Is It Safe To

[Jim K]

The metal and heat treatment of the Krag was the same as that of the SHT M1903; it was simply carried over from the old rifle production to the new.

A couple of factors reduce the chance of a Krag action failing. One has been mentioned, the fully enclosed case head possible with a rimmed cartridge. Another is that the Krag operates at much lower pressures, and yet another is that Krags were not made under the kind of wartime pressure in effect at Springfield in the 1917-1918 time frame.

I have fired many Krags, and only saw one blow. The case we removed from the chamber had the headstamp of a German 7.9 s.S round. We never learned how the shooter managed to get the round into the chamber, or if he somehow resized the case. But the rifle let go, breaking the single locking lug and spreading and cracking the receiver.

Yes, the Krag does have a safety lug, the rear of the guide rib. On the Norwegian and Danish Krags, that lug bears so the rifle is a much stronger dual lug system. But on the U.S. Krag, that lug (for reasons unknown to me) was made to not bear and act only as a safety lug in case the front lug failed.

Jim

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.

[Alfred]

The metal and heat treatment of the Krag was the same as that of the SHT M1903; it was simply carried over from the old rifle production to the new.

A couple of factors reduce the chance of a Krag action failing. One has been mentioned, the fully enclosed case head possible with a rimmed cartridge. Another is that the Krag operates at much lower pressures, and yet another is that Krags were not made under the kind of wartime pressure in effect at Springfield in the 1917-1918 time frame.

I have fired many Krags, and only saw one blow. The case we removed from the chamber had the headstamp of a German 7.9 s.S round. We never learned how the shooter managed to get the round into the chamber, or if he somehow resized the case. But the rifle let go, breaking the single locking lug and spreading and cracking the receiver.

Yes, the Krag does have a safety lug, the rear of the guide rib. On the Norwegian and Danish Krags, that lug bears so the rifle is a much stronger dual lug system. But on the U.S. Krag, that lug (for reasons unknown to me) was made to not bear and act only as a safety lug in case the front lug failed.

Jim

There were some European Krags chambered for the 7.92 cartridge by the Germans. I don't know if any were issued and the project is said to have been a failure, but I've read posts on European forums by owners of Krag sporters that were in 7.92, probably gunsmithed conversions or put together with leftover barrels from the German project.
Some were saying the rifles were unsafe while others were saying they were safe. Of course European sporting ammo for the 7.92X57s and earlier J bore 8mm can be obtained in lighter pressure loadings that are for use in rifles like the Gew 1888.

I've fired some mixed headstamp 7.92 in a Persian carbine I once owned and one round rocked me back on one heel and spun me 180 degrees, the muzzle blast was so fierce I thought the carbine had exploded, a long duration tracer flare came out of the clay bank behind the target so bright I had after images and can't say whether it was green or purple. This had to have been a special heavy loading for aircraft MGs.
A round like that could destroy most rifles less sturdy than a Mauser 98 action, and probably some 98's.

Theres also the Danish 8X58R. If an owner thought it was an 8mm mauser caliber rifle and managed to chamber a mauser cartridge in the much larger diameter chamber a blow out is the likely result.

[kragluver]

Regarding the safety lug bearing vs not bearing (on the US Krag's), if anyone can shed any light as to why this was done on the US Krag, I'd like to hear it. I've hypothesized that perhaps this made manufacturing easier as the bolts would have been easier to fit (no need to hand fit the bolts and serialize them). Nevertheless, it did weaken the US Krag system.

[jon_norstog]

Regarding the safety lug bearing vs not bearing (on the US Krag's), if anyone can shed any light as to why this was done on the US Krag, I'd like to hear it. I've hypothesized that perhaps this made manufacturing easier as the bolts would have been easier to fit (no need to hand fit the bolts and serialize them). Nevertheless, it did weaken the US Krag system.

These guys, 5 Mad Farmers and Dick Hosmer, who used to post on this list would probably be likely to know. If anyone does. I'm inclined to go with the ease of manufacturing explanation, but would love to hear from those guys. They know things!

jn

[andiarisaka]

Regarding the safety lug bearing vs not bearing (on the US Krag's), if anyone can shed any light as to why this was done on the US Krag, I'd like to hear it. I've hypothesized that perhaps this made manufacturing easier as the bolts would have been easier to fit (no need to hand fit the bolts and serialize them). Nevertheless, it did weaken the US Krag system.

I can't say why this was done, less fitting seems reasonable. I have ran across several people who have a bolt like one that I have. It has the fully rectangular guide rib like a model 92 bolt, and it bears on the receiver, even if swapped into various receivers (not easy to find out if the front lug is also bearing, so I only use it in the rifle it came in). The front lug doesn't appear to have been lapped, and since others have rifles that appear to have been modified in this same way, I think there may have been some bolt bodies floating around that didn't have the lightening cut, and perhaps also not cut to make the safety lug nonbearing. This appears to have been the work of an armorer that knew what he was doing, at least on my rifle, headspace is still at minimum which indicates the front lug wasn't lapped.

To get into the discussion about 8mm Krags, there was a 8x57 Norwegian Krag sold on Auction Arms recently. They were made as hunting arms in the 50's. They were loaded down a bit for safety's sake and that resulted in their not making minimum energy requirements for elg (moose) hunting when that was raised shortly afterward. Most were modified into target rifles after that. The one that recently sold on AA was still in its original configuration, and I wish I'd have had the money to buy it, very rare according to those in the know!

[1886nut]

Regarding the safety lug bearing vs not bearing (on the US Krag's), if anyone can shed any light as to why this was done on the US Krag, I'd like to hear it. I've hypothesized that perhaps this made manufacturing easier as the bolts would have been easier to fit (no need to hand fit the bolts and serialize them). Nevertheless, it did weaken the US Krag system.

Not only would it have been costlier, but it would have made switching bolts more difficult.....you could have wound up with a situation where the bolt was bearing mainly on the safety lug only, not a situation you would want to have.

[andiarisaka]

Not only would it have been costlier, but it would have made switching bolts more difficult.....you could have wound up with a situation where the bolt was bearing mainly on the safety lug only, not a situation you would want to have.

I have read, on the old forum, of a fellow who lapped the front lug to make the guide rib bear. He managed to remove enough of the front lug that the guide rib was all that was bearing. As a result the rear of the receiver was taking all the force and it cracked for him. That's why I use my bearing bolt only in the rifle it came in, though with some patience I could probably check to see that both lugs are bearing if I put it into other rifles.