Reevaluating The Krag

[kragluver]

I think cost of manufacture - as much as anything - is what spelled the end of the line for the Krag. It was reliable, accurate and the cartridge was good enough (the equal of the .303 British). A shortened Krag, perhaps with the Parkhurst clip loading capability and a 130-140 gr spitzer bullet would have probably done fine in the trenches of WW1. However, it was expensive and time consuming to build. The '03 and even more-so, the '17 were cheaper and more rapidly produced. Some time back, I compared the cost of the Krag versus the M1917 in WW1 dollars and if memory serves, the Krag cost almost twice as much to manufacture.

As a WW1 era machine gun round, the .30-06 was clearly superior to the .30-40. As an infantry rifle round, the .30-40 with a proper bullet and more modern powder will almost match the ballistics of the .308. Don't get me wrong, I love the '06 and what it has become over the years - it was probably over-kill for an infantry rifle cartridge.

[Mohawk]

Plain Old Dave. Great observation. Todays Army is about saving money and being political. If they would spend more money on ammo and range time. I would not have been trying to play rifle catch up with cherries in Iraq and Afghanistan. Even a well trained Rifleman with a crummy rifle is better than the 10 week wonders that were gracing the battlefield during the Mosel and Takrit shootouts. Thank Heaven for Marines. Saved My bacon on more than one occassion with AWSOME rifle skills.....
BTW...The Krag was and still is the smoothest Military rifle ever built. They kill deer, elk, and Moose more than dead. Those who look down on the Krag must have never owned or fired one.That is just my opinion....

[krinko]

Excuse the delay, I thought this thread had misfired.
I found some round nose 7x57 and I have about 250 round nose 220's I can load for the Krag---since the 1895 Mauser and this Krag are identical in set-up and rationale, I will do a head to head firing test this spring.
I expect this will prove to be a pretty even match up.
-----krinko

[5MadFarmers]

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.

Total number of U.S. Marines in WW1 was less than a division. Using the much longer time frame provided during WW2 they worked up to 6 divisions.

The initial German invasion of Russia was done with 134 divisions.

In the time it would take to train your "marksmen" the war would be over. Which is pretty close to what happened during WW1.

Pie in the sky theory doesn't work in reality land.

[TerryS]

500 yards with the M16() ?

[krinko]

Apologies for dragging this thread back on topic, but here are some of the rounds loaded with 90 year old 220 grain FMJs.



Ain't they purty?

Twenty of these and twenty 180 grain BTHPs---when the snow lets up, it's off to the range to pit these against the 175 grain RN 7x57.
-----krinko

[rayg]

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.

Army in basic also, at least when I was in, Ray

[JBMauser]

plain old Dave Wrote - 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 did not serve and never went through training but I thought history gave the M1 a tactical advantage with it's ability to lay down rapid cover fire in volume which allowed our guys to move in close to take out entrenched positions with rifles and grenades. This allowed them to move from building to building, town to town. I think Dave's view of warfare was true up till Maxim then I think it all changed. I think the popularity and value of the BAR and even the Thompson in a unit gives credence to short range cover fire. IMHO JB