Reevaluating The Krag

[krinko]

Or perhaps I should say "evaluating"-----since my former opinion was merely an echo of the poor evaluation given as the reason the US went with the Springfield '03.
Found this M1898 last weekend----pretty good on the outside, with a perfect bright bore on the inside.


An early '98---with the ladder backsight which is not windage adjustable.


I was somehow expecting less of this rifle, because of what I had read--and was pleasantly surprised with it's performance on gongs at 200, 300 and 500 yards.


Of five rounds fired from sandbags at the 500 yard gong, three hit square enough I could hear them and hits at 300 and 200 were as good as any of the long Mausers I own.
Even with the 29" barrel, offhand at 200 yards, the Krag is a peach.
In short, the only thing this '95 Mauser will do, that a Krag can't do, is load from a clip.


I'm glad I found it---now I want to go out and Colonize.
-----krinko

Information

Warning: This is a relatively older thread This discussion is older than 360 days. Some information contained in it may no longer be current.

[jon_norstog]

Krinko,

The more you shoot the Krag, the more sense it will make to you. I like them as hunting rifles, in carbine configuration. They will give you clean kills on elk or moose, and will just slam a deer. The only thing the Krag doesn't do well is long shots. 3-400 yards long. Out to 200 yards it's perfect, and where I hunt 85 yards is a long shot.

jn

[limpetmine]

Not colonize, but "civilize" !




Very nice rifle. Mine doesn't see the range often enough. Bolt action like butter.

[5MadFarmers]

You're falling into the trap the US ordnance department did. Target rifle <> battle rifle.

What was needed was a battle rifle. You're testing it as a target rifle. The US rifles from the trapdoor to the '03 were target rifles. Nice during peace but not as useful during war. The rear sights on the late Krag and '03s were too delicate and didn't have protection. You're likely familiar with the SMLE so a comparison, front and rear, is useful. The Krag is a fine target rifle. The "lack" were battle rifle features. They gained some with the '03 but didn't go far enough. The M1 is a battle rifle.

Nice rifle you have. Earlier 1898. That is the closest you'll get to a battle sight. The later sights were more delicate with the 1901 being the most delicate. The 1901 is also the basis for the 1905 sight on the '03 - another overly delicate sight.

The Krags and '03s are some of the nicest target rifles around. As battle rifles they give much up.

Cheers.

[jon_norstog]

5MF,

That's one hell of an observation you made. Late 19th century, long range target shooting was a glamour sport. It makes sense the arseal and ordnance guys would be influenced that direction - that was their constituency, so to speak. The Brits had the target shooting bug as well, but were also constantly fighting somewhere during that period. And the SMLE was designed and developed during the Boer Wars. They had to have been getting field reports, and more importantly, actually paying attention.

jn

[5MadFarmers]

Boer war. Strangely the one war where long range shooting became a factor. Enough where they started work on a 'Mauser' to replace the Lee. Then the trenches of WW1 taught everybody what a battle rifle was. A lesson they could have learned many times before. A lesson that keeps getting forgotten.

A professional army, if it's really professional, can be taught good marksmanship. With a standing strength of 200,000 the US army of the 1930s were given enough range time. Those soldiers do not see combat as is. Those soldiers become the trainers for the mass induction of men during war. Peak time war strength for the US during WW2 was something in the millions. 6 million? More? There isn't time to teach 6 million men the finer points of hitting targets at 1200 yards with volley fire. Digging people out of bunkers, pillboxes, and foxholes doesn't take place at 1200 yards.

The Krag was a very nice target rifle. Perceived lack included inability to rapidly load (ala stripper clips), weak cartridge (limited by the single locking lug), and length. What they didn't detect was the abuse a gun received in the trenches or the cost of manufacture. We like the Krags as they're particularly well made. That is a luxury not easily maintained in wartime - witness the '03A3 and stampings. Krags are fine rifles. Target rifles.

[jon_norstog]

5MF,

You're right about the Boer War, of course. But in their colonial wars, the Brits were almost always severely outnumbered. I can't help but think there were some crusty sergeants-major who got consulted about the design of the Lee Enfield. I can imagine one of those red-faced old soldiers exploding in a meeting: "Five rounds? Bloody hell, ten's not enough when things get hot." And some of it may have been happy accident, like all that wood around the barrel.

jn

[5MadFarmers]

5MF,

You're right about the Boer War, of course. But in their colonial wars, the Brits were almost always severely outnumbered. I can't help but think there were some crusty sergeants-major who got consulted about the design of the Lee Enfield. I can imagine one of those red-faced old soldiers exploding in a meeting: "Five rounds? Bloody hell, ten's not enough when things get hot." And some of it may have been happy accident, like all that wood around the barrel.

jn

Oh, you won't get argument there! There are far too many cases where they were outnumbered by poorly armed mobs and fire power mattered greatly. Sergeant-Majors have long memories....

[jon_norstog]

And add to that, the year-in, year-out demands of crowd control. I'd think that had a lot of influence on the rifle's overall length, type and length of bayonet, buttplate arrangement, thickness and fastening of the buttstock, etc. etc.

jn

[Plain Old Dave]

To the finest battle rifle the United States have ever fielded. The whole "battle rifle v. target rifle" debate has never had any traction with me; the best battle rifle IS a target rifle. The purpose of the Rifleman is precision aimed fire on individual targets at visual ranges. Mass fire is where Combined Arms come in, Artillery, Mortars, Close Air and Heavy Machine Guns.

I flatly refuse to believe long range marksmanship is a skill that can't be taught to modern soldiers; every single United States Marine that has worn the Eagle, Globe and Anchor from the lowliest boot at PI to the Commandant has been required to qualify at 500 yards for over 50 years. Enough ranting, though.