not intended to **** off any krag lovers but

[kragluver]

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.

[jmoore]

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.

[mike webb]

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!!

[kragluver]

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

[5MadFarmers]

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 The Brits ended up with outdated kit in both WW1 and WW2.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.

[rayg]

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.

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

[5MadFarmers]

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.

[jon_norstog]

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

[jmoore]

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.

[5MadFarmers]

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.

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.