauser.
Ian fails to mention:
1. The Krag was invented by Europeans.
2.The Lee adopted by the English was invented by an American.
3. The first models of Enfields the English used had a magazine cutoff AND-
4. No provision for clip loading!
5. The English learned their lesson against the Boers armed with 7mm Mausers.
6. The English attempted to adopt a Mauser, in 7mm even, sometime after learning their lesson against the Boers. WWI stopped the project and the Americans produced the rifle for them in .303.
Hope this helps
i have heard people say that the average enlisted man could not be trusted with a rifle that he could fire five times without reloading
don't know who said it, but since they were using napoleonic methods in wwI sounds right
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmoore
I've used the Remington Lee quite a bit and can say it is a weapon with many fine points. But having used the Krag and the Remingon-Lee, I would take the Krag any day in any situation involving the use of small arms.
The Lee's faults are (worst) an unreliable extractor/ejector, its half-cock bolt plunger safety, and a bolt assembly with tiny parts easy to lose in the field. Its strengths are its extremely strong action, detachable box magazine and light weight.
I could have taken the Lee hunting anytime, and have always taken the Krag instead, even though it weighs a pound ANd a half more, and I won't load it up the way I can with the Lee.
Try both rifles. You'll see what I mean.
jn
Quote:
Originally Posted by jmoore
I've used the Remington Lee quite a bit and can say it is a weapon with many fine points. But having used the Krag and the Remingon-Lee, I would take the Krag any day in any situation involving the use of small arms.
The Lee's faults are (worst) an unreliable extractor/ejector, its half-cock bolt plunger safety, and a bolt assembly with tiny parts easy to lose in the field. Its strengths are its extremely strong action, detachable box magazine and light weight.
I could have taken the Lee hunting anytime, and have always taken the Krag instead, even though it weighs a pound ANd a half more, and I won't load it up the way I can with the Lee.
Try both rifles. You'll see what I mean.
jn
Jon, I think you are on to something. I have only shot the 45-70 Lees, but their action feels like stirring a bucket of bolts next to a Krag. Keep in mind, the ordnance folks were all denizens of the target range and prized slick, accurate rifles above fast loading, fast shooting rifles.
I read once that the Germans produced the best hunting rifles (Mauser), The Americans produced the best target rifles (Krag and '03) and the Brits produced the best battle rifles (Lee).
You are correct about that. At the time the Krag was adopted, ordnance folks were heavily influenced by target range performance. Its interesting that you can see the various influences of target range vs combat capabilities in the various sights that were adopted for the Krag! A little known, but excellent source of information on the combat performance of the Krag is a book (a short one at that) written by Shockley called The Krag Jorgensen in the Service. Look for it on abebooks.com.
My 1879 Lee doesn't take a back seat to anything as far as smoothness goes. I haven't really messed with the 1880's models or the 1899 Lees much yet.
The Krag has always had a reputation for being the smoothest thing around, next to it almost everything feels rough. The Boer War really was a showcase for Mauser performance and really shocked the British. Those Dutch farmers could really shoot!!
From what I can tell, the poor performance of the Lee during the Boer War and the "supposedly" poor performance of the Krag during the SAW was more due to inferior ballistics than an inferior rifle. The Enfield was a MUCH better rifle once the spitzer bullet was introduced and a lighter weight spitzer in the Krag would have performed similarly (of course, the '03 replaced it before that occured). Also - the Boer's used a few Norski Krag's as well:)
Here's a really interesting discussion several of us had regarding this subject over on the gunboards forum some time back:
.30-40 vs. 7X57: The Span-Am War Refought
The Boer war ended before the introduction of spitzer bullets. Thus the Mausers in the hands of the Boers didn't have them either.
The advantages of the Mauser over the Krag and Lee are legion. There is a reason that most countries adopted Mauser type rifles. As noted already the only reason the Brits didn't end up with one was WW1 intervened.
Those that think the SMLE is a better battle rifle than the K98 are smoking something. The Brits ended up with outdated kit in both WW1 and WW2. Their solution was to always badmouth other's stuff and play up their own.
One of the people responsible for the adoption of the Krag was Blunt. Search through the annual reports of the chief of ordnance and you'll find his little treatse of what the "perfect rifle" is. Blunt couldn't even borrow a clue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 5MadFarmers
Pass the smokes, I'd take a 10 shot Enfield over a five shot Mauser in a minute in battle. As far as I'm concerned the Enfield was the best bolt battle rifle in both wars, Ray
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. Level of adoption paints a pretty clear picture.
Can you imagine if the US ordnance department had been offered a Lee with a Mauser bolt? Detachable box magazine and the Mauser style bolt?
They were. It's in my safe.
Guys,
I gotta agree with 5MF. The whole world caught fire in 1914. During and after that fire, things got sorted out. The world's military procurement people, and the superiors who gave them their orders, voted overwhelmingly for the '98 Mauser as the best battle rifle in the world.
That said, a Lee-winchester with controlled round feed and extraction, and a wing safety, would be one hell of a rifle.
jn
Hmmm, seems to me that once folk started looking for new rifles AFTER WWI they decided semi and full auto stuff was the future. Mausers and Enfields were retained mostly for cost/expediency reasons.
When the Brits decided to look at semi-automatic rifles, they made the attempt to standardize ammunition with the US. The US was going to a .276 round at that time. Joseph White had them review his rifles[1]. When the US decided (rightly[2]) to stick to .30-06 the Brits lost interest.Quote:
Originally Posted by jmoore
Most countries actually started looking at semi-automatic rifles before WW1. Nobody found anything they were happy with. After the adoption of the M-1903, the rifles reviewed by ordnance were pretty much all semi-automatic[3]. During WW1 they reviewed a lot of them.
[1] The gas system from that rifle, after the patent expired, was adopted by the US. It's on the M14.
[2] Most small-arms cartridges are fired by machine guns. A change of caliber would have resulted in a lot of problems due to the large number of machine guns in the system.
[3] The "Bang" rifle was one of those reviewed. The gas system of the Garand was heavily influenced by Soren Bang's rifle.
The "British Mauser" (Pattern 13) was a result of encountering Mausers in the Boer War and the adoption of the .280 by the Canadians. The Ross cartridge influenced their desire for a replacement for the .303.
As an odd thought exercise, did anybody ever think of adapting a LH side detachable mag for the Krag? (Sort of a bolt action FG42 or Johnson LMG style thing...)
They tested a number of things with the Krags. The Parkhurst clip system went the furthest.Quote:
Originally Posted by jmoore
The Schulhoff rifle was reviewed well before the Krag trials. One of the rifles in the trials was a semi-automatic. Invented by a Marine. At least I recall it being a semi-automatic. I'll know more if I ever find it.
Johnson LMG. Interesting guy. Interesting design he had. His bolt, in scaled down form, is in the M16. The M16 owes much to him.
3 years after the adoption of the M-1903, Remington began selling the Browning designed Model 8. Semi-automatic. Accepts M-1903 clips. That Browning design provides much of the inspiration for the Johnson rifle.
Funny how it all ties together.